#94200 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 8:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Alex) - In a message dated 1/1/2009 2:52:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard and Alex, Alex gave some Pali but I will look again at the suttas. --------------------------------------- Howard: Wonderful, Nina. Whatever your conclusion will be, it will be, but I salute you for your willingness to look and see. Keeping our eyes and mind open to alternative possibilities is greatly to be admired, because it sets truth as the highest matter. If we end up believing no differently than at the outset, that's fine; the journey was worth the taking and our understanding is simply confirmed. And if, by chance, we come to see things differently, then that is also good. :-) ---------------------------------------- But now I am quite absorbed (:-)) in the Sangiitisutta the bases of meritorious actions, for a few days. I have to finish this first. --------------------------------------- Howard: Of course! (But please do get around to reexamining MN 111 when you have the chance.) -------------------------------------- Nina. ===================== With metta, Howard *(Anonymous) #94201 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation egberdina Hi KenH, 2009/1/1 kenhowardau : > Hi Alan, > > You are not alone in wanting to be a kind-hearted person. Many DSG > members share that ambition. Others of us, however, are trying to > understand that kind-heartedness is just a fleeting, conditioned > dhamma. I love it when you let the cat out of the bag :-) I wonder why you think that trying to understand is OK, but that any other form of directed effort meets with your derision? Ultimately, there are no people who have kind-heartedness or > any other characteristic - there are only dhammas. > Cheers Herman #94202 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 2:11 pm Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation kenhowardau Hi Howard, Thanks for this, your first post of the new year, may there be many more to follow! :-) ------------- <. . .> H: > You write "The past no longer exists and the future has never existed. The present reality is all there is!" And this is absolutely true! I don't see how anyone who pays attention to things could disagree with it -seriously! And yet ... . This "and yet," I think, is a big deal, ---------------- At the risk of sidetracking your train of reasoning I would like to say there is no need for an 'and yet.' Why can't we hear the Buddha's description of the loka - the universe that exists in the present moment - and develop understanding of that? Why should we try to fit the loka in with our conventional ideas of a universe? The two don't mix! ---------------------------------- H: > This "and yet," I think, is a big deal, and I truly find it to be paradoxical: Time and event are inseparable, even maybe indistinguishable. (Maybe that's just a slogan, though - so let that go.) Here's the thing: There is only now ... true. But what occurs "now" changes "all the time". But change means passage of time. All that ever was is no longer present now, and this "now" is unstoppable, ungraspable, without duration, and, in fact, seems to be actually both something and yet nothing at all. We have a mental picture of "now" as a window through which is seen a stream of passing phenomena, as if "now" stands still and its "content" changes. ---------------------------------- The individual components of the loka bear a characteristic known as anicca. That is what we need to learn and understand. Ideas of a passage of time belong to the conventional universe. In the loka, the words 'change' 'impermanence' and 'fleetingness' apply solely to the anicca characteristic. ----------------------------------------- H: > But "now" is not a widow or portal. For the changing "content" is the very passage of time. There really is no window. Our everyday terminology is what seems to come to our rescue: We can properly speak of what "now is happening," what "previously happened," and what "may happen." When we say that there is only "now," one has to ask "When?" And the answer is "Now!" But that is because we *always* answer that same way, even though what occurs "now" CONSTANTLY CHANGES! If you can see the truth of anything that I've written here besides my initial agreement with you when you write "The past no longer exists and the future has never existed. The present reality is all there is!", then perhaps you can agree that the matter is not simple and that this matter of time and of "now" is an example, an important one, I think, of the inability of thought to grasp reality without paradoxical distortion. ------------------------------------------- I can only repeat: why not just learn about the loka? At the eye-door (for example) a visible-object rupa enters the domain of an eye rupa. Contact (phassa cetasika) arises. Feeling (vedana cetasika) arises in accordance with contact . . . and so on. Each of these realities bears the anicca characteristic, and so there is the potential for concepts of a 'passage of time' to be created. Unlike the 'chicken and egg' question there is a clear answer as to which came first. Anicca came first: ideas of a passage from past to future came later. Ken H (Sorry, Howard, if I may have missed your point, but you know me and my one track mind!) #94203 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 2:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation egberdina Hi KenH, 2009/1/1 kenhowardau : > Hi Herman, > > ------------------------- > <. . .