#91000 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 6:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) TGrand458@... In a message dated 10/4/2008 10:18:05 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: 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. ................................................ Hi Sukin No need to dissect the rest of your post because you have confirmed the heart of my point right here. The whole point is that he teaches differently to different individuals (or groups) at different times. (Oh, I will answer your last question on another post.) TG #91001 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 6:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) TGrand458@... In a message dated 10/4/2008 10:18:05 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: Sukin: Taking your own understandings into consideration, do you still think it more “advancedâ€? to have an intellectual understanding about the details of DO? Would not “advancedâ€? in fact imply the ability to insight the present moment and not have a wrong understanding about it? Metta, Sukin ................................................ Hi Sukin Have I ever stated anything about a "intellectual understanding" as something that should be cultivated to the exclusion of direct experience??? No. "The present moment" is a moment with no movement, no experience, and just a frozen zero in terms of experience. So its somewhat of a misnomer. The phrase -- "being aware of experiences as they unfold" is far more realistic. That being said, cultivating insight requires combining the knowledge of the principles and ramifications of Dependent Arising, with direct awareness of experiences and how such experiences are complying with the actualities of Dependent Arising. One needs to cultivate this until it becomes intuitive. Then, and only then, will direct experiences be known for what they really are as they happen. Until then, we will always be reflecting back and forth between awareness of the experience and awareness of what that experience entails. So the answer to your first question above is it never applied to me. The answer to your second question is yes...and detailed in my response. TG #91002 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 10:26 pm Subject: Pure Peace @ Rest ... bhikkhu0 Friends: What are the characteristics of the State called Nibbâna? Total ease, complete calm, absolute stillness, safe freedom, perfect happiness & pure peace… Absence of any uncertainty, any doubt, any confusion, any delusion & all ignorance… Presence of confidence, cleared certainty, understanding all, and direct experience… Absence of any greed, lust, desire, urge, attraction, hunger, temptation and pull… Presence of imperturbable indifference, serene composure & all stilled equanimity… Absence of any hate, anger, aversion, hostility, irritation, & stubborn rigidity… Presence of universal goodwill, infinite friendliness, all-embracing & boundless kindness… Not a place, not an idea, not a fantasy, not a deception, not a conceit, not a conception… Not a cause, not an effect, not finite, not definable, not formed, not changing, but eternal… Unborn, unbecome, unmade, uncreated, uncaused, unconditioned & unconstructed, yet real… Void of eye, visible objects & visual consciousness, void of ear, sounds & auditory consciousness, Void of nose, smells & olfactory consciousness, void of tongue, tastes & gustatory consciousness, Void of body, touch & tactile consciousness and void of mind, thoughts & mental consciousness… Pure Peace @ Rest … The Blessed Buddha once said: Hard it is to see the unconstructed, the undistorted! This independent state is not easily realized. Craving is all cut for the One, who so knows, since he sees, that there is nothing to cling to ... !!! … Udana â€" Inspiration: VIII - 2 In any dependence there is bound to be instability. In Independence there cannot be any instability. When there is no liable instability, no feeble wavering, there is a quiet calm, stillness, serenity & peace. When there is such solid tranquillity, then there is no tendency to drift, no attraction, neither mental push nor pull, nor any strain of appeal or repulsion. When there is no attraction, no drift, no bending, then there is no movement, no development, and neither any coming nor any going. Neither any starting nor any ending... When there is neither any coming nor any going, then there is neither any ceasing nor any reappearing... There being neither ceasing nor reappearing, then there is neither any here, there, beyond, nor in between... This â€" just this â€" is the End of Suffering. Udana â€" Inspiration: VIII - 4 Having understood this unconstructed state, released in mind, with the chain to becoming eliminated, they attain to the sublime essence of all states. Delighting in the calmed end of craving, those steady Noble Ones have left all being & becoming behind. Itivuttaka: Thus spoken 38 Nibbana is The Highest Bliss! One, who so knows, sees, that there is nothing to cling to ... !!! … Have a nice released, relaxed & peacefull day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #91003 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 11:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See jonoabb Hi Howard (and Sarah) > S: So you suggest there are no cittas arising at all in deep sleep and that > the citta before the dreamless sleep is followed by the one following it, > however long afterwards. > > Do you have any support for this belief? > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Yes, experience. In deepest sleep and deepest surgical anaesthesia, no > time passes. I'm not sure why you see this as support for the notion that there is no such thing as bhavanga citta. I'd have thought the apparent 'no passing of time' while in deepest sleep would be quite consistent with the arising of a citta that has as object something that is not of this world. > The notion of "bhavanga citta" is an unnecessary > concoction ... developed to > account for the pseudo-problem perceived as a real problem of there being > continuity without soul. Rather tortuous reasoning! Perhaps the real "problem" (for you) with bhavanga is it's incompatibility with the phenomenalist POV? ;-)) Jon #91004 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Oct 4, 2008 11:59 pm Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav jonoabb Hi Phil > 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. I agree with much of what you say, but I think you quite misunderstand A. Sujin's (and Nina's) comments about the importance of relating the essence of the teachings to the present moment. After all, those who understand the teachings in terms of a kind of formal practice also say that the direct realisation of the teachings, and in particular those aspects of the teachings that are unique to the Buddha (e.g., anicca, dukkha and anatta), is important and in fact is what the practice is all about. And most of them would also agree about there being a "daily life" aspect to the practice. Where A Sujin differs is in the understanding that formal practice is not what the Buddha was talking about, so that there is only daily life, be it that of the monk (monastery or forest dweller) or lay- follower. > Anyways, my point is that I appreciate the way you insist on a deep > approach to all the teachings. The only thing I "insist" on is that it is the deeper meaning that is the correct and most useful one. Other than that, it simply seems obvious to me that taking the superficial meaning of a passage that is known to have a deeper meaning, without attempting to analyse it further, is liable to lead to an understanding that is no different to that of someone who had not read the passage at all but has read something that approximates the superficial meaning. > 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. This may well be so, but since we all agree that the most appropriate explanation for a given individual will depend on the circumstances of the case, is further discussion likely to be of any real use? It may be that this line of inquiry is just another diversion from understanding the importance of reflecting on the essence of the teachings ;-)) > I rambled off point again... Not at all. I'd say it's part of the way you see things to be, and this is always to the point when discussing the teachings ;-)) Jon #91005 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 12:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings jonoabb Hi Alex > > Well, simply put, jhana being conducive to enlightenment does not > > amount to enlightenment being the result of jhana. > > Of course. I'm glad to see you acknowledge the distinction between the two statements, because frankly I have wondered for some time whether you did! ;-)) > But it is good to have all the help that you need. The question is not whether samatha/jhana is or isn't "good", because clearly samatha is a very high level of kusala, and all kinds of kusala are things that are "to be developed". But since it is the development of insight that is the unique teaching of the Buddha, we need to be clear as to what are the specific and essential aspects of that particular form of kusala. > > 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. OK. Thanks for acknowledging that. > 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? Let me assure you that everyone agrees that samma-samadhi is a factor of the NEP. What you and I have been discussing in this thread, however, is samatha/jhana. The 2 expressions (samadhi, and samatha/ jhana) are not the same. Of course, you would point to the sutta passages that describe samma-samadhi in terms of the 4 jhanas. So let's discuss this further. Kusala can be classified as threefold: dana, sila and bhavana, where bhavana includes both samatha bhavana (highest form is jhana) and vipassana bhavana (highest form is magga). The factors of the NEP, on the other hand, are the mental factors that accompany the moment of enlightenment. Thus, at a moment of enlightenment there are present samma-ditthi (panna), samma-vayama (viriya), samma-sati (sati) and samma-samadhi (samadhi/ekaggata), and they are of the strength necessary for that attainment. In the case of samadhi, that means it is of the strength of 1 of the 4 jhanas. The same factors, but of lesser strength, also accompany the moments of insight development (sometimes referred to as mundane path- moments) and indeed every other kind of kusala as well, i.e., dana, sila and samatha bhavana. So jhana as the highest form of samatha bhavana ("mundane jhana") and jhana as the path-factor samma-samadhi ("path-factor jhana") are to be understood each in their own context. We cannot substitute one reference for the other. > > 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. I understand why you are saying this, but I believe you are misreading the texts on the 4 kinds of person. Those texts do not specifically mention mundane jhana as a distinguishing factor between the different kinds of person. > 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. Yes, mundane jhana "burns" the hindrances, but in the sense of suppressing them temporarily, i.e., just for the duration of the arising of the jhana citta. The accumulated kilesas in the form of the latent tendencies for akusala remain unchanged. It is only the moment of path-consciousness, accompanied by path- factor jhana, that eradicates the hindrances, and it is only moment of mundane path-consciousness that can reduce the intensity of the hindrances. But more importantly, a moment of awareness/insight does not require the prior suppression of the hindrances. This is made clear by the Satipatthana Sutta which expressly mentions awareness of moments of lobha, dosa and moha. Awareness can arise regardless, if the appropriate conditions are in place. So it makes no difference how strong the hindrances are. The development of insight can begin in anyone who has heard and understood the essence of the teaching of the Buddha. Jon #91006 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 12:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, We were discussing bhavanga (life-continuum) cittas. --- On Sun, 28/9/08, upasaka@... wrote: >>S: So you suggest there are no cittas arising at all in deep sleep and that the citta before the dreamless sleep is followed by the one following it, however long afterwards. >>Do you have any support for this belief? ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- >Howard: Yes, experience. In deepest sleep and deepest surgical anaesthesia, no time passes. .... S: With all due respect, I think "experience" such as during sleep and anaesthesia is a very unreliable source. No time *seems* to pass, because there is no recollection on waking of the experience. .... H:> Do you have any non-commentarial support for bhavanga cittas, and also for their need? ... S: Yes, in the Patthana a lot of very detailed and complex material is given on the various conditions. I mentioned how by anantara paccaya (proximity condition), one citta is always followed by another citta. In the Patthana, Faultless Triplet, proximity 7, for example, it says: " (v) Indeterminate state is related to indeterminate state by proximity condition. Preceding resultant indeterminate or functional indeterminate aggregates are related to subsequent resultant indeterminate or functional indeterminate aggregates by proximity condition. *Life-continuum to advertence*; functional to emergence; adaptation of the Arahat to attainment of Fruition (of the Arahat); having emerged from the attainment of Extinction, functional neither-perception-nor-non-perception is related to the attainment of Fruition by proximity condition." The Patthana is a very difficult text, but all possible combinations and conditions are included. When it refers in the last sentence to nirodha samapatti (attainment of Extinction), it indicates how the jhana citta (the neva-sa~n~naa-naa-sa~n~naa citta) is related to the anagami or arahat fruition consciousness by anantara paccaya, but not for deep sleep or anaesthesia. Also, would not your conclusion be that deep sleep and anaesthesia re exactly the same as nirodha samapatti? In the "Guide to Conditional Relations" by U Narada (PTS), which you have, the detail is given in a format which is much easier to follow. It's a summary of what is contained in the Patthana itself. For example, it says (Ch II): "...In the eye-door mental processes, the following sequence of mental states takes place: past life-continuum, vibrating life-continuum, arresting life-continuum, five-door advertence, eye-consciousness, recipient consciousness, investigating consciousness, determining consciousness, seven impulsions, two registering consciousnesses. Here past life-continuum is related to vibrating life-continuum, vibrating life-continuum to arresting life-continuum, arresting life-continuum to five-door advertence by proximity condition without any interval of time. Similarly with the others." ..... H:> The notion of "bhavanga citta" is an unnecessary concoction, not taught by the Buddha. As I see it, this notion was developed to account for the pseudo-problem perceived as a real problem of there being continuity without soul. ... S: We have to disagree on these points. I have no reason to question what is written in such detail in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries. I don't see any evidence of "unnecessary concoctions" or of any incompatibility with the other Pitakas. ... H:> As for whether bhavanga cittas *might* exist, well, anything not logically contradictory *might* exist. There are billions of proposals for unobserved phenomena that folks could come up with. There's no limit to the imagination! ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- S: Here, I don't think we're coming up with "unobserved phenomena that folks could come up with". I think we're discussing what was known and discovered by the Buddha's omniscient knowledge. No need to agree, I'm happy to leave this thread for anyone to come to their own conclusions. Metta, Sarah p.s just seen Jon's reply to the same message... ======= #91007 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 12:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No control and its psychological underpinnings (its a coping mechan... sarahprocter... Hi TG & all, --- On Thu, 2/10/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >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. ... S: :-) Yes, on this part of your message, I, at least, agree with you, but with one caveat - As far as I'm concerned, you, Tep. Howard and everyone else who posts (or even lurks here) is a "DSGer". So, no need to think in terms of "the side of the DSGers", perhaps. After all, there are always different understandings on aspects of the Dhamma amongst us all. No need to reply to this, it's just a comment so that people might feel less like 'visitors', 'dojo-busters' and more like part of the furniture;-). Metta, Sarah ======== #91008 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 12:45 am Subject: Lots and lots of visitors all day.... sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Referring to visitors just now, I'm reminded of the visitors/guests arriving all the time through the various doorways. From an earlier message (#44771): >S: Yes, there are many references in the suttas and commentaries to the visitors throught the 6 doorways. How can we ever feel lonely when there are so many visitors all day to be met wisely:-)?? >The following is an extract on the same topic of visitors, from A.Sujin's 'Survey of Paramattha Dhammas',ch 10, transl by Nina: ***** >The bhavangupaccheda is succeeded by the five-sense-door adverting-consciousness. This citta attends to the object, it knows that the object impinges on the tongue-door but it cannot taste yet. It is as if one knows that a visitor has arrived at the door but one does not see him yet and does not know who he is. We all have guests who come to see us. When we think of guests we are likely to think of people, but in reality our guests are the different objects that appear through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body-sense and the mind-door. When we see visible object that appears through the eyes, visible object is our visitor. When we hear sound, sound is our visitor. When we do not hear, sound does not appear, and thus, a visitor has not come yet through the ear-door. When flavour appears, flavour is like a visitor, it appears through the door of the tongue just for a moment and then it disappears. Whenever an object appears through one of the doorways that object can be seen as a visitor that comes through that doorway. It is there just for an extremely short moment and then it disappears completely, it does not come back again in the cycle of birth and death. Elderly people tend to feel lonely when they lack company. When they were younger they met many people, they enjoyed the company of relatives and friends. When they have become older the number of visitors, whom they see as people, has dwindled. When one asks elderly people what they like most of all, they will usually answer that they like most of all the company of people. They are happy when other people come to see them, they like to be engaged in conversation. However, in reality everybody has visitors, at each moment one sees, hears, smells, tastes or experiences tangible object. Usually when such visitors come, citta rooted in attachment arises and enjoys what appears through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue or the body-sense. There are different kinds of visitors. Nobody would like a wicked person as visitor, but a dear relative or friend is most welcome. In reality the different objects that appear through the senses are only rúpas. Rúpa does not know anything and therefore it cannot have any evil intention towards anybody. When would a visitor be an enemy and when a dear relative or friend? Actually, when an object appears and one enjoys it and clings to it, there is an enemy, because enjoyment with clinging is akusala dhamma. Akusala dhamma is not a friend to anybody. Whereas kusala dhamma is like a close relative who is ready to help one, eager to give assistance at all times. Therefore, we should know the difference between the characteristic of kusala citta and of akusala citta. Akusala citta is evil, harmful, it is like an enemy, not a friend. When we think of an enemy we may be afraid, and we do not like his company. However, it is akusala citta which is wicked, and this citta is a condition that there will also be an enemy in the future. Whereas kusala citta, which is like a dear relative or friend, is a condition that there will also be a dear relative or friend in the future. Rúpa is not a condition for foe or friend, because rúpa does not know anything, it has no evil or good intention. The sound which appears is a reality which does not experience anything, it has no wish that anybody hears it or does not hear it. Sound is rúpa which arises because there are conditions for its arising; which kind of sound will impinge on someone’s ear-sense is dependent on conditions. When we are fast sleep we do not even hear the deafening, frightening sound of thunder. Then the sound of thunder is not our visitor. However, it can be someone else’s visitor when there are the accumulated conditions which cause the ear-sense to be impinged upon by that sound. It is dependent on conditions whether an object will be someone’s visitor through the doorway of eyes, ears, nose, tongue or body-sense. Kamma which has been accumulated causes the arising of vipÃ¥kacitta which experiences an object through one of the sense-doors. Thus, the visitors which present themselves through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue and the body-sense are visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object. They appear just for a moment and then they fall away, they disappear, not to return again. There is no living being, person, self or anything there. Nobody knows in a day which visitor will come through which doorway and at which moment.< ***** Metta, Sarah ======= #91009 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 1:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jonothan did not go on a meth-amphetamine fuelled robbing spree sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, --- On Thu, 2/10/08, Phil wrote: >>S:....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:> 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. ... S: Nice to find some agreement. Of course, we only say what we believe anyone is receptive to hearing at the time. Just now I went out for a cup of tea and found myself talking to the waitress, who I've known for sometime, about 'why one doesn't need to be a vegetarian to be a Buddhist' and under what circumstances we avoid meet, such as when the chicken or fish would be specially kiled for us. I talked a little about the importance of the mind-states, friendliness and kindness, all the kinds of topics you'd approve of. That was as far as it went. ... >> S: .... 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. ... S: I think it's an especially "powerful 'blip'" if we understand a little more about dhammas and anatta. It is only the understanding gained through the development of satipatthana, afterall, that leads to the "dispersion of" as opposed to the "building up further bricks" in samsara. .... >>>S: 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. ... S: I'm glad to read all this. Yes, we can't understand all the intricacies of conditions, but we do know that it is the right understanding of dhammas that leads to the eradication of defilements through the gradual wearing away of the tendencies for such. As Nina said (and you wrote in yoru notebook:-)), "More understanding of ourselves will greatly contribute to understand others and to become more tolerant, more patient when others are disagreeable.". Gradually we can prove that what we take for "ourselves" and what have to be known are just the various namas and rupas. ... P:> p.s thanks all for feedback so far on "interconnectedness ." I'll be reading it later. ... S: To be honest, I still don't know what you mean by the term if you'd care to explain it to me. Metta, Sarah ======== #91010 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 1:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, like TG (must be an 'agreement' day, today!), I appreciated the post you sent to Alex, ending with: --- On Fri, 3/10/08, Phil wrote: >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. ... S: Yes, something like that, indeed. As for the "comical vows" and what "must appear ridiculous to people", again, it comes back to our own mental states. I appreciate the lack of conceit in this regard. Metta, Sarah ======== #91011 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 1:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Fri, 3/10/08, Alex wrote: A:> 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). ... S: It (Jhana) only "helps the path" if it is understood as an impermanent, conditioned dhamma. Also, only the development of insight and attainment of enlightenment ensures "one doesn't fall into hell". Of course, we can give many examples beginning of Devadatta for whom rebirth in the lowest (avici) hell follwed his human life with the attainment of the highest of mundane jhanas. You'll say that this is an example of someone who 'abused Jhana for bad deeds', but I don't understand how 'Jhana attainments' can be abused. Whenever Jhana cittas arise, they are very refined states of wholesomeness. Because they are conditioned, they may be followed latter by the grossest of unwholesome states and deeds (as in his case). This doesn't mean the jhana cittas were 'abused' or were any less wholesome when they occurred. It indicates that without the development of insight, they will not 'help the path'. Metta, Sarah ======== #91012 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 1:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Fri, 3/10/08, Alex wrote: >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... ... S: Now you'd better satisfy our curiosity and tell us more!! Metta, Sarah ======== #91013 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 2:31 am Subject: Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) philofillet Hi Tg > "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. Ph: Yes, I think you're right - probably. > > > 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. Ph: I think it does. We have to straighten the arrow. This reminds me of an anecdote I heard in one of the Burmese sayadaws talks. It was about the verse in Dhammapada about the farmer straighening the irrigation channel (something like that.) Perhaps this is one of the Dhammapada stories, but a boy of 9 or 10, one of the great ones like Sariputta (sorry if mispelled) who was walking near a field and witnessed a farmer straightening the channel and was inspired and rushed home to meditate and achieved stream enterer that day. If anyone knows the story I'm referring to? Very inspirational, if someone could post it. Of course people will point out that we are not like those great ones and we are more likely to become more attached to the straight arrow and miss the point of the Buddha's teaching, which is detachment. Certainly good to have friends who point out that sort of thing... metta, phil #91014 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 2:43 am Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav philofillet Hi Jon > > 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. > > I agree with much of what you say, but I think you quite > misunderstand A. Sujin's (and Nina's) comments about the importance > of relating the essence of the teachings to the present moment. > > After all, those who understand the teachings in terms of a kind of > formal practice also say that the direct realisation of the > teachings, and in particular those aspects of the teachings that are > unique to the Buddha (e.g., anicca, dukkha and anatta), is important > and in fact is what the practice is all about. And most of them > would also agree about there being a "daily life" aspect to the > practice. Ph: Well, perhaps I am not ambitious but I don't aspire to confirm the deep teachings in daily life, that's all. The introduction to Nina's "Conditions" has a paragraph that says that if doubt the Buddha taught the paccayas because people point out that they are not taught in the suttanta, we must confirm their truth in our lives. And I just don't get that. I am very eager to study the paccayas for some reason, but want to keep it at the level of theory. I don't know how we could confirm paccayas, but I am open to learning. (I'm happy to report that Scott has agreed to have a go at Skyping on the topic once in a while...looking forward to it. If you read this, Scott, don't worry, the point of our study sessions won't be to discuss the kind of thing I'm talking about above. Just want to understand better just what the texts say about the conditional relations.) I don't know, Jon. The only thing I have confirmed in daily life (or when meditating in the way meditating is usally confirmed) has to do with concepts. I behave in certain ways less often than before, but still behave in the undesirable ways I aspire to avoid on occasion as well. If it happened before, it will happen again, but either more often or less often. That's the only kind of thing I have confirmed, personally. Well, annica is confirmed of course, and dukkha, ok. I haven't been able to confirm anatta yet. That's the main reason I want to study conditionality, I think it will help lay the groundword for confirming anatta... My volubility is getting me swamped by posts again, Jon, so I cut off your posts there (sorry) and leave the last word to you as for this thread...thanks! metta, phil #91015 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 2:59 am Subject: Interconnectedness and "ground of being?" was Re: [dsg] Interconnectedness? philofillet Hi TG and all > 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 .. D.O is very difficult for me, but I don't think it's quite what I'm talking about. I mean, the Zen book I'm thinking about and others refers to a kind of "ground of being" from which all beings have emanated from and return to. The metaphor that is used so often in pop Buddhism books is a wave rising from the sea and returning to the sea. When it is the wave it thinks it is "wave" and forgets that it is still water, kind of thing. There is this fuzzy "ground of being" that is very familiar to me from my druggy and later my visualization/new age days but is that in D.O? Surely not. I mean, this "ground of being" seems to go against the rebirth/relinking citta, it sounds as if when we die our components fall back into a great sea of cosmic energy or something and then another "being" arises or something... I don't know, know what I mean? Is that sort of thing in Theravada? Maybe it's not truly in Mahayana either, but the authors I read were taking liberties with the teaching or I misunderstood what they said because I want to believe in that good ol' "sea of light" I used to get blissed out about when smoking weed. (Ah, those days were fun...but not as fun as Dhamma!) Howard, is the "net of Indra" you wrote about something like a "ground of being?" This topic is the sort of thing that one shouldn't bother speculating on too much, but curious about how Mahayana is different from Theravada in this sort of area... metta, phil #91016 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 3:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jonothan did not go on a meth-amphetamine fuelled robbing spree philofillet Hi Sarah > P:> 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. > ... > S: Nice to find some agreement. Of course, we only say what we believe anyone is receptive to hearing at the time. Just now I went out for a cup of tea and found myself talking to the waitress, who I've known for sometime, about 'why one doesn't need to be a vegetarian to be a Buddhist' and under what circumstances we avoid meet, such as when the chicken or fish would be specially kiled for us. I talked a little about the importance of the mind-states, friendliness and kindness, all the kinds of topics you'd approve of. That was as far as it went. Ph: Yes, it's nice the way an opportunity can come up to share the teaching just a little... I find myself doing it a wee little bit more at work, with students. The other days I talked about the 5 daily recollections on ageing,illness, death, separation from the beloved and ownership of kamma and people were responsive. Needless to say I talked about the conventional understanding, not the momentary rising and falling away of nama and rupa that is "momentary death." > ... > > >> S: .... 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. > ... > S: I think it's an especially "powerful 'blip'" if we understand a little more about dhammas and anatta. It is only the understanding gained through the development of satipatthana, afterall, that leads to the "dispersion of" as opposed to the "building up further bricks" in samsara. Ph: Yes, I certainly agree there. And re "interconnectedness": > S: To be honest, I still don't know what you mean by the term if you'd care to explain it to me. I wrote some more about it in another post. Just idle curiosity. (Or maybe it isn't, maybe I am coming out as an eternalist or something...) I cut you off, Sarah, sorry. Naomi wants me to go buy some ingredients for dinner. metta, phil #91017 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 3:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings sarahprocter... Dear Alex (Jon & all), The following may be of assistance in your discussion. --- On Sun, 5/10/08, Alex wrote: A:> 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.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ mn/mn.043. than.html .... S: From the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation: "Friend, there are two conditions for the arising of right view: the voice of another (S: parato ghosa) and wise attention (S: yoniso manasikara)."* [* "MA: 'The voice of another' (parato ghosa) is the teaching of beneficial Dhamma. These two conditions are necessary for disciples to arrive at the right view of insight and the right view of the supramundane path. But paccekabuddhas arrive at their enlightenment and fully enlightened Buddhas at omniscience soley in dependence on wise attention without "the voice of another."] S: continuing from the sutta: "Friend, by how many factors is right view assisted when it has deliverance of mind for its fruit, deliverance of mind for its fruit (S: cetovimutti phaala) and benefit, when it has deliverance by wisdom (S: pa~n~naavimutti phaala) for its fruit, deliverance by wisdom for its fruit and benefit?" "Friend, right view is assisted by five factors when it has deliverance of mind for it fruit..........wisdom for its fruit and benefit. Here, friend, right view is assisted by virtue [S:siilaanuggahitaa], learning[sutaanuggahitaa], discussion [saakacchaanuggahitaa), serenity [samathaanuggahitaa], and insight [vipassanaanuggahitaa].....*" ...... [**"MA: Right view here is the right view pertaining to the path of arahantship. 'Deliverance of mind' and 'deliverance by wisdom' both refer to the fruit of arahantship; see n.83.*** When one fulfils these five factors, the path of arahantship arises and yields its fruit.] [[***n.83 "MA: In this passage "mind" and "wisdom" signify, respectively, the concentration and wisdom associated with the fruit of arahantship. Concentration is called "deliverance of mind" (cetovimutti) because it is liberated from lust; wisdom is called "deliverance by wisdom" (pa~n~navimutti) because it is liberated from ignorance. The former is normally the result of serenity, the latter the result of insight. But when they are coupled and described as taintless (anaasava), they jointly result from the destruction of the taints by the supramundane path of arahantship.]] Metta, Sarah ======== #91018 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 3:42 am Subject: Re: Jonothan did not go on a meth-amphetamine fuelled robbing spree philofillet Hi again >Needless > to say I talked about the conventional understanding, not the > momentary rising and falling away of nama and rupa that > is "momentary death." As I biked to the store, I recalled that Robert K had success arousing the interest of some homemaker students of his enough to translate Abhidhamma in Daily Life into Japanese, so it is probably incorrect to assume that people without knowledge of Dhamma will not respond to deep teachings. He said that the understanding came naturally to them, perhpas by virtue of being Japanese but that doesn't synch with my experience. It might suggest that the confidence and understanding of the speaker is important in condtioning receptivity in the listener! Robert K is so keen on Abhidhamma he could probably get a telephone pole into it. metta, phil #91019 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 12:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/5/2008 2:59:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (and Sarah) > S: So you suggest there are no cittas arising at all in deep sleep and that > the citta before the dreamless sleep is followed by the one following it, > however long afterwards. > > Do you have any support for this belief? > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Yes, experience. In deepest sleep and deepest surgical anaesthesia, no > time passes. I'm not sure why you see this as support for the notion that there is no such thing as bhavanga citta. I'd have thought the apparent 'no passing of time' while in deepest sleep would be quite consistent with the arising of a citta that has as object something that is not of this world. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: When no time passes, no mind states pass. In no time, nothing happens. What, BTW, do you have in mind when you speak of something not of this world"? You're not asserting that bhavanga cittas take some sort of supermundane something-or-other as object, are you? (I presume you mean something else by that.) ---------------------------------------------------------- > The notion of "bhavanga citta" is an unnecessary > concoction ... developed to > account for the pseudo-problem perceived as a real problem of there being > continuity without soul. Rather tortuous reasoning! Perhaps the real "problem" (for you) with bhavanga is it's incompatibility with the phenomenalist POV? ;-)) ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The notion is neutral as regards phenomenalism. I have no problem at all on that basis with the idea of there being bhavanga cittas. I just see neither necessity nor evidence for them. I would add them easily to my inventory of presumed phenomena otherwise. --------------------------------------------------------------- Jon =============================== 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 â€" such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) #91020 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 4:22 am Subject: Re: Positive loop in DO visitorfromt... Hi Alex, - Thank you for the clarification. > A: > There is positive loops in DO. Ignorance conditions taints, which > condition ignorance. > > This is what I've meant in avijja <->avijjaasava (or just asava) > There are two other asavas that feed into avijja. Right? Tep === #91021 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 12:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/5/2008 3:30:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard & all, We were discussing bhavanga (life-continuum) cittas. -------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! I see that you & Jon are engaging in tag-team wrestling against me on this! ;-)) Gosh, you should have saved it for a more important matter! -------------------------------------------- --- On Sun, 28/9/08, upasaka@... wrote: >>S: So you suggest there are no cittas arising at all in deep sleep and that the citta before the dreamless sleep is followed by the one following it, however long afterwards. >>Do you have any support for this belief? ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- >Howard: Yes, experience. In deepest sleep and deepest surgical anaesthesia, no time passes. .... S: With all due respect, I think "experience" such as during sleep and anaesthesia is a very unreliable source. No time *seems* to pass, because there is no recollection on waking of the experience. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That is my experience. Of course, anyone's experience could be faulty, but I am satisfied at the moment to believe that when under deepest anaesthesia no time passes within the given mind stream. You are, of course, free to assume that there is consciousness when fully unconscious. Be my guest! ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------- .... H:> Do you have any non-commentarial support for bhavanga cittas, and also for their need? ... S: Yes, in the Patthana a lot of very detailed and complex material is given on the various conditions. I mentioned how by anantara paccaya (proximity condition), one citta is always followed by another citta. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That does not constitute evidence of bhavanga cittas. I also presume no gaps in consciousness. ---------------------------------------------------- In the Patthana, Faultless Triplet, proximity 7, for example, it says: " (v) Indeterminate state is related to indeterminate state by proximity condition. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: That causes no problem for me. (It happens that I reject the discrete, film-frame perspective on the flow of consciousness, but that is tangential to this issue.) ----------------------------------------------------- Preceding resultant indeterminate or functional indeterminate aggregates are related to subsequent resultant indeterminate or functional indeterminate aggregates by proximity condition. *Life-continuum to advertence*; functional to emergence; adaptation of the Arahat to attainment of Fruition (of the Arahat); having emerged from the attainment of Extinction, functional neither-perception-nor-non-perception is related to the attainment of Fruition by proximity condition." ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Okay, if "life continuum" is mentioned in the Patthana, then I agree that this is a mention of bhavanga cittas. Is that in the Patthana itself or a commentary to it? (I still would see no need for such states, but it would make it a slightly more feasible notion for me,) ---------------------------------------------- The Patthana is a very difficult text, but all possible combinations and conditions are included. When it refers in the last sentence to nirodha samapatti (attainment of Extinction), it indicates how the jhana citta (the neva-sa~n~naa-naa-sa~n~naa citta) is related to the anagami or arahat fruition consciousness by anantara paccaya, but not for deep sleep or anaesthesia. Also, would not your conclusion be that deep sleep and anaesthesia re exactly the same as nirodha samapatti? ---------------------------------------- Howard: No. (So what?) As far as I'm concerned, within a mind stream there are no gaps in consciousness, and the issue of bhavanga cittas has nothing to do with supermundane states. ----------------------------------------- In the "Guide to Conditional Relations" by U Narada (PTS), which you have, the detail is given in a format which is much easier to follow. It's a summary of what is contained in the Patthana itself. For example, it says (Ch II): "...In the eye-door mental processes, the following sequence of mental states takes place: past life-continuum, vibrating life-continuum, arresting life-continuum, five-door advertence, eye-consciousness, recipient consciousness, investigating consciousness, determining consciousness, seven impulsions, two registering consciousnesses. Here past life-continuum is related to vibrating life-continuum, vibrating life-continuum to arresting life-continuum, arresting life-continuum to five-door advertence by proximity condition without any interval of time. Similarly with the others." -------------------------------------------- Howard: Show me one sutta, Sarah. These notions in the paragraph above, interesting as they are - and I do find them intellectually appealing - simply come out of the commentaries, and are, I believe, speculative. In any case, none of this is in any way persuasive for me. ---------------------------------------------- ..... H:> The notion of "bhavanga citta" is an unnecessary concoction, not taught by the Buddha. As I see it, this notion was developed to account for the pseudo-problem perceived as a real problem of there being continuity without soul. ... S: We have to disagree on these points. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Who is "we"? ----------------------------------------------- I have no reason to question what is written in such detail in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries. I don't see any evidence of "unnecessary concoctions" or of any incompatibility with the other Pitakas. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Enjoy! ;-) ---------------------------------------------- ... H:> As for whether bhavanga cittas *might* exist, well, anything not logically contradictory *might* exist. There are billions of proposals for unobserved phenomena that folks could come up with. There's no limit to the imagination! ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- S: Here, I don't think we're coming up with "unobserved phenomena that folks could come up with". I think we're discussing what was known and discovered by the Buddha's omniscient knowledge. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I find no basis in this having been taught by the Buddha. Moreover, it is *extremely* irrelevant to the Buddha's purpose in teaching his Dhamma for 45 years. Bhavanga cittas or not, suffering arises and it's causes need to be uprooted. Such notions as bhavanga citta and life force and masculinity/femininity are all irrelevant to that great matter. ---------------------------------------------- No need to agree, I'm happy to leave this thread for anyone to come to their own conclusions. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh, enjoy your presumed "victory" on this "so-central issue." ;-)) --------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah p.s just seen Jon's reply to the same message... ============================ 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) #91022 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 12:41 am Subject: Re: Interconnectedness and "ground of being?" was Re: [dsg] Interconnectedness? upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/5/2008 6:00:05 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Howard, is the "net of Indra" you wrote about something like a "ground of being?" ============================== No, I would say it is not. The metaphor pertains to interdependency of dhammas, with each being a fleeting, contingent, point within an interconnected network of inseparable phenomena. A ground of being notion, accepted in only some Zen traditions, is probably a borrowing from Vedanta. With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ ("Wasserman's Fevered Brain" Sutta) #91023 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 5:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Sun, 5/10/08, upasaka@... wrote: >>S:> We were discussing bhavanga (life-continuum) cittas. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- >Howard: LOLOL! I see that you & Jon are engaging in tag-team wrestling against me on this! ;-)) Gosh, you should have saved it for a more important matter! ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- ... S: Yes, I smiled too when I saw Jon (in Fiji) had replied to the same message of yours just as I was set to send mine through:-). As I'd already spent time in the Patthana and Guide, I went ahead. ... >Howard: That is my experience. Of course, anyone's experience could be faulty, but I am satisfied at the moment to believe that when under deepest anaesthesia no time passes within the given mind stream. You are, of course, free to assume that there is consciousness when fully unconscious. Be my guest! ;-) ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - S: Thanks, Howard, I will. Yes, consciousness and unconsciousness take on different meanings when it comes to the Dhamma, as I see it. .... H:> Do you have any non-commentarial support for bhavanga cittas, and also for their need? ... >S:In the Patthana, Faultless Triplet, proximity 7, for example, it says: " ..... *Life-continuum to advertence*; ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ------ >Howard: Okay, if "life continuum" is mentioned in the Patthana, then I agree that this is a mention of bhavanga cittas. Is that in the Patthana itself or a commentary to it? (I still would see no need for such states, but it would make it a slightly more feasible notion for me,) ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- S: The passage I quoted was from the Patthana itself. You asked for "non-commentarial support" and that's what I gave:-). ... >>S:> In the "Guide to Conditional Relations" by U Narada (PTS), which you have, the detail is given in a format which is much easier to follow. It's a summary of what is contained in the Patthana itself. For example, it says (Ch II): "...In the eye-door mental processes, the following sequence of mental states takes place: past life-continuum, vibrating life-continuum, arresting life-continuum, five-door advertence, eye-consciousness, recipient consciousness, investigating consciousness, determining consciousness, seven impulsions, two registering consciousnesses. Here past life-continuum is related to vibrating life-continuum, vibrating life-continuum to arresting life-continuum, arresting life-continuum to five-door advertence by proximity condition without any interval of time. Similarly with the others." ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- >Howard: Show me one sutta, Sarah. These notions in the paragraph above, interesting as they are - and I do find them intellectually appealing - simply come out of the commentaries, and are, I believe, speculative. In any case, none of this is in any way persuasive for me. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- S: Now you're sounding like others who asked for Pitaka support. I give it and then they say they just want a sutta!! The 'notions' in the paragraph are a summary of what is found in the Patthana itself (read U Narada's introduction. Indeed the only English translation of the first two texts of the Patthana are by him). They do not 'simply come out of the commentaries'. As for what is 'persuasive', I'm certainly not trying to persuade you of anything, merely present what is in the texts as you asked. Personally, it all makes good sense to me after a lot of consideration. I have no doubt there are cittas arising and falling away in deep sleep, just as they do now. ..... >>H:> The notion of "bhavanga citta" is an unnecessary concoction, not taught by the Buddha. As I see it, this notion was developed to account for the pseudo-problem perceived as a real problem of there being continuity without soul. ... >>S: We have to disagree on these points. ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- >Howard: Who is "we"? ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- S: You and I!! Just the two of us:-). ... ... --------- --------- --------- -------- >Howard: I find no basis in this having been taught by the Buddha. Moreover, it is *extremely* irrelevant to the Buddha's purpose in teaching his Dhamma for 45 years. Bhavanga cittas or not, suffering arises and it's causes need to be uprooted. Such notions as bhavanga citta and life force and masculinity/ femininity are all irrelevant to that great matter. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- S: I think that having some (intellectual) understanding of these various dhammas all helps to cling less to the idea of a being, of a man or a woman. Just various dhammas rolling on, like the stream. .... S:>>No need to agree, I'm happy to leave this thread for anyone to come to their own conclusions. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- >Howard: Ahh, enjoy your presumed "victory" on this "so-central issue." ;-)) ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------ S: I never consider any of the discussions or anything I write in terms of "victory" or "loss". That's very far away from ever being my purpose in writing, but I know you're kidding, here. I agree that it's not a "so-central issue", which is why I said I was happy to leave it and hadn't rushed to respond before. But you had asked for non-commentarial support and on a very stormy day in Hong Kong with Jon away, I eventually got round to checking. That's all:-)). Metta, Sarah =========== #91024 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 5:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does one REALLY see DhammaPrinciple? - correction/addition sarahprocter... Dear Alex (Tep & all), --- On Tue, 30/9/08, Alex wrote: A:> ... 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. .... S: There is no attainment from 'pondering' and this is never the meaning in the suttas. See Jon's and Christine's quotes and summaries on this point before: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/19390 Jon:> In case the meaning is not self-evident for some, I have summarised the 2 sets of commentary notes[S: see below]: >Note 211: Insight knowledge (that is, knowledge of the 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta of dhammas) must be developed first. When and only when that insight knowledge has been fully developed, path knowledge (knowledge of nibbana) arises. >Note 212: Path knowledge is the outcome of insight (vipassana), not of the concentration that accompanies tranquillity (samatha). <...> Christine>: You may be interested in reading part of the translation and notes by Bhikkhu Bodhi: "Then the Venerable Susima rose from his seat and approached the Blessed One. Having approached, he paid homage to the Blessed One, sat down to one side, reported to the Blessed One the entire conversation he had had with those bhikkhus. [The Blessed One said:] "First Susima, comes knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma, afterards knowledge of Nibbana." (note 211) "I do not understand in detail, venerable sir, the meaning of what was stated in brief by the Blessed One. It would be good if the Blessed One would explain to me in such a way that I could understand in detail what has been stated in brief." "Whether or not you understand, Susima, first comes knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma, afterwards knowledge of Nibbana." (note 212) >"Note 211 states: Pubbe kho Susima dhammatthitinanam, paccha nibbane nanam - Spk: Insight knowledge is "knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma," which arises first. At the end of the course of insight, path knowledge arises; that is "knowledge of Nibbana," which arises later. Spk-pt: The "stability of the Dhamma" is the stableness of phenomena, their intrinsic nature (dhammanam thitata tamsabhavata): namely, impermanence, suffering, nonself. Knowledge of that is "knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma." >Note 212 states: Spk: Why is this said? For the purpose of showing the arising of knowledge thus even without concentration. This is meant: "Susima, the path and fruit are not the issue of concentration (samadhinissanda), nor the advantage brought about by concentration (samadhi-anisamsa), nor the outcome of concentration (samadhinipphatti). They are the issue of insight (vipassana), the advantage brought about by insight, the outcome of insight. Therefore, whether you understand or not, first comes knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma, afterwards knowledge of Nibbana. Spk-pt: 'Even without concentration' (vina pi samadhim): even without previously established (concentration) that has acquired the characteristic of serenity (samatha-lakkhanappattam); this is said referring to one who takes the vehicle of insight (vipassanayanika)..." ***** **** A:> 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"? ... S: Because the Truths are not really understood. Again, pondering is not directly understanding the dhammas arising now and their characteristics. ... A:> 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?" ... S: Understanding has to be developed until all dhammas are truly seen as anicca, dukkha and anatta. First there has to be the clear understanding of namas and rupas - no things, no people, but it's a very long path. ============ ========= ====== A:> 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." ... S: I think the teachings are much more subtle than this. We may say that the computer is impermanent, for example, but this is not the understanding of impermanence which the Buddha taught. Is the hardness experienced now understood as being impermanent? No, unless the characteristic of hardness (pathavi dhatu) is understood when it appears as just hardness, not atta (something), there is no chance of developing the understanding of its impermanence. Just my reflections, Alex. No need to agree:-). Metta, Sarah ========= #91025 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 1:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/5/2008 8:21:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, --- On Sun, 5/10/08, upasaka@... wrote: >>S:> We were discussing bhavanga (life-continuum) cittas. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- >Howard: LOLOL! I see that you & Jon are engaging in tag-team wrestling against me on this! ;-)) Gosh, you should have saved it for a more important matter! ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- ... S: Yes, I smiled too when I saw Jon (in Fiji) had replied to the same message of yours just as I was set to send mine through:-). As I'd already spent time in the Patthana and Guide, I went ahead. ... >Howard: That is my experience. Of course, anyone's experience could be faulty, but I am satisfied at the moment to believe that when under deepest anaesthesia no time passes within the given mind stream. You are, of course, free to assume that there is consciousness when fully unconscious. Be my guest! ;-) ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - S: Thanks, Howard, I will. Yes, consciousness and unconsciousness take on different meanings when it comes to the Dhamma, as I see it. .... H:> Do you have any non-commentarial support for bhavanga cittas, and also for their need? ... >S:In the Patthana, Faultless Triplet, proximity 7, for example, it says: " ..... *Life-continuum to advertence*; ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ------ >Howard: Okay, if "life continuum" is mentioned in the Patthana, then I agree that this is a mention of bhavanga cittas. Is that in the Patthana itself or a commentary to it? (I still would see no need for such states, but it would make it a slightly more feasible notion for me,) ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- S: The passage I quoted was from the Patthana itself. You asked for "non-commentarial support" and that's what I gave:-). ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, and as I said, that makes the notion of "bhavanga citta" more feasible to me. ------------------------------------------------------- ... >>S:> In the "Guide to Conditional Relations" by U Narada (PTS), which you have, the detail is given in a format which is much easier to follow. It's a summary of what is contained in the Patthana itself. For example, it says (Ch II): "...In the eye-door mental processes, the following sequence of mental states takes place: past life-continuum, vibrating life-continuum, arresting life-continuum, five-door advertence, eye-consciousness, recipient consciousness, investigating consciousness, determining consciousness, seven impulsions, two registering consciousnesses. Here past life-continuum is related to vibrating life-continuum, vibrating life-continuum to arresting life-continuum, arresting life-continuum to five-door advertence by proximity condition without any interval of time. Similarly with the others." ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- >Howard: Show me one sutta, Sarah. These notions in the paragraph above, interesting as they are - and I do find them intellectually appealing - simply come out of the commentaries, and are, I believe, speculative. In any case, none of this is in any way persuasive for me. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- S: Now you're sounding like others who asked for Pitaka support. I give it and then they say they just want a sutta!! -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I informally assign degrees of authoritativeness to different sources. I consider most of the sutta pitaka to be the word of the Buddha. I consider the abhidhamma pitaka to be an attempt at a detailed, synoptic outlining of sutta material but not itself the word of the Buddha. I consider the commentaries to be even further removed from the Buddha word. So, my credence is accorded in the following order: 1) suttas, 2) abhidhamma, 3) commentaries. -------------------------------------------------- The 'notions' in the paragraph are a summary of what is found in the Patthana itself (read U Narada's introduction. Indeed the only English translation of the first two texts of the Patthana are by him). They do not 'simply come out of the commentaries'. As for what is 'persuasive', I'm certainly not trying to persuade you of anything, merely present what is in the texts as you asked. Personally, it all makes good sense to me after a lot of consideration. I have no doubt there are cittas arising and falling away in deep sleep, just as they do now. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I do have doubt as regards this. ------------------------------------------------- ..... >>H:> The notion of "bhavanga citta" is an unnecessary concoction, not taught by the Buddha. As I see it, this notion was developed to account for the pseudo-problem perceived as a real problem of there being continuity without soul. ... >>S: We have to disagree on these points. ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- >Howard: Who is "we"? ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- S: You and I!! Just the two of us:-). ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ah, okay. I thought you meant that some "we" disagreed with me on this. Now I follow you. :-) ------------------------------------------------------- ... ... --------- --------- --------- -------- >Howard: I find no basis in this having been taught by the Buddha. Moreover, it is *extremely* irrelevant to the Buddha's purpose in teaching his Dhamma for 45 years. Bhavanga cittas or not, suffering arises and it's causes need to be uprooted. Such notions as bhavanga citta and life force and masculinity/ femininity are all irrelevant to that great matter. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- S: I think that having some (intellectual) understanding of these various dhammas all helps to cling less to the idea of a being, of a man or a woman. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I do not find it so. My direct experiencing of the flow of impressions does it for me - the hardness, warmth, sights, sounds, etc, all just contingent, fleeting, impersonal phenomena. ---------------------------------------------------- Just various dhammas rolling on, like the stream. .... S:>>No need to agree, I'm happy to leave this thread for anyone to come to their own conclusions. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ----- >Howard: Ahh, enjoy your presumed "victory" on this "so-central issue." ;-)) ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------ S: I never consider any of the discussions or anything I write in terms of "victory" or "loss". That's very far away from ever being my purpose in writing, but I know you're kidding, here. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I am. :-) -------------------------------------------------- I agree that it's not a "so-central issue", which is why I said I was happy to leave it and hadn't rushed to respond before. But you had asked for non-commentarial support and on a very stormy day in Hong Kong with Jon away, I eventually got round to checking. That's all:-)). ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, Sarah. :-) [Coincidentally, it's very stormy here today also.] -------------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah ======================== With metta, Howard #91026 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 6:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidh... sarahprocter... Hi TG (Tep, Alex &a ll), --- On Mon, 29/9/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >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 >"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" **** S: This is what I recently wrote and quoted to Paul in #90556, when he asked a related question: >S: That's a good question. Whilst dhammas can be understood to be existent andwith definable characteristics, like a wave, there is no time at which they are'static' or 'stable' in the sense of being unchanging. Let's take cittas (moments of consciousness and accompanying mental factors),though they are said to have an arising, presence and dissolution, there is acontinual change occurring. The impermanence is of course a characteristic ofall conditioned dhammas. On this point, B.Bodhi et al give this Guide note in C.M.A. (translation of Abhidhammattha Sangaha). [Btw, if you're wishing to become more familiar withthe Abhidhamma, this is a very useful reference text.]: Ch VI, guide to #6 "The life-span of a citta is termed, in the Abhidhamma, a mind-moment (cittakkha.na). This is a temporal unit of such brief duration that, accordingto the commentators, in the time it takes for lightning to flash or the eyes toblink, billions of mind-moments can elapse. Nevertheless, though seeminglyinfinitesimal, each mind-moment in turn consists of three sub-moments - arising(uppaada), presence (.thiti), and dissolution (bhanga). Within the breadth of amind-moment, a citta arises, performs its momentary function, and thendissolves, conditioning the next citta in immediate succession. Thus, throughthe sequence of mind-moments, the flow of consciousness continues uninterruptedlike the waters in a stream. "....The Vibhaavinii [S: commentary to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha] points outthat the sub-moment of presence is a stage in the occurrence of a dhamma separate from the stages of arising and dissolution, during which the dhamma" stands facing its own dissolution" (bhangaabhimukhaavathaa)......Many commentators take the presence moment to be implied by the Buddha's statement: "There are three conditioned characteristics of the conditioned: arising, passing away, and the alteration of that which stands" (A.3:47/i,152). Here thepresence moment is identified with "the alteration of that which stands"(.thitassa a~n~nathatta)."< ***** ***** S: Also see Scott's post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/74149 And now, I remember we've discussed this topic before, so I'll probably leave it here:-)). Metta, Sarah ======== #91027 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 10:04 am Subject: Re: Positive loop in DO truth_aerator Hi Tep and all, >---"visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > > Hi Alex, - > Thank you for the clarification. > > > A: > > There are positive loops in DO. Ignorance conditions taints, >which > > condition ignorance. > > > > This is what I've meant in avijja <->avijjaasava (or just asava) > > > > There are two other asavas that feed into avijja. Right? > > Tep > === Yes, there is taint of sensuality and taint of becoming. Thing is that craving (taint of sensuality) reinforces ignorance, which reinforces craving even more. It is a vicious circle, that, no wonder, is so tough to break. A worldling succumbs to ignorance, trainee resists, and Arahant is fully freed. Best wishes, #91028 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 6:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidh... TGrand458@... Hi Sarah and All... In a message dated 10/5/2008 7:28:19 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: >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 >"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" **** S: This is what I recently wrote and quoted to Paul in #90556, when he asked a related question: >S: That's a good question. Whilst dhammas can be understood to be existent andwith definable characteristics, like a wave, there is no time at which they are'static' or 'stable' in the sense of being unchanging. Let's take cittas (moments of consciousness and accompanying mental factors),though they are said to have an arising, presence and dissolution, there is acontinual change occurring. The impermanence is of course a characteristic ofall conditioned dhammas. On this point, B.Bodhi et al give this Guide note in C.M.A. (translation of Abhidhammattha Sangaha). [Btw, if you're wishing to become more familiar withthe Abhidhamma, this is a very useful reference text.]: Ch VI, guide to #6 "The life-span of a citta is termed, in the Abhidhamma, a mind-moment (cittakkha.na)(cittakkha.na). This is a temporal unit of such brief duration that, accordingto the commentators, in the time it takes for lightning to flash or the eyes toblink, billions of mind-moments can elapse. Nevertheless, though (cittakkha.na). This is a temporal unit of such brief duration that, acco(cittakkha.na). This is a temporal unit of ........................................................................ TG: Above you said -- S. "like a wave, there is no time at which they are 'static' or 'stable' in the sense of being unchanging." This statement contracts your statement above and the notion of " a Dhamma" have three "sub-moments" including "presence." Here's a list of some of the illogic of your position... #1 If there are three sub-moments of "a Dhamma," and one of them is "presence," then it follows that "a Dhamma" is NOT PRESENT during its arising and dissolution. That's a hard one to swallow!!!!! #2 By altering the Buddha's teaching of "changing while persisting" with nearly the opposite notion of -- "presence," you have adopted a "static" view of "Dhammas" instead of the "dynamic view" the Buddha was obviously trying to convey. What's the beef??? Why are you changing the terms here??? The answer is -- to support a view of "Ultimate Realities with their own characteristics" WHICH THE BUDDHA'S TEACHING WILL NOT SUPPORT WITHOUT ALTERATION. Therefore, you HAVE to alter the Buddha's teaching to make it fit with your NEW VIEWS. #3 Your statement that "Dhammas " last only for "billionths of a second" is in contradiction to your statement -- "like a wave, there is no time at which they are 'static' or 'stable' in the sense of being unchanging." If at no time something is static, then at no time can "IT" last for even a billionth of a second. (I am imaging that your "qualifier" -- "in the sense of being unchanging" -- is what you're grasping after to uphold your CONCEPT of Dhammas. ) #4 If at no time they are static or stable, then, AT NO TIME are they "Ultimate realities with their own characteristics." They ONLY appear that way! But then, "self view" is one of "appearance" as well. That's why I've often said that your "dhamma view" is akin to a "self view" that is "projected onto" a "view of Dhammas" instead of onto a "view of people" or other objects. I think its just a "sleight of hand" (sleight of mind) that replaces one self view with another. #5 The Buddha's teaching directs us to detach from phenomena. NOT to try to highlight "ultimate realities with their own characteristic." The Buddha says nothing about such a thing. And why you keep putting words into the Buddha's mouth saying that "this is what the Buddha taught" is a sad affair IMO. ....................................................................... Within the breadth of amind-moment, a citta arises, performs its momentary function, and thendissolves, conditioning the next citta in immediate succession. Thus, throughthe sequence of mind-moments, the flow of consciousness continues uninterruptedlike the waters in a stream. "....The Vibhaavinii [S: commentary to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha] points outthat the sub-moment of presence is a stage in the occurrence of a dhamma separate from the stages of arising and dissolution, during which the dhamma" stands facing its own dissolution" (bhangaabhimukhaavaseparate separate from the stages of arising and dissolution, during which the dhamma" stands ......................................................... TG: Really??? I take it to mean that purple elephants are flying in space. I mean, since the Buddha teaching is MORE DETAILED than the faulty "interpretation," why not make it mean ANYTHING?!?!?! A COMMENTARY normally adds content in its interpretation, not eliminate parts of the original... and then after eliminating parts of the original, dealing with the COMMENTARIAL fragment as if that's the real intended content. Such a procedure can only be done for one purpose...to try to fit a new meaning to the intended term. THAT AINT NO COMMENT. That's ALTERATION. Sarah I love you. And I hate to be so abrupt with some of your posts. But I feel you are unwittingly perniciously altering the Buddha's teaching to say something unintended and unhelpful and perhaps harmful, which in my view is a type of destruction of Dhamma. So Bam ! .. with my apologies. (Of course its not you, its just conditions driven by other conditions.) Hey, I've still never gotten an answer as to why the Buddha refers to the Five Aggregates as -- empty, void, hollow, coreless, alien, like a conjurer's trick, like a mirage, etc. I've been waiting for weeks on that...But I'll keep on asking... :-) TG OUT #91029 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 10:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Suppose there were a river ... was something (brief) truth_aerator Dear Sarah, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > --- On Fri, 3/10/08, Alex wrote: > >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... > ... > S: Now you'd better satisfy our curiosity and tell us more!! > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > It wasn't Buddhist, so I am not allowed to talk about it here. It did however has some simularities such as emphasis on studying/seeing, bad mouthing meditation, no-control (except to join that group), study of ancient commentaries, and almost-almost anatta teaching. As you probably aware, I had quite a few reservations about their usage of commentaries (at least one of which was attributed to someone living 1000 years earlier, than most likely the composition of it), and no-control. Best wishes, #91030 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 10:34 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How does one REALLY see DhammaPrinciple? - correction/addition truth_aerator Dear Sarah and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Alex (Tep & all), > Just my reflections, Alex. No need to agree:-). > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========= Can you please in your own words, step by step, clearly and concisely summarize what needs to be done to reach Insight Knowledges and Arhatship. Others (Jon, Scott, KenH) may do the same. Please no derailing of this discussion and/or going on a tangent. Can someone summarize path to Arhatship 1.... 2.... 3.... and so on Thank you, With best wishes, #91031 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 10:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings truth_aerator Dear Sarah and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Alex (Jon & all), > > The following may be of assistance in your discussion. > > --- On Sun, 5/10/08, Alex wrote: > A:> 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.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ mn/mn.043. than.html > .... > S: From the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation: > > "Friend, there are two conditions for the arising of right view: >the voice of another (S: parato ghosa) and wise attention (S: yoniso >manasikara)."* Of course the meditation by itself will not give rise to right view. However it could HELP it by burning off excess defilements and hindrances. > S: continuing from the sutta: > > "Friend, by how many factors is right view assisted when it has deliverance of mind for its fruit, deliverance of mind for its fruit (S: cetovimutti phaala) and benefit, when it has deliverance by wisdom (S: pa~n~naavimutti phaala) for its fruit, deliverance by wisdom for its fruit and benefit?" > > "Friend, right view is assisted by five factors when it has deliverance of mind for it fruit..........wisdom for its fruit and benefit. Here, friend, right view is assisted by virtue [S:siilaanuggahitaa], learning[sutaanuggahitaa], discussion [saakacchaanuggahitaa), serenity [samathaanuggahitaa], and insight [vipassanaanuggahitaa].....*" > ...... > [**"MA: Right view here is the right view pertaining to the path of >arahantship. 'Deliverance of mind' and 'deliverance by wisdom' both >refer to the fruit of arahantship; see n.83.*** When one fulfils >these five factors, the path of arahantship arises and yields its >fruit.] When one fulfills these *5* factors the path arises. > > [[***n.83 "MA: In this passage "mind" and "wisdom" signify, respectively, the concentration and wisdom associated with the fruit of arahantship. Concentration is called "deliverance of mind" (cetovimutti) because it is liberated from lust; wisdom is called "deliverance by wisdom" (pa~n~navimutti) because it is liberated from ignorance. The former is normally the result of serenity, the latter the result of insight. But when they are coupled and described as taintless (anaasava), they jointly result from the destruction of the taints by the supramundane path of arahantship.]] > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== Non of the above refutes Jhana attainments (up to Nirodha Samapatti) for path of Arhatship. Paññavimutti Sutta AN 9.44 [Udayin:] "'Released through discernment, released through discernment,' it is said. To what extent is one described by the Blessed One as released through discernment?" [Ananda:] "There is the case, my friend, where a monk, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. And he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described by the Blessed One as released through discernment, though with a sequel. "Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non- perception. And he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described by the Blessed One as released through discernment, though with a sequel. "Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as he sees with discernment, the mental fermentations go to their total end. And he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described by the Blessed One as released through discernment without a sequel." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.044.than.html #91032 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 10:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > S: It (Jhana) only "helps the path" >> I am glad that here we do have an agreement! >if it is understood as an impermanent, conditioned dhamma. Also, >only the development of insight and attainment of enlightenment >ensures "one doesn't fall into hell". Did I ever say otherwise? No of course. Jhana is impermanent, anatta and ultimately Dukkha. >Of course, we can give many examples beginning of Devadatta for whom >rebirth in the lowest (avici) hell follwed his human life with the >attainment of the highest of mundane jhanas. He had very bad vices, and without insight they have eventually overtook him. Somewhere in MN112 or thereabouts, there is a statement that bad people may attain up to base of neither perception nor non-perception. Maybe we need to redefine the difficulty of Jhana. There is also a story of Buddha in his previous life being ascetic with Jhana and super powers. He was flying to some palace, saw a queen without the cloth and fell to the ground. I don't remember if it was in that or other story, where He as a Jhana hermit did an ogre transgression with her. Good luck that the King was Ananda... Here is a story which I've read in "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" ASHIN JANAKABHIVAMSA The Bodhisatta, Haritaca by name, having renounced the world, abandoning his immense wealth of eighty crores of money, became a hermit and attained the great supernatural powers, jhanas and abhinnas. Then, as the rains were heavy in the Himalayas, he came to Baranasi and stayed in the King's garden. The king of Baranasi was his old friend who was fulfilling the Paramis (Perfections) to become the Venerable Ananda. Therefore, as soon as he saw the hermit, he revered him so much that he asked him to stay in the royal garden and supported him with four requisites; he himself offered the hermit morning meals at the palace. Once, as a rebellion broke out in the country, the king himself had to go out to quell it. Before setting out with his army, he requested the queen again and again not to forget to look after the hermit. The queen did as told. One early morning, she took a bath with scented water and put on fine clothes and lay down on the couch waiting for the hermit. The Bodhisatta came through space with his supernormal power, abhinna, and arrived at the palace window. Hearing the flutter of the hermit's robe, the queen hastily rose from her couch and her dress fell off her. Seeing the queen divested of her clothes, the anusaya moha which lay dormant in his mind-continuum, rose to the stage of pariyutthana moha, and filled with lust, he took the queen's hand and committed immoral transgression like a monster ogre. Note: We should consider the stupidity arising through moha in this story seriously. If such moha did not appear in him, he would not have committed such an evil deed even with the king's consent. But at that time, being overwhelmed by the darkness of delusion, he was unable to see the evil consequences of his deed in the present and the future existences throughout the samsara, and consequently, committed that improper transgression. The jhanas and abhinnas, which he had acquired through practice for all his life, were also unable to dispel the darkness of moha; instead, being overwhelmed by moha the power of jhanas and abhinnas themselves vanished from him. http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/abdmjnka.htm#preface Best wishes, #91033 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 11:09 am Subject: Re: Positive loop in DO visitorfromt... Dear Alex, Sukin: - Around here we often hear members claiming 'right understanding' of the Dhamma i.e. understanding the ultimate realities "now". It is not clear to me if they have the ability to abandon avijja in the daily life by means of vipassana about the arising-and-passing-away of paramattha dhammas. > > Tep : > > There are two other asavas that feed into avijja. Right? > > > Alex: > Yes, there is taint of sensuality and taint of becoming. > > Thing is that craving (taint of sensuality) reinforces ignorance, > which reinforces craving even more. It is a vicious circle, that, > no wonder, is so tough to break. A worldling succumbs > to ignorance, trainee resists, and Arahant is fully freed. > > > >Tep(#90183): There is a huge gap between "a correct intellectual understanding of the way things are" and abandonment of the "I see" view. How would you compare Khun Sujin's approach with the discernment of nama and rupa in Chapter XVIII of the Vism ? I also asked Sarah the same question. >Suk: 7) To deny this and instead to go along with an as yet undeveloped understanding of the Dhamma, including the common idea of practice /meditation, the effect is not really being interested in studying the Dhamma for the sake of understanding, but rather seeking support for what one `does' re: meditation. What started off as being ditthi papanca namely the idea of `meditation', one ends up adding more fuel and proliferating further away to everything else but the need to understand the present moment, "now". ............. It has become so muddier lately that I am completely hopeless of finding the answer. Tep === #91034 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 11:31 am Subject: Re: DSG's method truth_aerator >--- "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > Dear Alex, Sukin: - > ............. > > It has become so muddier lately that I am completely hopeless of > finding the answer. > > Tep > === > Dear Tep, let us ask Sarah and other knowledgeble DSG'ers to explain in point form the precise things needed to be taken in order to fully understand presently arisen realities now. Best wishes, #91035 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 11:50 am Subject: "Change we can believe in"! truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > Hi TG (Tep, Alex &a ll), >"The life-span of a citta is termed, in the Abhidhamma, a mind-moment >(cittakkha.na). This is a temporal unit of such brief duration that, >accordingto the commentators, in the time it takes for lightning to >flash or the eyes toblink, billions of mind-moments can elapse. "what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html Does anyone notices the difference in speed of moment by a magnitude of a trillion? How can one even contemplate trillions of cittas in a second? Sarah, please explain it clearly and precisely. Best wishes, #91036 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 11:54 am Subject: Re: DSG's method visitorfromt... Hi, Alex - ---"Alex" wrote: > > Dear Tep, let us ask Sarah and other knowledgeble DSG'ers > to explain in > point form the precise things needed to be taken in order to fully > understand presently arisen realities now. > > > Best wishes, > Very good, Alex; it is very good that you still are hopeful. Go ahead and make a dead tree grow again. Good luck, Tep === #91037 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 12:28 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method truth_aerator >--- "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > Very good, Alex; it is very good that you still are hopeful. > Go ahead and make a dead tree grow again. > > Good luck, > > Tep > === If Sarah refuses to answer, or answers in a very vague and indirect manner, then it would mean that either she doesn't understand the method - or there isn't one. Same applies to other DSG'ers. I'd like to see clear outline, in point form, clear summary of steps neccessary to realize ariyanhood. Best wishes, #91038 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 12:53 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood visitorfromt... Dear Alex, - You may have forgotten that I have been participating in the forum here (on and off) since 2003. > > >--- "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > Very good, Alex; it is very good that you still are hopeful. > > Go ahead and make a dead tree grow again. > > > > Good luck, > > > > Tep > > === > Alex: > If Sarah refuses to answer, or answers in a very vague and indirect > manner, then it would mean that either she doesn't understand the > method - or there isn't one. Same applies to other DSG'ers. > > I'd like to see clear outline, in point form, clear summary > of steps neccessary to realize ariyanhood. > > > Best wishes, > ............... Best wishes to you too, Alex. Tep === #91039 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 1:00 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood truth_aerator Dear Tep, Sarah and all, >--- "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > > Dear Alex, - > > You may have forgotten that I have been participating in the forum > here (on and off) since 2003. And all that time Sarah hasn't given a clear, step-by-step outline of the path as DSG'ers see it? .............. Best wishes, #91040 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 1:09 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood visitorfromt... Dear Alex, Sarah and all, I tell you again, the tree is dead. >--- "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > > Dear Alex, - > > You may have forgotten that I have been participating in the forum > here (on and off) since 2003. Alex: And all that time Sarah hasn't given a clear, step-by-step outline of the path as DSG'ers see it? .................. T: Plain and simple, if I already were satisfied with her reply, would I have kept on asking more questions during these years? The answer is a "No", of course. Tep === #91041 From: Sukinder Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 6:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. sukinderpal Dear Tep, Last week I was busy getting ready for my family's trip to India and this Friday I will go too. So this is probably going to be my last post in about three weeks. ============= >Suk: And since this is in fact between me and you, I take it that you already use some of these terms as per your own understanding, and if not the same exact words used, at least some other with same / similar meaning. It may be that we understand them differently, and I do believe that it is important to determine this; however I expect that these will come to light as we proceed in our discussion. T: On the surface, the idea of learning/understanding the important terms underlying the "nature of reality" while discussing it, is logical and restriction free, hence the discussion should be more efficient. But after thinking a little further, recalling the important fact that there have been many discussions before us here and elsewhere for so many years on reality and ultimate truth versus conventional truth. Sadly, so far no agreement has been reached and the discussants still do not understand each other. [Some recent examples: Is Sarah real? Are trees real? What does 'real' mean?] Some members already left the group in disgust; some still hang on after several years (because of inertia?), yet they have not been convinced by the DSG Abhidhammikas' arguments. So, if we don't do it right, we'd better not do it. Sukin: Yes, but I really don't know what the "right" way to do it is. The fact being that each one of us are so different in our reactions to various concepts put forward, and overall the conditions are so complex, that I think we can only come to the conclusion about the need to just do our best and see what happens. Take for example this suggestion about defining terms. What I have in mind about our discussion is that we come to understand the various concepts that we use by referring to our experience, which is in fact an attempt to move away from relying on book definitions and also what might turn out to be mere 'philosophy'. Perhaps I was overreacting to your suggestion for "definitions" and the fact that you asked to be given for so many of them at one time. But I won't make any more excuses, only you will have to then allow me to talk about one concept at a time…? Below is from my first post followed by your initial response: Sukin: <> Tep: <> Sukin: So let us talk first about "Experience". Seeing, hearing and touching for example are experiences. Do you agree? Thinking, feeling, attachment, ignorance, kindness and aversion, these too are experiences. Do you agree? All the above are "realities". Do you agree? That was my first step. ;-) Metta, Sukin #91042 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 7:55 pm Subject: Re: Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. visitorfromt... Dear Sukin, - I hope your trip back home with the family is going to be safe and enjoyable. Thank you for letting me know of your plan for the next three weeks. >Suk: Perhaps I was overreacting to your suggestion for "definitions" and the fact that you asked to be given for so many of them at one time. But I won't make any more excuses, only you will have to then allow me to talk about one concept at a time…? T: Fortunately, the idea to discuss just one concept (or at most two concepts) at a time is practical and I like it. ...................................... >Sukin: So let us talk first about "Experience". >Seeing, hearing and touching for example are experiences. Do you agree? Thinking, feeling, attachment, ignorance, kindness and aversion, these too are experiences. Do you agree? T: I agree that a person experiences objects through contact with eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. The items of the second group can be mental objects; so, yes, they can be experienced. >Suk: All the above are "realities". Do you agree? T: Yes, I do. Any experiences that can be shared with, related to, or repeated by other people are realities, that's my understanding. Direct experiences through the six doors are realities without any question. All kusala & akusala dhammas are realities. The thirty-two body parts and in-and-out breaths are realities too. ........................................ >Suk: That was my first step. ;-) T: Thanks for the decision to do it; well-begin is half done. Tep === #91043 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 8:55 pm Subject: What is a phenomenon? bhikkhu0 A quite good Dhamma Friend asked: Question: What is a phenomenon? Answer: A phenomenon is an experienced state! An appearance, an observed event, a conscious occasion! Whether experienced as a mental object: Ex: An experienced thought, idea, mood etc. or experienced as a physical object: Ex: An experienced sight, sound, smell, taste or touch; the experience is just a (mental) ‘state’, which is what in Buddhism is called a ‘Dhamma’ = a passing moment of conscious time… As such: Everything (in world) is just a mental state… No thing exists as a ‘thing’, until it is observed by experience… !!! Before and after this direct observation, this ‘thing’ remains just an ‘idea’ or ‘’imagination’ … Not quite as real anymore… They once asked the Buddha: What is the Cause of a Phenomenon? He replied: Attention (manasikara) is the cause of any phenomenon! When Attention is present, the Phenomenon appears. When Attention is absent, the Phenomenon disappears. For further study: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Causes_of_Emergence.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/b_f/dhamma.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon The Phenomenon ‘Match’ occurring momentarily by experienced observation… Not ‘out there’ as ‘substance’, but in here in mind, as just a passing mental state… Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) #91044 From: "colette" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 9:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See ksheri3 Hi Sarah, What originally caught my eye was your cognition that there was a "tag-team" match being put against you. Always willing to have a little fun I read on but reached your conclusion here where I felt I had to step up to the plate and contribute. > S: I never consider any of the discussions or anything I write in terms of "victory" or "loss". colette: I Luv it! Excellent thoughts! Don't these thoughts of a "victory" or "loss" completely illuminate the Buddhas conceptions on "clinging"? The mind of the unwary is consumed by the fear of loss and the addiction of a win. Retributive Justice is Valueless against the profits of winning, no? ------------------------------------ > t 's very far away from ever being my purpose in writing, colette: sorry about deleting "that's" from the above sentence. The beauty of interacting with others and allowing others to interact with you or me, is why I write. I love expressing my inner concepts and showing people that living is so much fun, which is why I enjoy what's in my head! ------------------------------------------------- but I know you're kidding, here. I agree that it's not a "so-central issue", which is why I said I was happy to leave it colette: another EXACTLY point! Don't sweat the small stuff. Fine, bicker or debate all we want but if killing a horse once isn't good enough and the issue or horse has to continually be desicrated, then it's nothing greater than a mental illness and/or obsession. Anyway, I'm not a single dimensional being. I could be a diamond in the rough, or a diamond on the sole of somebodies shoes. Paul Simon, I guess, would have to be the judge of that, no? ----------------------------------- and hadn't rushed to respond before. But you had asked for non- commentarial support and on a very stormy day in Hong Kong with Jon away, colette: What West-Pack sailor doesn't dream of getting Hong Kong as a port of call? Any and Every Thing is for sale in Hong Kong from what I am led to believe. This being the case, I'm sure that you must see the humor in your statement that it's a very stormy day in Hong Kong! What day is ever NOT STORMY in Hong Kong? Hong Kong takes some of the wildest rides on their Hang Seng stock exchange. "Gargantuen" mood swings from positive one day to negative the next and that sets the tone for the European stock exchanges and American stock exchanges. ------------------------------------------- I eventually got round to checking. colette: play hockey much? OR is that checking in the form of what Wimpy was known to say: "For a hamburger today I will gladly pay you Tuesday" or something like that. But, cartoon characters were always known for being stuffed into a shirt (stuffed shirt) and having their script written for them. ;)) -------------------------------- That's all:-)). > colette: Surely you jest! toodles, colette #91045 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 11:56 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. kenhowardau Hi Howard (and Sarah), ------ <. . .> H: > > 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. ------- How would you define "direct experience?" I would say, whenever citta takes a reality as its object there is "direct experience" of that object. Sense-rupas can be experienced at sense doors only after they have arisen and before they have fallen away. After that, they are sometimes experienced by mind door cittas - even though they have just fallen away. Similarly, *namas* from recent moments of consciousness can also be experienced at the mind door - even though they have just fallen away. I believe Buddhas can experience namas and rupas that have fallen away aeons in the past. They can even experience dhammas that have not yet arisen! So that (AIUI) is the Abhidhamma definition of direct experience. It depends purely on a dhamma's being taken as an object of citta. Only sometimes does it involve the simultaneous arising and falling away of citta and object. The various conventional notions of direct experience are different. They are concepts of concepts experiencing other concepts. Conventionally speaking direct experience can mean many things. Sometimes it means physical or visual (etc) contact, but there can be purely mental direct experiences too, can't there? For example, there can be direct experience of anxiety, or of love, or of a football match . . That's about as close as I can come to a definition. So I am asking your opinion: what does direct experience conventionally mean? Would you agree that it has a different meaning in terms of ultimate reality? Ken H #91046 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 12:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood jonoabb Hi Tep and Alex > Alex: And all that time Sarah hasn't given a clear, step-by-step > outline of the path as DSG'ers see it? > > .................. > > T: Plain and simple, if I already were satisfied with her reply, > would I have kept on asking more questions during these years? > > The answer is a "No", of course. To my understanding - and I think this has been explained at length and often - there is no such thing as a step-by-step method or practice for the development of the path. So no matter how many times you ask for this, there's never going to be a "satisfactory" reply ;-)) The path is developed by the gradual accrual of the understanding of dhammas, and this is not something that occurs by virtue of the "doing" of specific things. Jon #91047 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 1:57 am Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav jonoabb Hi Phil > Ph: Well, perhaps I am not ambitious but I don't aspire to confirm > the deep teachings in daily life, that's all. There is always something to be understood at some level or other, appropriate to our present understanding. To think of the whole of the teaching on satipatthana as being too deep for us to even consider, outside a "practice" context, would be a mistake, I believe. > The introduction to > Nina's "Conditions" has a paragraph that says that if doubt the > Buddha taught the paccayas because people point out that they are > not taught in the suttanta, we must confirm their truth in our > lives. And I just don't get that. I don't know the passage you have in mind, but I would certainly agree with Nina that the teaching on conditions is something that will be confirmed (to some degree or other) as and when insight is developed. > I am very eager to study the > paccayas for some reason, but want to keep it at the level of > theory. I don't know how we could confirm paccayas, but I am open to > learning. (I'm happy to report that Scott has agreed to have a go at > Skyping on the topic once in a while...looking forward to it. Great news, you two. Looking forward to a report on the first session. > I don't know, Jon. The only thing I have confirmed in daily life > (or when meditating in the way meditating is usally confirmed) has > to do with concepts. I behave in certain ways less often than > before, but still behave in the undesirable ways I aspire to avoid > on occasion as well. If it happened before, it will happen again, > but either more often or less often. That's the only kind of thing I > have confirmed, personally. To my understanding, the development of awareness/insight is not really about matters of behaviour, so I'd be inclined not to relate the two. > Well, annica is confirmed of course, and > dukkha, ok. I haven't been able to confirm anatta yet. That's the > main reason I want to study conditionality, I think it will help lay > the groundword for confirming anatta... I think you'll find it very rewarding. Jon #91048 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 2:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidh... sarahprocter... Hi TG, I just seem to have lost a reply to you in mid-flow, so this may be rather brief. --- On Mon, 6/10/08, TGrand458@... wrote: TG: Above you said -- S. "like a wave, there is no time at which they are 'static' or 'stable' in the sense of being unchanging." This statement contracts your statement above and the notion of " a Dhamma" have three "sub-moments" including "presence." Here's a list of some of the illogic of your position... ... S: Don't get hung up on the word 'presence'! Just like the phases of the wave, the 'presence' of the citta is at whichever sub-moment or sub-phase it's at. Or think of the chariot wheel touching the ground and extend the simile to the sub-moments of cittas: Visuddhimagga, VII, 39: "As to the shortness of the moment: in the ultimate sense the life moment of living beings is extremely short, being only as much as the occurence of a single conscious moment. Just as a chariot wheel, when it is rolling, rolls [that is touches the ground] only on one point of [the circumference of] its tyre, and, when it is at rest, rests only on one point, so too, the life of living beings lasts only for a single conscious moment. As for the suggestions of 'altering the Buddha's teaching' and so on, let me assure you that I'm just the faithful scribe reporting what I read in the texts, including the Abhidhamma and commentaries. I find their explanations of the suttas very feasible, whereas you find your own more feasible. Fair enough! Yes, they do support the understanding of "ultimate realities with their own characteristics". An understanding that seeing consciousness, for example, does not have its own characteristic makes no sense to me. The same for visible object, hearing, thinking, like or any other dhamma. Without understanding these particular characteristics, I really don't believe the general characteristics will ever be known. As Howard tactfully wrote to Connie the other day, I'd also like to say that "we're quite far apart as regards our perspective on the Dhamma, but I appreciate your replying, and I admire your writing. You have an excellent way with words:-)" ;-);-). (thx, Howard!) I will get round to the conjurer's trick and mirage in due course. What are a few weeks in samsara? How about now? Isn't atta-view the mirage, the idea of 'computer' or 'tree', for example? Isn't the mirage created by sanna? Metta, Sarah ========== #91049 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 2:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jonothan did not go on a meth-amphetamine fuelled robbing spree sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Sun, 5/10/08, Phil wrote: >.... He said that the understanding came naturally to them, perhpas by virtue of being Japanese but that doesn't synch with my experience.... ... S: No, nor with mine. Better to be 'realistic' than 'optimistic' in this regard as KS said to me a long time ago. Delighted to hear that you and Scott are 'hooking up'. Looking forward to the weekly reports from you both (hint, hint!!). Metta, Sarah ======== #91050 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 2:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jonothan did not go on a meth-amphetamine fuelled robbing spree sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Sun, 5/10/08, Phil wrote: >S:...I talked a little about the importance of the mind-states, friendliness and kindness, all the kinds of topics you'd approve of. That was as far as it went. >Ph: Yes, it's nice the way an opportunity can come up to share the teaching just a little... I find myself doing it a wee little bit more at work, with students. The other days I talked about the 5 daily recollections on ageing,illness, death, separation from the beloved and ownership of kamma and people were responsive. Needless to say I talked about the conventional understanding, not the momentary rising and falling away of nama and rupa that is "momentary death." ... S: Even so, there's nothing like having a captive audience! I miss my students in this regard, on a regular basis one can come out with all sorts of words of wisdom without a TG accusing one of twisting the Buddha's words, lol:-)) Anyway, it's all good and we never know when some little seeds may lead to a greater interest as you might say. We just say/do what we can according to the circumstances (including our own understanding). I think it always comes back to our own understanding - the rest then takes care of itself without any expectations. I like the way you 'cut off' to go buy the dinner ingredients ....that's so daily life and just as many opportunities for sati and panna to arise when 'cutting off' as when discussing the Dhamma. Time to cook? Metta, Sarah ======= #91051 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 2:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See sarahprocter... Hi Colette, (& Howard), Thx for kindly following the discussions. This thread has taken many twists and turns. I forget how we got onto bhavanga cittas. --- On Mon, 6/10/08, colette wrote: >What originally caught my eye was your cognition that there was a "tag-team" match being put against you. ... S: I think that was Howard's cognition... ... >Always willing to have a little fun I read on but reached your conclusion here where I felt I had to step up to the plate and contribute. > S: I never consider any of the discussions or anything I write in terms of "victory" or "loss". >colette: I Luv it! Excellent thoughts! >Don't these thoughts of a "victory" or "loss" completely illuminate the Buddhas conceptions on "clinging"? The mind of the unwary is consumed by the fear of loss and the addiction of a win. Retributive Justice is Valueless against the profits of winning, no? ... S: Thank you, I luv your thoughts here as well! The worldly conditions that we're so susceptible to, but which the Buddha's teachings help us to see for what they are - yes, more mirages! ... ------------ --------- --------- ------ >S:> t 's very far away from ever being my purpose in writing, >colette: sorry about deleting "that's" from the above sentence. The beauty of interacting with others and allowing others to interact with you or me, is why I write. I love expressing my inner concepts and showing people that living is so much fun, which is why I enjoy what's in my head! ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- - .... S: Again, we're on the same page (and delete whatever you like or dislike in my messages!). I also enjoy the interactions and find it a great opportunity to share and discuss the Dhamma. I also learn a lot from writing and having others question/disagree with what I say. ... S:> but I know you're kidding, here. I agree that it's not a "so-central issue", which is why I said I was happy to leave it >colette: another EXACTLY point! Don't sweat the small stuff. Fine, bicker or debate all we want but if killing a horse once isn't good enough and the issue or horse has to continually be desicrated, then it's nothing greater than a mental illness and/or obsession. ... S: > Exactly! It was also Howard's point, so we're all happily of 'one mind' here, for a change:-). ... ------------ --------- --------- ----- S:> and hadn't rushed to respond before. But you had asked for non- commentarial support and on a very stormy day in Hong Kong with Jon away, >colette: What West-Pack sailor doesn't dream of getting Hong Kong as a port of call? Any and Every Thing is for sale in Hong Kong from what I am led to believe. This being the case, I'm sure that you must see the humor in your statement that it's a very stormy day in Hong Kong! What day is ever NOT STORMY in Hong Kong? Hong Kong takes some of the wildest rides on their Hang Seng stock exchange. "Gargantuen" mood swings from positive one day to negative the next and that sets the tone for the European stock exchanges and American stock exchanges. ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---- S: You got it! New York sneezes and we come down with violent phenumonia. So you can imagine what it's like here today... Super stormy....And where are the real storms? In the mind, of course.....Raging with lobha, dosa and moha (greed, hatred and delusion). Always good to put it in perspective. ... S:>That's all:-)). > >colette: Surely you jest! ... S: and that's fun too, sometimes:-). Glad you're well and having fun as you consider the wisdom in the Buddha's teachings, Colette. Metta, Sarah ========= #91052 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 5, 2008 11:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is a phenomenon? upasaka_howard Dear Bhante (Bhikkhu Samahita) - In a message dated 10/6/2008 12:45:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bhikkhu0@... writes: A quite good Dhamma Friend asked: Question: What is a phenomenon? Answer: A phenomenon is an experienced state! An appearance, an observed event, a conscious occasion! Whether experienced as a mental object: Ex: An experienced thought, idea, mood etc. or experienced as a physical object: Ex: An experienced sight, sound, smell, taste or touch; the experience is just a (mental) ‘state’, which is what in Buddhism is called a ‘Dhamma’ = a passing moment of conscious time… As such: Everything (in world) is just a mental state… No thing exists as a ‘thing’, until it is observed by experience… !!! Before and after this direct observation, this ‘thing’ remains just an ‘idea ’ or ‘’imagination’ … Not quite as real anymore… They once asked the Buddha: What is the Cause of a Phenomenon? He replied: Attention (manasikara) is the cause of any phenomenon! When Attention is present, the Phenomenon appears. When Attention is absent, the Phenomenon disappears. =============================== Bhante, I also view the Dhamma as, among other things, a phenomenalist teaching. But, in all honesty, not all suttas can easily be interpreted as pointing in that direction. I would much appreciate knowing the sutta source/sources for the foregoing quoted question-answer material that *does* point in that direction. Thank you, Sir. With metta, Howard #91053 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 12:15 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/6/2008 2:56:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard (and Sarah), ------ <. . .> H: > > 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. ------- How would you define "direct experience?" I would say, whenever citta takes a reality as its object there is "direct experience" of that object. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I would define it as being conscious of a curently existing phenomenon present to the sense door via which it is known, and not a representation of it or memory of it. For example, when warmth is felt or a sight is seen, that is direct experience, but when a recently felt warmth or recently seen sight is recalled, that is not a direct experience of that object. ------------------------------------------------ Sense-rupas can be experienced at sense doors only after they have arisen and before they have fallen away. After that, they are sometimes experienced by mind door cittas - even though they have just fallen away. Similarly, *namas* from recent moments of consciousness can also be experienced at the mind door - even though they have just fallen away. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: What has fallen away does not exist, and can only be recalled. ---------------------------------------------- I believe Buddhas can experience namas and rupas that have fallen away aeons in the past. They can even experience dhammas that have not yet arisen! ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Believe whatever you wish, Ken. (You have my permission! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------ So that (AIUI) is the Abhidhamma definition of direct experience. It depends purely on a dhamma's being taken as an object of citta. Only sometimes does it involve the simultaneous arising and falling away of citta and object. The various conventional notions of direct experience are different. They are concepts of concepts experiencing other concepts. Conventionally speaking direct experience can mean many things. Sometimes it means physical or visual (etc) contact, but there can be purely mental direct experiences too, can't there? For example, there can be direct experience of anxiety, or of love, or of a football match . . That's about as close as I can come to a definition. So I am asking your opinion: what does direct experience conventionally mean? Would you agree that it has a different meaning in terms of ultimate reality? --------------------------------------------- Howard: I gave my answer above. It may be right or wrong, but there is nothing more or less conventional about it than your assertion of belief. ---------------------------------------------- Ken H ========================== With metta, Howard #91054 From: "rinzeee" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 4:16 am Subject: Re: Looping & repeating things in DO rinzeee Dear Alex & Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: Alex: 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 Rinze: I didn't quite get what you mean here, Alex. Feeling is feeling. Feeling that is unpleasant, is still unpleasant "as in nama", and is still unpleasant in "sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despaire". But various kinds of feeling are described - of 3 kinds, of 5 kinds and so on. The intonations given by different people may change. Perhaps this is what you mean in a) & c), This difference is in the perception not the feeling. Therefore, eating spicy food is delicious to some while it is hot to others. Doing sitting meditation for an hour in one stretch, is pleasant to some while painful to others. In the final analysis however, all feelings is to be seen as Suffering (dukkha). That is when one's perception is developed to subtler levels, as one sees all Sankhara as Anicca. Alex: In Dependent Origination, whats the difference between: 2 a) Phassa in nama b) phassa in phassa Rinze: From Mahanidana Sutta DN 15 "'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how, from name- and-form as a requisite condition comes contact. If the qualities, traits, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation- contact with regard to the form-group (the physical body) be discerned?" "No, lord." "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance- contact with regard to the name-group be discerned?" "No, lord." "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?" "No, lord." "Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for contact, i.e., name-and-form." DN- 15 Here contact is of two kinds, Designation contact and Resistance contact. Contact is contact, whether by a Puthujjana or an Arahant. But in a Puthujjana there is `self' contact, ie, things appear as mine, I am and myself. But not so with an Arahant. This could be that the `Designation' and `Resistance' contact of an Arahant is not distorted. Alex: In Dependent Origination, whats the difference between: 3 a) Taint of sensuality b) Craving or Clinging 4 a) Taint of Becoming b) Becoming (bhava) link Rinze: Taint is given in the same Sutta as, Sensual Desire, as in 3b, Becoming as in 4b and Ignorance as in 5b. I don't understand what you mean here by the `difference'. But it could be a matter of `degree', say `craving' of a Sakadagami as compared to a Sotapanna or Puthujjana. Taint of Becoming - here it includes all planes. kamabhava, rupabhava and arupabhava. Depending on the individual, an Anagami for instance, the bhava link is to the Pure Abodes only, Sotapanna and Sakadagami the Bhava link is not to woefull states, Putthujjana includes woefull states also. Alex: In Dependent Origination, whats the difference between: 5 a) Ignorance b) taint of ignorance Rinze: The way I understand this pair is that, `Taint of Ignorance' is a deep rooted ignorance than just `Ignorance'. To attain the state of `Neither perception nor non perception' requires Wisdom. But Uddaka Ramaputra, having attained this state, mistook this for `Nibbana'. As some do construe, in these times that, all the Buddhas are there in some plane, eternally! Likeswise, these two (Ignorance / Taints of Ignorance) constitute a `closed loop', one conditioning the other, which is difficult to break out from. I would consider, a class of individuals, who do not know, and do not know that they do not know, would fall into this `loop'. Alex: 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 Rinze: I am sure that you must have understood how complicated the issue here is, the 12 factored Paticca Samuppada (PS), from Avijja, Sankhara and so on to jati, jara, marana, dukkha. As noted by you <-> each feeding and conditioning one another, criss-crossing among these 12 factors, it is so complicated to straighten out! Lord Buddha says that, the Dhamma is Akalika, it is not subject to Time. Hence I would think that the 12 factored PS is a cyclic event (note: we have to consider `Time' since we cannot imagine a `timeless' event), operating on the `conscious level', feeding and conditioning the bhavanga citta, in a `sub-conscious level'. Therefore this cyclic action of PS is ever present, hence perpetually happening. To illustrate my point, let us examine a real life situation NOW (conscious level). Say we hear the call of a crow, from outside the window. Lord Buddha says, in the heard there is only the heard. Which means there is only the `cawing' sound that we hear. If that is so, where did this idea of a `crow', that is crying, arise? In our minds. How? In the past, our parents and teachers have taught these things to us. We learn and bear them in our minds, as Sankharas. And now, we reap what we sow. The hearing and knowing, that it's a crow that is crying, is as a result of past Kamma. So, avijja paccaya sankhara, sankhara paccaya vinnana, through ignorance, we have memory (sankhara), which is the cause for us to recognize the sound of the bird. As we recognize the sound, and the image of the bird is in our minds, vinnana paccaya namarupa, and namarupa paccaya salayatana of the PS cycle has also taken effect. Salayatana paccaya passa, passa paccaya vedana is also effective, since we heard the bird and some feeling, have been aroused, within us. Therefore the first 7 factors of PS, has already functioned within us, upto this point. The outcome of the remaining 5 factors, will depend on how we respond, to the next factor, Tanha or craving. At this stage, if we respond with Ayoniso Manasikara, ie.to say, we get irritated and go out to chase away the crow, since it is disturbing, then PS cycle will carry on, as usual, and we will continue to bear the crow in our mind, into the future as well. Because the I factor comes into play, `I am hearing a crow', `I am irritated', `I must chase it away' and so on. But, if we act with Yoniso Manasikara, and consider the heard, as only the heard, and remain with equanimity, at the Feeling stage of the PS cycle, then, even though PS will continue, its outcome is progressively reduced, till the idea of the `crow', does not matter anymore. Perhaps, this is easy to imagine, if you consider, how we control our rising anger. You would note that, even before we could express our anger, in words and deeds, we are able to control it. The angry mind, is already determined by, Feeling & Perception, they are Citta Sankahara. But since we don't think and ponder over it, which is the determination of speech, our anger will not find expression in words. It will gradually fade off, like the dying echoes, bounced off a cliff. The angry mind, is founded on the first 7 factors of PS, this cannot be stopped, it's past kamma. But this mind can be conditioned, how not to be angry in the future, so that the birth of an `angry mind', will not arise in future. This is founded, on the following 5 factors of PS, from Tanha onwards. You will note that I have switched the image from `The Crow' to an `Angry Mind' towards the latter part of the illustration. This is because the Dhamma stands out well for the latter part of PS with `angry mind' as image. You must understand that the Dhamma cannot be comprehended in an abstract sense, but has to be understood in an actual situation, for that is when the Dhamma comes into `play'. We always find ourselves, in a situation, and how we face that situation, is what Dhamma is all about. Metta Rinze. #91055 From: "rinzeee" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 4:44 am Subject: Re: Rupa rinzeee Dear Tep If you understood the discussion on Rupa so far, I'd like to continue from there on to nama and consciousness as well. To understand the Dhamma it is better to start from some point that you understand, and to continue from there onwards, point by point, and thus build up Understanding. So far we discussed that the Rupa external to the body, is just these 4 elements, Pathavi, Apo, Tejo and Vayo, and that this body is also of that same 4 elements. Metta Rinze --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > > 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'! > > #91057 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 7:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood visitorfromt... Hello Jon (and Alex), - Good to see you back. > > Alex: And all that time Sarah hasn't given a clear, step-by-step > > outline of the path as DSG'ers see it? > > > > .................. > > > > T: Plain and simple, if I already were satisfied with her reply, > > would I have kept on asking more questions during these years? > > > > The answer is a "No", of course. > Jon: > To my understanding - and I think this has been explained at length and often - there is no such thing as a step-by-step method or practice for the development of the path. > > So no matter how many times you ask for this, there's never going to be a "satisfactory" reply ;-)) > .......... T: The term "step-by-step" in Alex's question simply means description of what Nina and Sarah call 'understanding now" of namas & rupas; it is an instruction of "how to" develop such understanding. If there is no such description/instruction, or it is not clear, then nobody knows what they are talking about. Chapter XVIII in the Vism is an example of such step-by-step outline or description or instruction (whatever you want to call it). In all teachings since your kindergarten class, the most basic subject has to be taught first and to be followed by another building block of knowledge (idea, concept, information, facts, etc.) such that understanding of a certain subject matter can be gradually developed in the student. You build almost anything from the foundation up. If that is not step by step, then what is it? FYI, Tep === #91058 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 8:32 am Subject: Re: Looping & repeating things in DO visitorfromt... Hello Rinze (and Alex), - Alex is usually asking for more and more detail from the suttas. If you are confused by his questions, like I am oftentimes, just ask him to reformulate his questions! Plain and simple. The three basic vedanas (dukkha-vedana, sukha-vedana, adukkha-m-sukha vedana) are found in the majority of suttas. Depending on different perspectives, one may see 2, 3, 5, 6, 18, 36 or 108 vedanas [SN 36.22 Atthasata Sutta]. "And which are the two feelings? Physical & mental. These are the two feelings. "And which are the three feelings? A feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain, a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. These are the three feelings. "And which are the five feelings? The pleasure-faculty, the pain- faculty, the happiness-faculty, the distress-faculty, the equanimity- faculty. These are the five feelings. "And which are the six feelings? A feeling born of eye-contact, a feeling born of ear-contact... nose-contact... tongue-contact... body- contact... intellect-contact. These are the six feelings. "And which are the eighteen feelings? Six happiness-explorations, six distress-explorations, six equanimity-explorations. These are the eighteen feelings. "And which are the thirty-six feelings? Six kinds of household happiness & six kinds of renunciation happiness; six kinds of household distress & six kinds of renunciation distress; six kinds of household equanimity & six kinds of renunciation equanimity. These are the thirty-six feelings. "And which are the one hundred and eight feelings? Thirty-six past feelings, thirty-six future feelings, and thirty-six present feelings. These are the one hundred and eight feelings. "And this, monks, is the one-hundred-and-eight exposition that is a Dhamma exposition." .......................................... But, you're right that 'vedana is vedana'. Even the 2 feelings stem from the basic 3 feelings. Tep === #91059 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 5:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidh... TGrand458@... Hi Sarah In a message dated 10/6/2008 3:05:35 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi TG, I just seem to have lost a reply to you in mid-flow, so this may be rather brief. --- On Mon, 6/10/08, _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) <_TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) > wrote: TG: Above you said -- S. "like a wave, there is no time at which they are 'static' or 'stable' in the sense of being unchanging." This statement contracts your statement above and the notion of " a Dhamma" have three "sub-moments" including "presence." Here's a list of some of the illogic of your position... ... S: Don't get hung up on the word 'presence'! Just like the phases of the wave, the 'presence' of the citta is at whichever sub-moment or sub-phase it's at. Or think of the chariot wheel touching the ground and extend the simile to the sub-moments of cittas: ........................................................ TG: Then what you are saying is that the three "sub-moments" are just for conceptual reference and there really is no such thing in truth? I'll buy that, but I'm doubtful you will. Will you? :-) .......................................................... Visuddhimagga, VII, 39: "As to the shortness of the moment: in the ultimate sense the life moment of living beings is extremely short, being only as much as the occurence of a single conscious moment. Just as a chariot wheel, when it is rolling, rolls [that is touches the ground] only on one point of [the circumference of] its tyre, and, when it is at rest, rests only on one point, so too, the life of living beings lasts only for a single conscious moment. ................................................................. TG: Sorry, this chariot wheel analogy upholds my analogical view of phenomena, not your "on/off" view of "dhammas." You seem to think a "moment" is its own thing...and "dhammas" have their own characteristics. Whereas I think the comments like the one above are designed to give a certain "sense" of what phenomena are doing, some folks have taken the mere wording far too literally by reading too much into words like "moments.". It seems this type of analogy has been wildly over-interpreted to mean that phenomena has a pixeliated type of existence with moments and sub-moments, etc. This is just the language. No matter how small a moment, it can always be cut in half. Unless there is no time interval at all in which case there is absolute zero experience. So this silly vaguery about how long a citta or rupa lasts is just that...silly. And really, what's the point in this silliness ... I see it as having next to zero bearing of overcoming craving. The only reason to be obsessed on this stuff IMO is that it upholds your "ultimate realities" view of "dhammas." Its THAT view which gets us so far off the track of the Buddha's teaching...with these moments, sub-moments, own characteristics, etc ....................................................... As for the suggestions of 'altering the Buddha's teaching' and so on, let me assure you that I'm just the faithful scribe reporting what I read in the texts, .......................................................... TG: You ARE NOT a faithful scribe when you write abhidhamma commentarial stuff and CLAIM it is the Buddha's teaching. No ma'am! It WOULD be faithful if you wrote exactly what it is...a commentarial interpretation of the Buddha's teaching. Not only do you skew the facts when you claim the Buddha taught the content of commentarial material, you are not even aware that you do it apparently...even though I've pointed it out repeatedly. ................................................................ including the Abhidhamma and commentaries. I find their explanations of the suttas very feasible, whereas you find your own more feasible. ................................................................... TG: I find the content in the Suttas to be the feasible explanations of what the Buddha taught. Oh course, both you and I must "digest" that content and make it work in our minds. I believe am aware of when my interpretations are not what is denoted in the Suttas. I don't think I make the claim that my interpretations are the Buddha's teachings. I might very well claim that something I believe is the meaning of the Buddha' teachings...but NOT that IT IS the Buddha's teachings. That's the difference. You do make that claim repeatedly. You claim commentarial material IS the Buddha's teachings. THAT"S where I have the problem. That's why you draw harsher retorts by me...because that isn't right. .................................................................. Fair enough! Yes, they do support the understanding of "ultimate realities with their own characteristics"Fa ............................................................... TG: The Suttas say nothing about it. Imagine ... 10,000 pages of Suttas and not a single word about what YOU CLAIM is the most important thing the Buddha taught. AMAZING! And it doesn't seem to even give you pause??? LOL Oh well. ............................................................. #91060 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 9:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood truth_aerator Hi Jon, Tep and all, >Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep and Alex > > > Alex: And all that time Sarah hasn't given a clear, step-by-step > > outline of the path as DSG'ers see it? > > > > .................. > > > > T: Plain and simple, if I already were satisfied with her reply, > > would I have kept on asking more questions during these years? > > > > The answer is a "No", of course. > > To my understanding - and I think this has been explained at length >and often - there is no such thing as a step-by-step method or >practice for the development of the path. > > So no matter how many times you ask for this, there's never going >to be a "satisfactory" reply ;-)) > > The path is developed by the gradual accrual of the understanding >of dhammas, and this is not something that occurs by virtue of >the "doing" of specific things. > > Jon > "Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in the same way this discipline of Dhamma (dhamma-vinaya) has a gradual training (anupubbasikkhâ), a gradual performance (anupubbakiriyâ) , a gradual progression (anupubbapatipadâ), with a penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch." -Udana, 5.5 (John Ireland translation?) Dear Jon, please describe anupubbasikkhaa, anupubbakiriyaa, anupubbapatipadaa " It seems that we are talking about different traditions! Best wishes, #91061 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 9:30 am Subject: Re: Looping & repeating things in DO truth_aerator Dear Tep, Rinze, and all, >--- "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > > Hello Rinze (and Alex), - > > Alex is usually asking for more and more detail from the suttas. > >The three basic vedanas (dukkha-vedana, sukha-vedana, adukkha-m-sukha > vedana) are found in the majority of suttas. Depending on different > perspectives, one may see 2, 3, 5, 6, 18, 36 or 108 vedanas [SN 36.22 > Atthasata Sutta]. I know that feeling can be describe in 2 or 108 ways. What I would like to clarify and dig deeper into is the significance of having at least 3 vedana's happening in DO in different contexts. Vedana in Nama, Vedana in Vedana and vedana felt in the last link (suffering, sorrow, etc). Does the DO go from more general Vedana of Nama, to more specific Vedana (of 3 kinds) from sense-contact, to the most specific 1st Noble Truth of Suffering (birth, aging, & death. Pain grief sorrow and the whol 9 yards)? Best wishes, #91062 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 5:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidh... TGrand458@... Hi Sarah Accidentally fired off the other post without finishing... In a message dated 10/6/2008 3:05:35 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: I will get round to the conjurer's trick and mirage in due course. What are a few weeks in samsara? How about now? Isn't atta-view the mirage, the idea of 'computer' or 'tree', for example? Isn't the mirage created by sanna? Metta, Sarah ....................................................... TG: This laissez-faire attitude certainly doesn't reflect the Buddha's teaching does it? The Buddha would have said more like -- practice as it your hair was on fire. Meditate now, take advantage of this rare opportunity. And yet you say -- "What are a few weeks in samsara"? Is this another example of how the commentaries have let you down? ;-) Now, I thought you might try to pull a "fast one" by answering way off point on the mirage reference. LOL NO NO NO! The Buddha said the THE FIVE AGGREGATES were like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick, empty, hollow, coreless, and insubstantial. Please deal with question at hand and the BUDDHA'S Teaching. Please do not be a eel-wriggler by answering off point and trying the shelve the subject. Seriously, you are doing some major eel-wriggling here. And I've made the question as clear as a bell, over and over, and over again. Man, I'm a getting to be a mean bastard. LOL TG #91063 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 9:40 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Sarah and Alex, Regarding: A: "And all that time Sarah hasn't given a clear, step-by-step outline of the path as DSG'ers see it?" Scott: From Kaeng Krajaan, January 10, 2007, Afternoon Session #3: Kh. Sujin: "...But before that there are conditions for seeing to arise, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking. They're all phenonena which are naama and ruupa. That's all. And no one can condition any reality at all. For instance, who can make up hardness here? No one." Question: "So you have choice?" Kh. Sujin: "No 'you.'" Question: "No, I mean 'a person' has choice?" Kh. Sujin: "No 'person' either. There can be thinking. Thinking can think different ways. But its only thinking. Not seeing. Not hearing. Not sleeping" Question: "But then action is not the result of choice?" Kh. Sujin: "Without citta there cannot be any movement of the body or speech at all." Question: "Well, this is a point of view that is a chosen point of view." Kh. Sujin: "Thinking." Question: "When I am not conscious - perhaps when I'm dreaming or I'm asleep - can I take right action? Can I do good?" Kh. Sujin: "Okay, can seeing do anything, like good deeds?" Question: "Well, seeing is just a sense." Kh. Sujin: "So,what conditions action and speech? Now there is action, movement..." Question: "I have an intrinsic sense, when I'm conscious, that I have choice of how I choose to think and what I choose to do. And my point of view, which is the larger framework of my understanding of the moment, is what influences my choice." Kh. Sujin: "So you take thinking for 'I'..." Question: "Yes. Unfortunately, its very much invested in 'I'." Kh. Sujin: "...and while you are fast asleep, is there 'you'? Because there is no thinking." Question: "When I'm fast asleep there no thinking...when I'm in a deep sleep. Yes. I'm not sure where I am when I'm there." Kh. Sujin: "But when you wake up, coming to life again, when there is no sleeping moment, can there be moment of seeing again when one wakes up? So one can see that we think that its 'I' who can do this or that..." Sincerely, Scott. #91064 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 9:46 am Subject: Re: Looping & repeating things in DO truth_aerator Dear Rinze, and all, > Rinze: > I didn't quite get what you mean here, Alex. Feeling is feeling. What I asked was the significance (if any) of certain things being repeated in DO (Dependent Origination PS). Are the 3 vedanas different in some way (ex: from most general "ability to feel" to most specific "feeling of 1st NT"?) > In the final analysis however, all feelings is to be seen as > Suffering (dukkha). That is when one's perception is developed to > subtler levels, as one sees all Sankhara as Anicca. All things are anicca-dukkha-anatta. > Here contact is of two kinds, Designation contact and Resistance > contact. What about Ignorance-Contact? > > Contact is contact, whether by a Puthujjana or an Arahant. But in a > Puthujjana there is `self' contact, ie, things appear as mine, I am > and myself. But not so with an Arahant. This could be that > the `Designation' and `Resistance' contact of an Arahant is not > distorted. Arahants do NOT have DO. Thus they do not have Resistence "contact". Heck if I understand correctly, they don't have vinnana-nama-rupa of DO. See Khemaka sutta for example with the "The Tathagata isn't apprehended as existing here and now..." > Lord Buddha says that, the Dhamma is Akalika, it is not subject to > Time. Hence I would think that the 12 factored PS is a cyclic event I am strongly leaning to the opinion that DO is momentary rather than 3 or 2 life one (although the momentary DO happened in the past and will happen in the future, unless on becomes Arahant). > So, avijja paccaya sankhara, sankhara paccaya vinnana, through > ignorance, we have memory (sankhara), which is the cause for us to > recognize the sound of the bird. As we recognize the sound, and the > image of the bird is in our minds, vinnana paccaya namarupa, and > namarupa paccaya salayatana of the PS cycle has also taken effect. > Salayatana paccaya passa, passa paccaya vedana is also effective, > since we heard the bird and some feeling, have been aroused, within > us. Therefore the first 7 factors of PS, has already functioned > within us, upto this point. The outcome of the remaining 5 factors, > will depend on how we respond, to the next factor, Tanha or craving. > > At this stage, if we respond with Ayoniso Manasikara, ie.to say, we > get irritated and go out to chase away the crow, since it is > disturbing, then PS cycle will carry on, as usual, and we will > continue to bear the crow in our mind, into the future as well. > Because the I factor comes into play, `I am hearing a crow', `I am > irritated', `I must chase it away' and so on. > > But, if we act with Yoniso Manasikara, and consider the heard, as > only the heard, and remain with equanimity, at the Feeling stage of > the PS cycle, then, even though PS will continue, its outcome is > progressively reduced, till the idea of the `crow', does not matter > anymore. > > Perhaps, this is easy to imagine, if you consider, how we control > our rising anger. You would note that, even before we could express > our anger, in words and deeds, we are able to control it. The angry > mind, is already determined by, Feeling & Perception, they are Citta > Sankahara. But since we don't think and ponder over it, which is the > determination of speech, our anger will not find expression in > words. It will gradually fade off, like the dying echoes, bounced > off a cliff. > > The angry mind, is founded on the first 7 factors of PS, this cannot > be stopped, it's past kamma. But this mind can be conditioned, how > not to be angry in the future, so that the birth of an `angry mind', > will not arise in future. This is founded, on the following 5 > factors of PS, from Tanha onwards. > > You will note that I have switched the image from `The Crow' to > an `Angry Mind' towards the latter part of the illustration. This is > because the Dhamma stands out well for the latter part of PS > with `angry mind' as image. > The above is how I understant "free" (or semi free) will in Buddhism. >You must understand that the Dhamma cannot be comprehended in an >abstract sense, but has to be understood in an actual situation, >for that is when the Dhamma comes into `play'. We always find >ourselves, in a situation, and how we face that situation, is what >Dhamma is all about. > > Metta > Rinze. This is why I like suttas so much. Less abstracted telephone book dry classifications. #91065 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 9:59 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood truth_aerator Dear Scott, Thanks for this. If you have any more, please post them. > "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Sarah and Alex, > > Regarding: > > > Scott: From Kaeng Krajaan, January 10, 2007, Afternoon Session #3: > > Kh. Sujin: "...But before that there are conditions for seeing to > arise, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking. They're all > phenonena which are naama and ruupa. That's all. And no one can > condition any reality at all. For instance, who can make up >hardness here? No one." > Question: "So you have choice?" > Kh. Sujin: "No 'you.'" > Question: "No, I mean 'a person' has choice?" > Kh. Sujin: "No 'person' either. There can be thinking. Thinking >can think different ways. But its only thinking. Not seeing. Not > hearing. Not sleeping" [I started to write a rebutal, but on the 2nd thought I've erased it. Lets just say it is going to be easy to totally refute her illogical and highly suspicious sophisms.] Lets compare and contrast KS and the Buddha. -------------------Self-acting. --------------------------------- "This Master Gotama, is my avowal, this my view: There is no self- agency; no other-agency' Never, brahmin, have I seen or heard of such an avowal, such a view, Pray, how can one step onwards, how can one step back, yet say: There is no self-agency; there is no other-agency? "What think you, brahman, is there such a thing as initiative? 'Yes, sir." 'That being so, are men known to initiate?' 'Yes, sir' 'Well brahman, since there is initiative and men are known to initiate, this is among men the self-agency, this is other agency. What think you, brahmanm is there such a thing as stepping away... stepping forth... halting... standing... and stepping toward anything?' 'Yes, sir' 'That being so, are men known to do all these things?' 'Yes, sir." 'Well, brahmin, since there are such a thing as stepping away, stepping forth and the rest, and men are known to do these things, this is among men the self-agency, this is other-agency. Never, brahman, have I seen or heard of such an avowal, such a view as yours. Pray, how can one step onwards, step back and say: There is no self-agency, there is no other-agency? AN text iii, 355, VI, IV, 38 viii (38). ============= Best wishes, #91066 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 10:19 am Subject: Re: Rupa visitorfromt... Hello Rinze (Jon, Sarah), - I think it makes sense to discuss the Dhamma only when 1) someone has a question that s/he doesn't know the answer (and sincerely wants to find out) AND 2) a right answer is available. We should not start a discussion when there is no question asked. We should not attempt to answer a question for which no right answer is available. Even when there is a right answer available to answer a question, still some problems (argument, bickering, slandering) may result if the answer is not accepted by the questioner. You wrote: > Dear Tep > > If you understood the discussion on Rupa so far, I'd like to > continue from there on to nama and consciousness as well. T: But I sincerely do not think I have a question now to ask about "nama and consciousness", Rinze. Maybe later. >Rinze: > To understand the Dhamma it is better to start from some point that > you understand, and to continue from there onwards, point by point, > and thus build up Understanding. > T: A step-by-step approach? :-)) Yes, that teaching should work well for a beginner who has not yet formed a fixed, biased viewpoint : "Only this is right". Thank you anyway. Tep === #91067 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 10:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is a phenomenon? truth_aerator Hi Howard, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Dear Bhante (Bhikkhu Samahita) - > They once asked the Buddha: > What is the Cause of a Phenomenon? > > He replied: > Attention (manasikara) is the cause of any phenomenon! > When Attention is present, the Phenomenon appears. > When Attention is absent, the Phenomenon disappears. > =============================== >Bhante, I also view the Dhamma as, among other things, a >phenomenalist teaching. But, in all honesty, not all suttas can >easily be interpreted as pointing in that direction. I would much >appreciate knowing the sutta source/sources for the foregoing >quoted question-answer material that *does* point in > that direction. Thank you, Sir. > > With metta, > Howard Some time ago I've read that the cause of 'dhamma' is attention. I think it was in the Sattipatthana samyutta. To me what this says is that either word dhamma meant drastically different things in different contexts, or that Sattipatthana on "Dhamma" was investigation of the teachings, NOT the physical world. It is not hard to explain how attention may lead to 5 hindrances or 7 enlightment factors, but how can attention lead to Dhamma-particles, is much harder to explain, unless one almost adopts idealist perspective. Some evidence points that the 4th Satipatthana was about 5 hindrances & 7 enlightment factors. Best wishes, #91068 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 10:40 am Subject: Re: Looping & repeating things in DO visitorfromt... Hi Alex and Rinze, - >: "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Rinze, and all, > >I know that feeling can be describe in 2 or 108 ways. What I would like to clarify and dig deeper into is the significance of having at least 3 vedana's happening in DO in different contexts. Vedana in Nama, Vedana in Vedana and vedana felt in the last link (suffering, sorrow, etc). Does the DO go from more general Vedana of Nama, to more specific Vedana (of 3 kinds) from sense-contact, to the most specific 1st Noble Truth of Suffering (birth, aging, & death. Pain grief sorrow and the whol 9 yards)? ...................... T: I am sorry that it still isn't clear to me what 'vedana in Nama' is. Let me guess. Do you refer to the vedana as a cetasika dhamma in the group of five cetasikas that defines 'nama' in MN 9 (for instance)? If you say 'yes', then I'll say this is the 3 basic feelings: sukkha, dukkha, and the neutral feeling (a-dukkha-m-sukkha vedana). Same meaning for 'vedananupassana' or contemplation of vedana in and of itself as explained in DN 22. Yes, this is the same vedana as the DO link : 'vedana paccaya tanha'. The pain, grief, sorrow, etc. in the last "link", however, describe 'dukkha' or suffering as defined by the First Noble Truth. Rinze probably disagrees with me ! Tep === #91069 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 10:40 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "...If you have any more, please post them..." Scott: You can listen at: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ Sincerely, Scott. #91070 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 11:01 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood visitorfromt... Dear Scott (Alex and others), - I know well that Scottie never emails me anything without a clear purpose in mind. > >A: "And all that time Sarah hasn't given a clear, step-by-step > >outline of the path as DSG'ers see it?" > > Scott: From Kaeng Krajaan, January 10, 2007, Afternoon Session #3: > > Kh. Sujin: "...But before that there are conditions for seeing to > arise, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking. They're all > phenonena which are naama and ruupa. That's all. And no one can > condition any reality at all. For instance, who can make up hardness > here? No one." > Question: "So you have choice?" > Kh. Sujin: "No 'you.'" > Question: "No, I mean 'a person' has choice?" > Kh. Sujin: "No 'person' either. There can be thinking. > Thinking can > think different ways. But its only thinking. Not seeing. Not > hearing. Not sleeping" > Question: "But then action is not the result of choice?" > Kh. Sujin: "Without citta there cannot be any movement of the > body or > speech at all." > Question: "Well, this is a point of view that is a chosen point > of view." > Kh. Sujin: "Thinking." > Question: "When I am not conscious - perhaps when I'm dreaming > or I'm > asleep - can I take right action? Can I do good?" > Kh. Sujin: "Okay, can seeing do anything, like good deeds?" > Question: "Well, seeing is just a sense." > Kh. Sujin: "So,what conditions action and speech? Now there is > action, movement..." > Question: "I have an intrinsic sense, when I'm conscious, > that I have > choice of how I choose to think and what I choose to do. > And my point > of view, which is the larger framework of my understanding of the > moment, is what influences my choice." > Kh. Sujin: "So you take thinking for 'I'..." > Question: "Yes. Unfortunately, its very much invested in 'I'." > Kh. Sujin: "...and while you are fast asleep, is there 'you'? > Because there is no thinking." > Question: "When I'm fast asleep there no thinking...when I'm in > a deep sleep. Yes. I'm not sure where I am when I'm there." > Kh. Sujin: "But when you wake up, coming to life again, when > there is no sleeping moment, can there be moment of seeing again > when one wakes up? So one can see that we think that its 'I' > who can do this or that..." > ............................ Perhaps you see "the answer" to Alex's question in Khun Sujin's answering-through-questioning-back-style of dialogue with an admirably calm and respectful listener (hard to find one in America). If my guessing is right, then please tell me what "the answer" to Alex's question is -- in your own words. Thanks. Tep === #91071 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 11:29 am Subject: Re: Looping & repeating things in DO visitorfromt... Dear Rinze and Alex, - Recollecting what you told me once that "there is no person" anywhere, I have a question for you after the following quote. >Rinze: >You must understand that the Dhamma cannot be comprehended in an abstract sense, but has to be understood in an actual situation, for that is when the Dhamma comes into `play'. T: Does the abstract sense of the Dhamma correspond to the "ultimate sense" or what else? How do you understand the paramattha dhammas in "an actual situation"? Tep === #91072 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 12:54 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood scottduncan2 Dear Alex, This sutta has been discussed a number of times: Attakaariisutta.m "This Master Gotama, is my avowal, this my view: There is no self- agency; no other-agency'..." "aha~nhi, bho gotama, eva.mvaadii eva.mdi.t.thi â€" 'natthi attakaaro, natthi parakaaro' ti." Scott: This is the view of Makkhali Gosaala (Saama~n~naphala Sutta): "Great king, there is no cause or condition for the defilement of beings; beings are defiled without any cause or condition. There is no cause or condition for the purification of beings; beings are purified without cause or condition. There is no self-determination, no determination by others, no personal determination. There is no power, no energy, no personal strength, no personal fortitude. All sentient beings, all creatures, all souls, are helpless, powerless, devoid of energy..." "...'natthi mahaaraaja hetu natthi paccayo sattaana.m saṃkilesaaya, ahetaa apaccayaa sattaa sa.mkilissanti. Natthi hetu, natthi paccayo sattaana.m visuddhiyaa, ahetuu apaccayaa sattaa visujjhanti. Natthi attakaare, natthi parakaare, natthi purisakaare, natthi bala.m, natthi viiriya.m, natthi purisathaamo, natthi purisaparakkamo..." Scott: In his translation of the Saama~n~naphala sutta, Bh. Bodhi includes the commentarial position on these views. The Commentary states: "'Self-determination' (attakaara) is the kamma beings do on their own, by reason of which they attain the state of a god, the state of Maara, the state of a Brahmaa, the enlightenment of a disciple (of a Buddha). This he rejects. "'Determination by others' (parakaara) is the exhortation and instruction given by others, in dependence upon which all people, except for the Great Beings (i.e., the bodhisattas), in the human state up to arahatship. He rejects the determination of others. Thus this fool strikes a blow at the Wheel of the Conqueror." "'No personal determination' (purisakaara): he rejects the personal determination through which beings attain the aforementioned kinds of success. 'No power' (bala): he denies that beings can establish themselves upon their own power, arouse their energy, attain success..." Scott: You continue to misunderstand Kh. Sujin's view to be identical to that of Makkhali Gosaala. He asserts that there is no 'energy' (viriya); she says no such thing. While remaining confused regarding the existence of self - a belief in the existence of 'trees' for example - and despite your protestations to the contrary, you are unable to see that, while there is no self, there is still 'energy' (viriya). You persist in conflating self with impersonal dhammas such as 'energy'. You continue to misunderstand anatta and then, when a statement is made regarding 'no-self' therefore 'no-control', you can't seem to imagine that, without a self, there can still be anything that can happen. You seem to still think, despite statements to the contrary, that it is 'I' who does something. While there is no 'I' who does anything, or has 'energy' to do anything, there is still 'energy' and 'doing'. You can listen to Kh. Sujin yourself. She's not my teacher (the Dhamma is) but I like to listen and read her; I've not yet seen her to be in contradiction with the ti-pi.taka. Let's stop here, Alex. We've been around the block before. Sincerely, Scott. #91073 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 1:01 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Regarding: Kh. Sujin: "...But before that there are conditions for seeing to arise, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking. They're all phenonena which are naama and ruupa. That's all. And no one can condition any reality at all. For instance, who can make up hardness here? No one." Question: "So you have choice?" Kh. Sujin: "No 'you.'" Question: "No, I mean 'a person' has choice?" Kh. Sujin: "No 'person' either. There can be thinking. Thinking can think different ways. But its only thinking. Not seeing. Not hearing. Not sleeping" Question: "But then action is not the result of choice?" Kh. Sujin: "Without citta there cannot be any movement of the body or speech at all." Question: "Well, this is a point of view that is a chosen point of view." Kh. Sujin: "Thinking." Question: "When I am not conscious - perhaps when I'm dreaming or I'm asleep - can I take right action? Can I do good?" Kh. Sujin: "Okay, can seeing do anything, like good deeds?" Question: "Well, seeing is just a sense." Kh. Sujin: "So,what conditions action and speech? Now there is action, movement..." Question: "I have an intrinsic sense, when I'm conscious, that I have choice of how I choose to think and what I choose to do. And my point of view, which is the larger framework of my understanding of the moment, is what influences my choice." Kh. Sujin: "So you take thinking for 'I'..." Question: "Yes. Unfortunately, its very much invested in 'I'." Kh. Sujin: "...and while you are fast asleep, is there 'you'? Because there is no thinking." Question: "When I'm fast asleep there no thinking...when I'm in a deep sleep. Yes. I'm not sure where I am when I'm there." Kh. Sujin: "But when you wake up, coming to life again, when there is no sleeping moment, can there be moment of seeing again when one wakes up? So one can see that we think that its 'I' who can do this or that..." T: "...then please tell me what 'the answer' to Alex's question is -- in your own words." Scott: The above shows why there is no need to ask whether anyone who considers Kh. Sujin to have any relevance would entertain the notion that there is a cookbook recipe for enlightenment. I agree with Jon's earlier response to you. Sincerely, Scott. #91074 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 9:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is a phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/6/2008 1:36:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Dear Bhante (Bhikkhu Samahita) - > They once asked the Buddha: > What is the Cause of a Phenomenon? > > He replied: > Attention (manasikara) is the cause of any phenomenon! > When Attention is present, the Phenomenon appears. > When Attention is absent, the Phenomenon disappears. > =============================== >Bhante, I also view the Dhamma as, among other things, a >phenomenalist teaching. But, in all honesty, not all suttas can >easily be interpreted as pointing in that direction. I would much >appreciate knowing the sutta source/sources for the foregoing >quoted question-answer material that *does* point in > that direction. Thank you, Sir. > > With metta, > Howard Some time ago I've read that the cause of 'dhamma' is attention. I think it was in the Sattipatthana samyutta. To me what this says is that either word dhamma meant drastically different things in different contexts, or that Sattipatthana on "Dhamma" was investigation of the teachings, NOT the physical world. It is not hard to explain how attention may lead to 5 hindrances or 7 enlightment factors, but how can attention lead to Dhamma-particles, is much harder to explain, unless one almost adopts idealist perspective. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: A few points, Alex: 1) I'm hoping that Ven. Samahita will be able to provide a sutta source, 2) Not idealist, but phenomenalist - there is a subtle difference, and 3) PLEASE don't say "dhamma-particles"! To do so is to accept the discrete, self-existent, pluralistic-realism view of dhammas not at all implied by the use of the term 'dhamma' in the suttas. ------------------------------------------------------ Some evidence points that the 4th Satipatthana was about 5 hindrances & 7 enlightment factors. Best wishes, ================================ With metta, Howard #91075 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 1:26 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood visitorfromt... Dear Scott (Alex, Jon), - Although there is a permanent failure in our communication, that is possibly due to a missing Buddha-logic chip in the system, I still am trying to re-transmit the communication signal #91057 below. > T: "...then please tell me what 'the answer' to Alex's question is > -- in your own words." > > Scott: The above shows why there is no need to ask whether > anyone who considers Kh. Sujin to have any relevance would > entertain the notion that there is a cookbook recipe > for enlightenment. I agree with Jon's > earlier response to you. > T (# 91057): The term "step-by-step" in Alex's question simply means description of what Nina and Sarah call "understanding now" of namas & rupas; it is an instruction of "how to" develop such understanding. If there is no such description/instruction, or it is not clear, then nobody knows what they are talking about. Chapter XVIII in the Vism is an example of such step-by-step outline or description or instruction (whatever you want to call it). In all teachings since your kindergarten class, the most basic subject has to be taught first and to be followed by another building block of knowledge (idea, concept, information, facts, etc.) such that understanding of a certain subject matter can be gradually developed in the student. You build almost anything from the foundation up. If that is not step by step, then what is it? .................. Tep === #91076 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 2:39 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. kenhowardau Hi Howard, ----- <. . .> KH: > > How would you define "direct experience?" I would say, whenever citta takes a reality as its object there is "direct experience" of that object. > > H: > I would define it as being conscious of a curently existing phenomenon present to the sense door via which it is known, and not a representation of it or memory of it. For example, when warmth is felt or a sight is seen, that is direct experience, but when a recently felt warmth or recently seen sight is recalled, that is not a direct experience of that object. ----- I suppose that could be OK in the case of sense rupas. Sense rupas would be directly 'experienceable' (pardon my English) and therefore potentially directly knowable. (Although only in sense-door vithis; not in mind-door vithis.) However, all other rupas and all namas would be experienceable only indirectly! Knowledge of them would be at best theoretical. I can't believe that was what the Buddha meant when he invited people to 'see for themselves (ehi-passika).' -------------- KH: > > Sense-rupas can be experienced at sense doors only after they have arisen and before they have fallen away. After that, they are sometimes experienced by mind door cittas - even though they have just fallen away. Similarly, *namas* from recent moments of consciousness can also be experienced at the mind door - even though they have just fallen away. > > H: > What has fallen away does not exist, and can only be recalled. > KH: > > I believe Buddhas can experience namas and rupas that have fallen away aeons in the past. They can even experience dhammas that have not yet arisen! > > H: > Believe whatever you wish, Ken. (You have my permission! ;-)) -------------- :-) Belief (ditthi) is a conditioned dhamma. Whether it is right or wrong, it arises by conditions only, never at will. But I digress, we are referring here to the conventional sense of belief, and yes, it is my belief (with your permission) that the Buddha was omniscient - capable of knowing everything. I think the texts confirm that, don't they? -------------------- <. . .