> > H: > With the arising of satipatthana, one sees that the present > reality consists only of a continuous flight from the past to the > future. > ------------------------- > > A "flight?" That doesn't sound right to me. Satipatthana is not a book exercise. It is a matter of seeing what is happening, as it happens. >The past no longer exists > and the future has never existed. The present reality is all there is! > Forget the book definitions for the moment. What is happening right now? > ------------------------------- > H: > And that the engine for this continuous movement is craving. As > long as there is craving, there is the flight towards future > becoming. And that is because there is something wrong with the > present, namely that it is void of self. > -------------------------------- > > Conditioned reality is always devoid of self. So too is nibbana. That > is the way things are. It's the Dhamma! There is nothing wrong with > the Dhamma. :-) That's right, there is nothing wrong with the Dhamma. But that does not mean that craving for becoming isn't weaving samsara as we write. And of course it is not a self that craves to become. That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it, craving to become what already is? But it is this not self craving that is weaving the endless succession that satipatthana can be present to. If you see no such succession, but only an atemporal present, good luck to you. But this is what the Buddha saw: "I don't envision a single thing that is as quick to reverse itself as the mind — so much so that there is no feasible simile for how quick to reverse itself it is." AN 1:48 Cheers Herman #94204 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/2 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "...Bruce has had all the experiences you are going to call into > evidence. He uses this white powder, 5 mg for bardo, 10 mg for > anatta, 20 mg for nibbana." > > Scott: I sincerely hope that you might resolve your great dilemna > vis-a-vis the third and fourth Noble Truths, Herman. I think there is > a misunderstanding here of the nature of ruupa and its relation to naama. > Try as I might, I do not see any connection to what I was intending to convey. If you want to spell out what you believe the misunderstanding is, preferably in conversational English, I would be more than happy to consider. Cheers Herman #94205 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 2:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi Alex and everyone, Best wishes for 2009. 2009/1/2 Alex : > Dear Herman, > > > So? Just because you can make someone hallucinate a pie in front of > them, this doesn't mean that "pies do not exist"! It just means that > you can simulate the experience by other means. > The question here is: What is a simulated experience? If someone reports a near-death experience after others saw him lying in a crumpled mass next to a dented car, and Bruce reports an identical experience after others saw him sitting in an armchair, what is different about the experiences? Keep up the good work, Alex. Cheers Herman #94206 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 2:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/2 Scott : > Dear Alex (and Herman), > > Regarding: > > A: "So? Just because you can make someone hallucinate a pie in front of > them, this doesn't mean that "pies do not exist"! It just means that > you can simulate the experience by other means. Just because there can > be a mirage of water, it doesn't mean that water doesn't exist at all, > somewhere." > > Scott: Neither 'pies' nor 'water' exist - the problem misunderstanding > pa~n~natti again. This is sidestepping the issue. Do near-death experiences and the like occur? If you agree that they do, then I will proceed by saying: that the immediate causes of those experiences are identical in all cases, not different according to the gross scenarios in which they occur that the immediate causes are chemical in nature that the brain produces and releases those chemicals when there is enormous stress that the ingestion of those identical chemicals will produce identical effects as when naturally secreted That's what I reckon, anyway :-) Cheers Herman #94207 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 2:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/2 Scott : > Dear Howard, > > Brain is meat. > Attabhava is meat. For all your understanding of the Dhamma, has the process of becoming ceased? If not, then I do not see why your samsara is different to Bruce's. Cheers Herman #94208 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 3:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/2 Scott : > Dear Howard, > > Scott: I don't set aside the question of realities, Howard. This is > one of the most disputed concerns on the list. And as far as 'unusual > experiences' go, I've said before that these are neither to be trusted > nor pursued. > Let me chip in here that the realisation of anatta is a most unusual experience, and that it can be quite unpleasant. That is why often all spontaneous steps leading upto such realisation are actively resisted (this will not be noticeable unless strongly focussed). Cheers Herman #94209 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 3:41 pm Subject: Re: cornerstone kenhowardau Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi connie (and Howard and Nina), > > 2008/12/31 connie : > > Dear Friends, > > The "development" section continues: > > > > I just wanted to thank you again for posting this material. The reason > you hear little from me about it is that I find myself in agreement > with Karunadasa. I agree with Howard that most of the discussions at > dsg emanate from variations of understanding on the material you are > quoting. What I don't understand is that only Nina has voiced any > concerns. Should I assume that everyone else is actually in agreement > with Karunadasa's overview? > Speaking for myself: I noticed that Connie wanted a harmonious discussion on this topic. Something along the lines of 'chanting together' I think she said. I took that to mean if I couldn't say anything nice about Karunadasa's essay I shouldn't say anthing