> KH: > > So I am asking your opinion: what does direct experience conventionally mean? Would you agree that it has a different meaning in terms of ultimate reality? > > H: > I gave my answer above. It may be right or wrong, but there is nothing more or less conventional about it than your assertion of belief. ---------------------- I hope you will see one day that your answer was hopelessly flawed. By your reckoning namas (and the majority of rupas) could never be directly experienced. BTW, I don't know why you used the word 'recalled.' Surely, nothing can be recalled to consciousness without having first been directly experienced by consciousness. And you say in the case of namas (etc) that never happens! As for my second question, you seem to have missed the point altogether. I was not saying that your understanding must be inferior to mine. I was referring to the fact that the Buddha's teaching surpassed the beliefs of ordinary, uninstructed people. "Direct experience" in the context of conditioned dhammas must be different from "direct experience" in other - conventional - contexts. I was merely asking what you thought that difference might have been. Ken H #91077 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 11:13 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/6/2008 5:40:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, ----- <. . .> KH: > > How would you define "direct experience?" I would say, whenever citta takes a reality as its object there is "direct experience" of that object. > > H: > I would define it as being conscious of a curently existing phenomenon present to the sense door via which it is known, and not a representation of it or memory of it. For example, when warmth is felt or a sight is seen, that is direct experience, but when a recently felt warmth or recently seen sight is recalled, that is not a direct experience of that object. ----- I suppose that could be OK in the case of sense rupas. Sense rupas would be directly 'experienceable' (pardon my English) and therefore potentially directly knowable. (Although only in sense-door vithis; not in mind-door vithis.) However, all other rupas and all namas would be experienceable only indirectly! Knowledge of them would be at best theoretical. I can't believe that was what the Buddha meant when he invited people to 'see for themselves (ehi-passika).' ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know what are the rupas that are not sense rupas. But you make a good point with regard to namas. I still think my definition is okay, but I agree that namas are not directly experienced as objects. However, I do think that there is a kind of knowing that I call "participative knowing" and that is not knowing as an object. For example, when we feel warmth as pleasant, that very "feeling as pleasant" is directly experienced (through the mind door, but not as an object, because the object is the warmth). ----------------------------------------------- -------------- KH: > > Sense-rupas can be experienced at sense doors only after they have arisen and before they have fallen away. After that, they are sometimes experienced by mind door cittas - even though they have just fallen away. Similarly, *namas* from recent moments of consciousness can also be experienced at the mind door - even though they have just fallen away. > > H: > What has fallen away does not exist, and can only be recalled. > KH: > > I believe Buddhas can experience namas and rupas that have fallen away aeons in the past. They can even experience dhammas that have not yet arisen! > > H: > Believe whatever you wish, Ken. (You have my permission! ;-)) -------------- :-) Belief (ditthi) is a conditioned dhamma. Whether it is right or wrong, it arises by conditions only, never at will. ------------------------------------------- Howard: My experience is that you are correct as regards belief - it doesn't occur due to willing it, but willing does result in (a multitude of) other conditions that can eventually lead to belief. ---------------------------------------------- But I digress, we are referring here to the conventional sense of belief, and yes, it is my belief (with your permission) that the Buddha was omniscient - capable of knowing everything. I think the texts confirm that, don't they? -------------------- <. . .> KH: > > So I am asking your opinion: what does direct experience conventionally mean? Would you agree that it has a different meaning in terms of ultimate reality? > > H: > I gave my answer above. It may be right or wrong, but there is nothing more or less conventional about it than your assertion of belief. ---------------------- I hope you will see one day that your answer was hopelessly flawed. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm sure you do! ;-)) --------------------------------------------- By your reckoning namas (and the majority of rupas) could never be directly experienced. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Please see what I wrote above in this regard. ----------------------------------------------- BTW, I don't know why you used the word 'recalled.' Surely, nothing can be recalled to consciousness without having first been directly experienced by consciousness. And you say in the case of namas (etc) that never happens! -------------------------------------------------- Howard: As an object, you are correct. But namas can be known participatively and later recalled. ---------------------------------------------- As for my second question, you seem to have missed the point altogether. I was not saying that your understanding must be inferior to mine. I was referring to the fact that the Buddha's teaching surpassed the beliefs of ordinary, uninstructed people. "Direct experience" in the context of conditioned dhammas must be different from "direct experience" in other - conventional - contexts. I was merely asking what you thought that difference might have been. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Ok! :-) ----------------------------------------- Ken H ============================ With metta, Howard /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #91078 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 1:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is a phenomenon? TGrand458@... Hi Howard and Alex In a message dated 10/6/2008 2:07:41 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: A few points, Alex: 1) I'm hoping that Ven. Samahita will be able to provide a sutta source, 2) Not idealist, but phenomenalist - there is a subtle difference, and 3) PLEASE don't say "dhamma-particles"difference, and 3) PLEASE do the discrete, self-existent, pluralistic-the discrete, self-existent, pl implied by the use of the term 'dhamma' in the suttas. ------------------------------------------------------ TG: My sense was that Alex was not adopting the term, but being dismissive of it. For my take, as always, I view the Buddha's intent about phenomena well expressed over some 10,000 pages of Sutta material. In it he deal unabashedly with physicality and mentality, both separately and in conjunction. I see no sense of any warning against regarding physicality as something that stands regardless of mentality, or vice versa. I would see the debate about it as unnecessary except for those who would drive home a view one way or the other. As for myself, I very much think that the Buddha's teaching has strong phenomenology aspects to it. I also think it has science aspects. I also think it has psychological aspects. I also think it has religious aspects. Yet I would not say it is any ONE of these things. It is a combination of these things...and perhaps some others. :-) TG #91079 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 5:44 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood truth_aerator Dear Scott, >--- , "Scott" > > Dear Alex, > > This sutta has been discussed a number of times: > > Attakaariisutta.m > > "This Master Gotama, is my avowal, this my view: There is no self- > agency; no other-agency'..." > > "aha~nhi, bho gotama, eva.mvaadii eva.mdi.t.thi â€" 'natthi >attakaaro, natthi parakaaro' ti." > > Scott: This is the view of Makkhali Gosaala (Saama~n~naphala >Sutta): How do you know that? Besides, the Buddha did know about Makkhali Gosala. > "Great king, there is no cause or condition for the defilement of > beings; beings are defiled without any cause or condition. There is > no cause or condition for the purification of beings; beings are > purified without cause or condition. We are not talking about the above. > "'Self-determination' (attakaara) is the kamma beings do on their >own, by reason of which they attain the state of a god, the state of >Maara, the state of a Brahmaa, the enlightenment of a disciple (of a >Buddha). This he rejects. But in the case of Attakara sutta it was talking about Well, brahmin, since there are such a thing as stepping away, stepping forth and the rest, and men are known to do these things, this is among men the self-agency, this is other-agency. Never, brahman, have I seen or heard of such an avowal, such a view as yours. Pray, how can one step onwards, step back and say: There is no self-agency, there is no other-agency? > "'Determination by others' (parakaara) is the exhortation and > instruction given by others, in dependence upon which all people, > except for the Great Beings (i.e., the bodhisattas), in the human > state up to arahatship. He rejects the determination of others. Thus > this fool strikes a blow at the Wheel of the Conqueror." > > "'No personal determination' (purisakaara): he rejects the personal > determination through which beings attain the aforementioned kinds of > success. 'No power' (bala): he denies that beings can establish > themselves upon their own power, arouse their energy, attain success..." > > Scott: You continue to misunderstand Kh. Sujin's view to be >identical to that of Makkhali Gosaala. He asserts that there is >no 'energy' (viriya); she says no such thing. He denies free will, free choice, perhaps. She seems to reject attakara, or the willful development of energy (or other factors). I hope I've misunderstood her. I've posted that sutta to make sure we keep those things in perspective. Otherwise KS's interpretation seems to be too much of the fatalistic variety of the "future is set in stone as there is nobody to change anything, etc etc." I hope we agree that there IS initiative. Best wishes, #91080 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 5:48 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T (# 91057): "The term 'step-by-step' in Alex's question simply means description of what Nina and Sarah call 'understanding now' of namas & rupas; it is an instruction of 'how to' develop such understanding. If there is no such description/instruction, or it is not clear, then nobody knows what they are talking about. Chapter XVIII in the Vism is an example of such step-by-step outline or description or instruction (whatever you want to call it)." Scott: Given that I completely concur, as you no doubt are aware, with the following, from Visuddhimagga XIX, 20, I'm afraid that I'm not able to accept that there is a 'how to' manual written to show how to go about 'achieving' any sort of development by a 'step-by-step' process: "In all kinds of becoming, generation, destiny, station, and abode there appears only mentality-materiality, which occurs by means of linking cause with fruit. He sees no doer over and above the doing, no experiencer of the result over and above the occurence of the result. But he sees clearly with right understanding that the wise say 'doer' when there is doing and 'experiencer' when there is experiencing simply as a mode of common usage. "There is no doer of a deed, Or one who reaps the deeds result; Phenomena alone flow on - No other view than this is right..." Scott: Might it not be better to assume that the above strongly stated axiom underscores all that is written by the author of Visuddhimagga - that there would be some internal consistency? I think that the Dhamma is internally consistent. Why then proceed to take the descriptions as 'how to' manuals? There is a difference between a conventional description of the order of things and the view that these things can happen if one simply takes the steps in order like baking a cake. Perhaps this is not what you imply, though. T: "In all teachings since your kindergarten class, the most basic subject has to be taught first and to be followed by another building block of knowledge (idea, concept, information, facts, etc.) such that understanding of a certain subject matter can be gradually developed in the student." Scott: Of course, Tep, but this doesn't hold when it come to 'understanding now', as it seems to me. 'Understanding now' is a function of pa~n~naa, and cannot be willed or controlled. I think that pa~n~naa develops little by little until it can experience the Path. You've appeared to state otherwise before. Now you suggest: T: "You build almost anything from the foundation up. If that is not step by step, then what is it?" Scott: Yes things go from less to more, I suppose. Here, are you reversing your position that denies 'mundane' wisdom and the notion of development from weak to strong? When last we discussed, and elsewhere, the view you hold suggests that wisdom springs from nowhere at the level of the Path, without earlier development - that the worldling cannot experience any level of pa~n~naa. Can you clarify please? Sincerely, Scott. #91081 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 4:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is a phenomenon? upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Alex) - In a message dated 10/6/2008 8:41:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard and Alex In a message dated 10/6/2008 2:07:41 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: A few points, Alex: 1) I'm hoping that Ven. Samahita will be able to provide a sutta source, 2) Not idealist, but phenomenalist - there is a subtle difference, and 3) PLEASE don't say "dhamma-particles"difference, and 3) PLEASE do the discrete, self-existent, pluralistic-the discrete, self-existent, pl implied by the use of the term 'dhamma' in the suttas. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: TG, I'm sure I did say *something*, but it certainly wasn't as you have quoted above! LOL! --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ TG: My sense was that Alex was not adopting the term, but being dismissive of it. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Possibly so, though I haven't seen that term before. With metta, Howard #91082 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 8:29 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood visitorfromt... Dear Scott (Jon, Alex), - I think I have detected in your email a faint signal of willingness to listen and exchange understandings. Forget about "step-by-step instruction/description" if these are bad words that irk you. I believe that Alex is a fair and sincere person like me in the sense that we sincerely want to know how to develop 'understanding of namas & rupas now' through seeing a visible object, etc. I certainly do not ask for you and Jon or Sarah to write me some " 'how to' manuals" like you jokingly said. But IF you can tell me, using easy-to-understand-words, about the realization of "understanding of namas & rupas now" by you (or citta) in every-day living in such a way that I can experience them too in the present moment, I will truly appreciate it. [But I do not have a high hope.] >Scott (quoting Vism XIX, 20): "In all kinds of becoming, generation, destiny, station, and abode there appears only mentality-materiality, which occurs by means of linking cause with fruit. He sees no doer over and above the doing, no experiencer of the result over and above the occurence of the result. But he sees clearly with right understanding that the wise say 'doer' when there is doing and 'experiencer' when there is experiencing simply as a mode of common usage. "There is no doer of a deed, Or one who reaps the deeds result; Phenomena alone flow on - No other view than this is right..." T: There is a person in the above quote who is possessed of a wonderful pa~n~naa that enables him to "see clearly with right understanding that the wise say 'doer' when there is doing and 'experiencer' ". But I know myself that I am not such a wise man who is possessed of such "right understanding" here & now. So, what would it take for me to turn into such a WISE man? If there is nothing to do or practice, then how does the right understanding arise in me, not just in theory or in a dream? In the earlier post I described the mundane development of understanding in a diligent student as follows. >T: "In all teachings since your kindergarten class, the most basic subject has to be taught first and to be followed by another building block of knowledge (idea, concept, information, facts, etc.) such that understanding of a certain subject matter can be gradually developed in the student." Scott: Of course, Tep, but this doesn't hold when it come to 'understanding now', as it seems to me. 'Understanding now' is a function of pa~n~naa, and cannot be willed or controlled. T: The student develops understanding of a subject matter by giving attention and will power to study it with diligence everyday. Attention, zeal and effort are nutriments for profitable understanding to develop over time. Students who have no will to study hard do not make good grades. This understanding is not pa~n~naa of the path. If 'understanding now' is not pa~n~naa of the path, then what makes it different than a student's understanding of a subject matter (say, Calculus)? ...................................... Scott: I think that pa~n~naa develops little by little until it can experience the Path. You've appeared to state otherwise before. Now you suggest: >T: "You build almost anything from the foundation up. If that is not step by step, then what is it?" Scott: Yes things go from less to more, I suppose. Here, are you reversing your position that denies 'mundane' wisdom and the notion of development from weak to strong? When last we discussed, and elsewhere, the view you hold suggests that wisdom springs from nowhere at the level of the Path, without earlier development - that the worldling cannot experience any level of pa~n~naa. Can you clarify please? T: We can go back to review the source again, if you want. It is an unfortunate misunderstanding in Jon and you that Tep "suggests that wisdom springs from nowhere at the level of the Path, without earlier development - that the worldling cannot experience any level of pa~n~naa". No, I have not suggested that wisdom springs from nowhere at the level of the Path, without earlier development. But I maintain that pa~n~naa, according to the Abhidhamma-pitaka, is a magga dhamma that is not a 'mundane' understanding. Understanding continues to develop on the path until Arahatta-phala. But you have not given me a reply about how you develop 'understanding nama-rupa now' yet. Whether you are following Khun Sujin or not doesn't matter much, just answer the question unless you do not know the answer. Also I will understand if you tell me that it just sprang from nowhere one day up to the level of the Path, without an earlier development -- like flying to the Heaven in a dream. Tep === #91083 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Oct 6, 2008 9:01 pm Subject: I scream, U scream, We all scream for Ice-Cream! bhikkhu0 Friends: From external Element to internal Urge to silly Search: There is the element of eye-sensitivity, the element of visual form, these induce the element of visual consciousness. The coincidence of these three, is eye Contact... In dependence on this element of visual-sensitivity, there arises eye-contact. In dependence on eye-contact, there arises a feeling, born of eye-contact. In dependence on feeling born of eye-contact, there arises instant craving... In dependence on the element of visual form, there arises perception. In dependence on this visual experience, tendency towards a form arises. In dependence on this inclination, desire for particular visible forms arises. In dependence on this specific desire, a fever for these specific forms arises. In dependence on this fever for form, search after these certain forms arises. In dependence on this search for form, reaching out, acquisition & panic clinging to a manifold of forms, comes into being... Such is the arising of this entire mass of ever frustrated suffering... Similarly with the pairs of ear & sound, nose & smell, tongue & taste, body & touch, mind & mental states and their respective specific kinds of consciousness. This search, this urge, this compulsive drive, is caused by that craving ! Craving that was born from feeling, which was arised from contact… Any Craving causes Suffering... Right here and now, later and much later... Right there at greeting Contact, is this Suffering therefore born... Right there at avoiding Contact, is this Suffering therefore left... I Scream, You Scream, We all Scream for Ice-Cream... (Jim Jarmusch in film down by law) 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 Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ... #91084 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 12:38 am Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav jonoabb Hi Phil > 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.... I would say that much depends on the individual concerned. But I'm not sure why you keep referring to the hypothetical "newcomer". Are you suggesting that is the level at which talks and books should be pitched? As far as A. Sujin's judgement on explaining Dhamma to newcomers is concerned, I've witnessed many, many instances of this and I can only say she has an uncanny knack of putting things in a way that appears to be appreciated by the person concerned. Jon #91085 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 12:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings jonoabb Hi Alex In my earlier reply to this post I omitted to address the last part about jhana as the "path to awakening" according to MN36. > > > After all, "Jhana is path to awakening" - MN36 > > ""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. Do you remember the sutta, discussed on the list recently, about the 4 ways of attaining enlightenment? Well the passage you have quoted here is a reference to one of those ways: tranquillity in tandem with insight. This if I remember correctly refers to the case of insight with the (just fallen-away) jhana citta as object. It is not a case of jhana itself being the path. > Please no excuse of "That applies only to Buddha and his chief > disciples". I don't believe in "exclusive path". There is just one The path of insight with jhana as basis is not an "exclusive path"; it is, however, a path that requires great skill in jhana as well as great panna. > 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. Regardless of how often this particular path is mentioned in the texts, it's the path of those with more highly developed levels of mundane jhana and panna, as I understand it. The path of the so- called sukha-vipassaka (insight only) does not require the same levels of mundane attainment. Jon #91086 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 12:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings jonoabb Hi Alex Thanks for the follow-up to your earlier post. > Part 2 > > 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. But are you suggesting that tranquillity here means *only* jhana? Surely not. So how does this support your argument for jhana as a prerequisite? Jon #91087 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 1:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood sarahprocter... Dear Scott, Alex & all, Thank you Scott for sharing and transcribing the (excellent) extract from the discussion. >A: "...If you have any more, please post them..." >Scott: You can listen at: http://www.dhammastudygroup. org/ ..... S: Yes, why not share one yourself, Alex? Here's an extract from an older discussion (1980) with K.Sujin which caught my attention as being relevant to this discussion on 'method': **** A friend was talking about some particular blissful experiences he used to have before and was trying to understand them. Perhaps they were jhana? .... KS: Nothing is better than having the understanding of reality which appears now so that one cannot be distracted by desire. .... Friend: There was a certain kind of practice that I was doing when those states arose as against now when there's basically no so-called practice. Does that mean that kind of practice would condition those states of mind? .... KS: When one thinks of practising, it's like following a method, a systematic method. Can that be the samma sati, the right awareness which is not self, which is conditioned, which is aware anytime whenever it arises? If it does not arise, nothing can perform its function of being aware. So it's not 'I' who will follow this system or this practice, but it's the samma sati, the awareensss itself which arises, performing its function of being aware. That's all. And it's not pa~n~naa either. If the object is not this moment, it's useless. It's desire wanting to experience some other thing, not knowing anything about seeing and hearing which is very natural, which is conditioned. It's not 'I' who wants to see, but there are conditions for seeing to see now. It's not I who wants to hear, but there is hearing. It is conditioned. So it shouldn't be like "I want to go somewhere and have more understanding of reality over there not here." Realities are the same, hearing here and hearing in the forest. If they are the same, it depends on pa~n~naa. If pa~n~naa can see it here, pa~n~naa can see it anywhere. pa~n~naa can understand it anywhere. It doesn't mean that pa~n~naa can understand it there, but pa~n~naa cannot understand it here. If there's still the idea of here and there, how can it be pa~n~naa or a reality which is not self? ***** Metta, Sarah ========= #91088 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 3:26 am Subject: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... Dear TG & all, Thank you for patiently waiting for my further comments on mirages. >TG:....And as usual, no comments about the terms I keep listing that the Buddha DID actually use to describe the Five Aggregates.. .shall I try again??? -- Void, empty, hollow, alien, like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick. -- How about dealing with the actual terms the Buddha used... …. S: Yes, the khandhas are void, empty of a self or substance. SN 22:95 A Lump of Foam, (Bodhi transl.)" "Suppose, bhikkhus, that in the last month of the hot season, at high noon, a shimmering mirage appears. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in a mirage? So too, bhikkhus, whatever kind of perception there is , whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in perception?" "Spk: Perception is like a mirage (marichikaa) in the sense that it is insubstantial, for one cannot grasp a mirage to drink or bathe or fill a pitcher. As a mirage deceives the multitude, so does perception, which entices people with the idea that the colourful object is beautiful, pleasurable, and permanent." It is the wrong view accompanying sanna that takes the khandhas for self, for a being or a person that is compared to the perception of a mirage. If we travel in the desert, we may see a mirage of water, but when we approach it, the mirage disappears and there is no water to be found. So like the mirage, the wrong view, wrong perception and ignorance deceive us by taking the khandhas for atta (self), for a person or something substantial. This doesn't mean than sa~n~naa (perception) has no characteristic. It has the characteristic of perceiving the object, marking it in such a way that we are deceived by the 'mirage'. When it comes to sankhara khandha, the commentary makes it very clear that each mental factor has a particular characteristic: "Spk: As a plaintain trunk (kadalikkhandha) is an assemblage of many sheaths, each with its own characteristic, so the aggregate of volitional formations is an assemblage of many phenomena, each with its own characteristic." And when it comes to vinnana khandha, the commentary makes it clear that there are many different 'minds' or cittas, changing all the time and that no person is involved: "Spk: Consciousness is like a magical illusion (maayaa) in the sense that it is insubstantial and cannot be grasped. Consciousness is even more transient and fleeting than a magical illusion. For it gives the impression that a person comes and goes, stands and sits, with the same mind, but the mind is different in each of these activities. Consciousness deceives the multitude like a magical illusion." So in these suttas, such as SN 22.95, Kaccayanagotta Sutta (quoted above), when the imagery of foam, bubbles, mirages, a plantain trunk and illusions are used, it is referring to the nature of the khandhas as empty of self, insubstantial and fleeting. These are usually grasped at and taken for being substantial and lasting. Once before, I quoted the first part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's own commentary on this sutta which I think are also along the same lines as the comments I've made and the quotes from the ancient commentaries. "One evening, while dwelling in that abode, the Blessed One came out from his fragrant cottage and sat down by the bank of the Ganges. He saw a great lump of foam coming downstream and throught, "I will give a Dhamma talk relating to the five aggregates." Then he addressed the bhikkhus sitting around him. "The sutta is one of the most radical discourses on the empty nature of conditioned phenomena; its imagery (especially the similes of the mirage and the magical illusion) has been taken up by later Buddhist thinkers, most persistently by the Madhyamikas. Some of the images are found elsewhere in the Pali Canon, e.g. at Dhp 46, 170. In the context of early Buddhist thought these similes have to be handled with care. They are not intended to suggest an illusionist view of the world but to show that our conceptions of the world, and of our own existence, are largely distorted by the process of cognition. Just as the mirage and the magical illusion are based on real existents - the sand of the desert, the magician's appurtenances - so these false conceptions arise from a base that objectively exists, namely the five aggregates; but when seen through a mind subject to conceptual distortion, the aggregates appear in a way that deviates from their actual nature. Instead of being seen as transient and selfless, they appear as substantial and self." … S: In another message (#902230, you said that "delusional concepts" "are actual, -- as perception (deluded or non-deluded), memory, mentation, -- even if they aren't true." Yes, "Delusion Happens", but no, "delusional concepts" are not perception, memory (i.e sa~n~naa), they are not "actual". They are the mirage, thought and perceived (wrongly) to be the water, thought to be the actuality. You also said in another message (#90629) that "trees are obviously 'rupa,' but these silly 'mind games' about realities vs concepts are for kids…I mean, Abhidhammakids." Here, again, I believe you are mistaking the 'mirage' for the 'water' or the fantasy for the reality. Rather than being an 'Abhidhammakids' game', I believe that understanding the reality as the reality and the illusion as the illusion is at the very heart of the Sutta Pitaka. We just read in according to our different understandings, that's all, TG. Thanks again for your patience, TG. Metta, Sarah p.s A little more on mirages from 'Survey' by A.Sujin, as quoted recently by Nina (#90567). "When we think that there is the world, beings, people or different things, we should know that this is only a moment of citta which thinks about what appears to seeing, about visible object. Seeing occurs at a moment different from thinking about what appears. For everyone there is citta which arises just for a moment and is then succeeded by the next one, and this happens continuously. Thus, it seems that there is the whole wide world with many different people and things, but we should have right understanding of what the world is. We should know that realities appear one at a time, and that they appear only for one moment of citta. Since cittas arise and fall away, succeeding one another very rapidly, it seems that there is the world which does not disintegrate, the world which lasts, with beings, people and many different things. In reality the world lasts just for one moment, namely, when citta arises and cognizes an object just for that moment; and then the world falls away together with the citta." ======= #91089 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 3:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidh... sarahprocter... Hi TG, --- On Tue, 7/10/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >>S: Or think of the chariot wheel touching the ground and extend the simile to the sub-moments of cittas: ............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ >TG: Then what you are saying is that the three "sub-moments" are just for conceptual reference and there really is no such thing in truth? I'll buy that, but I'm doubtful you will. Will you? :-) ... S: I think that in truth cittas arise and fall away. Yes, the 'sub-moments' are for 'conceptual reference', but they point to the phases of the cittas and lots of further details are given to explain how, for example, cittas can only produce rupas in their arising phase and so on. As you said, we both "digest" the content of the sutta and any other texts and "make it work in our minds". As you disagree with what is said in the Abhidhamma, Visuddhimagga or other ancient commentaries, by and large, I think it's better to stick to our own digestion by and large:-). As you say, let's look at what has a "bearing on overcoming craving" right now! I think I'm up-to-date with all the 'TG threads' addressed to me. Now, I have a stack of posts from others who've had to be even more patient. So, don't be surprised if a few more weeks lapse before further replies. (Actually the earliest mirage one in my 'in box' from you was only a week or so old - so that was a pretty quick turn around by my standards, lol.) Metta, Sarah p.s I'm sure you know that you (or anyone else) can be as blunt as you like when writing to me. It doesn't bother me in the slightest - it just might be put to the bottom of the pile:-)). (j/k, love you too, TG, and still waiting for your pic in the photo album....I think I deserve it after all this tough love this afternoon!!) ======== #91090 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 4:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is a phenomenon? truth_aerator >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, TG (and Alex) - > > >TG: My sense was that Alex was not adopting the term, but being >dismissive of it. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Possibly so, though I haven't seen that term before. > --------------------------------------------------- Hi Howard and TG. Yes I was dismissive of idealism in Pali Canon. The origin of dhamma in 4th Satipatthana is attention. Within realistic framework that could only mean that dhammas in EARLY Buddhism meant ethico-psychological states (5 hindrances & 7 awakening factors) rather than ontological dhamma-particles of later commentarial literature. In fact I believe that Buddha has talked about liberation and such 99% of the time, rather than ontology. DO starts with Ignorance and ends with suffering. DL (Dependent Loberation) starts with suffering. and ends in "knowledge of destruction of cankers." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.023.bodh.html Best wishes and may Awakening be with you! #91091 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 4:36 am Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav philofillet Hi Jon > > > Ph: Well, perhaps I am not ambitious but I don't aspire to confirm > > the deep teachings in daily life, that's all. > > There is always something to be understood at some level or other, > appropriate to our present understanding. > > To think of the whole of the teaching on satipatthana as being too > deep for us to even consider, outside a "practice" context, would be > a mistake, I believe. Ph: Sure. We agree there. I just feel pushed into getting too deep too fast into present realities by the A.S approach. I resent it and as a result I spin too far in the opposite direction. > > > The introduction to > > Nina's "Conditions" has a paragraph that says that if doubt the > > Buddha taught the paccayas because people point out that they are > > not taught in the suttanta, we must confirm their truth in our > > lives. And I just don't get that. > > I don't know the passage you have in mind, but I would certainly > agree with Nina that the teaching on conditions is something that > will be confirmed (to some degree or other) as and when insight is > developed. Ph: I would agree with that too. As and when insight is developed. But whether it is just a matter of semantics or not, the tone is often "must do it now!" For example, this from Conditions, in a paragraph referring to the doubt some people have about Patthana because it is not in the suttanta: "Doubt will only disappear if we throughly consider the different types of conditions, because then we can see for ourselves whether the content of the "Patthana" conform to the truth or not." To me, this is saying that in order to prove that the Patthana is valuable and worth studying, we should consider them and find out whether they are true or not. Now, for me, these conditional relations represent very, very deep degrees of insight. I want to study them to learn the theory of how the great ones came to see reality, but the notion of confirming them with my puny panna is highly questionable. Whichever ones come to be confirmed when they come to be confirmed, fine..." And this: "THe enumerations and classifications in the Patthana may, at first sight, seem dry and cumbersome, but whether theya re carefully considered it can be seen that they deal with realities of daily life. The study of the Abhidhamma can become very lively and interesting if our knowledge is applied in our own situation." Hmmm. I don't know. I'm not saying I think Abhidhamma study should be bone dry, I know the way the sayadaws study it isn't either, but... > > I am very eager to study the > > paccayas for some reason, but want to keep it at the level of > > theory. I don't know how we could confirm paccayas, but I am open > to > > learning. (I'm happy to report that Scott has agreed to have a go > at > > Skyping on the topic once in a while...looking forward to it. > > Great news, you two. Looking forward to a report on the first > session. Ph: Oh god. I shouldn't have mentionned that. Poor Scott. Now he is saddled with me because you two are waiting for a great big report. I told him that if he was busy he should feel absolutely comfortable about cancelling this project so don't count on it please. To tell the truth, I mostly want to talk with him because he is Canadian and knows who Casey and Finnegan are. > > I don't know, Jon. The only thing I have confirmed in daily life > > (or when meditating in the way meditating is usally confirmed) has > > to do with concepts. I behave in certain ways less often than > > before, but still behave in the undesirable ways I aspire to avoid > > on occasion as well. If it happened before, it will happen again, > > but either more often or less often. That's the only kind of thing > I > > have confirmed, personally. > > To my understanding, the development of awareness/insight is not > really about matters of behaviour, so I'd be inclined not to relate > the two. Ph: Well, as you know, we disagree there. Wholesome patterns of behaviour (virtue) create better conditions for concentration and insight. This is utterly clear in the suttanta, I think. And at the very least, better patterns of behaviour provide refuge from fear of death, confidence re hopes of better rebirth. Also in the suttanta, clearly, in suttas aimed at householders as we've discussed before.We will not come to agree on this point, which is fine. > > Well, annica is confirmed of course, and > > dukkha, ok. I haven't been able to confirm anatta yet. That's the > > main reason I want to study conditionality, I think it will help > lay > > the groundword for confirming anatta... > > I think you'll find it very rewarding. Ph:Thanks. As you know, I am very relaxed about sakkaya-ditthi. I think studying Abhidhamma again will help me there. I am also going through Nina's Cetasikas again, inspired by this interesting sentence in the Conditions book: "There are twnty-four classes of conditions enumerated in the Patthana. In order to understand these it is essential to have a precise knowledge of the realities which are involved in these conditional relations." An important point. Perhaps it could be said that my interest in studying the Patthana with the very shaky theoretical knowledge of dhammas (ie "realities") that I have is akin to studying a skeleton without having any real understanding of all the stuff the skeleton holds together..... metta, phil p.s now I really, really will let you have the last word, jon. Let's talk more on Skype again sometime. For now I'm hoping my DSG participation will be more about questions re Abhidhamma points, for the next little while. Ha! We know how long that will last... :) #91092 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 4:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings truth_aerator Hi Jon, >--- "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > Regardless of how often this particular path is mentioned in the > texts, it's the path of those with more highly developed levels of > mundane jhana and panna, as I understand it. The path of the so- > called sukha-vipassaka (insight only) does not require the same > levels of mundane attainment. > > Jon > Regarding 4 paths. All of them require samadhi (Jhana). If your defilements are so weak that you need a little of it, great! If you need only momentary samadhi to achieve Arhatship, great! I am "jealous" of your awesome accumulations. Regarding sukha-vipassaka. Please give me the sutta quotes! Even those liberated by wisdom achieve Jhana prior to becoming liberated (mn64 or 63). Sariputta with all his super understanding reached 9 (4 Jhana + 4 arrupa + Nirodha samapatti) prior to Arhatship. Similiar and even more attainments, for MahaMoggallana (another super wise disciple) and the Buddha. Best wishes, #91093 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 4:41 am Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav philofillet Hi again > But whether it is just a matter of semantics or not, the tone is > often "must do it now!" Sorry, this is wrong. The tone is not so strident, it is "should do it now." I don't think the modal "should" should ever be applied to panna that knows present realities. But it can be applied to conventional activities such as following meditation instructions etc... metta, phil p.s I must seem rather obsessive about this "should" thing which I keep mentionning..but I think it's important because it seems contradictory to the main thrust of the AS approach which is so very whatever-comes-due-to-conditions. #91094 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 5:46 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "...Forget about 'step-by-step instruction/description' if these are bad words that irk you..." Scott: I can start here, Tep. It is not the words that are irksome, rather it is a wrong question, in my view. T: "...I believe that Alex is a fair and sincere person like me in the sense that we sincerely want to know how to develop 'understanding of namas & rupas now' through seeing a visible object, etc..." Scott: I thought there was a fair amount of derision in the series of posts you and Alex exchanged, but perhaps this was only due to your mutual frustration at not getting an answer you both think is proper. I don't know much, Tep. I have noticed that the notion of a 'practise' that can be followed is very strong amongst most serious people calling themselves 'Buddhist'. And I have noticed that a failure to espouse such a notion, or to question it, leads to a fairly strong backlash. I think that for one to "sincerely want to know how to develop 'understanding of naamas and ruupas now'" is to be caught up in the wrong view that one can force the hand of sati or pa~n~naa. T: "...I certainly do not ask for you and Jon or Sarah to write me some "'how to' manuals" like you jokingly said. But IF you can tell me, using easy-to-understand-words, about the realization of "understanding of namas & rupas now" by you (or citta) in every-day living in such a way that I can experience them too in the present moment, I will truly appreciate it. [But I do not have a high hope.]" Scott: Again, you take me to be someone I'm not if you think that I can explain to you the experience of, say, sati arising and being aware of any given moment. Even were I to have a great facility with this experience, the experience cannot be transferred no matter how well it is described. For all the railing against 'book learning', to ask now for some sort of intellectual description that is supposed to substitute for or be used to lead to direct experience seems unusual. There is no 'practise' as the word is conventionally understood because there is no one who practises. There is, unbidden and due to conditions, the development of kusala dhammas, such as sati or pa~n~naa. And this development, as I understand it, is always in and of the moment. I'm no one to tell you anything but have you never had a moment wherein there is a wordless awareness of the experience of the quality of that moment? Say, a moment wherein that which is arising (or its shadow) is just an experience - clear and fleeting - of the characteristic or quality of that moment? Thinking and words will come crashing in like a bull in a china shop in short order, but there was that moment. I don't know, but might this have been a moment wherein sati was aware of a particular dhamma? I am not to be listened to because this cannot be transmitted, in my opinion. T: "There is a person in the above quote who is possessed of a wonderful pa~n~naa that enables him to 'see clearly with right understanding that the wise say 'doer' when there is doing and 'experiencer' . But I know myself that I am not such a wise man who is possessed of such 'right understanding' here & now. So, what would it take for me to turn into such a WISE man? If there is nothing to do or practice, then how does the right understanding arise in me, not just in theory or in a dream?" Scott: Again, I can't teach you anything. Here is another example of the view oft proposed that an ordinary person is sundered from the 'wisdom' of highly developed pa~n~naa. Here is an example of a yearning for such 'wisdom', which is accompanied by the view that it must take steps or practise to become so wise. T: We can go back to review the source again, if you want..." Scott: Yes, we could, if you wish. T: "...It is an unfortunate misunderstanding in Jon and you that Tep 'suggests that wisdom springs from nowhere at the level of the Path, without earlier development - that the worldling cannot experience any level of pa~n~naa'. No, I have not suggested that wisdom springs from nowhere at the level of the Path, without earlier development. But I maintain that pa~n~naa, according to the Abhidhamma-pitaka, is a magga dhamma that is not a 'mundane' understanding. Understanding continues to develop on the path until Arahatta-phala." Scott: This is the view I mentioned above. The view still suggests, if pa~n~naa is 'a magga dhamma' and 'not a mundane understanding', that there can be no development of pa~n~naa. The view suggests that pa~n~naa only arises at the moment of the Path. How am I misunderstanding you? If you are asking sincerely to know how to develop pa~n~naa now (a wrong question, as I note), then why suggest that pa~n~naa cannot be developed and does not arise at 'mundane' levels, but it arises as the Path? T: "But you have not given me a reply about how you develop 'understanding nama-rupa now' yet. Whether you are following Khun Sujin or not doesn't matter much, just answer the question unless you do not know the answer. Also I will understand if you tell me that it just sprang from nowhere one day up to the level of the Path, without an earlier development -- like flying to the Heaven in a dream." Scott: This is a challenge very much akin to the oft issued 'show me a sutta' challenge. It amounts, in my view, to being a challenge to 'prove it' to you. Such a request is a wrong request, in my view. First of all, I am only as you imagine me to be based on the stories you think about after seeing, and so can do nothing for you. Second of all, it is all only dhammas and conditions. Sati will be aware, pa~n~naa will know but 'you' or 'I' won't achieve anything and 'you' or 'I' can't have anything, and 'you' or 'I' can't because 'you' or 'I' want it so bad. So is it 'do nothing'? I guess so, when one thinks in terms of 'practise' or 'instructions' or 'how to'. But there is sati. There is pa~n~naa. These realities can arise and perform their functions and do so according to conditions in a certain order of development that neither you nor I can control. Sorry in advance for the disappointing answer ;-)... Sincerely, Scott. #91095 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 7:03 am Subject: DSG's method (or lack of it) of Patipatti, anupubbasikkhaa truth_aerator Hi Scott, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > I don't know much, Tep. I have noticed that the notion of a > 'practise' that can be followed is very strong amongst most serious > people calling themselves 'Buddhist'. Please describe: Patipatti, Bhavana, anupubbasikkhaa, anupubbakiriyaa, anupubbapatipada. >I think that for one to "sincerely want to know how > to develop 'understanding of naamas and ruupas now'" is to be caught > up in the wrong view that one can force the hand of sati or >pa~n~naa. Are you saying that "Buddhism" (according to some people's misunderstanding) implies that one should NOT train? > Scott: Again, I can't teach you anything. Here is another example of > the view oft proposed that an ordinary person is sundered from the > 'wisdom' of highly developed pa~n~naa. Here is an example of a > yearning for such 'wisdom', which is accompanied by the view that it > must take steps or practise to become so wise. "Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in the same way this discipline of Dhamma (dhamma-vinaya) has a gradual training (anupubbasikkhâ), a gradual performance (anupubbakiriyâ) , a gradual progression (anupubbapatipadâ), with a penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch." —Udana, 5.5 Please describe "gradual training", "gradual performance", "gradual progression"? >Scott: This is a challenge very much akin to the oft issued 'show >me a sutta' challenge. It amounts, in my view, to being a challenge >to 'prove it' to you. Such a request is a wrong request, in my >view. It is wrong request because some things weren't taught by the Buddha. What are you hiding, Scott? > So is it 'do nothing'? I guess so, when one thinks in terms of > 'practise' or 'instructions' or 'how to'. "this discipline of Dhamma (dhamma-vinaya) has a gradual training (anupubbasikkhâ), a gradual performance (anupubbakiriyâ) , a gradual progression (anupubbapatipadâ), " - Udana 5.5 Best wishes, #91096 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 7:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] DSG's method (or lack of it) of Patipatti, anupubbasikkhaa sarahprocter... Hi Alex, (Scott & Jon), In case it's of any assistance... --- On Tue, 7/10/08, Alex wrote: >"Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in the same way this discipline of Dhamma (dhamma-vinaya) has a gradual training (anupubbasikkhaa ), a gradual performance (anupubbakiriyaa ) , a gradual progression (anupubbapatipadaa ), with a penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch." —Udana, 5.5 >Please describe "gradual training", "gradual performance" , "gradual progression" ? .... From the commentary (Masefield transl.): "It is the three trainings [adhisiila, adhicitta, adhipa~n~naa] that are included by means of 'progressive traingings', the thirteen things constituting the limbs of asceticism [dhuta"ngadhammaa] by means of 'progressive obligations', whilst it is the seven contemplations, the eighteen great vipassanaas, the thirty-eight classifications of objects(forming meditation subjects)[40 kamma.t.thaanas minus kasinas of light (aaloka) and space (aakaasa)], and the thirty-seven things that are constituents of enlightenment [4 satipatthanas, 4 padhaanas etc] that are included by means of 'progressive practices'. 'There being no sudden penetration of supreme knowledge' (na aayataken' eva a~n~naapa.tivedho): there not being, unlike the hopping motion of the frog, that known as penetration of arahantship without one's having, right from the very beginning, first worked towards the fulfilment of morality and so on[siilapuuranaadiini], meaning rather that attainment of arahantship comes only after one has successively fulfilled morality, concentration and insight." Back to Jon & Scott for further explanations:-) Metta, Sarah ======== #91097 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 8:24 am Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path abhidhammika Dear Jon, Sarah, Nina, Scott D, Mike N, Howard, Alex, Herman How are you? Jon wrote: "there is no such thing as a step-by-step method or practice for the development of the path." Are you sure about your above statement, which is very categorical and final-sounding? Where did you get that idea or that teaching from? Or is it your own personal conviction (attanomati)? If that idea was not your own personal conviction, it would help if you could name the source and cite the relevant statements from that source. Do other people named above such as Nina also accept that teaching or Jon's personal conviction if the latter was Jon's answer? Thanks in advance Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #91098 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 9:11 am Subject: Re: DSG's method (or lack of it) of Patipatti, anupubbasikkhaa truth_aerator Hi Sarah, Scott, Jon and all, >sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, (Scott & Jon), > > In case it's of any assistance... > > --- On Tue, 7/10/08, Alex wrote: > > >"Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual > inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in >the > same way this discipline of Dhamma (dhamma-vinaya) has a gradual > training (anupubbasikkhaa ), a gradual performance > (anupubbakiriyaa ) , a > gradual progression (anupubbapatipadaa ), with a penetration to >gnosis > only after a long stretch." â€"Udana, 5.5 > > >Please describe "gradual training", "gradual >performance" , "gradual > progression" ? > .... > From the commentary (Masefield transl.): > >"It is the three trainings [adhisiila, adhicitta, adhipa~n~naa] >that are included by means of 'progressive traingings', the thirteen >things constituting the limbs of asceticism [dhuta"ngadhammaa] by >means of 'progressive obligations', Can you please describe these progressive trainings, 13 things constituting the limbs of ascetism by means of progressive obligations? Sounds like step-by-step training to me. >whilst it is the seven contemplations, the eighteen great >vipassanaas, the thirty-eight classifications of objects(forming >meditation subjects)[40 kamma.t.thaanas minus kasinas of light >(aloka) and space (aakaasa)], and the thirty-seven things that are >constituents of enlightenment [4 satipatthanas, 4 padhaanas etc] >that are included by means of 'progressive practices'. Great that you are talking about progressive practice. After all, you can't do 7 contemplations, 18 great vipassanans and so on at exactly the same time. You've got to do them step by step. >'There being no sudden penetration of supreme knowledge' (na >aayataken' eva a~n~naapa.tivedho): there not being, unlike the >hopping motion of the frog, that known as penetration of arahantship >without one's having, right from the very beginning, first worked >towards the fulfilment of morality and so on[siilapuuranaadiini], >meaning rather that attainment of >arahantship comes only after one has successively fulfilled >morality, concentration and insight." Right. The path is gradual, a worldling can't just suddenly wake up as an Arahant. Best wishes, #91099 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 9:27 am Subject: Re: DSG's method (or lack of it) of Patipatti, anupubbasikkhaa visitorfromt... Hi Alex (Scott, Jon), - It is a big surprise that Sarah now supports the step-by-step training in the suttas by quoting a commentary! > >sarah abbott wrote: > > > > Hi Alex, (Scott & Jon), > > > > In case it's of any assistance... > > > From the commentary (Masefield transl.): > >"It is the three trainings [adhisiila, adhicitta, adhipa~n~naa] >that are included by means of 'progressive traingings', the thirteen >things constituting the limbs of asceticism [dhuta"ngadhammaa] by >means of 'progressive obligations', Alex: Can you please describe these progressive trainings, 13 things constituting the limbs of ascetism by means of progressive obligations? Alex: Sounds like step-by-step training to me. >whilst it is the seven contemplations, the eighteen great >vipassanaas, the thirty-eight classifications of objects(forming >meditation subjects)[40 kamma.t.thaanas minus kasinas of light >(aloka) and space (aakaasa)], and the thirty-seven things that are >constituents of enlightenment [4 satipatthanas, 4 padhaanas etc] >that are included by means of 'progressive practices'. Alex: Great that you are talking about progressive practice. After all, you can't do 7 contemplations, 18 great vipassanans and so on at exactly the same time. You've got to do them step by step. >'There being no sudden penetration of supreme knowledge' (na >aayataken' eva a~n~naapa.tivedho): there not being, unlike the >hopping motion of the frog, that known as penetration of arahantship >without one's having, right from the very beginning, first worked >towards the fulfilment of morality and so on[siilapuuranaadiini], >meaning rather that attainment of >arahantship comes only after one has successively fulfilled >morality, concentration and insight." [end of commentary quote] Alex: Right. The path is gradual, a worldling can't just suddenly wake up as an Arahant. T: The confirmation of Siila (morality) at the beginning of the training is seen in the above pragraph, namely "one's having, right from the very beginning, first worked towards the fulfilment of morality and so on". Best wishes, Tep === #91100 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 6:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Sarah and All Thank you for answering to the point!!! .................................................. In a message dated 10/7/2008 4:26:53 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Dear TG & all, Thank you for patiently waiting for my further comments on mirages. >TG:....And as usual, no comments about the terms I keep listing that the Buddha DID actually use to describe the Five Aggregates.. .shall I try again??? -- Void, empty, hollow, alien, like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick. -- How about dealing with the actual terms the Buddha used... …. S: Yes, the khandhas are void, empty of a self or substance. SN 22:95 A Lump of Foam, (Bodhi transl.)" "Suppose, bhikkhus, that in the last month of the hot season, at high noon, a shimmering mirage appears. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in a mirage? So too, bhikkhus, whatever kind of perception there is , whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in perception?" "Spk: Perception is like a mirage (marichikaa) in the sense that it is insubstantial, for one cannot grasp a mirage to drink or bathe or fill a pitcher. As a mirage deceives the multitude, so does perception, which entices people with the idea that the colourful object is beautiful, pleasurable, and permanent." It is the wrong view accompanying sanna that takes the khandhas for self, for a being or a person that is compared to the perception of a mirage. If we travel in the desert, we may see a mirage of water, but when we approach it, the mirage disappears and there is no water to be found. So like the mirage, the wrong view, wrong perception and ignorance deceive us by taking the khandhas for atta (self), for a person or something substantial. .................................................................. TG: Sarah, you have chosen to deal with the quote on "perception" only. What the Buddha says are like a mirage is not just perception...but -- 'the physical form base,' feelings, perceptions, mental activities, and consciousness. This means it entails all conditioned phenomena. Up to here the comments are pretty solid. I would emphasize one thing though...that the reason the perceptions deceive us is that the 'actual phenomena' being perceived is NOT what it appears to be. Phenomena is a dynamic continuously altering amalgamation of conditions. The "feature" we identify is just a "snap-shot in time." Its is not its own thing, it has not its own characteristics. To think that it has its own characteristics or is an ultimate reality ... THAT is the delusion. Unfortunately, the idea of "own characteristics" and "ultimate realities" is a view that succumbs to the delusional aspect of percepts. IMO, its just a subtle transformation of the same type of delusion that see people and things as entities or selves. Now, it is my understanding that the Aggregates and elements ARE what you consider "Dhammas." This means, the Buddha is calling "Dhammas" -- insubstantial, void, empty, hollow, alien, like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick. Any perception of them would also be -- insubstantial, void, empty, hollow, alien, like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick. Seems to me a far cry from "ultimate realities with their own characteristics." And a far cry from a practice that seeks to "KNOW" "Dhammas" as ultimate realities with their own characteristics. In fact, it seem 180 degrees opposite the Buddha's teaching. ................................................................................\ ....... This doesn't mean than sa~n~naa (perception) has no characteristic. It has the characteristic of perceiving the object, marking it in such a way that we are deceived by the 'mirage'. When it comes to sankhara khandha, the commentary makes it very clear that each mental factor has a particular characteristic: .............................................................. TG: Well, that's the main basis of my argument right? That some of the commentarial material, or sub-commentarial material, does not jibe with the Suttas. .................................................................... "Spk: As a plaintain trunk (kadalikkhandha) is an assemblage of many sheaths, each with its own characteristic, so the aggregate of volitional formations is an assemblage of many phenomena, each with its own characteristic." ...................................................................... TG: This is just a laughable stretch and wild run of the imagination that has ZERO backing from the Suttas. I really did find it funny...but also sad. The Sutta use the Palntian Truck as an analogy to demonstrate the corelessness of the Aggregates. Here, the author is actually trying to establish that the Plantian Trunk is made up of a bunch of parts with its own characteristics. This amazingly missed the WHOLE point !!!! The author actually reverses the argument and makes it say the opposite of anything or any sensibility the Buddha was discussing. The comment is trying to say the parts are substantial, the whole is not. There is ZERO backing for this in the Suttas. But it does explain how our misguided friends have adhered to a substantialist viewpoint....for "parts," not "wholes." Actually, a non-issue in the Suttas. In the Suttas, parts or wholes are BOTH conditioned, insubstantial, empty, coreless, void, hollow, etc. In either case, the idea is to reject them and detach from them. In neither case is the idea to try to see them as 'ultimate realities with their own characteristics." ...................................................................... And when it comes to vinnana khandha, the commentary makes it clear that there are many different 'minds' or cittas, changing all the time and that no person is involved: S. "Spk: Consciousness is like a magical illusion (maayaa) in the sense that it is insubstantial and cannot be grasped. Consciousness is even more transient and fleeting than a magical illusion. For it gives the impression that a person comes and goes, stands and sits, with the same mind, but the mind is different in each of these activities. Consciousness deceives the multitude like a magical illusion." ............................................................................ ............................................................................. TG: Now we're off point. Because the reference quote says THE FIVE AGGREGATES are like a trick, mirage, etc. The argument above is twisting that to say it is the views generated by such....that are like a mirage, etc. This is not the case. It is CONSCIOUSNESS that is like a mirage. Not merely the views that consciousness generates...(that, BTW, are also like a mirage.) The Buddha is not saying -- it is the perceptual delusions that are like a mirage. HE IS NOT SAYING THAT HERE. He is saying, CONSCIOUSNESS is like a mirage, FORM, etc., is like a mirage, insubstantial, void, hollow, etc. Its is your so-called "ultimate reality dhammas" that are like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick, etc. The -- like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick, void, coreless, descriptions, etc., are not dealing with the point of view of the deluded mind. They are dealing from the point of view of the insightful mind. This is the way the Buddha was seeing it IMO. This is not a description of a self-view experience. This description is from a point of view that has surmounted ignorance. TG OUT #91101 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 6:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa & Impermanence -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidh... TGrand458@... Hi Sarah In a message dated 10/7/2008 4:51:05 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: As you disagree with what is said in the Abhidhamma, Visuddhimagga or other ancient commentaries, by and large, ................................................. TG: Don't say this please. I have a lot of respect for Abhidhamma and the Visuddhimagga. As simple fact, I've read the Visuddhimagga cover to cover 10 times. I wouldn't go through that if I thought it was trash. LOL My only criticism of Abhidhamma is it is formatted in such a way that it lends itself to misguided substantialist interpretations...walla! LOL I have no criticism of Visuddhimagga for it achieves it purpose ingeniously. I consider it a great work and on the extreme "short list" of supplemental materials worth reading. Of course I don't agree with everything in it. ................................................................................\ ...... I think it's better to stick to our own digestion by and large:-). As you say, let's look at what has a "bearing on overcoming craving" right now! ............................................................................... TG: I know you're a hopeless cause. Of this I have no doubt. LOL But there are others who may drop in that need both sides of the story...to give them a chance to be free from corruption. LOL Regarding the below...yea, sorry about that. I feel its my duty ... but I'll go into hibernation soon perhaps. Take care. TG #91102 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 12:38 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood visitorfromt... Dear Scott (Alex, Jon), - For quite some time I had been asking some DSG Abhidhammikas (Nina, Sarah, Sukin, and Jon) for a straightforward answer concerning how to practically develop 'understanding of namas & rupas now' through seeing a visible object, hearing a sound, ... cognizing a dhamma. No satisfactory answer ever! > >Tep: ...I believe that Alex is a fair and sincere person like me in the sense that we sincerely want to know how to develop 'understanding of namas & rupas now' through seeing a visible object, etc..." >Scott: I think that for one to "sincerely want to know how to develop 'understanding of naamas and ruupas now'" is to be caught up in the wrong view that one can force the hand of sati or pa~n~naa. ... you take me to be someone I'm not if you think that I can explain to you the experience of, say, sati arising and being aware of any given moment. Even were I to have a great facility with this experience, the experience cannot be transferred no matter how well it is described. >Scott: There is no 'practise' as the word is conventionally understood because there is no one who practises. There is, unbidden and due to conditions, the development of kusala dhammas, such as sati or pa~n~naa. And this development, as I understand it, is always in and of the moment. T: Now it is clear that I am not going to get a simple reply. But I don't mind, because I can find a straightforward answer to my question in the Suttanta Pitaka. ..................................... > >Tep: I know myself that I am not such a wise man who is possessed of such 'right understanding' here & now. So, what would it take for me to turn into such a WISE man? If there is nothing to do, or to practice, then how does the right understanding arise in me, not just in theory or in a dream? Scott: Again, I can't teach you anything. Here is another example of the view oft proposed that an ordinary person is sundered from the 'wisdom' of highly developed pa~n~naa. Here is an example of a yearning for such 'wisdom', which is accompanied by the view that it must take steps or practise to become so wise. T: That doesn't help, Scott. Yet, I thank you for helping me prove my point that I cannot get a straightforward reply from you or your colleagues. No more asking from now; I promise all of you : Scott, Jon, Sarah, Nina, Sukin. ................................... >Scott: This is a challenge very much akin to the oft issued 'show me a sutta' challenge. It amounts, in my view, to being a challenge to 'prove it' to you. Such a request is a wrong request, in my view. First of all, I am only as you imagine me to be based on the stories you think about after seeing, and so can do nothing for you. Second of all, it is all only dhammas and conditions. Sati will be aware, pa~n~naa will know but 'you' or 'I' won't achieve anything and 'you' or 'I' can't have anything, and 'you' or 'I' can't because 'you' or 'I' want it so bad. T: I have a simple suggestion for you, Scottie. Understanding "sati will be aware, pa~n~naa will know" and "'you' or 'I' won't achieve anything" is appropriate only for a WISE person who is beyond the world, who's contemplating the khandhas and truly seeing 'anatta dhamma'. Such a WISE person will not participate in a discussion group like ours, because he is beyond the world. Mimicking such a person who has the right understanding of the khandhas, while you are not WISE, only makes the discussion awkward and leads it to a dead-end. >Scott: So is it 'do nothing'? I guess so, when one thinks in terms of 'practise' or 'instructions' or 'how to'. But there is sati. There is pa~n~naa. These realities can arise and perform their functions and do so according to conditions in a certain order of development that neither you nor I can control. Sorry in advance for the disappointing answer ;-).. T: Yes, it is; because you can teach a parrot or a machine to say it too. Tep === #91103 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 2:37 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood visitorfromt... Dear Scott (Alex, Jon), - In the posted message #91102 today (that responds to #91094) I did not clarify one misunderstanding that you and Jon have about my thought on pa~n~naa development. It is important that I do it now and clear up your doubts at least for a while. You know, nothing is permanent ! Let's go back to #91094: > >T: "...It is an unfortunate misunderstanding in Jon and you that Tep 'suggests that wisdom springs from nowhere at the level of the Path, without earlier development - that the worldling cannot experience any level of pa~n~naa'. No, I have not suggested that wisdom springs from nowhere at the level of the Path, without earlier development. But I maintain that pa~n~naa, according to the Abhidhamma-pitaka, is a magga dhamma that is not a 'mundane' understanding. Understanding continues to develop on the path until Arahatta-phala." >Scott: This is the view I mentioned above. The view still suggests, if pa~n~naa is 'a magga dhamma' and 'not a mundane understanding', that there can be no development of pa~n~naa. The view suggests that pa~n~naa only arises at the moment of the Path. How am I misunderstanding you? If you are asking sincerely to know how to develop pa~n~naa now (a wrong question, as I note), then why suggest that pa~n~naa cannot be developed and does not arise at 'mundane' levels, but it arises as the Path? .................................... T: Jon used to misunderstand me similar to you do, Scott. In message #87029 I clarified to him about my understanding of "understanding" in worldings and how to develop it further to become pa~n~naa of the path. Read on ! Re: Can Worldlings Directly Know the Faculties? Message # 87029(June 15, 2008) Dear Jon, - You wrote: > > Hi Tep > I've had a brief look at the study guide. It is basically a number of sutta passages arranged under headings corresponding to the 4 factors for the development of insight and attainment of enlightenment (association with the right person, hearing the dhamma, appropriate attention/reflection, and practice in accordance with the teachings). Most of the sutta passages would be familiar to regular readers of dsg messages. However, it doesn't tell me how you (Tep) understand the development of panna in the case of the worldling, that is to say, what it is that the panna of the worldling knows. So if you care to continue this thread, please share your views on this question (if not, never mind). Jon ========== Tep: I do care to continue, Jon. :-) What is it that the pa~n~na of the worldling knows? The un-instructed worldling only knows the a-dhamma (non-Dhamma). See MN 1 that I reviewed in Part III of "Error in the Vism". He does not comprehend the Dhamma. He does not have pa~n~na ! When I say pa~n~na I mean understanding (in the sense of knowing accurately) the Teaching of the four Ariya Saccas. Please note that pa~n~na in the arahants is a synonym for pari~n~na (comprehension, full understanding), see for example the Metta.net dictionary. The sekha comrehends the Dhamma and the arahant comprehended (fully understood) it. Arahants already comprehended the dhammas such that lobha, dosa, moha are completely destructed and vijja appears. The kind of instructed worldling's understanding (not the true pa~n~na in the strict sutta sense) in ones who have turned to the Dhamma (like you and me) is supported by unshakable faith (saddha) in the Buddha and the Teachings on wholesomeness & unwholesomeness, their advantages/disadvantages and their roots(mula). With an unshakable saddha in the Dhamma we avoid akusalas and develop kusala dhammas. We are ashamed to break the Precepts, etc. To proceed from this level of understanding to the trainer (sekha) level, we need to practice abandoning the five hindrances (using kayagatasati and indriya-samvara) and, when the mind is without the hindrances, frequently and repeatedly contemplate the Dependent Origination both forward(origination) and backward(cessation) expositions. "There is the case where a monk is a learner. He discerns, as it actually is, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' "This is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that 'I am a learner.' "[SN 48.53 Sekha Sutta] I hope the above explanation satisfies your requirement. If it does not, please let me know and I'll try to do better (but at DSG, expecting satisfaction is not worthwhile). Tep === ------------------------------------------------ Anymore questions or doubts, Scottie? Tep === #91104 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 6:53 pm Subject: Re: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? philofillet Hi TG and all > Now, it is my understanding that the Aggregates and elements ARE what >you consider "Dhammas." This means, the Buddha is calling "Dhammas" - -> insubstantial, void, empty, hollow, alien, like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick. Any perception of them would also be -- insubstantial, void, empty, hollow, alien, like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick. Seems to me a far cry from "ultimate realities with their own characteristics." And a far cry from a practice that seeks to "KNOW" "Dhammas" as ultimate realities with their own characteristics. In fact, it seem 180 degrees opposite the Buddha's teaching. TG, I used to wonder why you and Howard, especially, were always stressing this point. Now I have come to understand why and it has become relevant to me. A good sign. I think in Vism. it says that one of the functions or ways of seeing citta or something like that is as agent. The purpose being to help those who believe there is a self that is agent. So couldn't seeing dhammas with their own characteristics that will eventually be seen through as anicca, dukkha and anatta be helpful on the way to liberation. For example, if I'm not mistaken you agree with my that having a clearly defined perception of ego/self that behaves in certain ways is helpful on the way to ultimately seeing through it. So couldn't understanding dhammas to be entities with their own characteristics be helpful to eventually seeing through them? Clearly defining them so that they stand out more clearly and can be seen through? All fabrications, ultimately, but clearly defined fabrications? Something like that? Or do you think Sarah and all really believe these dhammas are little selves? Thanks for any feedback. Also is there a problem that in the suttanta and even in Abhidhamma there is not talk of dhammas having individual characteristics (I forget the Pali, starts with S) but it is something that only appears in commentaries or something like that? I haven't figured out yet what is in the commentaries but not in the tipitika and whether a teaching could still be of great value even if that is the case. (I suspect it could...) metta, phil #91105 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 8:10 pm Subject: Re: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? philofillet Hi again TG I hope you read this before you respond to the other post... I wrote: > So couldn't seeing > dhammas with their own characteristics that will eventually be seen > through as anicca, dukkha and anatta be helpful on the way to > liberation. For example, if I'm not mistaken you agree with my that > having a clearly defined perception of ego/self that behaves in certain > ways is helpful on the way to ultimately seeing through it. So couldn't > understanding dhammas to be entities with their own characteristics be > helpful to eventually seeing through them? Clearly defining them so > that they stand out more clearly and can be seen through? All > fabrications, ultimately, but clearly defined fabrications? Now I think what I wrote here doesn't stand in the light of paramattha dhammas being translated (and not only here) as "ultimate realities." An ultimate reality must have an ultimate existence, so what I wrote above about defining them clearly in order to see through their ultimate non-existence doesn't stand. I've been wanting to study Abhidhamma because I think it lays out an amazingly complete picture of reality, but I have been wanted to study with the belief that this amazingly complete picture of reality is taught by the Buddha (or those after him) for the purpose of eventually seeing that even the vision of reality laid out in the teaching is a fabrication taught merely for the purpose of our liberation. (i.e dropping the raft.) But if ultimate realities are said to ultimately exist, my notion is wrong, I guess....if they ultimately exist, they can't be dropped like that raft... Now I'm confused.... metta, phil #91106 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 10:28 pm Subject: The Stream Supreme! bhikkhu0 Friends: Entering the Noble Stream leading to Nibbâna: At Savatthi the Buddha said: Bhikkhus, the eyes are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. All forms are impermanent, changing, & becoming otherwise. The ear & all sounds, the nose & all smells, the tongue & all tastes, the body, all touches, & the mind & all ideas are all impermanent, transient, changing, and becoming otherwise... One who accepts these teachings by understanding , after having examined them, by careful reflection, is called a Dhamma-follower ! One who decides to place confidence in these teachings, is called a Faith -follower ! Both such persons have entered the fixed track of correctness, entered a plane of superior being, & transcended the level of ordinary worldling. Such beings cannot do any action later resulting in rebirth in hell, or as animal, or as hungry ghost!!! Such Nobles are incapable of dying without first having enjoyed the fruit of stream-entry . Knowing & seeing these teachings thus, one is called a Stream-Enterer , saved from lower worlds, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as destination within 7 lives at most...!!! .... SUPREME SAFETY In comparison with kingship over whole earth, In comparison with arising in a divine world, In comparison with supremacy over all universes, the fruit of entering the Stream - being a SotÄ?panna - is of supreme excellence. Dhammapada 178 Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya 25(1) III 225 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ... #91107 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 7:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Phil In a message dated 10/7/2008 7:53:59 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: I think in Vism. it says that one of the functions or ways of seeing citta or something like that is as agent. The purpose being to help those who believe there is a self that is agent. So couldn't seeing dhammas with their own characteristics that will eventually be seen through as anicca, dukkha and anatta be helpful on the way to liberation. For example, if I'm not mistaken you agree with my that having a clearly defined perception of ego/self that behaves in certain ways is helpful on the way to ultimately seeing through it. So couldn't understanding dhammas to be entities with their own characteristics be helpful to eventually seeing through them? ...................................................... TG: The problem with this is that the Abhidhammists don't have any intention of "seeing through" the so-called "dhammas." They think these "dhammas" are "ultimate realities." They cherish them, they want to indulge in perceptions of them. The other problem is that the concept of "dhammas" is done for the purpose of trying to overcome self-view. (As I have stated, I think they have just transferred self-view onto the idea of "dhammas.") It doesn't make any sense to create a new fallacy as a basis to try to see through its fallaciousness. If you get rid of "own characteristics," if you get rid of "ultimate reality," then "dhammas" as applied to elements and aggregates is easier to swallow, and possibly correct...depending on the schemata. But, if you add those aspects into the conception of Dhammas, it becomes a grasping after self-view...so subtly conceived that it even fools its adherents. You can never get them to dismiss these terms because they are attached to the idea of "dhammas, have built a religion around the idea that they are ultimate realities, so a great deal of their "practice / theory" goes out the window if they can't have these aspects. ...................................................................... Clearly defining them so that they stand out more clearly and can be seen through? All fabrications, ultimately, but clearly defined fabrications? Something like that? Or do you think Sarah and all really believe these dhammas are little selves? Thanks for any feedback. .......................................................................... TG: Regardless of whether I think they inject self-view into the "dhammas theory," they clearly see them as ultimate realities with their own characteristics. This view "ignores" the 100% conditioned and dependent nature of phenomena. The direction of insight must always be from the standpoint of conditionality. By focusing of conditionality, the aggregates and elements become seen as insubstantial, void, hollow, empty, like a mirage, etc. By focusing on the aggregates or elements, without a strong oversight of conditionality, these thing become seen as "ultimate realities with their own characteristics." As Howard and I would say...the word "own" cannot apply to conditioned, dependent phenomena. Howard is a little looser with the term "characteristic" than I am. I don't care for it I think it is slightly tainted with self-view. I think we are both satisfied with the term "quality" in the sense the phenomena have discernable qualities. .............................................................................. .... Also is there a problem that in the suttanta and even in Abhidhamma there is not talk of dhammas having individual characteristics .............................................................................. .... TG: Yea! That's a huge problem for those claiming this a core teaching of the Buddha. It means their claim is groundless in terms of authority. Its just something that's been made up through poor analysis IMO. Sabhava ......................................................................... (I forget the Pali, starts with S) but it is something that only appears in commentaries or something like that? I haven't figured out yet what is in the commentaries but not in the tipitika and whether a teaching could still be of great value even if that is the case. (I suspect it could...) .............................................................................. .. TG: Sure it could IMO. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. Doesn't matter where it comes from. The Buddha made several statements that indicate this as well. Take care Phil TG OUT #91108 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Oct 7, 2008 7:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Phil Too late on reading this first. LOL Your analysis below probably states better what I was trying to say. My only advice in studies is to know the Suttas well and when you study secondary source material, Abhidhamma, commentaries, etc., you study them in light of the Suttas. What I'm afraid our Abhidhammist friends do is follow the commentaries and then when they read Suttas, they see them in the light of commentaries. Which has the effect of making the commentaries the supreme authority. :-( TG In a message dated 10/7/2008 9:10:19 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi again TG I hope you read this before you respond to the other post... I wrote: > So couldn't seeing > dhammas with their own characteristics that will eventually be seen > through as anicca, dukkha and anatta be helpful on the way to > liberation. For example, if I'm not mistaken you agree with my that > having a clearly defined perception of ego/self that behaves in certain > ways is helpful on the way to ultimately seeing through it. So couldn't > understanding dhammas to be entities with their own characteristics be > helpful to eventually seeing through them? Clearly defining them so > that they stand out more clearly and can be seen through? All > fabrications, ultimately, but clearly defined fabrications? Now I think what I wrote here doesn't stand in the light of paramattha dhammas being translated (and not only here) as "ultimate realities." An ultimate reality must have an ultimate existence, so what I wrote above about defining them clearly in order to see through their ultimate non-existence doesn't stand. I've been wanting to study Abhidhamma because I think it lays out an amazingly complete picture of reality, but I have been wanted to study with the belief that this amazingly complete picture of reality is taught by the Buddha (or those after him) for the purpose of eventually seeing that even the vision of reality laid out in the teaching is a fabrication taught merely for the purpose of our liberation. (i.e dropping the raft.) But if ultimate realities are said to ultimately exist, my notion is wrong, I guess....if they ultimately exist, they can't be dropped like that raft... Now I'm confused.... metta, phil #91109 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 12:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) sukinderpal Hi TG, ======= > 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: > No need to dissect the rest of your post because you have confirmed the > heart of my point right here. The whole point is that he teaches differently to > different individuals (or groups) at different times. OK if you do not wish to discuss further. But I don’t think that you can take my statement above to substantiate your point. We may both come to the above conclusion at some time, but how we arrive at it would be very different. It actually starts with *what* in fact did the Buddha teach, and here as we both know, we have a quite different understanding of. Yes I think the Buddha taught in accordance to the individual’s accumulated understanding. This however does not translate as referring to the difference between such things as, Dana, Sila, Samatha and Vipassana Bhavana. The audience had different faculties, but these faculties expressed themselves in the ability to insight into the present moment and not so much in the acceptance of say, Kamma and Rebirth as against the contents of the Patthana. Bahiya became an Arahat after hearing about the experience through the five senses and the mind, but this must have been in part because the Buddha knew that this is the presentation most appropriate given his past. Anathapindika was always a ‘giver’ and this was his strong point, but he *did* get enlightened to the 4NTs as Bahiya did. Could the Buddha not have usefully talked about “in the seen there is only the seenâ€? to Anathapindika? I think he could have, except that the latter had accumulations to get the message better when hearing something else. Moreover, you made a general distinction between ‘householders’ and ‘monks’ in a way implying that the level of achievement by the one can only go so far, therefore the Buddha would have not talked about certain things to them. I think that since the understanding of 4NTs is the immediate goal, the Buddha would take into account natural decisive support condition to then not be limited by ‘topics’ to teach what needs to be taught. In this regard there is no difference between the householder and the Bhikkhu. It comes down to the ability to insight into the present moment. Consider also Culapanthaka’s case. He heard all that was to be heard as a Bhikkhu, but got no where. And what got him enlightened was the simple act of rubbing a white cloth based on past accumulated understanding about impermanence. I think the real problem, be this for the householder or Bhikkhu is “wrong understandingâ€? and the solution hence, is “right understandingâ€?. Both these are conditioned and perform their functions in the present moment. The ability to insight into the present moment does not come about as a consequence of having been involved in a story about ‘self’ and what self has to do first or later, but with the arising of some level of understanding “nowâ€?. And even if this is at the level pariyatti only, it however is one which conditions the need to come back to the present moment, rather then being lost in stories about ‘doings’ . So my point is that be this about Dana, Sila, Samatha or Vipassana, seeing into the present moment what is said is key and is what the Buddha must have aimed at. Metta, Sukin #91110 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 12:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) sukinderpal Hi TG, > 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? ................................................ TG: > Have I ever stated anything about a "intellectual understanding" as > something that should be cultivated to the exclusion of direct experience??? No. Suk: It is hard for me to pin down the ideas you try to get across, so please don’t mind that I sometimes misrepresent you. In the above you seem to state nevertheless that intellectual understanding is one thing and direct experience is another, isn’t it? I think that you will also agree then, that intellectual understanding precedes direct understanding? Would you also then say that there can be understanding at the level of pariyatti without any patipatti level of understanding for an extended period of time? If so, would it not be appropriate to be taught those things which may stay at the level of pariyatti without expectation of when patipatti will arise? I get the impression in the above, that you do not take into account that pariyatti and patipatti are conditioned and beyond control. Or else you are implying that the one must necessarily follow the other immediately? Or perhaps you are thinking in terms of ‘someone’ doing certain things in time in which the connection between study and practice is made? Could you clarify? =========== TG: > "The present moment" is a moment with no movement, no experience, and just a > frozen zero in terms of experience. So its somewhat of a misnomer. Suk: Or it may be that you have unnecessarily complicated the matter! When I refer to the present moment, I have in mind “that which appearsâ€?. I am not interested in abstracting which you seem to have allowed yourself to do, and from which you then object to this so simple suggestion. “That which appearsâ€? is no more than a reference to ‘seeing now’, ‘hearing now’ or ‘thinking now’. Even if there is no understanding involved, whatever we do, this happens in fact because we refer to the present moment all the time! Our problem is not so much that we can’t acknowledge the reality of the present moment, but that we usually have a misunderstanding about it. The Dhamma corrects this by pointing us to the reality of nama and rupa. The direct and deep understanding of this of course, takes a long time. But how we understand the particular teaching in the meantime and apply them as much as conditions allow, the ‘present moment’ is still the only appropriate point of reference. Certainly you can’t expect me to go by what you state below, which to me is nothing more than a projected theory. =========== TG: > The phrase -- "being aware of experiences as they unfold" is far more realistic. Suk: Are you saying that when you experience ‘seeing’ for example, you experience it as “unfoldingâ€?? =========== TG: > That being said, cultivating insight requires combining the knowledge of the > principles and ramifications of Dependent Arising, with direct awareness of > experiences and how such experiences are complying with the actualities of > Dependent Arising. Suk: An exercise in “theory projectionâ€?, nothing more. When I consider such things as the DO, my reaction is a need to better understand the present moment, which I know to be almost entirely dominated by ignorance and craving. Yes, I am drawn even more to consider presently arisen namas and rupas. You talk about “combining the knowledge of the principles and ramifications of Dependent Arising, with direct awareness of experiencesâ€?; I would say that were you to have really had direct understanding of the present moment, you wouldn’t proliferate to such ideas. Panna arises to know a reality, and because of this, there is a detachment. It would know that the moment is “conditionedâ€? and therefore not entertain any idea about ‘catching’ more moments, let alone seeing DO. But what is DO about anyway, if not the relationship between dhammas, and is therefore known by virtue of having a present moment reality as object !? ========= TG: > One needs to cultivate this until it becomes intuitive. Suk: Or one may end up caught in the illusion of result and evolve such ideas as seeing DO in physical phenomena and the findings of science, or it can evolve into such practices as a certain Ven. V, who talks about the need for a ‘happy mind’. ========= TG: > Then, and only then, will direct experiences be known for what they really are as > they happen. Until then, we will always be reflecting back and forth between > awareness of the experience and awareness of what that experience entails. Suk: Satipatthana *is* direct understanding. It starts from weak level and gets developed by way of accumulation as sankhara until the insight stages arise. When ‘seeing’ for example is known even at the beginning, this comes with some understanding about it being ‘conditioned’ and is far more fruitful than any ‘thinking about’ Dependent Arising. In fact the one will never mislead, whereas the other can very much, and even likely, do so. ========= TG: > So the answer to your first question above is it never applied to me. The > answer to your second question is yes...and detailed in my response. Suk: But what if this is a wrong understanding of the Path….? TG, I’ve taken the liberty to be outright, but this is in part because you have lately been the same with others. ;-) Metta, Sukin Ps: I won’t be able to respond to any reply you give for some time. #91111 From: "Sukinder" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:03 am Subject: Re: Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. sukinderpal Hi Tep, > I hope your trip back home with the family is going to be safe and > enjoyable. > Thank you for letting me know of your plan for the next three weeks. Thanks for your good wishes. But just to let you know, although my wife is visiting her family, mine are all in Thailand. I was born here Tep. ;-) Metta, Sukin #91112 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Old kamma & present behavior ... Attaa .. sarahprocter... Dear Tep (& Han), I meant to thank you before now for this: --- On Thu, 25/9/08, Tep wrote: >T: The "not" in "Yatha-bhuta~ nana-dassana is not taught in the Suttas" was a typo and I am sorry for it. It was meant to be "Yatha- bhuta~nana-dassana is taught in the Suttas". The next sentence indicates that the Abhidhamma-pitaka gives MORE details over and above those taught in the Suttas. ... S: That explained it all. Apologies for not realising it was a typo. Thx for clearing it up. ... T:> Thank you for reading my email carefully. ... S: Likewise! Metta, Sarah p.s Han, never mind that you'd forgotten the thread - it was just a typo discussion anyway and we're all agreed:-). ======== #91113 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method sarahprocter... Hi Alex (& TG), --- On Mon, 6/10/08, Alex wrote: >T: Go ahead and make a dead tree grow again. > > Good luck, > > Tep > === A:> If Sarah refuses to answer, or answers in a very vague and indirect manner, then it would mean that either she doesn't understand the method - or there isn't one. Same applies to other DSG'ers. I'd like to see clear outline, in point form, clear summary of steps neccessary to realize ariyanhood. ... S: 1) Understand the reality appearing now 2) Understand the reality appearing now 3) Understand the reality appearing now 4) Understand the reality appearing now 5) Understand the reality appearing now and so on and so on. I hope that's clear, direct, in point form and summarised enough:-) If it's not clear what the reality appearing now is, ask, ask, consider, consider, until it becomes clearer. Metta, Sarah, aka the Dead Tree ========== #91114 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See jonoabb Hi Howard > What, BTW, do you have in mind when you speak of something not of this world"? > You're not asserting that bhavanga cittas take some sort of supermundane > something-or-other as object, are you? (I presume you mean something else by > that.) Perhaps I should have said: "... the arising of a citta that has as object something that was the object of the consciousness at the end of the previous life." As you may recall, the object of the bhavanga citta is the same object as the object of consciousness of the final process before death consciousness (cuti citta) in the previous life. Hope this is clearer. > The notion is neutral as regards phenomenalism. I have no problem at all > on that basis with the idea of there being bhavanga cittas. I just see > neither necessity nor evidence for them. I would add them easily to my inventory > of presumed phenomena otherwise. Well I wasn't aware that phenomenalism accommodated "presumed phenomena" (such as rupas ;-)). In what sense then is phenomenalism distinct? Jon #91115 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood jonoabb Tep > T: The term "step-by-step" in Alex's question simply means > description of what Nina and Sarah call 'understanding now" of namas > & rupas; it is an instruction of "how to" develop such understanding. I don't mean to sound unhelpful, but I don't think there's any "how to" instruction for kusala in general or insight in particular. There's only a description of what it is, and what are the conditions for its development. The reason there's no "how to" is that kusala can only be developed by its arising in the first place, and that arising is not something that can be made or encouraged to happen. The arising of kusala happens at a time and occasion not of our choosing (or anticipation). Does that make sense? > If there is no such description/instruction, or it is not clear, then > nobody knows what they are talking about. Chapter XVIII in the Vism > is an example of such step-by-step outline or description or > instruction (whatever you want to call it). Well that's a matter of interpretation, I'd say. > In all teachings since your kindergarten class, the most basic > subject has to be taught first and to be followed by another building > block of knowledge (idea, concept, information, facts, etc.) such > that understanding of a certain subject matter can be gradually > developed in the student. And likewise the understanding that is insight develops gradually. But as regards how that development occurs, it is not a matter of some step-by-step method or practice. > You build almost anything from the foundation up. If that is not step > by step, then what is it? Kusala of all kinds can and does arise without there being the specific intention that it should. Jon #91116 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Looping & repeating things in DO sarahprocter... Dear Alex, You raised some good questions in this thread: --- On Tue, 7/10/08, Alex wrote: >I know that feeling can be describe in 2 or 108 ways. ... S: Or an indefinite number of ways... ... >What I would like to clarify and dig deeper into is the significance of having at least 3 vedana's happening in DO in different contexts. Vedana in Nama, Vedana in Vedana and vedana felt in the last link (suffering, sorrow, etc). ... S: a) Nama(in DO) refers to all mental states accompanying vipaka cittas,such as patisandhi citta, seeing consciousness and hearing consciousness. b) Vedana in vedana (in DO)refers specifically to vedana accompanying vipaka cittas, highlighting its importance. As Nina quoted recently from the Vism: Text Vis. 294: 'And now there is a fivefold fruit' means what is given in the text beginning with consciousness and ending with feeling, according as it is said: 'Here [in the present becoming] there is rebirth-linking, which is 'consciousness'; there is descent [into the womb], which is 'mentality-materiality'; there is sensitivity, which is 'sense base'; there is what is touched, which is 'contact'; there is what is felt, which is 'feeling'; thus these five things here in the [present] rebirth-process becoming have their conditions in kamma done in the past' (Ps.i,52). c) Vedana in suffering, sorrow, etc refers to the (future) unpleasant bodily and mental feelings in general, conditioned (directly or indirectly)by (akusala) kamma in this life. Metta, Sarah ======= #91117 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings sarahprocter... Dear Alex & all, --- On Mon, 6/10/08, Alex wrote: > S: From the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation: > > "Friend, there are two conditions for the arising of right view: >the voice of another (S: parato ghosa) and wise attention (S: yoniso >manasikara) ."* A:> Of course the meditation by itself will not give rise to right view. However it could HELP it by burning off excess defilements and hindrances. ... S: Can we consider the listening to 'the voice of another' (i.e suta-maya-panna, understanding based on listening) and 'wise attention', with understanding of course, as 'meditation' or bhavana? ... > S: continuing from the sutta: > > "Friend, by how many factors is right view assisted when it has deliverance of mind for its fruit, deliverance of mind for its fruit (S: cetovimutti phaala) and benefit, when it has deliverance by wisdom (S: pa~n~naavimutti phaala) for its fruit, deliverance by wisdom for its fruit and benefit?" > > "Friend, right view is assisted by five factors when it has deliverance of mind for it fruit....... ...wisdom for its fruit and benefit. Here, friend, right view is assisted by virtue [S:siilaanuggahitaa ], learning[sutaanugga hitaa], discussion [saakacchaanuggahit aa), serenity [samathaanuggahitaa ], and insight [vipassanaanuggahit aa].....* " > ...... > [**"MA: Right view here is the right view pertaining to the path of >arahantship. 'Deliverance of mind' and 'deliverance by wisdom' both >refer to the fruit of arahantship; see n.83.