at all. Therefore . . . #94210 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 4:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner truth_aerator Not just MN111 but MN64 pali as well. http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima2/064-maha-malunkhyaputta-p.html http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima3/111-anupada-p.html Here is a typical pali line from MN64. "Punaca para.m ananda bhikkhu sabbaso akasana~ncayatanam samatikkamma anantam vinnananti vinnanancayatanam upasampajja viharati. So yadeva tattha hoti rupagatam vedanagatam sannagatam sankharagatam vinnanagatam te dhamme aniccato dukkhato rogato gandato sallato aghato abadhato parato palokato sunnato anattato samanupassati, so tehi dhammehi cittam pativapeti.1. So tehi dhammehi cittam panivapetva2 amataya dhatuya cittam upasa.mharati. Etam santam etam panitam yadidam sabbasankharasamatho sabbupadhi patinissaggo tanhakkhayo virago nirodho nibbananti. So tatthatthito asavanam khayam papunati. No ce asavanam khayam papunati. Teneva dhammaragena taya dhammanandiya pancannam orambhagiyanam sannojananam parikkhaya opapatiko hoti tattha parinibbaya anavattidhammo tasma loka. Ayampi kho ananda maggo ayam patipada pancannam orambhagiyanam sannojananam pahanaya. " The differences is description of meditation and base of nothingness has "rupagatam" missing. English translation: Again, ânanda, the bhikkhu overcoming all peceptions of space, with consciousness is boundless, abides in the sphere of consciousness. -- Attained to 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, void, 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. 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 not to proceed. ânanda, this too is a method for the dispelling of the five lower bonds for the sensual world. MLDB pg 540: Again, with the complete surmounting the base of infinite space, aware that 'consciousness is infinite', a bhikkhu enters up and abides in the base of infinite consciousness. Whatever exists THEREIN of [form], feeling perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent...as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it toward the deathless element" ======================= Note: In MLDB form is missing in formless attainments. However rupagatam is present in the pali MN64. With best wishes, #94211 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 4:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 truth_aerator Dear Herman and all, > "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > If someone reports a near-death experience after others saw him >lying > in a crumpled mass next to a dented car, and Bruce reports an > identical experience after others saw him sitting in an armchair, >what is different about the experiences? When Out of body, those patients have reported what has happened in the room and other places WHILE THEIR BODIES WERE DEAD. Those reports were verified and were true. People have reported conscious experiences when their brain, the heart and so on were clinically DEAD. According to modern science they should be in comatose situation with NO visions of any sort, much less of those that made sense and were true. With best wishes, #94212 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 4:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation truth_aerator >"Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi KenH, > I love it when you let the cat out of the bag :-) I wonder why you > think that trying to understand is OK, but that any other form of > directed effort meets with your derision? I agree with Herman. Why is it ok do develop understanding and yet it is not OK to do Jhana, Samma-Samadhi, etc? Why is it okay to travel to Bangkok to see KS and not okay to sit down and let go of kama and as much as possible in order to reach Jhana? With best 2009 wishes, #94213 From: "robmoult" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 4:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 robmoult --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > When Out of body, those patients have reported what has happened in > the room and other places WHILE THEIR BODIES WERE DEAD. Those reports > were verified and were true. People have reported conscious > experiences when their brain, the heart and so on were clinically > DEAD. According to modern science they should be in comatose > situation with NO visions of any sort, much less of those that made > sense and were true. > ===== Hi Alex, Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the theme of the conference. You wrote, "WHILE THEIR BODIES WERE DEAD". Let's explore that statement for a moment. There were a number of medical doctors in the audience who reminded us that none of the people had been medically certified as "dead". Their hearts may have stopped, their brain waves may have gone silent, but they were not medically certified as "dead". A related point is the question, "what is death from a Buddhist perspective?". In the post, I included the note, "In this sentence we are using "death" as defined by the medical establishment which is based on what our instruments can currently measure. This definition of death does not correlate exactly with the Buddhist definition of death." The orthodox Theravadin would say that death arises with the falling away of the cuti-citta. The Mahayanists said that death was the passing of consciousness and warmth (note: apparently, loss of body tempeature is not part of the medical definition of death) and the Tibetan view is that death happens when blood or pus oozes from the nose. Metta, Rob M :-) #94214 From: "connie" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 4:39 pm Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn dear KenH and other silent dissenters, Herman: Should I assume that everyone else is actually in agreement with Karunadasa's overview? KenH: Speaking