*** When one fulfils >these five factors, the path of arahantship arises and yields its >fruit.] When one fulfills these *5* factors the path arises. > > [[***n.83 "MA: In this passage "mind" and "wisdom" signify, respectively, the concentration and wisdom associated with the fruit of arahantship. Concentration is called "deliverance of mind" (cetovimutti) because it is liberated from lust; wisdom is called "deliverance by wisdom" (pa~n~navimutti) because it is liberated from ignorance. The former is normally the result of serenity, the latter the result of insight. But when they are coupled and described as taintless (anaasava), they jointly result from the destruction of the taints by the supramundane path of arahantship. ]] .... A:> Non of the above refutes Jhana attainments (up to Nirodha Samapatti) for path of Arhatship. ... S: Just to remind you, this was the sutta that you selected (in a discussion with Jon if I recall) as indicating that jhana attainments were essential conditions. I'm merely quoting it in more detail and with additional commentary notes to indicate that it can certainly be read with another interpretation:-). Metta, Sarah ========= #91118 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 2:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Mon, 6/10/08, Alex wrote: >> S: It (Jhana) only "helps the path" ... A:> I am glad that here we do have an agreement! ... S: Ha! Now you need to read one more word before coming to a hasty conclusion:-) S:>> ****if ***it is understood as an impermanent, conditioned dhamma. >Also, only the development of insight and attainment of enlightenment >ensures "one doesn't fall into hell". .... A:> Did I ever say otherwise? No of course. Jhana is impermanent, anatta and ultimately Dukkha. ... S: You suggested, I thought, that jhana ensures "one doesn't fall into hell", unless it is "abused". Yes, of course jhana is anicca, dukkha and anatta, but unless it is clearly understood as such when it *appears*, it isn't a condition for enlightenment. Thanks for your other comments and for the quote about the Bodhisatta and fulfilling of the Paramis (Perfections), presumably taken from the Jatakas. I'm glad to see that you at least agree with the development of the paramis and the Jatakas when they are quoted in Ashin Janakabhivamsa's ADL:-). Metta, Sarah == >Of course, we can give many examples beginning of Devadatta for whom >rebirth in the lowest (avici) hell follwed his human life with the >attainment of the highest of mundane jhanas. He had very bad vices, and without insight they have eventually overtook him. Somewhere in MN112 or thereabouts, there is a statement that bad people may attain up to base of neither perception nor non-perception. Maybe we need to redefine the difficulty of Jhana. There is also a story of Buddha in his previous life being ascetic with Jhana and super powers. He was flying to some palace, saw a queen without the cloth and fell to the ground. I don't remember if it was in that or other story, where He as a Jhana hermit did an ogre transgression with her. Good luck that the King was Ananda... Here is a story which I've read in "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" ASHIN JANAKABHIVAMSA The Bodhisatta, Haritaca by name, having renounced the world, abandoning his immense wealth of eighty crores of money, became a hermit and attained the great supernatural powers, jhanas and abhinnas. Then, as the rains were heavy in the Himalayas, he came to Baranasi and stayed in the King's garden. The king of Baranasi was his old friend who was fulfilling the Paramis (Perfections) to become the Venerable Ananda. Therefore, as soon as he saw the hermit, he revered him so much that he asked him to stay in the royal garden and supported him with four requisites; he himself offered the hermit morning meals at the palace. Once, as a rebellion broke out in the country, the king himself had to go out to quell it. Before setting out with his army, he requested the queen again and again not to forget to look after the hermit. The queen did as told. One early morning, she took a bath with scented water and put on fine clothes and lay down on the couch waiting for the hermit. The Bodhisatta came through space with his supernormal power, abhinna, and arrived at the palace window. Hearing the flutter of the hermit's robe, the queen hastily rose from her couch and her dress fell off her. Seeing the queen divested of her clothes, the anusaya moha which lay dormant in his mind-continuum, rose to the stage of pariyutthana moha, and filled with lust, he took the queen's hand and committed immoral transgression like a monster ogre. Note: We should consider the stupidity arising through moha in this story seriously. If such moha did not appear in him, he would not have committed such an evil deed even with the king's consent. But at that time, being overwhelmed by the darkness of delusion, he was unable to see the evil consequences of his deed in the present and the future existences throughout the samsara, and consequently, committed that improper transgression. The jhanas and abhinnas, which he had acquired through practice for all his life, were also unable to dispel the darkness of moha; instead, being overwhelmed by moha the power of jhanas and abhinnas themselves vanished from him. http://web.ukonline .co.uk/buddhism/ abdmjnka. htm#preface Best wishes, #91119 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 2:10 am Subject: Re: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? philofillet Hi TG Thanks for your reply. As I said, I've mostly just flipped by the posts in which you and Howard were questioning this sort of thing, because it didn't concern me. Now it feels more relevant. > TG: The problem with this is that the Abhidhammists don't have any > intention of "seeing through" the so-called "dhammas." They think these "dhammas" > are "ultimate realities." They cherish them, they want to indulge in > perceptions of them. Ph: I don't know about the term "Abhiddhammists" since Abhidhamma is in tipitaka. I guess you mean people who put Abhidhamma at the forefront, people who see all suttas as kind of propped up entities that are conventionally-worded versions of what is taught at a deeper level in Abhidhamma. I think that's an incorrect approach. The suttanta contains very helpful teachings that cannot be reduced to paramattha interpretations except by great leaps of imagination, in my opinion. And yet I want to study Abhidhamma to better appreciate the suttas that are so very Abhidhammic, and there are a lot of them. (I think of almost all the suttas in SN 22 and SN 12, for example, but only because those are samyuttas I am at least a little bit familiar with. I'm sure there are huge areas of the suttanta or even most of the suttanta that are very paramattha... > > > The other problem is that the concept of "dhammas" is done for the purpose > of trying to overcome self-view. (As I have stated, I think they have just > transferred self-view onto the idea of "dhammas.") It doesn't make any sense > to create a new fallacy as a basis to try to see through its fallaciousness. Ph: Well, I don't know about this. I think it could. After all, the other day we were agreeing that the Buddha encouraged us to tap into or didn't discourage us from tapping into or made use of the "sense of control", which we agreed was illusionary. You know, I am too relaxed, I think, about my approach to sakkaya- ditthi. In one memorable sutta the Buddha encourages us to reflect on how deeply moored we are to self-view (like a dog lying down by a pole) and then urges us to reflect on how long the mind has been subject to defilements, and urges us to do something about it. It's one of the only suttas I have come across to do something immediately about eliminating sakkaya-ditthi, but I have a hunch it's one I should start paying attention to a wee bit more. And it feels to me that studying Abhidhamma again (I used to be very much into it about 3 years ago) will help me in that direction. But now, compared to 3 years ago, I think I will be studying Abhidhamma in a wiser context, with a lot of attention to more conventional aspects of the teaching, with a lot more attention to conventional teachings of morality found in the suttanta. So the Abhidhamma study will be going on within a better refuge than there was before...I think. > If you get rid of "own characteristics," if you get rid of "ultimate > reality," then "dhammas" as applied to elements and aggregates is easier to swallow, > and possibly correct...depending on the schemata. But, if you add those > aspects into the conception of Dhammas, it becomes a grasping after > self-view...so subtly conceived that it even fools its adherents. Ph: Yes, this is something I've wondered on occasion. WHen one is constantly thinking in terms of dhammas and anatta, how does one see the self that is still at work. It is so much easier to see the "deluded framework" when I am thinking about being a better person, doing less harm to others, etc. There is "self" involved there, but I can see it clearly. I think our friends who put Abhidhamma to the forefront are also able to see self at work though, we needn't worry about that. > > TG: Regardless of whether I think they inject self-view into the "dhammas > theory," they clearly see them as ultimate realities with their own > characteristics. This view "ignores" the 100% conditioned and dependent nature of > phenomena. The direction of insight must always be from the standpoint of > conditionality. Ph: At this point, I don't see why ultimate relaties with their own characteristics need to be any less subject to 100% conditionality. I mean the Patthana lays out conditions in such deep detail, there is no suggestion I've seen of immunity from conditionality in there! (THough of course I've only studied writing about the Patthana, not the Patthana itself.) I guess I'll stop there. Thanks for the feedback, TG. The two posts I wrote were just to try to express confusion I have on this point. I'll keep following what you and Howard and others have to say on this point, even as I return to Abhidhamma study and provisional belief in ultimate realities with their own characteristics etc. metta, phil #91120 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 2:10 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood jonoabb Hi Tep > Dear Scott (Jon, Alex), - ... > But you have not given me a reply about how you develop 'understanding > nama-rupa now' yet. To my understanding, the key to the development of the awareness/ understanding spoken of by the Buddha is the realisation or acceptance that it is awareness/understanding in relation to a presently arising dhamma that is being spoken of. Here, "presently arising" does not mean a dhamma that is selected or is of a particular group of dhammas or is focussed on; nor something that might be better seen later when the circumstances are more conducive. It means a dhamma arising now, in the circumstances occurring at this very moment (as this message is being read/written or whatever may follow next after that), regardless of the level of akusala that is also occurring or any other factor. If one can appreciate that this is the context in which the suttas are to be understood, it puts a different light on the Buddha's message. Hoping this makes sense. Jon #91121 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 2:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Change we can believe in"! sarahprocter... Hi Alex, A good subject heading:-) --- On Mon, 6/10/08, Alex wrote: >--- sarah abbott wrote: >"The life-span of a citta is termed, in the Abhidhamma, a mind-moment >(cittakkha. na). This is a temporal unit of such brief duration that, >accordingto the commentators, in the time it takes for lightning to >flash or the eyes toblink, billions of mind-moments can elapse. "what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ sn/sn12/sn12. 061.than. html .... A:> Does anyone notices the difference in speed of moment by a magnitude of a trillion? How can one even contemplate trillions of cittas in a second? > Sarah, please explain it clearly and precisely. ... S: No need to contemplate about 'trillions of cittas' (or 'trillions of $' for that matter). They're just ideas, just concepts that can never be known, It's the thinking now which can be known and the thinking now is different from the thinking a moment ago. That's all. Again, back to the path - as Jon and Scott have been patiently repeating, it's not a matter of 'doing' or 'trying' but of understanding what appears now. Metta, Sarah ======== #91122 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 2:20 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. sarahprocter... Hi Howard, In #90983 you wrote: --- On Sat, 4/10/08, upasaka@... wrote: ============ ========= ========= H:> 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. ... S: Unless I misunderstand your expression 'field of objects', I have a different understanding here. Vinnana refers to the vipaka cittas, patisandhi (birth consciousness)and subsequent vipaka cittas such as seeing and hearing. Nama-rupa refers not to the 'objects' of these cittas, but to the accompanying mental factors and rupas (of the body) conditioned by past kamma. So, for example, hearing consciousness (vinnana) arises with 7 mental factors (nama in D.O.) and supported by ear-sense. The object, sound, is not conditioned by past kamma if it's outside the body - for example, the sound of the tree outside your window. Metta, Sarah ======= #91123 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 2:28 am Subject: Re: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? philofillet Hi again. I want to qualify what I wrote below TG > > The other problem is that the concept of "dhammas" is done for the > purpose > > of trying to overcome self-view. (As I have stated, I think they > have just > > transferred self-view onto the idea of "dhammas.") It doesn't > make any sense > > to create a new fallacy as a basis to try to see through its > fallaciousness. > > Ph: Well, I don't know about this. I think it could. After all, > the other day we were agreeing that the Buddha encouraged us to tap > into or didn't discourage us from tapping into or made use of > the "sense of control", which we agreed was illusionary. No, not fallacy of course. But I remember once when I was talking with Rob M, an Abhidhamma entusiast, I told him that it sometimes seemed like Abhidhamma was, as I put it, "a sublime fabrication" and he agreed, though I can't remember in what way he agreed. (Certainly not in the way of saying Abhidhamma is just made up and fallacious) I can't put my finger on it, but it feels to me like Abhidhamma, in its extraordinary, perfectly worked out detail, is taught to us with the following principle at heart: to know how to take something apart you have to understand exactly how it's put together. So Abhidhamma and the teaching of ultimate realities that all work together so beautifully is a sublime fabrication that must be ultimately be taken apart or something and left behind like the raft. Can't put my finger on it. But not a fallacy, no... OK, PHIL OUT. #91124 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:03 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 3, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 3 The Development of Calm Our life is full of attachment, aversion and ignorance. When we do not apply ourselves to kusala through body, speech or mind, we act, speak or think with akusala cittas. Dåna and síla are opportunities to have kusala citta instead of akusala citta, but there are not always conditions for these ways of kusala. Mental development, bhåvanå, is a way of kusala that can be performed also at those moments when there is no opportunity for dåna or síla. There are two ways of mental development: samatha or the development of calm and vipassanå or the development of insight. Through samatha the calm that is temporary freedom from lobha, dosa and moha is developed; lobha, dosa and moha cannot be eradicated through samatha. The calm which is developed in samatha is different from what we mean by calm in conventional language. The calm developed in samatha can arise only with sobhana citta (beautiful citta). When we say in daily language that we are calm, we only think of a concept of calm and we do not realize whether the citta is kusala citta or akusala citta. There is calm with every kusala citta. When true generosity arises there is calm with the citta, because at that moment there are no lobha, dosa and moha. When we abstain from ill deeds there is calm with the kusala citta. However, the moments of kusala citta are very rare and soon after they have fallen away akusala cittas arise; cittas with attachment, conceit or aversion may arise. Since kusala cittas are so rare and akusala cittas arise very shortly after the kusala cittas have fallen away, it is difficult to know exactly when there is kusala citta and when there is akusala citta. Only paññå can know this precisely. Dåna and síla may or may not arise with right understanding, but there cannot be any form of mental development, bhåvanå, without right understanding. The calm of samatha that is temporary freedom from defilements cannot be developed without paññå. The paññå of samatha must be able to discern the characteristic of calm when it arises, otherwise calm cannot grow. The paññå of samatha knows kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala, but it is different from the paññå of vipassanå since it does not realize kusala and akusala as not self. The concept of self is not eradicated through samatha. ******** Nina. #91125 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma sarahprocter... Dear Tep, --- On Wed, 1/10/08, visitorfromtexas wrote: >>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. ... S: If you look at your subject heading, you may understand why I might have got the idea that you were suggesting some difference between the suttas and the Abhidhamma. Now, I decided to just look in detail at your first quote. I'd prefer to just stick to one at a time. We can then move on to the next one. (Btw, sometimes just the 4 primary rupas are mentioned, but the rupas dependent on them are implied. There can never just be 4 rupas arising in a group). ... T:> 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. <...> >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 ! ... S: For example, we were discussing visible objects, sounds, smells, tastes, tangible objects, I believe. These are all included in the great and derived rupas referred to in the texts. ... >T: 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? .... S: 28 rupas - 4 primaries and 24 derived rupas. If you wanted to read all the details, as opposed to a summary in Ab.Sangaha, the best place to turn is the Dhammasangani which of course precedes the Vibhanga. In Kline's translation, there are over 200 pages giving all the details of these 28 rupas. For example, we read under "Internal corporeality which is not Primary Element" that this refers to the sense-base of eye-consciousness and so on. Metta, Sarah ========= #91126 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method nilovg Dear Sarah and Tep, there is no other way. It can begin and we do not expect clear understanding in the beginning, but litle, by little, by little, it can grow, almost unnoticeable. We have to be courageous to accept this. Nina. Op 8-okt-2008, om 10:31 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > 1) Understand the reality appearing now > 2) Understand the reality appearing now > 3) Understand the reality appearing now > 4) Understand the reality appearing now > 5) Understand the reality appearing now #91127 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma nilovg Dear Tep, Yes, also to be found in the Vis. Ch XIV. We went all along with Larry! I greatly enjoyed that part. Nina. Op 8-okt-2008, om 12:03 heeft sarah abbott 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? #91128 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma. sarahprocter... Dear Tep, --- On Wed, 1/10/08, visitorfromtexas wrote: 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? ... S: They're understood and referred to in other suttas such as the first one you quoted and which I elaborated on from the Vibhanga. It wasn't necessary for the Buddha to refer to every rupa in every sutta, just as it wasn't necessary for him to refer to every mental factor in every sutta either. It's like when we give the example of understanding 'hardeness'. Clearly, other tangible objects can be understood too. .... T:> 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? .... S: I thought we were talking about head hairs recently? I was certainly discussing hair with someone. What we call hair is experienced as what, would you say, Tep? Again, I think it's less confusing to discuss one sutta at a time, but whatever you like.... Metta, Sarah ======== #91129 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] don't drink and drive sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- On Thu, 25/9/08, Alex wrote: > S: First of all, when I asked what khandha 'tree' is, you >said 'probably sanna'. Now you say it's 'Gross Rupa', 'far' and >then 'near'. A:> Word + memory "tree" = sanna-khanda. The rupa that is being labelled is rupakhanda. .... S: 'word' and 'tree' are only ever concepts. They are not sanna-khandha. Sanna refers to the perception/remembering/marking only, not to the concept. The rupas are just 28 as I was just discussing with Tep. ... S:>>In what way are 'trees' sankhata >anyway? A:> Lots and lots of "atoms" , strings, call them as you will. ... S: Trees, atoms, strings or whatever you call anything are concepts. Concepts are never sankhata. Sankhata refers to conditioned namas and rupas, to khandhas. Metta, Sarah ======== #91130 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Warning! Don't try this at home! sarahprocter... Hi Howard, back to your comments in #90627. (As I said to TG, my replies to him were relatively up-to-date, lol!): --- On Wed, 24/9/08, upasaka@... wrote: ============ ========= ======== Trees are neither rupas nor namas, nor are they fictions. Each is a trans-temporal, patterned, dynamic collection (or river) of interrelated dhammas, mainly rupas, cognized via the mind door and typically perceived (erroneously) as an individual. ... S: Hmmm, that sounds rather fiction-like to me, but I know where you're driving:-) ... H:> P. S. A tree is not a nama, because namas, as I understand the term, are not any old mind-door objects, but are either mental operations or mental characteristics & events; i.e., they are either types of knowing (for example mere knowing-as-object, or feeling, or recognizing) or are any of various features of mind states (mainly emotions). ... S: We certainly agree that "a tree is not a nama":-). Metta, Sarah ======== #91131 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: don't drink and drive ... Flunking Sarah's Quiz .. sarahprocter... Hi Tep, Let's see where this one on trees is driving too....(#90640) --- On Thu, 25/9/08, Tep wrote: >>Alex: Word + memory "tree" = sanna-khanda. The rupa that is being labelled is rupakhanda. >T: I think both cases are volitional formations. ............ .. S: Do I detect some dissension in the ranks? Alex has tree as sanna and rupa. You have them as sankhara khandha. As far as I understand, trees are just concepts, no khandha at all. .... >>>Sarah: In what way are 'trees' sankhata anyway? >Alex: Lots and lots of "atoms" , strings, call them as you will. >T: I think Alex means "the formed" (or the fabricated). .... S: That which is formed up, 'sankhata' is sankhara dhamma, conditioned dhammas - namas and rupas. A tree is imagined/conceptualised in the mind. The citta, accompanied by sanna, vitakka and other mental factors 'imagines' or 'conceptualises'. However, that which is conceptualised, 'the tree' in this case, is just an idea. It is not sanna khandha, rupa khandha or sankhara khandha. ............ . >>Alex: In the Buddha's teaching (MN28) about mahabhutas, trees are Earth Element in particular arrangement. Maybe some tiny internal space as well. .... By ABh classification, tree would probably be classed under hardness+cohesion+ little bit of heat (earth, water, fire) perceived through the body door and labeled by the mind. ... >T: I am lost here, so I'm turning in a blank answer sheet. ... S: Good answer! I turned in a blank sheet for the last part too:-). Metta, Sarah ========== #91132 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:52 am Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... Dear Scott, (Tep & Alex), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > Scott: Concepts are not sa"nkhaara as I understand it. As I see it, > since impermanence is a characteristic of conditioned realities - > paramattha dhammas - and since concepts are not paramattha dhammas, > then they do not arise and fall away - they are not impermanent. > > This is all subject to correction. ... S: this was a very good summary and relevant to what I just muddled through in my various posts on trees. Metta, Sarah p.s I think it corrected an earlier comment suggesting pannatti might be conditioned. ============ #91133 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma. philofillet Hi Sarah (and Tep and all...) > Notice > that the 24 derived rupas are not mentioned even once in these suttas. > Do you know why? > ... > S: They're understood and referred to in other suttas such as the first one you quoted and which I elaborated on from the Vibhanga. It wasn't necessary for the Buddha to refer to every rupa in every sutta, just as it wasn't necessary for him to refer to every mental factor in every sutta either. Sorry, I haven't read all this thread so maybe this has been covered... I'm confused. As I was just writing to TG, I really am feeling a pull to study Abhidhamma again, but I have to be able to openly and clearly acknowledge what's in the suttanta and what isn't. Surely it's clearly stated (I think, for one, by BB in one of his anthologies) that derived rupa such as malleability and wieldiness and body and sex faculty(?)and others are *not* in the suttanta. Now, that doesn't mean that they aren't worth studying, but... Does studying Abhidhamma mean that I have to believe that everything that appears in it is also in the suttanta, that no aspects of it represent evolutions of Buddha's teaching rather than the teaching directly from the Buddha? I see no reason why the former (evolution of Buddha's teaching, which is certainly how Bhikkhu Bodhi presents it in the introduction to the SN anthology) takes away value from Abhidhamma, but fudging or denial certainly does. Am I misunderstanding what you said above.There are derived rupas in Abhidhamma that aren't taught in the suttanta aren't there? Thanks Sarah, maybe I am just misunderstanding! metta, phil #91134 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma. philofillet Hi again Typo alert: >Surely it's clearly > stated (I think, for one, by BB in one of his anthologies) that derived > rupa such as malleability and wieldiness and body and sex faculty(?) and > others are *not* in the suttanta. That "body" was going to be "body intimation." metta, phil #91135 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Sat, 27/9/08, Alex wrote: A:> Exactly how do you see the realities rather than theorizing about them? ... S: However many times you ask this or other questions about how *I* see/understand/experience/know or whatever, the answer will always be the same: *I* don't see the realities and neither do *you* or anyone else. Step One,(step 2, step3 and so one) is understanding that *I* and *you* play no part, no role in any of this. Metta, Sarah =========== #91136 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 4:38 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood - No Practise scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Regarding: T: "...I have a simple suggestion for you, Scottie. Understanding 'sati will be aware, pa~n~naa will know' and ''you' or 'I' won't achieve anything' is appropriate only for a WISE person who is beyond the world, who's contemplating the khandhas and truly seeing 'anatta dhamma'. Such a WISE person will not participate in a discussion group like ours, because he is beyond the world. Mimicking such a person who has the right understanding of the khandhas, while you are not WISE, only makes the discussion awkward and leads it to a dead-end...you can teach a parrot or a machine to say it too." Scott: I'm sorry that the lack of an acceptable answer to your question is so difficult to bear. I don't mind that you have to say things like in the above, and I'm sorry about your frustration. Of course I'm just an ordinary guy, Tep - you imagine that I mimic ariyans out of your own frustration. (And misunderstanding ;-) I'll respond to your other post regarding this very idea when I get time - we still disagree on this.) Its fine. I can't help that I understand things the way I do, Tep. I can't help that it makes total sense to me that there is no 'practise'. This sort of intellectual understanding (any sort of intellectual understanding or any sort of anything) just happens due to conditions. I don't worry about why I understand it this way while you don't - [and give me a hard time because I do and can't give it to you, ;-)] I can't help it. I just happen to see it that way. It is not 'me' though. When, for example, I read for the first time about the difference between concept and paramattha dhamma, without having done a thing but read about it, I was struck deeply and this made sense in a very deep way. I didn't 'practise' to make that happen; I didn't set out to force an understanding to arise where there wasn't one before. I was just faring in the midst of trying to figure out what the Buddha's teachings were, having already been struck by the desire to seek them out (a desire which also arose completely unbidden by me and also out of conditions). It was like I just heard something and suddenly it made sense and then everything I read subsequently was understood within that context. The only problem is - and this is, as well, a function of the nature of paramattha dhammas - there is no way that anything I say, or anything you read, can cause even the mildest form of understanding to arise *unless conditions are in place for this to occur*. You can't say to me, 'Speak so that I can understand what you understand', and have it so. Conditioned dhammas are not subject to control. I appreciate the way you keep on with your intense Dhamma studies. We share a certain tenacity in this regard, I think. I don't mind that we disagree. Sincerely, Scott. #91137 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 4:42 am Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Regarding: S: "this was a very good summary and relevant to what I just muddled through in my various posts on trees...I think it corrected an earlier comment suggesting pannatti might be conditioned." Scott: Thanks for the confirmation. I'm always out on a limb because I can't seem to see the forest for the trees... Sincerely, Scott. #91138 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 5:18 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood visitorfromt... Hello Jon (Scott, Sarah, Nina, Alex), - Thank you for the same old programmed reply. But the blame is on me because I hit the same switch that turned the same recording machine on. --- "jonoabb" wrote: > > Tep > > > T: The term "step-by-step" in Alex's question simply means > > description of what Nina and Sarah call 'understanding now" of namas > > & rupas; it is an instruction of "how to" develop such > understanding. > > I don't mean to sound unhelpful, but I don't think there's any "how > to" instruction for kusala in general or insight in particular. > There's only a description of what it is, and what are the conditions > for its development. > > The reason there's no "how to" is that kusala can only be developed > by its arising in the first place, and that arising is not something > that can be made or encouraged to happen. The arising of kusala > happens at a time and occasion not of our choosing (or > anticipation). Does that make sense? > > > If there is no such description/instruction, or it is not clear, > then > > nobody knows what they are talking about. Chapter XVIII in the Vism > > is an example of such step-by-step outline or description or > > instruction (whatever you want to call it). > > Well that's a matter of interpretation, I'd say. > > > In all teachings since your kindergarten class, the most basic > > subject has to be taught first and to be followed by another > building > > block of knowledge (idea, concept, information, facts, etc.) such > > that understanding of a certain subject matter can be gradually > > developed in the student. > > And likewise the understanding that is insight develops gradually. > But as regards how that development occurs, it is not a matter of > some step-by-step method or practice. > > > You build almost anything from the foundation up. If that is not > step > > by step, then what is it? > > Kusala of all kinds can and does arise without there being the > specific intention that it should. > > Jon > ========================= In summary: You again sing the same song of no 'how to' to develop understanding of nama& rupa now. Plain and simple it is because you don't practice the Dhamma, just a programmed belief in the DSG philosophy of no self, no person, no Buddha, no Sangha, no one who practices according to the Dhamma, no 8 ariya puggalas (a miccha-ditthi according to MN 117, and a direct denial of the Abhidhamma as well). This philosophy of perpetual, automatic understanding simply states, "Kusala of all kinds can and does arise without there being the specific intention that it should. And likewise the understanding that is insight develops gradually. But as regards how that development occurs, it is not a matter of some step-by-step method or practice." Comment: No intention to develop kusala and abandone akusala means no wholesome action (because intention is action) thus no siila, no samadhi, no pa~n~naa. A huge disadvantage of such no-action, no-practice philosophy is that you only think that kusala of all kinds "can and does arise without there being the specific intention", but in actuality akusala of all kinds does arise and ACCUMULATE in you because there is no specific intention with effort (intention + effort = action) to abandon(pahana) them. Plain and simple. Tep === #91139 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and TG) - In a message dated 10/7/2008 11:10:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Now I think what I wrote here doesn't stand in the light of paramattha dhammas being translated (and not only here) as "ultimate realities." An ultimate reality must have an ultimate existence, so what I wrote above about defining them clearly in order to see through their ultimate non-existence doesn't stand. I've been wanting to study Abhidhamma because I think it lays out an amazingly complete picture of reality, but I have been wanted to study with the belief that this amazingly complete picture of reality is taught by the Buddha (or those after him) for the purpose of eventually seeing that even the vision of reality laid out in the teaching is a fabrication taught merely for the purpose of our liberation. (i.e dropping the raft.) But if ultimate realities are said to ultimately exist, my notion is wrong, I guess....if they ultimately exist, they can't be dropped like that raft... Now I'm confused.... metta, phil ================================ The perspective that I sense on the part of some, though not all, of the admirers of Khun Sujin is that paramattha dhammas are entities: true, separable existents with essence that arise and are then annihilated. To me, this is an odd amalgam of substantialism and annihilationism, and not a middle way. From the little that I've read of and about the Abhidhamma Pitaka, though, it seems to me that its perspective on paramattha dhammas is, nibbana aside, that they are ultimate phenomena only in the sense that they are not compounds, not aggregations, and not requiring thought for their being experienced. I see them presented as nothing but mental and physical qualities, operations, and events that are fleeting and not stand-alone, but conditioned, distinguishable aspects of an interconnected network, without separate existence and without own being. Other than not being aggregations, there is nothing ultimate about their existence, for their existence is not only fleeting, but is also entirely contingent and inseparable from the existence of other equally empty phenomena. The Dhammasangani attempts a partial listing of important categories of paramattha dhammas, and the Patthana attempts a partial listing of important relational connections among them. The analysis of worldly objects to these is thus a reduction to ghostly scintillations that have no being of their own and disappear almost before they are seen "out of the corner of the eye." It is exactly the two-stage process of 1) seeing that these are the basis of our so solid-seeming world, and 2) seeing that there is virtually nothing substantial to this basis that leads to the realization that there is nothing conditioned that can be held onto or relied on, nothing conditioned that can satisfy, and nothing conditioned that is/has self, and leads finally to the disenchantment and relinquishment that open the doorway to nibbana, the real. With metta, Howard #91140 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 5:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- On Wed, 8/10/08, Scott wrote: >Scott: Thanks for the confirmation. I'm always out on a limb because I can't seem to see the forest for the trees... .... S: You can't see the forest for the trees and I'm either driving into them or having mirages of them in the desert....:-) Glad to see you're taking over as I shut down... Metta, Sarah ======== #91141 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/8/2008 4:44:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard > What, BTW, do you have in mind when you speak of something not of this world"? > You're not asserting that bhavanga cittas take some sort of supermundane > something-or-other as object, are you? (I presume you mean something else by > that.) Perhaps I should have said: "... the arising of a citta that has as object something that was the object of the consciousness at the end of the previous life." As you may recall, the object of the bhavanga citta is the same object as the object of consciousness of the final process before death consciousness (cuti citta) in the previous life. Hope this is clearer. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks - yes. ----------------------------------------------- > The notion is neutral as regards phenomenalism. I have no problem at all > on that basis with the idea of there being bhavanga cittas. I just see > neither necessity nor evidence for them. I would add them easily to my inventory > of presumed phenomena otherwise. Well I wasn't aware that phenomenalism accommodated "presumed phenomena" (such as rupas ;-)). In what sense then is phenomenalism distinct? --------------------------------------------- Howard: It's too much to get into, Jon. I'll pass. (Going to a funeral today, anyway. C'est la vie - namely, morte!) -------------------------------------------- Jon ============================ With metta, Howard #91142 From: "rinzeee" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 5:50 am Subject: Re: DO rinzeee Dear Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Rinze, and all, > Dear Alex Alex: All things are anicca-dukkha-anatta. Rinze: Yes Alex, all `Things' are anicca-dukkha-anatta. The significance of why I stopped from anicca is this – unless anicca is seen, dukkha cannot be realized. Being anicca is the cause and condition for the realization of Dukka. If a thing is not anicca (anicca is not seen), we could always have it for ourselves, hence the need to see anicca. The significance in `Things', is that there are two aspects to consider (1) Dependent arising (DO) or Paticca Samuppada, and (2) Dependently Arisen, Paticca Samuppanna. This latter aspect, Paticca Samuppanna is the `Thing', what we come to understand as "this mind & body" among other things. This we see from our senses.These things are in a state of "flux" (change while standing). What we don't see is the 1st aspect DO, that these things are dependently arising. Lord Buddha has summed up this very same idea when He says to Udayi in Culasakuladayi Sutta 79 in MN. That, "When there is this, this is, with arising of this this arises; when there is not this this is not, with cessation of this this ceases". These simple statements, describe the causal condition, or the structure of Things. The 12 factored DO is one particular example of this structure. Alex: What I asked was the significance (if any) of certain things being repeated in DO (Dependent Origination PS). Rinze: "Seeing PS is to see the Dhamma". For Lord Buddha to have said that, (I think) PS is the most significant of all, of what has been said in the Tripitaka. This implies that the 4NT is also contained in it, of which the 1st is Suffering. Therefore Lord Buddha has put together the Factors (of which there are 12), in a particular order, which finally conditions Suffering (the last factor). These factors pertain to Beings entangled in the round of births and deaths in Sansara, and the factors as so arranged, supporting the factors following it. The individual items grouped in these factors tend to repeat itself, which accounts for the `tangled mess', that's all. Lord Buddha summed up all these factors into one factor by saying, `Sabbe Sankara Anicca / Dukkha, Sabbe Dhamma Anatta". Here all the items are grouped into the 2nd factor of Sankhara. By items, I mean those individual things that repeat (and not repeated), which you are concerned with. Dhamma here means the Dependently Arisen things, the 2nd aspect mentioned above. Alex: Are the 3 vedanas different in some way (ex: from most general "ability to feel" to most specific "feeling of 1st NT"?) Rinze: Now that you have made clear your intentions behind your original question I could be more specific. In the final analysis, Feeling is mental, hence a cetasika or a component of nama. Here Feeling is of 3 kinds, Mental Pleasant feeling (Somanassa), Mental Unpleasant feeling (Domanassa) and Upekha. It is of 5 kinds when Bodily pleasant feeling (Sukha) and Bodily painful feeling (Dukkha) is also considered. The vedana in "most general ability to feel" – if you mean the feeling as is commonly understood – here the object is gross, therefore the feeling is more bodily pleasant or unpleasant feeling. The vedana in "most specific feeling of 1st NT" – here the object is necessarily very subtle, correspondingly the feeling is mental. More or less the feeling is a sense of being subjected to stress. Alex: Arahants do NOT have DO. Thus they do not have Resistence "contact". Heck if I understand correctly, they don't have vinnana-nama-rupa of DO. See Khemaka sutta for example with the "The Tathagata isn't apprehended as existing here and now..." Rinze: Arahants do not have DO is correct. But the full cycle of DO need not occur for contact to happen. Lord Buddha felt pain when a stone splinter struck His foot, but He took it with Equanimity. Consider this excerpt from SN 35.192 "The Blessed One, friend, possesses a mind; the Blessed One cognizes images with the mind; desire-&-lust for the Blessed One there is not; the Blessed One is wholly freed in heart". SN 35.192 "See Khemaka sutta for example with the "The Tathagata isn't apprehended as existing here and now..." Alex, what you posted here must be examined in context, for sure. I would imagine that the DO collapses from the Vedana / Tanha link for Arahants, since they do not have tanha, hence no upadana, no bhava, jati, jara, marana and so on. But they do have rememberance of their past. Ven. Sariputta went to His mother during His dying moments, Lord Buddha recalls His past and so on. So the first few factors (upto vedana) in PS is operative, IMO (not that it matters – of course it must be differently worded, and not start with ignorance). Otherwise I wonder how they recall the past, express themselves in words and deeds and feel bodily pain and so on, though they do not have upadana, to continue their bhava. Alex: I am strongly leaning to the opinion that DO is momentary rather than 3 or 2 life one (although the momentary DO happened in the past and will happen in the future, unless on becomes Arahant). Rinze: Yes DO is momentary, but perpetual, because Citta is always arising and falling without a break. In the `Compedium of Relations' in Abhidhamma, this section has two parts, (1) The Law of Dependent Arising & (2) The Law of Causal Relations. I believe that DO happens on the conscious level perpetually, as an on-going process, and "feeds" into (2), the Law of Causal relations on the sub- conscious (?) level. Shall leave it at that for the moment. Alex: The above is how I understant "free" (or semi free) will in Buddhism. Rinze: Could you please elaborate further on this idea of ""free" (or semi free) will in Buddhism"? Rinze: You must understand that the Dhamma cannot be comprehended in an >abstract sense, but has to be understood in an actual situation, >for that is when the Dhamma comes into `play'. We always find >ourselves, in a situation, and how we face that situation, is what >Dhamma is all about. Alex: This is why I like suttas so much. Less abstracted telephone book dry classifications. Rinze: I share your sentiments here. Metta Rinze #91143 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:50 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/8/2008 5:21:05 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, In #90983 you wrote: --- On Sat, 4/10/08, upasaka@... wrote: ============ ========= ========= H:> 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. ... S: Unless I misunderstand your expression 'field of objects', I have a different understanding here. Vinnana refers to the vipaka cittas, patisandhi (birth consciousness)and subsequent vipaka cittas such as seeing and hearing. Nama-rupa refers not to the 'objects' of these cittas, but to the accompanying mental factors and rupas (of the body) conditioned by past kamma. So, for example, hearing consciousness (vinnana) arises with 7 mental factors (nama in D.O.) and supported by ear-sense. The object, sound, is not conditioned by past kamma if it's outside the body - for example, the sound of the tree outside your window. Metta, Sarah ============================== Yours is an interesting take, Sarah! I don't think it is a correct take, as I think it has little place in the D. O. that pertains to the arising and the cessation of dukkha that is what the 12-link scheme is about, but it IS an interesting perspective. With metta, Howard #91144 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 6:04 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood visitorfromt... Hi Jon,- I have no question about your good intention to explain what you understand, but this explanation is an action that is conditioned by intention, isn't it? Yet, you oft declare that you do not have intention that leads to a wholesome action(kusala kamma) or to abandon unwholesomeness (no action, no practice, no training, no intention). I talked to Scott: >> But you have not given me a reply about how you develop 'understanding nama-rupa now' yet. >Jon: To my understanding, the key to the development of the awareness/ understanding spoken of by the Buddha is the realisation or acceptance that it is awareness/understanding in relation to a presently arising dhamma that is being spoken of. T: Realization (sacchikiriyaa) is NOT acceptance. Acceptance is found even in a 5-year-old kid. A 5-year-old kid can "understand" too. An adult who lies and commits adultery and gets drunk can also understand. So what kind of understanding do you think the Buddha talked about? >Jon: Here, "presently arising" does not mean a dhamma that is selected or is of a particular group of dhammas or is focussed on; nor something that might be better seen later when the circumstances are more conducive. It means a dhamma arising now, in the circumstances occurring at this very moment (as this message is being read/written or whatever may follow next after that), regardless of the level of akusala that is also occurring or any other factor. T: A drunk man can understand a presently arising dhamma too : when he falls down and his head hits the ground he understands "hardness" in the present moment. Would that understanding do him any good? >If one can appreciate that this is the context in which the suttas are to be understood, it puts a different light on the Buddha's message. Hoping this makes sense. T: But that is elementary, dear Jon. It is time to complete the elementary course and move up to the higher level. What did the Buddha teach about full understanding (pari~n~naa)? Tep === #91145 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 6:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma visitorfromt... Dear Sarah, - I think you may unintentionally avoid giving me a direct & straightforward reply to a straightforward request. But if you do not want to a honor my request, just simply ignore it and I'll understand. >T: 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? .... S: 28 rupas - 4 primaries and 24 derived rupas. If you wanted to read all the details, as opposed to a summary in Ab.Sangaha, the best place to turn is the Dhammasangani which of course precedes the Vibhanga. In Kline's translation, there are over 200 pages giving all the details of these 28 rupas. For example, we read under "Internal corporeality which is not Primary Element" that this refers to the sense-base of eye-consciousness and so on. T: My request is whether you actually see detail of the 24 derived rupas in the Vibhanga. I have no trouble finding them in the Vism, but I neither find the 24 rupas in the Vibhanga nor in the Dhammasangani of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. No need to give me the 200 pages in Kline's translation; just give me the location such as section number in the original Abhidhamma book (1 or 2) so I can read it myself. No more complain, dear Sarah. As I already gave a promise to Jon that from now I will no longer bother him with questions that he cannot answer. Life is too precious to waste anymore. Tep === #91146 From: "rinzeee" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 6:49 am Subject: Re: DSG's method rinzeee Dear Sarah & Sukin --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex (& TG), > > --- On Mon, 6/10/08, Alex wrote: > > >T: Go ahead and make a dead tree grow again. > > > > Good luck, > > > > Tep > > === > > A:> If Sarah refuses to answer, or answers in a very vague and indirect > manner, then it would mean that either she doesn't understand the > method - or there isn't one. Same applies to other DSG'ers. > > I'd like to see clear outline, in point form, clear summary of steps > neccessary to realize ariyanhood. > ... > S: > > 1) Understand the reality appearing now > 2) Understand the reality appearing now > 3) Understand the reality appearing now > 4) Understand the reality appearing now > 5) Understand the reality appearing now > > and so on and so on. > > I hope that's clear, direct, in point form and summarised enough:-) > > If it's not clear what the reality appearing now is, ask, ask, consider, consider, until it becomes clearer. > > Metta, > > Sarah, aka the Dead Tree > ========== > Dear Sarah & Sukin Pleae excuse me for butting in….. Can I ask you a question? Could you please answer it simply, honestly and spontaneously? When you travel in a vehicle down South in Sri Lanka, you will find the highway, running parallel to the beach and the railroad, for some miles. Let's say, the railroad criss-cross with the Highway, now and then. And in one of these `cross points', the vehicle you are traveling in, stalls and stops, right in the middle of the rail track! You (inside this vehicle) hear the train hooting away, just a short distance from the vehicle, but have just enough time to escape from the impending disasterous situation! What would you do? The condition of being spontaneous is because you have only a split second to think for the answer. I wish neither Sarah nor Sukin to read the others post before having posted theirs first, please. Metta Rinze #91147 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 7:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: DSG's method visitorfromt... Dear Nina and Sarah, - I really like the new style of your reply ! Style without substance? --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Tep, > there is no other way. It can begin and we do not expect clear > understanding in the beginning, but litle, by little, by little, it > can grow, almost unnoticeable. We have to be courageous to accept this. > Nina. > Op 8-okt-2008, om 10:31 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > > > 1) Understand the reality appearing now > > 2) Understand the reality appearing now > > 3) Understand the reality appearing now > > 4) Understand the reality appearing now > > 5) Understand the reality appearing now > ------------------ Tep: It only begs questions. 1)Aren't the reality appearing now a paramattha dhamma that is too fast to observe? 2)How can you understand a dhamma that arises and disappears in a fraction of a second? 3)What originates understanding at the beginning? 4)What nutriments continue to support "clear understanding" of "the reality appearing now" to continue to grow little by little, by little, by little? 5)How is this "clear understanding" similar to, or different from, full understanding (pari~n~naa)? No need to reply, if no direct and straightforward answers can be given. Tep === #91148 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 7:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma. visitorfromt... Dear Sarah (and Han), - I am following our good friend (OGF) Han's discussion style from now. Essentially, the OGFH style is : -- Repeat or re-explain the point you have once or twice, if the other side still disagrees or it does not get across, then it is time to politely thank them and shut up. ................. 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? ... S: They're understood and referred to in other suttas such as the first one you quoted and which I elaborated on from the Vibhanga. It wasn't necessary for the Buddha to refer to every rupa in every sutta, just as it wasn't necessary for him to refer to every mental factor in every sutta either. It's like when we give the example of understanding 'hardeness'. Clearly, other tangible objects can be understood too. .... T: A five-year-old girl understand hardness too. Can we assume she understands the paramattha dhammas of rupas? ........................ T:> 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? .... S: I thought we were talking about head hairs recently? I was certainly discussing hair with someone. What we call hair is experienced as what, would you say, Tep? T: The five-year-old girl understands hardness in 'head hairs' too, touching them with her finger. It is not difficult for her to know that it is the same hardness she can experience in the earth outside. Thank you very much Sarah for your viewpoint. Tep === #91149 From: "Sukinder" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 7:26 am Subject: Re: DSG's method sukinderpal Dear Rinze (and Sarah), ============ > Pleae excuse me for butting in….. > > Can I ask you a question? Could you please answer it simply, > honestly and spontaneously? > > When you travel in a vehicle down South in Sri Lanka, you will find > the highway, running parallel to the beach and the railroad, for > some miles. Let's say, the railroad criss-cross with the Highway, > now and then. And in one of these `cross points', the vehicle you > are traveling in, stalls and stops, right in the middle of the rail > track! > > You (inside this vehicle) hear the train hooting away, just a short > distance from the vehicle, but have just enough time to escape from > the impending disasterous situation! What would you do? > > The condition of being spontaneous is because you have only a split > second to think for the answer. > > I wish neither Sarah nor Sukin to read the others post before having > posted theirs first, please. I can only tell you about right now, and there is no train approaching me. ;-) I don't want to die and would try to change the situation if there was a threat to my life. But what that situation is, I can only imagine about, and so any conclusion I make about my reaction would be quite misleading. I don't think such speculations should be taken very seriously. Metta, Sukin #91150 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 7:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method sarahprocter... Dear Rinze. --- On Wed, 8/10/08, rinzeee wrote: >Can I ask you a question? Could you please answer it simply, honestly and spontaneously? >When you travel in a vehicle down South in Sri Lanka, you will find the highway, running parallel to the beach and the railroad, for some miles. .... [S: and btw, that road down the coast is spectacular - not like a 'higway' anywhere else, but I'm getting distracted as I drive down...:-) ... >Let's say, the railroad criss-cross with the Highway, now and then. And in one of these `cross points', the vehicle you are traveling in, stalls and stops, right in the middle of the rail track! .... [S: all quite possible, knowing the route, the tracks and some of the vehicles:-) ... >You (inside this vehicle) hear the train hooting away, just a short distance from the vehicle, but have just enough time to escape from the impending disasterous situation! What would you do? .... S: Hopefully escape, but doesn't it all depend on the conditions at the time? Who knows what accumulated tendencies might arise and what actions might follow? Do we know what cittas will arise next even now? Half an hour ago I closed down my computer for the night, but conditions to open it again....we never know.... .... >The condition of being spontaneous is because you have only a split second to think for the answer. ... S: OK, I gave the answer there were conditions to give right then. If you ask me tomorrow, it may be a different one:-). .... >I wish neither Sarah nor Sukin to read the others post before having posted theirs first, please. ... S: Well, even though I'd signed off for the night, your post and this note got my attention, so I thought I'd better quickly respond before I was tempted to read anything anyone else might write.... Now I'll probably dream of those beautiful beaches and trees down the lovely coastal road which you call a highway:-). I'll look forward to what you were wishing to hear in due course. Metta, Sarah ======== #91151 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 7:55 am Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? visitorfromt... Dear Sarah, Scott, Alex, Howard, - How could there be a discussion on concepts and sankhara without Howard's participation? > Scott: Concepts are not sa"nkhaara as I understand it. As I see it, > since impermanence is a characteristic of conditioned realities - > paramattha dhammas - and since concepts are not paramattha dhammas, > then they do not arise and fall away - they are not impermanent. > > This is all subject to correction. ... S: this was a very good summary and relevant to what I just muddled through in my various posts on trees. Metta, Sarah p.s I think it corrected an earlier comment suggesting pannatti might be conditioned. ============ T: I disagree with Scott. Impermanence is a characteristic of anything except asankhata dhamma. Concepts are changing all the time. Even a naming convention itself is changeable because humans change their minds. Several Airports in the U.S. have their names changed several times. Mental concoction is inconstant. Sankhata dhammas are impermanent. Anything that has component parts falls apart when it is old. Tree, mountains, rainbows are impermanent. Scott is not permanent. Tep === #91152 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 8:04 am Subject: Sheaves of Reed nilovg Dear Tep, -------- > > 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: You were wondering about vi~n~naa.na and naama in the D.O. context. As you rightly said, in the suttas vi~n~naa.na is sixfold, and the Vis. refers to this in Ch XVII, 120. In the Suttanta we find a sixfold classification of citta: the five types of sense-cognitions and mind-consciousness which includes all the other cittas. The text elaborates here on the vipaakacittas that are included in mind-consciousness. -------- Let us first speak about the suttanta classification: the sixth one is mind-consciousness. There are not only seeing, hearing, etc. but also akusala cittas, kusala cittas, and vipaakacittas other than the first five, and also kiriyacittas. Why is the Vis. and Tiika speaking only about vipaakacittas, rebirth- consciousness and other vipaakacittas arising during life? Because kamma-formation, sankhaara, conditions vipaakacitta. Why is the next link naama and ruupa? As you rightly said, citta is also naama. Let us look at the way vi~n~naa.na conditions the following link, naama/ruupa. This is by way of conascence and other condiitons that are conascent. Thus, naama arises together with vi~n~naa.na while it is conditioned by it. It includes the other three naamakkhandhas that are also vipaaka. Moreover ruupa that is vatthu, base, produced by kamma also is conascent at the first moment of life with vi~n~naa.na. When reading in English the word mind we have to look at the Pali. Naama in D.O. is translated as mind, but in Pali the word naama is used here. Not mano, which may be confusing. You referred to mind in paragraph 82 of chapter XIV (PTS Publication) he states that 'mind' or 'consciousness' or 'citta' are all equivalent. It is the English that confuses here! When learning Pali or any other language we have to accept that a word such as naama can refer to different realities. True, naama experiences an object, citta and cetasikas are both naama, experiencing an object. We have to look at the context to understand the meanings, to which reality does naama refer here or there? Another example is attha that has different meanings, depending on the context: meaning, wellbeing, for the sake of, and in attha pa.tisambidhaa fruit of a cause, result. Thus, we have to be very careful as to the context for each term. --------- Nina. Later on I look at your other post with the request of short definitions. I hope Sarah or others will also asnwer. Reading with great interest your dialogue with Scott. #91153 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 8:11 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reeds ... More Muddled .. nilovg Hi Howard, thanks for reminding us that arising is dukkha. Yes, vi~n~naa.na arises, birth is dukkha. What complications follow when the sensebases grow to completion, different objects are experienced, leading to craving, clinging, becoming and birth again. In order to understand the truth of dukkha, well, this can only be at this moment. Citta arises and falls away immediately. This is hard to realize, but a beginning can be made: understand the charactereistic of nama that experiences an object and of rupa that does not know anything. Nina. Op 8-okt-2008, om 14:50 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Yours is an interesting take, Sarah! I don't think it is a correct > take, > as I think it has little place in the D. O. that pertains to the > arising and > the cessation of dukkha that is what the 12-link scheme is about, > but it IS > an interesting perspective. #91154 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 8:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa -- Its Meanings in the Suttas vs the Abhidhamma. visitorfromt... Hi Phil (and Sarah), - It is good to read a straightforward, practical, no-nonsense comment like yours, Phil. I mentioned earlier: > > Tep: > > Notice that the 24 derived rupas are not mentioned even once in these suttas. Do you know why? > > ... Sarah explained: > > S: They're understood and referred to in other suttas such as the > first one you quoted and which I elaborated on from the Vibhanga. It > wasn't necessary for the Buddha to refer to every rupa in every sutta, just as it wasn't necessary for him to refer to every mental factor in every sutta either. > T: And you responded: >Ph: > I'm confused. As I was just writing to TG, I really am feeling a pull to study Abhidhamma again, but I have to be able to openly and clearly acknowledge what's in the suttanta and what isn't. Surely it's clearly stated (I think, for one, by BB in one of his anthologies) that derived rupa such as malleability and wieldiness and body and sex faculty(?)and others are *not* in the suttanta. Now, that doesn't mean that they aren't worth studying, but... > T: You are right that "to openly and clearly acknowledge what's in the suttanta and what isn't" is necessary for non-confusing Dhamma discussions. >PH: Does studying Abhidhamma mean that I have to believe that everything that appears in it is also in the suttanta, that no aspects of it represent evolutions of Buddha's teaching rather than the teaching directly from the Buddha? I see no reason why the former (evolution of Buddha's teaching, which is certainly how Bhikkhu Bodhi presents it in the introduction to the SN anthology) takes away value from Abhidhamma, but fudging or denial certainly does. Am I misunderstanding what you said above. There are derived rupas in Abhidhamma that aren't taught in the suttanta aren't there? > .............. T: One reason that many, including me, often argue with Abhidhammikas is that they are very opinionated and are too quick to explain everything including what the Buddha did not say in the Suttas. I think they think they see the Dhamma through their Abhidhamma Eye. Such Abhidhamma Eye apparently is superior to the Dhamma Eye in the Suttas. ;-) > Ph: Thanks Sarah, maybe I am just misunderstanding! > T: On the contrary, I think you understand it well, Phil. Tep === #91155 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 5:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 10/8/2008 6:35:51 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: The perspective that I sense on the part of some, though not all, of the admirers of Khun Sujin is that paramattha dhammas are entities: true, separable existents with essence that arise and are then annihilated. To me, this is an odd amalgam of substantialism and annihilationism, and not a middle way. From the little that I've read of and about the Abhidhamma Pitaka, though, it seems to me that its perspective on paramattha dhammas is, nibbana aside, that they are ultimate phenomena only in the sense that they are not compounds, not aggregations, and not requiring thought for their being experienced. I see them presented as nothing but mental and physical qualities, operations, and events that are fleeting and not stand-alone, but conditioned, distinguishable aspects of an interconnected network, without separate existence and without own being. Other than not being aggregations, there is nothing ultimate about their existence, for their existence is not only fleeting, but is also entirely contingent and inseparable from the existence of other equally empty phenomena. The Dhammasangani attempts a partial listing of important categories of paramattha dhammas, and the Patthana attempts a partial listing of important relational connections among them. The analysis of worldly objects to these is thus a reduction to ghostly scintillations that have no being of their own and disappear almost before they are seen "out of the corner of the eye." It is exactly the two-stage process of 1) seeing that these are the basis of our so solid-seeming world, and 2) seeing that there is virtually nothing substantial to this basis that leads to the realization that there is nothing conditioned that can be held onto or relied on, nothing conditioned that can satisfy, and nothing conditioned that is/has self, and leads finally to the disenchantment and relinquishment that open the doorway to nibbana, the real. With metta, Howard .......................................................... TG: Did you ever see that original Star Trek where they go to this society of semi-retarded folks, but they have this helmet device they call "the teacher" and when they use it they become super-geniuses for a few hours. That's what I imaging happened to you before you wrote this post. Especially the first part that is expressed so well. Although still excellent, "the teacher" seems to be wearing off a little on the last part. LOL I saved this post. PS... This is not to say I think you are normally retarded. LOL TG #91156 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 10:33 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood - No Practise visitorfromt... Dear Scottie (Nina, Jon), - I am always touched by friendly words that are kind, patient, sincere and down-to-earth. Your reply this time impresses me. Thank you very much. >Scott: I'm sorry that the lack of an acceptable answer to your question is so difficult to bear. I don't mind that you have to say things like in the above, and I'm sorry about your frustration. Of course I'm just an ordinary guy, Tep - you imagine that I mimic ariyans out of your own frustration. (And misunderstanding ;-) I'll respond to your other post regarding this very idea when I get time - we still disagree on this.) Its fine. T: Not that difficult, Scott. Was I frustrated by your earlier answer? To some extent, yes. Did they make me angry? No. Do I still enjoy your posts and consider them useful? Yes, of course. BTW, I am just an ordinary guy too. ;-)) I look forward to reading your response to that "very idea", Scott. But keep in mind that disagreement is a way of life and just report the truth the way you see it. That's what I appreciate ! Essentially, you told me an experience with "understanding nama & rupa now" that has occurred with 'no practice' as follows. >Scott: >This sort of intellectual understanding (any sort of intellectual understanding or any sort of anything) just happens due to conditions. .... I just happen to see it that way. It is not 'me' though. >I read for the first time about the difference between concept and paramattha dhamma, without having done a thing but read about it, I was struck deeply and this made sense in a very deep way. I didn't 'practise' to make that happen; I didn't set out to force an understanding to arise where there wasn't one before. I was just faring in the midst of trying to figure out what the Buddha's teachings were, having already been struck by the desire to seek them out (a desire which also arose completely unbidden by me and also out of conditions). It was like I just heard something and suddenly it made sense and then everything I read subsequently was understood within that context. T: Good, Scott, very good. This is what I understand what you have told me : understanding (a cetasika dhamma) arose, while there was no clinging to 'me' & 'mine'; it was just a moment when the citta was associated with saddha and ~nana that had resulted from anupassana of the Dhamma. Your story reminds me of the following passage in the Patisambhidamagga, I : On Knowledges. 407. Nine ideas(dhammas) rooted in gladness: When he give attention [to an object] as impermanent gladness springs up in him; when he is glad happiness springs up in him; when his mind is happy his body becomes tranquil; when his body is tranquil he feels pleasure; when he has pleasure his cognizance becomes concentrated; when his cognizance is concentrated he knows and sees correctly ... When he gives attention [to an object] as painful ... When he gives attention [to an object] as not self ... when his cognizance is concentrated he knows and sees correctly; when he knows and sees correctly he becomes dispassionate; when he becomes dispassionate his greed fades away; with the fading away of greed he is liberated. T: There are 64 ~nana (knowledges), excluding those in the Tathagata, that lead to final liberation. But how do you know that the knowledge that you have experienced is a Vipassana~nana, or is it just a vipassanukilesa (imperfection of insight)? ..................... >Scott: The only problem is - and this is, as well, a function of the nature of paramattha dhammas - there is no way that anything I say, or anything you read, can cause even the mildest form of understanding to arise *unless conditions are in place for this to occur*. You can't say to me, 'Speak so that I can understand what you understand', and have it so. Conditioned dhammas are not subject to control. T: I am glad that you talk about an experience that is beyond the bland intellectual understanding. I know what you meant now, Scott, about 'no practice': only conditions. However, to "practice in accordance with the Dhamma" (the Buddha's own words in several suttas) means the diligent action with adverting, zeal, attention and effort (as defined by samma-vayamo in the suttas, e.g. DN 22) to cause the bodhipakkhiya dhammas (e.g. satipatthana, indriya, bala, magga, bojjhanga) to arise so that vijja and vimutti can be attained. The Teachings seen in the Suttas explain how these dhammas can be conditioned to arise and grow by means of "path of practice" or patipada (see Sekha Patipada Sutta, for example) or bhavana of Satipatthana. The bodhipakkhiya dhammas do not just arise one day without bhavana and patipada of gradual practice. >Scott: I appreciate the way you keep on with your intense Dhamma studies. We share a certain tenacity in this regard, I think. I don't mind that we disagree. T: It is very kind of you to appreciate the 'tenacity' that we share in the Dhamma study . That is the reason why we're agreeing more often than disagreeing. Tep === #91157 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 11:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method nilovg Dear Tep, Op 8-okt-2008, om 16:02 heeft visitorfromtexas het volgende geschreven: > 1)Aren't the reality appearing now a paramattha dhamma that is too > fast to observe? ----------- N: Right you are. But observing seems to imply (perhaps not to you, but to some people) a self that tries to observe. It is not a matter of observing, but beginning to attend to characteristics, a nama or a rupa, that appear. We do not try to find out whether sound has gone and this is a next sound, another one, never mind. There is still a characteristic of a rupa that can be heard, through earsense. This is a beginning and good enough for us now. We do not try to overreach, than lobha is hindering. ------ > T: 2)How can you understand a dhamma that arises and disappears in a > fraction of a second? ------- When pa~n~naa has come to that stage, it sure will, but let us not worry about that now. -------- > T: 3)What originates understanding at the beginning? ------ N: listening to the right Dhamma, Dhamma that can be tested as to its meaning. And keep on considering, bearing it in mind, not forgetting it. Do not be a passive listener. ------- > T: 4)What nutriments continue to support "clear understanding" of "the > reality appearing now" to continue to grow little by little, by > little, by little? ------- N: Firm sa~n~naa of what has been heard is a condition for sati to begin to be aware of characteristics. Mind, we keep on talking now about cetasikas, not a person who remembers. When understnding grows there is also more confidence to persevere, going on on the right Path. ------- > T:5)How is this "clear understanding" similar to, or different from, > full understanding (pari~n~naa)? ------- N: The materials to be studied are realities appearing now. These are always the same good old seeing, visible object, hearing, sound, attachment, aversion. But understanding develops, and when stages of insight arise, they are pari~n~nas. Still the same good old seeing, etc. to be studied with sati. We do not need to name these levels pari~n~nas. When it is the right time they will arise. ------ Nina. (107) #91158 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 8:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 10/8/2008 12:30:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: TG: Did you ever see that original Star Trek where they go to this society of semi-retarded folks, but they have this helmet device they call "the teacher" and when they use it they become super-geniuses for a few hours. That's what I imaging happened to you before you wrote this post. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: :-) Thanks. ----------------------------------------------- Especially the first part that is expressed so well. Although still excellent, "the teacher" seems to be wearing off a little on the last part. LOL ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Uh, oh! (My guess is that "Howard" took over the writing.) -------------------------------------------- I saved this post. PS... This is not to say I think you are normally retarded. LOL ------------------------------------------------ Howard: So, you're saying that I'm abnormally retarded, eh? ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- TG ======================== With metta, Howard #91159 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 12:59 pm Subject: Re: DO truth_aerator Dear Rinze, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rinzeee" wrote: > > Dear Alex > > Alex: > The above is how I understant "free" (or semi free) will in Buddhism. > > Rinze: > Could you please elaborate further on this idea of ""free" (or semi > free) will in Buddhism"? > Semi-Free will: When a volition arises, does one allow it to grow and develop or not. Ex: if unwholesome volition arises for the trainee, does one indulge in it or restrain it? Same with wholesome volition. Will trainee allow vedana to become craving, or restrain at vedana?? I plan to respond to the other parts of your wonderful reply. Best wishes, #91160 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:02 pm Subject: Re: Sheaves of Reed visitorfromt... Dear Nina (,Sarah), - You mentioned at the end of your reply : >Reading with great interest your dialogue with Scott. T: Thanks. This Scott's citta experience is impressive. I believe if he continues the discussion along this line it should also benefit other members by helping them to see beyond the pariyatti stage. >N: As you rightly said, in the suttas vi~n~naa.na is sixfold, and the Vis. refers to this in Ch XVII, 120. T: I was referring to a sutta and stressing that the only kind of consciousness that was defined for Dependent Origination was the 6- fold consciousness. Vism XVII,120 adds that mind-consciousness is 22- fold. That is clearly a deviation from the suttas. Right or wrong I do not know. I only know that such details may confuse people who study only the Suttanta-pitaka. >N: Let us first speak about the suttanta classification: the sixth one is mind-consciousness. There are not only seeing, hearing, etc. but also akusala cittas, kusala cittas, and vipaakacittas other than the first five, and also kiriyacittas. T: Yes, those different kinds of consciousness expands beyond the 6- fold consciousness in the suttas to make the toal of 89 as described in the Vism. One disadvantage of such deviation or extension beyond the suttas in my opinion is that it has caused confusion and sometimes, contradiction to the original Buddha's words. And when you bring in the commentaries on top of the 89 cittas, the confusion can increase many folds, unless we know exactly know what they are talking about so we will not be confused by the addition. .............................. >N: Why is the Vis. and Tiika speaking only about vipaakacittas, rebirth-consciousness and other vipaakacittas arising during life? Because kamma-formation, sankhaara, conditions vipaakacitta. Why is the next link naama and ruupa? As you rightly said, citta is also naama. T: I think SN 12.61 (Assutava Sutta) states that citta is consciousness(vi~n~nana) or mind (mano); while naama is defined by the five cetasikas: feeling, perception, contact, intention, attention. [SN 12.2] >N: Let us look at the way vi~n~naa.na conditions the following link, naama/ruupa. This is by way of conascence and other condiitons that are conascent. Thus, naama arises together with vi~n~naa.na while it is conditioned by it. It includes the other three naamakkhandhas that are also vipaaka. T: That defintion of naama to include the 3 naamakkhandhas, i.e. 72 cetasikas, contradicts to the sutta SN 12.2. It is such a contradiction that block my thinking. >N: Moreover ruupa that is vatthu, base, produced by kamma also is conascent at the first moment of life with vi~n~naa.na. When reading in English the word mind we have to look at the Pali. Naama in D.O. is translated as mind, but in Pali the word naama is used here. Not mano, which may be confusing. You referred to mind in paragraph 82 of chapter XIV (PTS Publication) he states that 'mind' or 'consciousness' or 'citta' are all equivalent. It is the English that confuses here! When learning Pali or any other language we have to accept that a word such as naama can refer to different realities. True, naama experiences an object, citta and cetasikas are both naama, experiencing an object. We have to look at the context to understand the meanings, to which reality does naama refer here or there? Another example is attha that has different meanings, depending on the context: meaning, wellbeing, for the sake of, and in attha pa.tisambidhaa fruit of a cause, result. Thus, we have to be very careful as to the context for each term. --------- T: I appreciate your patience and time to explain why it is so confusing. Admittedly, I am not good at determining the right "context" behind a Pali word. So I will simply listen and take note at this point. What do you think is the reason for assigning only the five cetasikas to naama (SN 12.2) in the naama-ruupa link of the DO, and specifying only six-fold consciousness for the vi~n~naa.na link of the DO? Many cetasikas and cittas are left out -- what is the reason for leaving them out? My suspicion is that the 89 cittas and 72 cetasikas were created/extended several hundred years after the Buddha's Parinibbana. Respectfully thanking you in advance, Tep === #91161 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:13 pm Subject: Re: DO is Momentary. truth_aerator Dear Rinze and all, > "rinzeee" wrote: > > Dear Alex > > Rinze: > Arahants do not have DO is correct. But the full cycle of DO need > not occur for contact to happen. Lord Buddha felt pain when a stone > splinter struck His foot, but He took it with Equanimity. Consider > this excerpt from SN 35.192 For HIM, it wasn't felt as "personal" pain. He didn't feel as if "I [The Buddha] have the Body and it was hurt by a rock". > "The Blessed One, friend, possesses a mind; the Blessed One >cognizes > images with the mind; desire-&-lust for the Blessed One there is > not; the Blessed One is wholly freed in heart". SN 35.192 > > "See Khemaka sutta for example with the "The Tathagata isn't > apprehended as existing here and now..." Alex, what you posted here > must be examined in context, for sure. > > I would imagine that the DO collapses from the Vedana / Tanha link > for Arahants, since they do not have tanha, hence no upadana, no > bhava, jati, jara, marana and so on. The suttas say that when Avijja ceases (which it does for all Arhats) then sankharas, vinnana, namarupa and so on ceases. Considering how the Dhamma is timeless and DO happens at every moment, it may mean that when Avijja ceases, ALL other factors of clinging cease. That includes the "mind&body subject to clinging". In Khemaka and other suttas, it appears that entire DO falls apart with Arhatship and what is is simply "thusness", Tathagata, without egonotions of internal/external, etc. >But they do have rememberance > of their past. Ven. Sariputta went to His mother during His dying > moments, Lord Buddha recalls His past and so on. So the first few > factors (upto vedana) in PS is operative, IMO (not that it matters – Not all Arahants possess triple knowledge. Plenty of them (in Susima Sutta) did NOT have recollection of past lives or see other beings being reborn. Considering that all factors have to be directly seen, it implies to me that rebirth in DO can also mean momentary ego rebirth in the moment that can be seen here and now, and without clairvoyance. The principle of momentary DO and its stability, can then be applied to the past and the future and seen that way. How can a trainee or an Arahant, without divine eye, directly see the TIMELESS Dhamma visible HERE and NOW (Dependent Origination)? Only if entire DO could be seen without clairvoyance, here and now. Best wishes, #91162 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? truth_aerator Hi Sarah, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > --- On Sat, 27/9/08, Alex wrote: > > A:> Exactly how do you see the realities rather than theorizing about them? > ... > S: However many times you ask this or other questions about how *I* >see/understand/experience/know or whatever, the answer will always >be the same: > > *I* don't see the realities and neither do *you* or anyone else. > > Step One,(step 2, step3 and so one) is understanding that *I* and >*you* play no part, no role in any of this. > > Metta, > > Sarah > =========== > What are the next steps? Your reply seems to sound angry. did I accidentally offend you in some posts? Please forgive me. Your reply just like Scott's, sounds too evasive, rather than a reply proper. I asked about substance and you deflected the answer through semantics tongue wriggling word play... :( Best wishes, #91163 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Thu, 9/10/08, Alex wrote: > S: However many times you ask this or other questions about how *I* >see/understand/ experience/ know or whatever, the answer will always >be the same: > > *I* don't see the realities and neither do *you* or anyone else. > > Step One,(step 2, step3 and so one) is understanding that *I* and >*you* play no part, no role in any of this. .... A:> What are the next steps? Your reply seems to sound angry. did I accidentally offend you in some posts? Please forgive me. Your reply just like Scott's, sounds too evasive, rather than a reply proper. I asked about substance and you deflected the answer through semantics tongue wriggling word play... :( .... S: Just briefly as I'm just having a quick check on my way out.... As you know, I really don't believe in steps, but if you insist on them, it all comes down to understanding realities from beginning to end. So first of all, what are the realities now? Let's keep discussing this. I'm so sorry if my reply sounded 'angry' to you. I certainly have never written or felt angry in the slightest when I write to you (or anyone else here). Of course you've never offended me either:-). I thought you and Tep were looking for some simple replies and my 'step one' etc was even meant to be a little humourous. It was also time I closed down my computer, so I was keeping it rather short and 'to the point', I thought! I'll try to do better next time. However, I don't see such responses as 'semantics'....'word play' etc. I really don't see any method other than understanding what appears now. Seeing appears, visible object appears, thinking appears. However, nothing can be *done* to understand and be aware of them when they appear except by really considering (as is being done here) what they are and appreciating that desire for results, desire for awareness, clinging to a self that can practice and so on are real hindrances - but of course they too can be known when they arise. I also apologise for my many delayed responses to you, Alex. I appreciate your keen interest and sharing of the Dhamma as you understand it. Metta, Sarah ======== #91164 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 11:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Alex) - Sarah, you say that what needs to occur is to understand the dhammas that arise. What seems unclear is what you mean by that exactly and how that understanding is to come about, especially inasmuch as you say that we are unaware of dhammas. I wish you could clarify your take on that. Relatedly, given your position that "there is nothing to be done," I wish you could explain what you see as different between a Buddhist and a non-Buddhist, especially as regards coming to understand dhammas. Your position on all this might well be correct and quite terrific, but it is unfathomable to me and some others here. I think it might be really helpful if you could clarify it for us. Now, that might well require your first clarifying it further for yourself. But that would be fine, would it not? (I found during my pre-retirement years that preparing for my teaching of topics helped me understand those topics even better.) With metta, Howard #91165 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 4:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? visitorfromt... Dear Sarah and Alex, ( Scott), - Frankly I accept your reply below, Sarah, with a clear understanding in principle. I'll explain below. > > A:> Exactly how do you see the realities rather than theorizing > about them? > > ... > > S: However many times you ask this or other questions about how > >*I* see/understand/experience/know or whatever, the answer > > will always be the same: > > > > *I* don't see the realities and neither do *you* or anyone else. > > > > Step One,(step 2, step3 and so one) is understanding that *I* and > >*you* play no part, no role in any of this. > > T: Apparently, Alex still has some difficulty. > > Alex: > What are the next steps? Your reply seems to sound angry. did I > accidentally offend you in some posts? Please forgive me. > Your reply just like Scott's, sounds too evasive, rather than > a reply proper. I asked about substance and you deflected > the answer through semantics tongue wriggling word play... :( > T: Thanks to Scott's sincere report of his experience with arisen clear understanding in the present moment; he has convinced me that it is a true story. Gladness(pamojja), joy(piti), happiness(sukha), calm body and mind(passaddhi) can arise when you have strong saddha and recollect one of the following anussati: buddhaanussati, dhammaanussati, sanghaanussati, siilaanussati, caagaanussati, and devataanussati. The gladness is much stronger if you have unbroken siila and you recollect it with strong saddha in the kusala dhamma. A Proposed Idea: Given that Scott or Sarah is very gladdened by the dhamma, say anatta, in a moment when his/her mind is also free from the five hindrances. It is possible that piti, sukha and passaddhi can arise. With passaddhi, S/he feels calm (samadhi) and with samadhi as the supporting condition then s/he may experience understanding of nama-rupa arising. Tep === #91166 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 4:32 pm Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > As you know, I really don't believe in steps, but if you insist on >them, *I* don't insist them: "this Doctrine and Discipline has a gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual progression, with a penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.05.than.html All the gradual words there show that there are gradual steps. >it all comes down to understanding realities from beginning to >end. >So first of all, what are the realities now? Let's keep >discussing >this. Can you please explain what you mean by "understanding realities"? Would something like this do? "all things that matter, all feelings, all perceptive things, all intentions, all conscious signs are impermanent, unpleasant, an illness, an abscess, an arrow, a misfortune, an ailment, foreign, destined for destruction, is void, and devoid of a self. Then he turns the mind to the deathless element: This is peaceful, this is exalted, such as the appeasement of all determinations, the giving up of all endearments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation and extinction " [done during or after Jhana] http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/064-maha-malunkhyaputta-e1.htm > >Seeing appears, visible object appears, thinking appears. However, >nothing can be *done* to understand and be aware of them when they >appear except by really considering (as is being done here) what >they are and appreciating that desire for results, desire for >awareness, clinging to a self that can practice and so on are real >hindrances - but of course they too can be known when they arise. Nothing can be done? Now that IS sad. What about looking on with sati and upekkha? Sampajnana and all such factors. What about developing the 7 factors of awakening and dropping 5 hindrances? This was talked about a lot in Buddha's teaching. best wishes, #91167 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 4:36 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method visitorfromt... Dear Nina, - It was a pleasant surprise to see your kind reply so soon. I salute you for writing very clearly; the five answers are satisfactory. I am happy to say that I accept them all both in principle and in practice. Thank you very much indeed. > 1) Aren't the reality appearing now a paramattha dhamma that is too > fast to observe? ----------- N: Right you are. But observing seems to imply (perhaps not to you, but to some people) a self that tries to observe. It is not a matter of observing, but beginning to attend to characteristics, a nama or a rupa, that appear. We do not try to find out whether sound has gone and this is a next sound, another one, never mind. There is still a characteristic of a rupa that can be heard, through earsense. This is a beginning and good enough for us now. We do not try to overreach, than lobha is hindering. ------ > T: 2) How can you understand a dhamma that arises and disappears in a > fraction of a second? ------- When pa~n~naa has come to that stage, it sure will, but let us not worry about that now. -------- > T: 3) What originates understanding at the beginning? ------ N: listening to the right Dhamma, Dhamma that can be tested as to its meaning. And keep on considering, bearing it in mind, not forgetting it. Do not be a passive listener. ------- > T: 4) What nutriments continue to support "clear understanding" of "the > reality appearing now" to continue to grow little by little, by > little, by little? ------- N: Firm sa~n~naa of what has been heard is a condition for sati to begin to be aware of characteristics. Mind, we keep on talking now about cetasikas, not a person who remembers. When understanding grows there is also more confidence to persevere, going on on the right Path. ------- > T:5) How is this "clear understanding" similar to, or different from, > full understanding (pari~n~naa)? ------- N: The materials to be studied are realities appearing now. These are always the same good old seeing, visible object, hearing, sound, attachment, aversion. But understanding develops, and when stages of insight arise, they are pari~n~nas. Still the same good old seeing, etc. to be studied with sati. We do not need to name these levels pari~n~nas. When it is the right time they will arise. ------ Reflecting the past discussions, I apologize for giving you trouble over the years through repetitive questioning and disbelieving. No more trouble making. :-) Tep === #91168 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 4:59 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining ... tiny error ... visitorfromt... Hi Jon and All, - The last paragraph of my reply to you has a tiny error -- it is a misplaced parenthesis. But this error distorts the meaning, so it must be corrected. >No intention to develop kusala and abandone akusala means no wholesome action (because intention is action) thus no siila, no samadhi, no pa~n~naa. A huge disadvantage of such no-action, no- practice philosophy is that you only think that kusala of all kinds "can and does arise without there being the specific intention", but in actuality akusala of all kinds does arise and ACCUMULATE in you because there is no specific intention with effort (intention + effort = action) to abandon(pahana) them. Plain and simple. T: Please change the last sentence starting with "but" to be as follows: but in actuality akusala of all kinds does arise and ACCUMULATE in you because there is no specific intention with effort: intention + effort = action to abandon(pahana) them. Plain and simple. Thank you a few times. Tep === #91169 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 5:53 pm Subject: Bhikkhu Bodhi's inconsistency re origins of Abhidhamma philofillet Hi all (p.s to Tep and Sarah) I've been feeling confused because on one hand I'm feeling a strong pull towards studying Abhidhamma again, very strong, like I had 3 or 4 years ago, and on the other hand, there is confusion about whether it is agreed that Abhidhamma is straight from the Buddha's mouth or not. I've come to see that a lot of my confusion comes from Bhikkhu Bodhi's inconsistency on the point. In the introduction to the SN anthology he writes: "SN opens up to us the profound perspective reached through contemplative insight, where the familiar consensual world of persons and things gives way to the sphere of impersonal conditioned phenomena arising and perishing in accordance with laws of conditionality. THis is the perspective on reality that, in the next stage in the evolution of Buddhist thought, will culminate in the Abhidhamma.Indeed, the connection between SN and the Abhidhamma appears to be a close one, and we might speculate that it was the nonsubstatialist perspective so prominent in SN that directly gave rise to the type of inquiry that crystallized in the Abhidhamma philosophy." But then in his introduction to CMA, he writes "although modern critical scholarship attempts to explain the formation of the Abhidhamma by a gradual evolutionary procss, Theravada orthodoxy assigns its genesis to the Buddha himself....the comentarial tradition holds, moreover, that it was not merely the spirit of the Abhidhamma, but the letter as well, that was already realized and expounded by the Buddha during his lifetime." I see something sloppy here, to tell the truth. In the first passage he writes something that in the second passage he says "modern critical scholarship attempts" to do. So was he representing modern critical scholarship when he wrote the first passage. Did he write the second passage while holding a different view in his heart? I find the above inconsistency a little frustrating, though it seems unfair to criticize a venerable monk who has done such great things for spreading the Buddha's word. A question arises. Are Theravadin monks expected to uphold the Theravadin orthodoxy? If so, in the first passage Bhikkhu Bodhi was failing to do so. Robert K has said this passage represents a stain on Bhikkhu Bodhi's career, or words to that effect, and while those are strongs words, I see evidence that they may be true. I think I'm just frustrated because now I am irreversibly stuck with the idea that the Abhidhamma represents an evolution. Now, that might be the truth, so it is good to know, and even if it does represent an evolution Abhidhamma seems very valuable to me. Sorry, I know this sort of thing has been discussed around the block again and again but I'm needing to work this out...thanks. Also I apologize if words of criticism of such a great monk cause any discomfort. metta, phil p.s Sarah and Tep, based on the above, if Sarah insists that all the derived rupa were taught by the Buddha, she is saying what is in line with Theravadin orthodoxy, so it should be respected. Perhaps her unwillingness, if there is any, to admit when something isn't in the suttanta is because when that is established people use that point to dismiss Abhidhamma teachings, which, again, according to Theravadin orthodoxy as described above by Bhikkhu Bodhi, would be an unwise thing to do because it would be denying teachings that were "expounded by the Buddha during his lifetime." Thanks for your kind coments, by the way, Tep. #91170 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 5:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? philofillet Hi Howard Thanks for the below. It gets into very deep things that I can't wrap my head around at the moment as I'm on the run, but I will be bookmarking it and hopefully get back to you later with some question/comments. metta, phil > The perspective that I sense on the part of some, though not all, of the > admirers of Khun Sujin is that paramattha dhammas are entities: true, > separable existents with essence that arise and are then annihilated. To me, this > is an odd amalgam of substantialism and annihilationism, and not a middle way. > From the little that I've read of and about the Abhidhamma Pitaka, > though, it seems to me that its perspective on paramattha dhammas is, nibbana > aside, that they are ultimate phenomena only in the sense that they are not > compounds, not aggregations, and not requiring thought for their being > experienced. I see them presented as nothing but mental and physical qualities, > operations, and events that are fleeting and not stand-alone, but conditioned, > distinguishable aspects of an interconnected network, without separate existence > and without own being. Other than not being aggregations, there is nothing > ultimate about their existence, for their existence is not only fleeting, but is > also entirely contingent and inseparable from the existence of other equally > empty phenomena. > The Dhammasangani attempts a partial listing of important categories of > paramattha dhammas, and the Patthana attempts a partial listing of important > relational connections among them. The analysis of worldly objects to these > is thus a reduction to ghostly scintillations that have no being of their own > and disappear almost before they are seen "out of the corner of the eye." It > is exactly the two-stage process of 1) seeing that these are the basis of our > so solid-seeming world, and 2) seeing that there is virtually nothing > substantial to this basis that leads to the realization that there is nothing > conditioned that can be held onto or relied on, nothing conditioned that can > satisfy, and nothing conditioned that is/has self, and leads finally to the > disenchantment and relinquishment that open the doorway to nibbana, the real. > > With metta, > Howard > > #91171 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 2:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 10/8/2008 1:31:45 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: Uh, oh! (My guess is that "Howard" took over the writing.) -------------------------------------------- ............................................................................. TG: Exactly!!! (But I didn't want to say it.) LOL .............................................................................. ... I saved this post. PS... This is not to say I think you are normally retarded. LOL ------------------------------------------------ Howard: So, you're saying that I'm abnormally retarded, eh? ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- ................................................................ TG: ROTF Well... let's just say "Abhi-normal" as opposed to Abhidhammist. LOL TG OUT #91172 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 6:20 pm Subject: Re: Bhikkhu Bodhi's inconsistency re origins of Abhidhamma truth_aerator Hi Phil, > "Phil" wrote: > I've been feeling confused because on one hand I'm feeling a > strong pull towards studying Abhidhamma again, very strong, like I > had 3 or 4 years ago, and on the other hand, there is confusion > about whether it is agreed that Abhidhamma is straight from the > Buddha's mouth or not. I've come to see that a lot of my confusion > comes from Bhikkhu Bodhi's inconsistency on the point. He is wrestling between telling the truth and telling the official orthodoxy. Many venerable Ther monks are brave and sincere to speak out against Abh. In one of the suttas the Buddha has said: "Don't go by tradition, oral reports and so on..." And do you expect us to simply ignore that statement? If we go by tradition, then which one? There were 20 early Buddhist schools prior to the finalization of Abhidhamma. Just because one school has survived, doesn't mean that all its commentators say Gospel truth. > > But then in his introduction to CMA, he writes "although modern > critical scholarship attempts to explain the formation of the > Abhidhamma by a gradual evolutionary procss, Theravada orthodoxy > assigns its genesis to the Buddha himself.... While many different schools had substantially the same Sutta Pitaka. The same cannot be said regarding Abhidhamma Pitaka. The scholars are quite clear on this: What we call Ther Abhidhama was work by later monks, putting on the flesh on top of the skeleton, so to speak. DN16 proves to me that the "commentarial" account of Buddha emiting bright rays and teaching Abh is not found in the core suttas. Best wishes, #91173 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 7:30 pm Subject: Re: Bhikkhu Bodhi's inconsistency re origins of Abhidhamma visitorfromt... Hi Phil, - I want to comment about your following remark : Ph: p.s Sarah and Tep, based on the above, if Sarah insists that all the derived rupa were taught by the Buddha, she is saying what is in line with Theravadin orthodoxy, so it should be respected. Perhaps her unwillingness, if there is any, to admit when something isn't in the suttanta is because when that is established people use that point to dismiss Abhidhamma teachings, which, again, according to Theravadin orthodoxy as described above by Bhikkhu Bodhi, would be an unwise thing to do because it would be denying teachings that were "expounded by the Buddha during his lifetime." T: When something is not in the suttanta, it does not necessarily mean that "something" is not truthful or has no value. If it is an error, then it should be removed. Not acknowledging the fact despite your knowing it is a lie and unwise. Acknowledging the fact, on the other hand, helps eliminate confusion and enhance quality of both pitakas. Tep === #91174 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 8:41 pm Subject: Re: Bhikkhu Bodhi's inconsistency re origins of Abhidhamma philofillet Hi Tep (p.s to Alex) > T: When something is not in the suttanta, it does not necessarily mean > that "something" is not truthful or has no value. If it is an error, > then it should be removed. Not acknowledging the fact despite your > knowing it is a lie and unwise. Acknowledging the fact, on the other > hand, helps eliminate confusion and enhance quality of both pitakas. Maybe not a lie because "not acknowledging the fact despite your knowing" is so black and white, and we can't really be black and white in this area, I think. If I recall the BB comment about derived rupa, he said that while they were not explicity in the suttanta, they could be surmised, or something like that....could be wrong, tried to find it, but couldn't. (I wish the indexes in his sutta anthologies were more detailed. My I certainly am bitching about the Ven. Bodhi today!) Well said on eliminating confusion and enhancing quality of both pitakas. I know you have an appreciation of Abhidhamma like me, and just want to clarify any fudging on certain points... metta, phil p.s thanks also Alex. Yes, the Kalamas sutta is always good! Does a teaching lead to weakening defilements, at least, and eradicating them eventually? That is the test that must be passed by all teachings, I think. For Sarah and other longtime students of Abhidhamma, it passes the test strongly in this area, I'm sure. #91175 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 8, 2008 11:29 pm Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 3, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, We read in the “Visuddhimagga” (Ch IV-XII) about forty subjects of meditation which can condition calm, but they can condition calm only if there is right understanding which knows how to develop calm by means of a particular meditation subject. A meditation subject does not necessarily bring calm, it depends on the citta which develops calm, and the citta has to be accompanied by paññå. Bhante Dhammadhara said:”When we bring in here a pile of bones it does not guarantee calm fro those who are looking at it.” Some people have aversion immediately when they are looking at a corpse and they cannot become calm with this subject. One may think that when one directs one’s thoughts on one point there are conditions for the arising of calm. However, we should not forget that concentration (samådhi) accompanies each citta. The function of this cetasika is to cause the citta to focus on one object. Thus, there is concentration with akusala citta as well as with kusala citta. If one does not know precisely when the citta is kusala citta and when akusala citta, how can one be sure whether there is right concentration? One may, with attachment, exert a great effort to concentrate, or, if one needs such effort to concentrate, one can easily have aversion. Do we know when there are akusala cittas? If we do not know this, calm cannot be developed. For the development of calm paññå is indispensable. During the discussions in Sri Lanka we found out that we need to consider more when kusala citta has arisen and when akusala citta so that we can begin to understand the characteristic of calm that is freedom from akusala. Do we realize the amount of clinging we have? We may know when there is strong clinging, for example, when we are greedy and badly want to have particular things, but do we know the moments when there is more subtle clinging? Bhante Dhammadhara helped us to find out more about the different degrees of our clinging and he asked us whether we truly believe that clinging is harmful. I found that although I have read the scriptures and pondered over them, I have not considered them enough in my daily life. We listen and ponder over what we have heard, but during this journey we found out that we had not considered enough the Dhamma we had heard. One of our friends said that she had been clinging to her lunch. She was to come home for lunch, a rare occasion for her, and she looked forward to her meal. Do we look forward to our meals? That is daily life. We should investigate more often the cittas that arise at such moments. I found that I was clinging to the fan in the room since it brought some coolness in the hot weather. I also cling to unspoilt nature, to a sunset and to music. I cling to Dhamma discussions and to the friends of the Dhamma discussion group. ****** Nina. #91176 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 1:07 am Subject: Survey quote nilovg Dear friends, If we clearly understand that it is not self who thinks, that it is citta which knows the subject about which it thinks, it can be a condition for paññå to develop, so that it comes to know precisely the characteristics of realities as they are. The citta which thinks is different from the citta which sees. The citta which sees knows an object through the eyesense, whereas the citta which thinks knows an object through the mind-door. When a reality appears through the bodysense, be it the characteristic of softness or hardness, it is natural that at that moment we do not know yet what it is that is impinging on the bodysense. Later on we know what the object is that is hard or soft. If we touch something in the dark we may turn on the light in order to see what we are touching. Thus, we can understand that at the moment citta experiences hardness it does not think, that thinking is another type of citta. When citta experiences just hardness, there is not the world of the road, the shoes or the stockings. There is not the world of conventional truth, of concepts. There is only the reality which experiences the characteristic of hardness. The reality which experiences hardness is not a living being or a person, it is just a type of nåma which arises and then falls away. The citta which arises later on can think about what has appeared through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense or the mind-door. It thinks about a story, about concepts of what has appeared. Since we are so occupied with our thinking we forget that the citta which arose and experienced hardness and the rúpa which is hardness have fallen away already. ****** Nina. #91177 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 1:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > . . . > The perspective that I sense on the part of some, though