for myself: I noticed that Connie wanted a harmonious discussion on this topic. Something along the lines of 'chanting together' I think she said. I took that to mean if I couldn't say anything nice about Karunadasa's essay I shouldn't say anthing at all. Therefore . . . c: Sorry, Ken! Don't let me stop you. It's just a matter of my own surliness getting out of hand. I do think, overall, the essay supports the commentaries, which I also believe are not out of line with the Canon, but what of it. I *should* actually be grateful for a chance to consider other sides and have to laugh at myself for even suggesting we're all going to agree on what was taught. The list would shut down if it went according to my suggestions. Next, I'll be out crusading for The One Universal Buddhist Church... all according to my p.o.v., of course... say, I already have been! apologies all around! connie #94215 From: "robmoult" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 robmoult --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > When Out of body, those patients have reported what has happened in > the room and other places WHILE THEIR BODIES WERE DEAD. Those reports > were verified and were true. People have reported conscious > experiences when their brain, the heart and so on were clinically > DEAD. According to modern science they should be in comatose > situation with NO visions of any sort, much less of those that made > sense and were true. ===== Hi Alex, I am replying again to your same message with another point related to the discussions during the conference. Mainstream scientific thinking generally describes out-of-body experiences as a "false memory" dreamt up by the brain during resuscitation. For the medical community to accept out-of-body experiences, it has to be demonstrated in a controlled experiment. A few years ago, a nurse placed a LED sign which flashed random words on the top of a cabinet in an operating theatre. The words on the sign could not be seen by people at ground level, but would be visible by a person floating in the air above the operating table. Over the next few months, a number of people reported out-of-body experiences in the operating theatre but none of them could report what was being displayed on the sign. In September 2008, a very similar experiment on a much larger scale was initiated. The University of Southampton started a three year research experiment to examine 1,500 heart attack patients in 25 UK and US hospitals to see if they experienced out of body experiences while they had no heartbeat or brain activity. There will be pictures in the emergency room and in the operating theatre which would only be visible if one were floating near the ceiling. If the people who have out of body experiences can describe these pictures, then clearly, this is not a "false memory". Metta, Rob M :-) #94216 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 5:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 truth_aerator Hi Rob, >, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the theme of the >conference. > > You wrote, "WHILE THEIR BODIES WERE DEAD". Let's explore that >statement for a moment. There were a number of medical doctors in >the audience who reminded us that none of the people had been >medically certified as "dead". They were temporary dead and if it wasn't for the modern medicine, they may have fully died. After all these medical achievements in resuscitation the definition of death had to be redefined. > Their hearts may have stopped, their brain waves may have > gone silent, but they were not medically certified as "dead". They were not fully dead in the sense of the fact that they were brought back to life. If there was consciousness AT THAT MOMENT, then it would refute the notion that consciousness is ALWAYS dependent on brain activity. > A related point is the question, "what is death from a Buddhist > perspective?". Irrevesible death, when rebirth is imminent I guess. When the consciousness have left and never will return to the old body. With 2009 metta! #94217 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 12:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/1/2009 5:11:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, Thanks for this, your first post of the new year, may there be many more to follow! :-) ----------------------------------------- Howard: How nice, Ken! Thank you! The same for you! :-) ---------------------------------------- ------------- <. . .> H: > You write "The past no longer exists and the future has never existed. The present reality is all there is!" And this is absolutely true! I don't see how anyone who pays attention to things could disagree with it -seriously! And yet ... . This "and yet," I think, is a big deal, ---------------- At the risk of sidetracking your train of reasoning I would like to say there is no need for an 'and yet.' ------------------------------------------- Howard: There is no need for a "and yet," if that were taken to deny that there is only now. But I do think there is a need to push forward, seeing more deeply, for I seem to see a mystery that needs to be broken through to. ------------------------------------------- Why can't we hear the Buddha's description of the loka - the universe that exists in the present moment - and develop understanding of that? Why should we try to fit the loka in with our conventional ideas of a universe? The two don't mix! --------------------------------------------- Howard: For one thing, though this is minor, I'm not clear on where the Buddha has said exactly that "the universe" exists in the present moment, and also, I'm not talking "universe," Ken - I'm just not. But more importantly, I'm just not one inclined to accept on faith. For me that is way less than satisfactory. -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- H: > This "and yet," I think, is a big deal, and I truly find it to be paradoxical: Time and event are inseparable, even maybe indistinguishable. (Maybe that's just a slogan, though - so let that go.) Here's the thing: There is only now ... true. But what occurs "now" changes "all the time". But change means passage of time. All that ever was is no longer present now, and this "now" is unstoppable, ungraspable, without duration, and, in fact, seems to be actually both something and yet nothing at all. We have a mental picture of "now" as a window through which is seen a stream of passing phenomena, as if "now" stands still and its "content" changes. ---------------------------------- The individual components of the loka bear a characteristic known as anicca. That is what we need to learn and understand. Ideas of a passage of time belong to the conventional universe. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: What is truly the nature of time, and of "now," and of much more, directly involved with anicca and dukkha and anatta is not truly known by either of us, Ken. What I DO believe is that the nature of reality will ONLY be known by directly seeing it, and not by memorizing or by taking it on faith. --------------------------------------------- In the loka, the words 'change' 'impermanence' and 'fleetingness' apply solely to the anicca characteristic. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, forgive me, but this seems like an empty slogan to me. Jargon is useless when it comes to knowing how things are. ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- H: > But "now" is not a widow or portal. For the changing "content" is the very passage of time. There really is no window. Our everyday terminology is what seems to come to our rescue: We can properly speak of what "now is happening," what "previously happened," and what "may happen." When we say that there is only "now," one has to ask "When?" And the answer is "Now!" But that is because we *always* answer that same way, even though what occurs "now" CONSTANTLY CHANGES! If you can see the truth of anything that I've written here besides my initial agreement with you when you write "The past no longer exists and the future has never existed. The present reality is all there is!", then perhaps you can agree that the matter is not simple and that this matter of time and of "now" is an example, an important one, I think, of the inability of thought to grasp reality without paradoxical distortion. ------------------------------------------- I can only repeat: why not just learn about the loka? --------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't get it, Ken. Do you think that Pali is a sacred language, like the Hindus think Sanskrit is and the Orthodox Jews think Hebrew is? The Buddha, expressing an amazingly modern sentiment, said that language is mere convention. Why prefer 'loka' to 'world'? ------------------------------------------- At the eye-door (for example) a visible-object rupa enters the domain of an eye rupa. Contact (phassa cetasika) arises. Feeling (vedana cetasika) arises in accordance with contact . . . and so on. Each of these realities bears the anicca characteristic, and so there is the potential for concepts of a 'passage of time' to be created. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, you are repeating textual material that is well known. What I was doing was trying to express the content of personal contemplation of experience. so, you're really not responding to my post with what you are saying here. -------------------------------------------- Unlike the 'chicken and egg' question there is a clear answer as to which came first. Anicca came first: ideas of a passage from past to future came later. Ken H (Sorry, Howard, if I may have missed your point, but you know me and my one track mind!) --------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you for saying that, Ken. Actually, I think you have missed my point, but I very much appreciate the warm and friendly dialogue. ============================== With metta, Howard *(From the Diamond Sutra) #94218 From: "colette" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 10:21 am Subject: "Don't want to sail with this ship of fools" ksheri3 "Come and out and dance. Come out lets make romance. Come on out and dance. and make romance" Van the man Morrison GOOD YEAR GROUP, CONNIE, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. GIVE ME THE MSG. # SO THAT i CAN GET MORE OF THOSE PAPERS/BOOKS! THE Alayavijnana and the Yogacara are sooooo simplistic, who would bother thinking that the Abhidharma is complex or contrived! This stuff makes Kabbalah look like such a useless bauble but my use of kabbalah and knowledge of kabbalah is in the context of application, "Applied Magik", function (form creates function, doesn't it, Name & Form are totally subjective and worthless, no?) I'LL SEE YOU AND RAISE i.e. "Wild nights are calling". I told everybody back in 2004 when I found the net to actually work magik that I'm serious about this and so I take this two dimensional format and make it REALITY, although you do not practice the Yogacara theory nor believe the Alayavijnana exists. <.....