not all, of the > admirers of Khun Sujin is that paramattha dhammas are entities: true, > separable existents with essence that arise and are then annihilated. Hi Howard, On my recent trip to Thailand one of the new (for me) experiences was to be in a large group of like-minded people. Others knew more Abhidhamma details than I did, and so there were some conversations I couldn't quite follow , but there were no real disagreements on any issue. I am sure all of us understood conditioned dhammas in essentially the same way: real, possessing inherent characteristics (i.e. characteristics of their own), existent for one moment and then gone the next - never to return - . . and so on. If you know of some K Sujin students who see dhammas another way please name them, I am sure they won't mind. :-) Ken H. #91178 From: han tun Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 2:33 am Subject: anupubbasikkhaa hantun1 Dear Sarah, Alex, Tep, I am interested in your discussions on a gradual training (anupubbasikkhaa), because this gradual training is quite well-known in Burma. We call it Six Kathaas. (1) Daana kathaa, generosity (2) Siila kathaa, morality (3) Sagga kathaa, heaven or celestial states (4) Kaamagu.naa aadiinava kathaa, the drawbacks of sensual pleasures (5) Nekkhamma aanisansa kathaa, blessings of renunciation (6) Sacca kathaa, the Four Noble Truths. A Burmese Sayadaw explained that if one follows the first three kathaas, he/she may obtain good results in this very life or rebirth in human and deva planes in the next existence. However, the pleasures achieved in this way are sensual pleasures which have drawbacks, and the Buddha teaches those drawbacks. To avoid those drawbacks, the Buddha next teaches the blessings of renunciation. By this time the mind becomes pliable and is ready to appreciate deeper teaching. Then the Buddha teaches him/her the Four Noble Truths. Sayadaw further explained that the Buddha uses this formula for the very first time when he teaches Yasa, a millionaire’s son of Benares soon after the Buddha has expounded Dhammacakkappavattana sutta and Anattalakkhana sutta. Later on, the Buddha uses this formula as a routine for the beginners. In appreciation of your discussions on this topic, Yours respectfully, Han #91179 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 2:56 am Subject: Re: Old kamma & present behav jonoabb Hi Phil > Ph: Sure. We agree there. I just feel pushed into getting too deep > too fast into present realities by the A.S approach. I resent it and > as a result I spin too far in the opposite direction. Pushed? By whom?? Your imagination only ;-)) > Ph: I would agree with that too. As and when insight is developed. > But whether it is just a matter of semantics or not, the tone is > often "must do it now!" That would not be the message in the mind of the speaker/author, I'm sure. > For example, this from Conditions, in a paragraph referring to > the doubt some people have about Patthana because it is not in the > suttanta: "Doubt will only disappear if we throughly consider the > different types of conditions, because then we can see for ourselves > whether the content of the "Patthana" conform to the truth or not." > > To me, this is saying that in order to prove that the Patthana is > valuable and worth studying, we should consider them and find out > whether they are true or not. Now, for me, these conditional > relations represent very, very deep degrees of insight. I want to > study them to learn the theory of how the great ones came to see > reality, but the notion of confirming them with my puny panna is > highly questionable. Whichever ones come to be confirmed when they > come to be confirmed, fine..." But it remains the case, as I understand it, that doubt will be with us right up until the truth has been realised by direct experience. That I think is the gist of the passage, rather than any suggestion that panna can or must somehow be brought to bear now! > And this: "THe enumerations and classifications in the Patthana > may, at first sight, seem dry and cumbersome, but whether theya re > carefully considered it can be seen that they deal with realities of > daily life. The study of the Abhidhamma can become very lively and > interesting if our knowledge is applied in our own situation." If and when one comes to realise that what's being spoken of in the Abhidhamma is the moment that's occurring right now (as this message is being written/read or whatever may follow next), the Abhidhamma takes on a much greater significance and immediacy. That I think would be beyond question. > To tell the truth, I mostly want to talk with him because he > is Canadian and knows who Casey and Finnegan are. ;-)), ;-)). But I thought you were baseball and Scott hockey. Is there sufficient common ground there? ;-)) > Ph: Well, as you know, we disagree there. Wholesome patterns of > behaviour (virtue) create better conditions for concentration and > insight. This is utterly clear in the suttanta, I think. I don't necessarily disagree with that. But it seems that for you there is the implication that there should be further development of wholesome behaviour before one takes an interest in the awareness/ understanding of the dhammas of the present moment. That really is our point of difference, rather than the comment you make above. > Ph:Thanks. As you know, I am very relaxed about sakkaya-ditthi. I > think studying Abhidhamma again will help me there. I am also going > through Nina's Cetasikas again, inspired by this interesting > sentence in the Conditions book: "There are twnty-four classes of > conditions enumerated in the Patthana. In order to understand these > it is essential to have a precise knowledge of the realities which > are involved in these conditional relations." An important point. I think it's great that you're so interested, and I'm sure you're going to find it well worthwhile. > p.s now I really, really will let you have the last word, jon. > Let's talk more on Skype again sometime. For now I'm hoping my DSG > participation will be more about questions re Abhidhamma points, for > the next little while. Ha! We know how long that will last... :) If you're saying you'd like to keep your participation to an even, sustainable level I'd say that's no bad idea. Jon #91180 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 2:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings jonoabb Alex > Regarding 4 paths. All of them require samadhi (Jhana). Well that's not my reading of the AN sutta that I referred to. Which particular passage in the sutta do you see as supporting that interpretation? > If your > defilements are so weak that you need a little of it, great! If you > need only momentary samadhi to achieve Arhatship, great! I > am "jealous" of your awesome accumulations. As I've said before, this discussion is not about anyone, or anyone's personal experience, in particular (you or or whoever); it's about the teaching given by the Buddha. > Regarding sukha-vipassaka. Please give me the sutta quotes! There are no specific sutta quotes (but remember, what I put forward in my posts is my understanding of the orthodox Theravada position as found in the whole body of the teachings and ancient commentaries; I make no claim for a specific sutta source for everything). > Even those liberated by wisdom achieve Jhana prior to becoming > liberated (mn64 or 63). Sariputta with all his super understanding > reached 9 (4 Jhana + 4 arrupa + Nirodha samapatti) prior to > Arhatship. Similiar and even more attainments, for MahaMoggallana > (another super wise disciple) and the Buddha. Individual cases like these do not establish a general point of doctrine. Jon #91181 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 3:00 am Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path jonoabb Hi Suan > "there is no such thing as a step-by-step method or practice for the > development of the path." > > Are you sure about your above statement, which is very categorical > and final-sounding? Well it's just my reading of the texts based on what I've heard and read over the years. > Where did you get that idea or that teaching from? Or is it your own > personal conviction (attanomati)? As I say, just my reading of the texts. > If that idea was not your own personal conviction, it would help if > you could name the source and cite the relevant statements from that > source. No particular source. It's a conclusion come to rather than something read or heard somewhere. Hoping this answers your questions. If you think the statement is incorrect, please do discuss further (perhaps with an example from the texts of a step-by-step method or practice for the development of the path (in the sense Tep and Alex were suggesting)). Jon #91182 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 3:56 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood jonoabb Hi Tep > In summary: > > You again sing the same song of no 'how to' to develop understanding > of nama& rupa now. Plain and simple it is because you don't practice > the Dhamma, just a programmed belief in the DSG philosophy of no self, > no person, no Buddha, no Sangha, no one who practices according to the > Dhamma, no 8 ariya puggalas (a miccha-ditthi according to MN 117, and > a direct denial of the Abhidhamma as well). This philosophy of > perpetual, automatic understanding simply states, "Kusala of all kinds > can and does arise without there being the specific intention that it > should. And likewise the understanding that is insight develops > gradually. But as regards how that development occurs, it is not a > matter of some step-by-step method or practice." In quoting from my post here you've omitted the bits that I would see as being the most significant, namely, that what the texts are describing is: what kusala (including awareness/insight) is, and what the conditions for its development are. It's this that is addresses your question; the rest was really just supplementary comment. Regarding my observation, "Kusala of all kinds can and does arise without there being the specific intention that it should", is it your experience (I'm talking about in life in general here) that kusala arises only at times when you think about doing something to make or encourage it to? I suspect not. > Comment: > > No intention to develop kusala and abandone akusala means no wholesome > action (because intention is action) thus no siila, no samadhi, no > pa~n~naa. I think you have misunderstood my comment. I was not suggesting any avsence of intention (in terms of the mental factor) nor the absence of any appreciation of the importance of kusala and thus motivation to develop kusala. I was referring to the notion of something in the nature of a special practice designed to bring on the arising of kusala, or at least increase the chance of its arising, at that time. > A huge disadvantage of such no-action, no-practice > philosophy is that you only think that kusala of all kinds "can and > does arise without there being the specific intention", but in > actuality akusala of all kinds does arise and ACCUMULATE in you > because there is no specific intention with effort: intention + effort > = action to abandon(pahana) them. Plain and simple. It is of course true that akusala of some level or another is accumulating all the time. But this is not to be feared. The gradual development of kusala of the level of satipatthana over the long stretch has the potential to overcome all akusala in due course. Jon #91183 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 4:52 am Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood - No Practise scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "I am always touched by friendly words that are kind, patient, sincere and down-to-earth. Your reply this time impresses me. Thank you very much." Scott: You're welcome. T: "...But how do you know that the knowledge that you have experienced is a Vipassana~nana, or is it just a vipassanukilesa (imperfection of insight)?" Scott: This I think, is the down-side of giving personal experience, which I am loathe to do. You'd have to have had the experience to remove doubt as to whether it was kusala or akusala. I tell you where I'm coming from as a kindness to you and as an aid to our further discussions. That being said, I think detachment is very important. Whatever the moment was, it is over. It happened to no one. Akusala has characteristics which differ from a kusala moment and these can be known - but not by a person and not by 'thinking it through' as an intellectual exercise. Kusala can be condition for akusala. To me, thoughts of stepwise practise go hand in hand with thoughts of 'attainments', and with these go thoughts of someone who practises and someone who attains and, as far as I'm concerned, once these are being thought, it is akusala and all about self. Then there is only room for unwholesome desire ('I will attain'), which, when accompanied by thoughts of a person, lead to destructive envy ('I think he attained such and such. I want to attain it. I haven't attained anything. He didn't attain anything either. He is a conceited fool') which is only dosa. I'm glad that the telling gave you a chance to further consider Dhamma. I'd rather continue to focus on the Dhamma of theory and general cases - a 'bland intellectual discussion' as you put it. T: "...to 'practice in accordance with the Dhamma' (the Buddha's own words in several suttas) means the diligent action with adverting, zeal, attention and effort (as defined by samma-vayamo in the suttas, e.g. DN 22) to cause the bodhipakkhiya dhammas (e.g. satipatthana, indriya, bala, magga, bojjhanga) to arise so that vijja and vimutti can be attained. The Teachings seen in the Suttas explain how these dhammas can be conditioned to arise and grow by means of 'path of practice' or patipada (see Sekha Patipada Sutta, for example) or bhavana of Satipatthana. The bodhipakkhiya dhammas do not just arise one day without bhavana and patipada of gradual practice." Scott: We must continue to differ in our understanding of these terms. One's conscious decision to 'condition' dhammas to 'arise and grow' will not do it. Have you yet succeeded, for example, to cause to arise the experience of vipassanaa-~naa.na by willfully setting out to do so? You speak of 'samma-vaayaama', for example. This is viriya cetasika. Of this, Dhammasa"nganii (p. 13) explains it to be: "The mental inception of energy which there is on that occasion, the striving and the onward effort, the exertion and endeavour, the zeal and ardour, the vigour and fortitude, the state of unaltering effort, the state of sustained desire, the state of unflinching endurance and solid grip of the burden, energy, energy as faculty and as power, right endeavour..." Scott: Here I see that there is development but note that samma-vaayaama is naama - a 'mental inception' which is effective during the moment citta arises and in relation to the same object citta has at that moment. In Atthasaalinii (p. 159), regarding viriya: "Its characteristic is strengthening, and grasp or support...energy has exerting as its characteristic, strengthening the co-existent states as function, and opposition to giving way as manifestation. It has been said 'He being agitated, makes a rational effort', hence it has agitation or the basic condition of making energy as proximate cause. Right energy should be regarded as the root of all attainments." Scott: I don't think of the sequence of mind-produced movements of a body or of speech in the literal and illusory fashion of a person exerting energy and 'practising'. I think of the effects of this particular cetasika on the other elements arising at a given moment of consciousness. What do you think? Sincerely, Scott. #91184 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 1:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Survey quote upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In this post I find that you are, of course unintentionally, using agency terminology that is misleading and is a form of self-view. Please think about what I will be saying below: In a message dated 10/9/2008 4:07:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear friends, If we clearly understand that it is not self who thinks, that it is citta which knows the subject about which it thinks, it can be a condition for paññå to develop, so that it comes to know precisely the characteristics of realities as they are. The citta which thinks is different from the citta which sees. The citta which sees knows an object through the eyesense, whereas the citta which thinks knows an object through the mind-door. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Nina, if by 'citta' you mean a mind state that is an aggregation of mental phenomena all involved with some common object, then that is a harmless conventional usage to speak of that state as thinking, or seeing, etc. But if by 'citta' you refer to a paramattha dhamma, it is just a mere knowing of an object. It is not a thing that knows, but the knowing itself. Moreover, it is just a knowing - say a seeing, or hearing, or cognizing, but 1) it is NOT a thinking, for thinking is a different operation, a cetasika, and 2) it is not some thing that might see or hear or taste or smell or touch or think or feel, for it is not an agent that acts - it is not an actor, and speaking as if it were IS making it into a little self, a single-dimensional "person". Citta is just knowing via a sense door, not an actor, not an agent. Think of a verb, not a noun. -------------------------------------------------------- When a reality appears through the bodysense, be it the characteristic of softness or hardness, it is natural that at that moment we do not know yet what it is that is impinging on the bodysense. Later on we know what the object is that is hard or soft. If we touch something in the dark we may turn on the light in order to see what we are touching. Thus, we can understand that at the moment citta experiences hardness it does not think, that thinking is another type of citta. When citta experiences just hardness, there is not the world of the road, the shoes or the stockings. There is not the world of conventional truth, of concepts. There is only the reality which experiences the characteristic of hardness. The reality which experiences hardness is not a living being or a person, it is just a type of nåma which arises and then falls away. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, it is just the knowing of something. It is not some agent that knows. It is not a knower. It is just the knowing. ---------------------------------------------------- The citta which arises later on can think about what has appeared through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense or the mind-door. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: That is incorrect, Nina. A citta is not a thing that acts - it is the activity, and a citta certainly does not think - it only knows. Thinking is a cetasika. ---------------------------------------------------- It thinks about a story, about concepts of what has appeared. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Saying that a citta thinks about a story is simply replacing "a person" with "a citta". But that replacement is worse than the original, for at least a person is a conglomerate that includes thinking, whereas citta is the single activity of knowing. Cittas do not think, Nina. They are knowing. They are not thinking. And they are not entities that engage in actions, but are actions themselves, specifically acts of knowing . -------------------------------------------------- Since we are so occupied with our thinking we forget that the citta which arose and experienced hardness and the rúpa which is hardness have fallen away already. ****** Nina. ============================== With metta, Howard P. S. This is not just a technical matter, Nina. Speaking with such unabashed agency terminology induces the tendency towards thing-making. It should be avoided as much as possible. #91185 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 1:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mirages: was Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/9/2008 4:09:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, On my recent trip to Thailand one of the new (for me) experiences was to be in a large group of like-minded people. Others knew more Abhidhamma details than I did, and so there were some conversations I couldn't quite follow , but there were no real disagreements on any issue. I am sure all of us understood conditioned dhammas in essentially the same way: real, possessing inherent characteristics (i.e. characteristics of their own), existent for one moment and then gone the next - never to return - . . and so on. If you know of some K Sujin students who see dhammas another way please name them, I am sure they won't mind. :-) Ken H. =========================== It seems to me that there are degrees of the affliction, but I won't list those who i think have only light cases. ;-) With metta, Howard #91186 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 7:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sheaves of Reed nilovg Dear Tep, Op 8-okt-2008, om 22:02 heeft visitorfromtexas het volgende geschreven: > I was referring to a sutta and stressing that the only kind of > consciousness that was defined for Dependent Origination was the 6- > fold consciousness. Vism XVII,120 adds that mind-consciousness is 22- > fold. That is clearly a deviation from the suttas. Right or wrong I do > not know. I only know that such details may confuse people who study > only the Suttanta-pitaka. ------ N: The sixth consciousness in the sutta includes all cittas other than the five sense-cognitions. Thus also the 22 mundane vipaakacittas are included. Since the exposition is on the D.O. I see no problem here. It is kamma (formations, sanlkhaara) that conditions vipaaka, it cannot be otherwise, as the Tiika stresses (in Vis. 305). ------- > > >N: Let us first speak about the suttanta classification: the sixth > one is mind-consciousness. There are not only seeing, hearing, etc. > but also akusala cittas, kusala cittas, and vipaakacittas other than > the first five, and also kiriyacittas. > > T: Yes, those different kinds of consciousness expands beyond the 6- > fold consciousness in the suttas to make the toal of 89 as described > in the Vism. One disadvantage of such deviation or extension beyond > the suttas in my opinion is that it has caused confusion and > sometimes, contradiction to the original Buddha's words. And when you > bring in the commentaries on top of the 89 cittas, the confusion can > increase many folds, unless we know exactly know what they are talking > about so we will not be confused by the addition. > .............................. N: The sixth citta includes for example kusala cittas and akusala cittas the Buddha speaks about all over in the suttas. Also in the suttas there is this expansion. But, Sariputta classified later on all these cittas systematically in the Abhidhamma text as we know it now, as 89 or 121 cittas, as 52 cetasikas. The Commentaries do not add things, but give more explanations. They may be difficult reading at times, I understand this. --------- > T: I think SN 12.61 (Assutava Sutta) states that citta is > consciousness(vi~n~nana) or mind (mano); while naama is defined by the > five cetasikas: feeling, perception, contact, intention, attention. > [SN 12.2] ------- N: Your question is dealt with by Ven. Nyanaponika, Abhidhamma Studies: the pentad of sense-impression: contact, feeling, sa~n~naa, cetanaa and citta. These are representatives of the four naamakhandhas. He also cites the Anupada sutta, where many other cetasikas are mentioned. I remember some discussion with Rob M, asking why not all 52 cetasikas in this sutta. BTW, they are not 72, but 52. --------- > > T: That defintion of naama to include the 3 naamakkhandhas, i.e. 72 > cetasikas, contradicts to the sutta SN 12.2. It is such a > contradiction that block my thinking. ------ N: See above, perhaps we should study more the Anupadasutta. Or can we delve into the archives? I have lack of time now. ------- > > > T: What do you think is the reason for assigning only the five > cetasikas > to naama (SN 12.2) in the naama-ruupa link of the DO, ------- N: No this is not the case. In the naama-ruupa link, there are more than five. It depends on what type of rebirth is referred to, this is with different types of vipaakacitta accompanied by different cetasikas. ------ > T: and specifying > only six-fold consciousness for the vi~n~naa.na link of the DO? ------ N: No. D.O. refers just to the vipaakacittas included in mind- consciousness. ------- > T: Many > cetasikas and cittas are left out -- what is the reason for leaving > them out? My suspicion is that the 89 cittas and 72 cetasikas were > created/extended several hundred years after the Buddha's Parinibbana. ------ N: Different types of citta and cetasika are all taken in this or that link, as is fitting. For example in the link craving or the link clinging, lobha-muula-citta with lobha and moha and other akusala cetasikas is taken. They are all in the context of D.O. ***** Nina. #91187 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 7:53 am Subject: List of cetasikas, was: sheaves.. nilovg Dear Tep, I found the old post to Rob M. I requote. Perhaps this can take away some of your confusion? op 17-02-2005 09:13 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@...: > > The Dhammasangani (1st book of the Abhihdhamma), opens with an open- > ended list of cetasikas found in wholesome cittas. The list matches > quite well with the close-ended list from the Abhidhammatthasangaha > (with a couple of interesting twists), but the Dhammasangani list > does not include manasikara. N: I wrote about it in the Vis. series , XIV, 133, and I shall quote (you were not here). It is among the four and whatsoevers, yevapannaka. Vis. XIV, 133, Note 59 (taken from Tiika): Yevaapanaka (ye-vaa-pana- ka) is commentarial shorthand derived from the Dhammasa"nga.nii phrase (ye-vaa-pana- tasmi"m samaye a~n~ne pi atti pa.ticca-samuppannaa aruupino dhammaa'--'Or whatever other immaterial conditionally-arisen states (phenomena) there are too on that occasion' (Dhs. 1) N: The list of the Dhammasangani is not exhaustive. There are four cetasikas called Œor-whatever-dhammas¹ or supplementary factors. These are: zeal (chanda), resolution (adhimokkha), attention (manasikaara), evenmindedness (tatramajjhattata). These are mentioned in the Anupada sutta (M. N. no 111). The Expositor (p. 174, 175) deals with these, but includes also the five cetasikas which do not arise with every kusala citta, thus it classifies the supplementary factors as ninefold. The Visuddhimagga enumerates first twentyseven cetasikas and then adds the four supplementary facors, thus together these are thirty-one cetasikas included in sa²nkhaarakkhandha that accompany the first type of mahaa- kusala citta that is associated with paññaa.... N: the Tiika states: that have been handed down in the text just as such (paa.liyaa saruupeneva aagataa). Only these are enumerated in the Dhammasangani, but there are others, namely the supplementary factors. That is why the Dhammasangani states after the enumeration: ŒOr whatever other immaterial conditionally-arisen dhammas there are too on that occasion'. The Expositor (p. 178) mentions someone who says: an unintelligent list, no connection or order. The Co refutes this. It is not a mere formal grouping, or a rigid classification. When taking up the Dhammasangani we shall see that several cetasikas are listed more than once under different aspects, such as understanding as faculty, or as power. The list ends with: sampajañña (sati and pañña), samatha, vipassanaa, paggaaha (grasp, which is the faculty of energy), avikkhepa (balance, self-collectedness, another word for ekaggata cetasika, one-pointedness or concentration). Thus, it is not a mere summing up, but it points to development, it is a dynamic list. Therefore, it does not need to be exhaustive. Ven. Nyanaponika (in Abhidhamma Studies) states : N: If we understand this, it will help with our study of the Abhidhamma, also with other topics. These lists have to do with life, with development. They point to the goal. The Pentad of phassa (phassa-pañcaka), mentioned in the Expositor: these are the first five of the list of the Dhammasangani: contact, feeling, saññaa, volition and citta. These five are mentioned together with the or-whatever-dhammas in the Anupada sutta, after the jhana-factors, where Sariputta penetrates with insight the jhana-citta and cetasikas. Ven. Nyanaponika: He states about the aggregate of mental formations: Thus, phassa and cetanaa. He explains that this points to the inseparableness of the four nama-khandhas. All this illustrates the meaning of the list, it points to the goal of our study, the development of pañña in order to attain liberation. This is inspiring.> Nina. #91188 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 8:16 am Subject: Enter The Abhidhammika! Re: Step-by-step method for development of Noble Path abhidhammika Dear Jon, Sarah, Nina, Scott D, Mike N, Howard, Alex, Paul, Herman How are you? Jon wrote: "Well it's just my reading of the texts based on what I've heard and read over the years. ... No particular source. It's a conclusion come to rather than something read or heard somewhere. ... Hoping this answers your questions." Thank you, Jon. You have answered my questions. The answer you gave belongs to the category of attanomati (personal opinion, personal conviction, or personal conclusion as you put it). When we made categorical statements based on our own personal opinions or conclusions, we should also declare that those statements were of such nature. Such a disclaimer would help us to distinguish between the Buddha's teachings and non-Buddhist teachings. Our own personal opinions should not be made to appear as though representing the Buddha's teachings or Buddhist teachings. I hope that you and the above named people agree with my position regarding our own personal opinions, however fantastic they may be. Jon also wrote: "If you think the statement is incorrect, please do discuss further (perhaps with an example from the texts of a step-by-step method or practice for the development of the path (in the sense Tep and Alex were suggesting))." Thanks for the invitation. But, as the statement in question was your own personal opinion and not a Buddhist teaching, there was no need to involve examples from the Buddhist texts. However, your primary intention was to advise the readers to accept your own personal opinion (attanomati) as a Buddhist teaching, you were solely responsible for searching Pali textual support for your statements. Otherwise, your action would amount to misleading the unsuspecting readers who are beginners wishing to learn the Buddha's teachings. My role as an Abhidhammika on this occasion is to subject Buddhist- sounding statements to Vibhajjavaada treatment, thereby exposing their true identity. Vibhajjavaada is a less well-known ancient name of Theravada and means teaching by the process of analysis. Jon, you also wrote in your original message as follows. "The path is developed by the gradual accrual of the understanding of dhammas, and this is not something that occurs by virtue of the "doing" of specific things." Was the above statement also your own personal opinion or conclusion? I think your answer would be `yes'. Please confirm or deny my guessing. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: Hi Suan > "there is no such thing as a step-by-step method or practice for the development of the path." > No particular source. It's a conclusion come to rather than something read or heard somewhere. Hoping this answers your questions. Jon #91189 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 8:28 am Subject: Re: Bhikkhu Bodhi's inconsistency re origins of Abhidhamma truth_aerator Dear Phil and all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > p.s thanks also Alex. Yes, the Kalamas sutta is always good! Does >a >teaching lead to weakening defilements, at least, and eradicating them > eventually? As Buddha has said, if the above happens - go for it! > That is the test that must be passed by all teachings, I > think. Yes. ALL of them. >For Sarah and other longtime students of Abhidhamma, it passes >the test strongly in this area, I'm sure. The question is: If they would stick to sutta's, how much progress would they have? Maybe even more. Even though I've read very little Abh, personally I love the suttas. They are deeper, more universal, and generally seem more applicable at eradicating defilements. Maybe one should use the suttas until one becomes an Arahant. It is all too easy to get lost in concepts and miss the forest for the trees. Best wishes, #91190 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 5:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Survey quote TGrand458@... Dear Friends In a message dated 10/9/2008 2:08:01 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear friends, If we clearly understand that it is not self who thinks, that it is citta which knows the subject about which it thinks, ..................................................... TG: Just as it is a mistake to think that there is a 'person' who thinks, it is also a mistake to identify any one factor, or even a group of individual factors that think. Could we think without the heat from the sun to sustain life? No. The heat from the sun is also a condition that thinking is based on. The list is endless. Certainly mentation is located in a predominant area of body and mind...and mind more particularly. But is there really some "thing" called "citta" and does "it" think? Or, is there even any one thing called "citta" that is mere awareness? There is no such thing called "citta." There is awareness...but it is not "its own thing." It is a complex amalgamation of conditions that come together under the right conditions to form awareness. Awareness is not "its own" thing. It is a 'conditioned formation' and any attempt to isolate it as "its own thing" is an error in various ways... 1) It is an error because it misses the point of conditionality and conditional formations. 2) It takes the "self view" off the "person," and puts it onto the element or aggregate being considered "its own thing." 3) It misses the meaning of "middle way" and thwarts any deep success in detaching the mind from conditions. .............................................................................. it can be a condition for paññå to develop, so that it comes to know precisely the characteristics of realities as they are. ............................................................................ TG: Here's what we get... An endeavor that wants to see "how precisely" things are "what they are." The fact is, they are not at all what they appear to be. To think they are "that thing" is delusional. Qualities arise as "resultant" empty echoes of prior conditions. "Their own thing" is EXACTLY what they are not. .............................................................................. ..... The citta which thinks is different from the citta which sees. The citta which sees knows an object through the eyesense, whereas the citta which thinks knows an object through the mind-door. When a reality appears through the bodysense, be it the characteristic of softness or hardness, it is natural that at that moment we do not know yet what it is that is impinging on the bodysense. Later on we know what the object is that is hard or soft. If we touch something in the dark we may turn on the light in order to see what we are touching. Thus, we can understand that at the moment citta experiences hardness it does not think, that thinking is another type of citta. When citta experiences just hardness, there is not the world of the road, the shoes or the stockings. There is not the world of conventional truth, of concepts. .................................................. TG: And this whole citta / "Dhammas" theory is just a fanciful conventional outlook. A supra mundane outlook would not "isolate separates," but see beyond the illusion of "separates" or "wholes" ... as 'conditionality' elevates the mind away from these conventions and detaches it from phenomena and the suffering of Samsara. We should NOT "start" with "knowing realities" because this is wrong view. For purposes of analysis, and to understand conditionality, we do need to know how phenomena are interacting; and we use the elements and aggregates as 'provisional reference points.' But these "reference points" are not "things of themselves," they are just conceptual tools that are to be used provisionally to get beyond attachment, including attachment to these tools. .................................................................. There is only the reality which experiences the characteristic of hardness. The reality which experiences hardness is not a living being or a person, it is just a type of nåma which arises and then falls away. The citta which arises later on can think about what has appeared through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense or the mind-door. ........................................................................ TG: It would seem that the idea of "being" or "person" has just been replaced with Namas, cittas, rupas, dhammas, etc. This is nothing profound...its just a transference of delusion from one thing to another thing. Its just a theory. Complex yes; profound, no. TG OUT ............................................................. It thinks about a story, about concepts of what has appeared. Since we are so occupied with our thinking we forget that the citta which arose and experienced hardness and the rúpa which is hardness have fallen away already. ****** Nina. #91191 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 5:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) TGrand458@... Hi Sukin In a message dated 10/8/2008 1:55:55 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: Suk: An exercise in “theory projectionâ€?, nothing more. When I consider such things as the DO, my reaction is a need to better understand the present moment, .................................................. TG: An impossibility. The present moment cannot be experienced. Experience requires a flow of conditions (time) as does understanding. The "present" also, cannot be understood without understanding the entire conditionality scheme. “Among the characteristic features of any object, physical or mental, there is often one characteristic we over look due to hasty or superficial attention, and which therefore needs to be treated separately. This is the relatedness of the object. The objects relatedness extends back to its past – to its origin, causes, reasons and logical precedents; it also extends outward to embrace the total context – its background, environment and presently active influences. We can never fully understand things if we view them in artificial isolation. We have to see them as part of a wider pattern, in their conditioned and conditioning nature; and this can be done only with the help of sustained attention.â€? (Nyanaponika Thera . . . The Vision of Dhamma, Pg. 101 - 102) TG OUT #91192 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 10:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist teachings truth_aerator Hi Jon, Are there any sutta quotes that call "meditation" be silabataparamasa? What about all the quotes featuring formal meditations? Buddha has clearly said that it is *impossible* to reach Anagami stage without reaching Jhana. Suttas tell it, I believe them, this settles it. ========================================================= "It is not possible that one could, knowing and seeing overcome the lower bonds of the sensual world without coming to this path and method.... Ananda, what is the path and method, to dispel the lower bonds of the sensual world? Ananda, the bhikkhu secluding the mind thoroughly, by dispelling things of demerit, removes all bodily transgressions that bring remorse. Then secluding the mind, from sensual thoughts and thoughts of demerit, with thoughts and discursive thoughts and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion abides in the first jhana. Established in it he reflects all things that matter, all feelings, all perceptive things, all intentions, all conscious signs are impermanent, unpleasant, an illness, an abscess, an arrow, a misfortune, an ailment, foreign, destined for destruction, is void, and devoid of a self. Then he turns the mind to the deathless element: This is peaceful, this is exalted, such as the appeasement of all determinations, the giving up of all endearments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation and extinction (* 1). With that mind he comes to the destruction of desires. If he does not destroy desires on account of greed and interest for those same things. He arises spontaneously, with the destruction of the five lower bonds, of the sensual world, not to proceed. Ananda, this too is a method for overcoming the five lower bonds of the sensual world.. " http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/064-maha-malunkhyaputta-e1.htm ============================ Best wishes, #91193 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 11:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: DSG's method nilovg Dear Tep, Op 9-okt-2008, om 1:36 heeft visitorfromtexas het volgende geschreven: > Reflecting the past discussions, I apologize for giving you trouble > over the years through repetitive questioning and disbelieving. No > more trouble making. :-) ------- N: No, that was not trouble making at all. It is as Howard says, when asked questions, it is a good opportunity to test one's own understanding while trying to formulate the answers. You are always welcome to discuss. Nina. #91194 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 12:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) truth_aerator Hi TG, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > TG: An impossibility. The present moment cannot be experienced. >Experience requires a flow of conditions (time) as does >understanding. The "present" also, cannot be understood without >understanding the entire conditionality scheme. While it is true that we cannot experience the exact present moment due to reaction time, and the fact the observation of the present moment is at least one mind-moment away; In general, I think, that the present moment *can* be experienced as long as we have a bit more leniency regarding what we consider to be the present moment and what we consider to be the past. If we consider the present moment to be a single "citta", then it is impossible to experience citta without any sort of reflection of it. If we allow present moment to be couple seconds long, then we can experience it. Best wishes, #91195 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 12:41 pm Subject: Re: List of cetasikas, was: sheaves.. visitorfromt... Dear Nina, - You are very thoughtful for assembling the various sources of information about cetasikas for me to study with a hope that I will be less confused. >N: I found the old post to Rob M. I requote. Perhaps this can take away some of your confusion? T: I am sorry, Nina. No, I only am more confused by these eclectic commentaries that add complication to the just five easy-to-understand cetasikas in the suttas. The most useful information that I can infer from the information you sent me is : the 72 cetasikas did not originate either from the Suttanta Pitaka or the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Do you agree? Summary: -- The 1st book of the Abhidhamma has an open-ended list of cetasikas that "matches quite well with the close-ended list from the Abhidhammatthasangaha", but it doesn't include manasikara. -- The list of the Dhammasangani is not exhaustive. There are four cetasikas : zeal(chanda), resolution (adhimokkha), attention (manasikaara), evenmindedness(tatramajjhattata). -- The Expositor (p.174, 175) deals with these, but includes also the five cetasikas which do not arise with every kusala citta, thus it classifies the supplementary factors as ninefold. -- The Visuddhimagga enumerates first twentyseven cetasikas and then adds the four supplementary facors, thus together these are thirty-one cetasikas included in sankhaarakkhandha that accompany the first type of mahaa-kusala citta that is associated with pa~n~naa .. -- Ven. Nyanaponika states about the aggregate of mental formations that the aggregate of mental formations (sankhaarakkhandha) is represented by two of its most typical general factors sense impression and volition thus phassa and cetanaa. He explains that this points to the inseparableness of the four nama-khandhas. ........................ I appreciate and understand your intention to help. Tep === #91196 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 1:03 pm Subject: Re: List of cetasikas, was: sheaves.. truth_aerator Dear Tep, >, "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > T: I am sorry, Nina. No, I only am more confused by these eclectic > commentaries that add complication to the just five easy-to- >understand cetasikas in the suttas. The most useful information that >I can infer from the information you sent me is : the 72 cetasikas >did not originate either from the Suttanta Pitaka or the Abhidhamma >Pitaka. Do you agree? I agree. A lot of specifics found in Abh and later literature wasn't taught in the suttas. That doesn't mean that those specifics are 100% wrong though. It may simply mean that they aren't crucial to understanding the Buddha's message or that the Buddha didn't teach them for some purpose. IMHO, what we should know is to HOW observe and deal with phenomena, rather than what is. Fact is that all is anicca, dukkha, anatta, just like all triangles have 3 sides. There is no need to worry too much about philosophical exactitues (are there 89, 88 or 90 cittas?) . What is important is to gain a universal (rather than specific) understanding. IMHO of course. "any [form...consciousness] 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.' " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html Note the universal application. No need to worry too much about being able to list all of the consciousness possible as it would all fall under some or all of the above categories. Lets not overlook the forest for the trees. IMHO. Best wishes, #91197 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 2:57 pm Subject: Re: DSG's method for Attaining Ariyanhood ... No Practice, No Ariyans ... visitorfromt... Hi Jon (Scott, Sarah, Sukin, Alex), - This message is longer than normal because there are mutual misunderstandings that must be corrected. It all started with my comment on your no-practice, no-intention for understanding of nama-rupa 'now'. > >Tep: This philosophy of perpetual, automatic understanding simply states, "Kusala of all kinds can and does arise without there being the specific intention that it should. And likewise the understanding that is insight develops gradually. But as regards how that development occurs, it is not a matter of some step-by-step method or practice." >Jon: In quoting from my post here you've omitted the bits that I would see as being the most significant, namely, that what the texts are describing is: what kusala (including awareness/insight) is, and what the conditions for its development are. It's this that is addresses your question; the rest was really just supplementary comment. T: First, I want to make an important note that it has not been clear to me that the 'satipatthana bhavana' as described in DN 22 is the same as the "no-action, no-practice philosophy" that you are talking about. [How could it be possible?] Note again that "practice" is 'patipadaa' in Pali. For example, Sekha Patipadaa Sutta is known as "the practice of one in training", MN 53. No 'patipadaa', no 'sekha puggalas'. No training, no ariyans !! http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html Sekha: a 'noble learner', a disciple in higher training, i.e. one who pursues the 3 kinds of training (sikkhaa, q.v.), is one of those 7 kinds of noble disciples who have reached one of the 4 supermundane paths or the 3 lower fruitions (s. ariya-puggala), while the one possessed of the 4th fruition, or Arahatta-phala, is called 'one beyond training' (asekha, lit. 'no more learner'). The worldling (puthujjana, q.v.) is called 'neither a noble learner, nor perfected in learning' (n'eva-sekha-naasekha). Cf. Pug. 23-25. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_s.htm Jon, I would not have asked you for a clarification if it were clear from the beginning ! So it is your duty to clearly show that the no- action, no-practice philosophy that you call "understanding namas & rupas now" is the same as satipatthana bhavana in DN 22. T: Instead of elaborating on your magical arising of awareness/insight with no intention, no practice, you instead turned around to question me: >Jon: Regarding my observation, "Kusala of all kinds can and does arise without there being the specific intention that it should", is it your experience (I'm talking about in life in general here) that kusala arises only at times when you think about doing something to make or encourage it to? I suspect not. T: Yes, encourage the arising of a kusala by appropriate attention to its supporting conditions ! Attention is action (cetana is kamma). All kusalas such saddha, viriya, sati, samadhi and pa~n~na arise (originate, samudaya) because of conditions: e.g. by adverting to it; by zeal; by attention; by unity of indriya dhammas [Ptsm, IV, 10]. Intention always accompanies attention, feeling, perception, contact [see SN 12.2 for example]. But the origination of kusala is not the main issue for this discussion, Jon. To me the central theme of our discussion is well described as follows : > Tep: "A huge disadvantage of such no-action, no-practice philosophy is that you only think that kusala of all kinds "can and does arise without there being the specific intention", but in actuality akusala of all kinds does arise and ACCUMULATE in you because there is no specific intention with effort: intention + effort = action to abandon(pahana) them. Plain and simple." >Jon: It is of course true that akusala of some level or another is accumulating all the time. But this is not to be feared. The gradual development of kusala of the level of satipatthana over the long stretch has the potential to overcome all akusala in due course. T: Fear or not is not the point I've made. It is true that satipatthana NOT ONLY gradually develops kusala, but satipatthana itself must ALSO be developed through practice/training -- if there is no training(sikkha), then there is no trainer(sekha) ! The training also destroys akusalas : not just the "potential". The training is what transforms the (citta of) instructed worldlings to sekha puggalas through the cessation of ignorance. See the dhammanupassana section on the fourth Noble Truth of DN 22; such sekha patipadaa is known as "the practice leading to the cessation of ignorance" ['atthangiko maggo avijjaa nirodhagaaminii patipadaa']. .................................... > >Tep's Comment: > > No intention to develop kusala and abandone akusala means no wholesome > action (because intention is action) thus no siila, no samadhi, no pa~n~naa. Jon: I think you have misunderstood my comment. I was not suggesting any avsence of intention (in terms of the mental factor) nor the absence of any appreciation of the importance of kusala and thus motivation to develop kusala. Jon: I was referring to the notion of something in the nature of a special practice designed to bring on the arising of kusala, or at least increase the chance of its arising, at that time. T: I already responded to the point on attention above. Tep === #91198 From: "visitorfromtexas" Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 3:22 pm Subject: Re: List of cetasikas, was: sheaves.. Oh, what a relief it is ... visitorfromt... Dear Alex (Nina), - Thank you for backing up my finding that the 72 cetasikas in the lieratures e.g. the Vism and some commentaries did not originate from the Tipitaka. Knowing this fact has given me a great relief because the prior conflict is removed from my mind. Dear Tep, >, "visitorfromtexas" wrote: > > T: I am sorry, Nina. No, I only am more confused by these eclectic > commentaries that add complication to the just five easy-to- >understand cetasikas in the suttas. The most useful information that >I can infer from the information you sent me is : the 72 cetasikas >did not originate either from the Suttanta Pitaka or the Abhidhamma >Pitaka. Do you agree? Alex: I agree. A lot of specifics found in Abh and later literature wasn't taught in the suttas. That doesn't mean that those specifics are 100% wrong though. It may simply mean that they aren't crucial to understanding the Buddha's message or that the Buddha didn't teach them for some purpose. IMHO, what we should know is to HOW observe and deal with phenomena, rather than what is. Fact is that all is anicca, dukkha, anatta, just like all triangles have 3 sides. There is no need to worry too much about philosophical exactitues (are there 89, 88 or 90 cittas?) . What is important is to gain a universal (rather than specific) understanding. IMHO of course. "any [form...consciousness] 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.' " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html Note the universal application. No need to worry too much about being able to list all of the consciousness possible as it would all fall under some or all of the above categories. Lets not overlook the forest for the trees. IMHO. ============== Thanks, Alex. Tep === #91199 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 9, 2008 1:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No control (its a coping mechanism) upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and TG) - In a message dated 10/9/2008 3:37:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: While it is true that we cannot experience the exact present moment due to reaction time, and the fact the observation of the present moment is at least one mind-moment away; In general, I think, that the present moment *can* be experienced as long as we have a bit more leniency regarding what we consider to be the present moment and what we consider to be the past. ============================== There is no need for waiting one mind moment (as if there WERE such a thing as a mind moment), because whenever we are experiencing, that IS the present. At any time, whatever is the content of consciousness is what is present. What is true is that we cannot *hold onto* anything, for change is constant, and nothing stands still to be "captured" in some way. With metta, Howard