> It's gonna be a good year. toodles, colette #94219 From: "connie" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 6:22 pm Subject: "Don't want to sail with this ship of fools" nichiconn dear colette, just back from wringing out the towels plopped down in the hallway between me and the bathroom... this part of the basement being an afterthought and whatnot, it's always something to look forward to in heavy rains or when the snow's melting. hope you're staying warm and dry enough ... all that! colette: CONNIE, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. GIVE ME THE MSG. # SO THAT i CAN GET MORE OF THOSE PAPERS/BOOKS! connie: #93763 but you're right! they didn't rock my world... peace, connie #94220 From: "robmoult" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 6:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 robmoult Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > They were temporary dead and if it wasn't for the modern medicine, > they may have fully died. > > After all these medical achievements in resuscitation the definition > of death had to be redefined. > ===== I guess that is why they call it "NEAR-death-experience" and we are extrapolating when we call it a "death-experience". :-) In any case, we will discuss this topic more later in the series. Metta, Rob M :-) #94221 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "Attabhava is meat. For all your understanding of the Dhamma, has the process of becoming ceased?" Scott: What makes you assume I understand the Dhamma? What could possibly motivate this odd question? On second thought, there is no need to answer this. H: "If not, then I do not see why your samsara is different to Bruce's." Scott: It isn't, and neither is yours. What is it you want, Herman, from your repeated arisings? As you imagine that I undersand the Dhamma, I imagine that you don't but wish you could. If this is the case, then we are both in the same boat, my friend. I still don't think you understand the difference between naama and ruupa at the theoretical level. But what does what I think matter... Sincerely, Scott. #94222 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 6:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "Let me chip in here that the realisation of anatta is a most unusual experience, and that it can be quite unpleasant. That is why often all spontaneous steps leading up to such realisation are actively resisted (this will not be noticeable unless strongly focussed)." Scott: Are you making an announcement? Is this an experience you are letting me know you have had? Why is it relevant? You are an avowed materialist who does not believe there is way out of samsara nor that there is a path. Please clarify. You must know that I think that announcements of 'attainments' of any kind on an open forum are highly suspect and in need of strong justification. You must know as well, of course, that I don't need a justification of any kind from you. Its just that you felt the need to bring it up. Sincerely, Scott. #94223 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "Try as I might, I do not see any connection to what I was intending to convey. If you want to spell out what you believe the misunderstanding is, preferably in conversational English, I would be more than happy to consider." Scott: You think that the brain is the centre of experience. Sincerely, Scott. #94224 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 6:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "And in what way is it wrong, if I may ask? Or do I have to take your statement on faith?" Scott: You've been reading on the list long enough, Alex. As they say in the American court dramas, 'Asked and answered' - like a million times. Sincerely, Scott. #94225 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 7:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 truth_aerator Dear Scott, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > A: "And in what way is it wrong, if I may ask? Or do I have to take > your statement on faith?" > > Scott: You've been reading on the list long enough, Alex. As they say > in the American court dramas, 'Asked and answered' - like a million >times. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Answer directly, if you have an answered it 'like a million of times. Cut-and-paste shouldn't be that difficult, and to find those references posted 'like a million of times'. With best wishes, #94226 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 7:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: Me: "What jhaana and 'meditation' enthusiasts chase after and take for jhaana is, in my opinion, very likely a panoply of 'unusual experiences' nowhere near jhaana, and of no account." Scott: Thanks for taking note. This is for you as well. A: "How do you know? Do you think that armchair understanding = the real thing? Forget about it." Scott: I think that this has been clarified for you many times, so once more couldn't hurt: No. An intellectual understanding of the Dhamma is not the same as the arising of the path. But, and I must insist on this - since it is Right View from the start - even an intellectual understanding, in order to serve as condition for future understanding, has to be part of pa~n~naa's function. I've had enough experience with the endless talk by jhaana enthusiasts to know for a fact that any of them that know of which they speak are not posting to internet forums. I do include you in there number, since, having read what you write about jhaana, and comparing it to what I read in the texts about jhaana, you might as well be getting high, man. Its just my strong opinion, Alex. No need to discuss it further, since I won't. A: "So you also believe that Earth is flat, that sun rotates around the earth, that some cities like savatthi existed for 100,000s of years and cow urine is one of the best medicine available?" Scott: Science schmience. Apples and oranges don't mix. Sincerely, Scott. #94227 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 7:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "Answer directly, if you have an answered it 'like a million of times..." Scott: Nope. Sincerely, Scott. #94228 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 7:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: Howard: "...That's true. (I'm pescetarian, if that's a word, but I do hear that sauteed brain can be quite delicious, especially if prepared with peppers and onion!...)" Scott: I've totally sworn off it since the whole B.S.E. thing. I don't want to start staggering around the yard and get sent off to the knacker man any time soon. Sincerely, Scott. #94229 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 7:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 truth_aerator Dear Scott, > "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > Me: "What jhaana and 'meditation' enthusiasts chase after and take for > jhaana is, in my opinion, very likely a panoply of 'unusual > experiences' nowhere near jhaana, and of no account." > > Scott: Thanks for taking note. This is for you as well. The goal is cessation of suffering by sequential letting go off craving (tanha). > I've had enough experience with the endless talk by jhaana >enthusiasts > to know for a fact that any of them that know of which they speak >are > not posting to internet forums. I do include you in there number, > since, having read what you write about jhaana, and comparing it to > what I read in the texts about jhaana, you might as well be getting > high, man. Its just my strong opinion, Alex. No need to discuss it > further, since I won't. Person who has never swam cannot imaging swimming and what it feels like. Furthermore, you cannot learn swimming by being on dry land. Oh, there are people who post and write books and have experienced Jhana. If religion is opium for the people, then do nothing "nothing can be done, let dhamma unfold naturally" is pure heroin. With best wishes, #94230 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 8:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi RobM, 2009/1/2 robmoult : > Hi Alex, > > Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the theme of the conference. > If you want to get technical, a discussion on the theme of the conference properly belongs in the thread you started. I deliberately started this thread so as to not divert attention away from your thread. Best you reply there. Cheers Herman #94231 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 8:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi Alex and RobM, I sincerely appreciate both your efforts to frame your arguments in rational and testable ways. I look forward to reading more on the proceedings of the conference (in the other thread, of course :-)) Cheers Herman #94232 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 9:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 1 egberdina Hi RobM, 2009/1/1 robmoult : > Hi All, > > > Note: In this sentence we are using "death" as defined by the medical > establishment which is based on what our instruments can currently > measure. This definition of "death" does not correlate exactly with > the Buddhist definition of "death". > > ===== > > Comments are welcome! > Thank you for inviting comments. I like that you do not propose a one-way delivery of received wisdom. If the aim of this thread translates into "Understanding cuti-citta and beyond" I would have to immediately admit to being stuck. For I do not know what cuti-citta is , nor do I know anyone who does, whether directly or indirectly. Cheers Herman #94233 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 9:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/2 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > > H: "If not, then I do not see why your samsara is different to Bruce's." > > Scott: It isn't, and neither is yours. What is it you want, Herman, > from your repeated arisings? That is a very worthwhile question to ask. Every moment again. And I think the answer is revealed only in each moment. And that is thinking ......while the moment has vanished long ago. As you imagine that I undersand the > Dhamma, I imagine that you don't but wish you could. If this is the > case, then we are both in the same boat, my friend. Good to hear. I agree. > I still don't > think you understand the difference between naama and ruupa at the > theoretical level. But what does what I think matter... > There is not anything theoretical about say, putting a source of heat under a pot of water, and it boiling after a while. It is repeatable ad infinitum. Likewise, there is nothing theoretical about Bruce and his white powder and what is experienced when he ingests it, it really does happen. The seeing of before .. after succession of events does not require a theoretical understanding. It is given. On the other hand, theoretical understanding is not given, it is extracted, post hoc, from the given. I may well not understand the differences between naama and ruupa at the theoretical level. What would change, in your opinion, if I understood the theoretical difference between nama and rupa? Would water still boil? Could Bruce still temporarily blast his sense of self to kingdom come, at will? > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Yeah, me too, sincerely that is. Be good and well :-) Cheers Herman #94234 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 9:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/2 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "Let me chip in here that the realisation of anatta is a most > unusual experience, and that it can be quite unpleasant. That is why > often all spontaneous steps leading up to such realisation are > actively resisted (this will not be noticeable unless strongly focussed)." > > Scott: Are you making an announcement? Not really. > Is this an experience you are > letting me know you have had? Many times. Sometimes pleasant, sometimes unpleasant. None of them drug-induced, BTW. > Why is it relevant? I think a blanket warning against strange experiences is really not very insightful. I certainly would agree with you, though, that seeking out strangeness for strangeness sake is rather silly. >You are an avowed > materialist who does not believe there is way out of samsara nor that > there is a path. Please clarify. If I were to *believe* that there was a way out of samsara, that very fact would indicate that I didn't *know* the way out. And clearly, I don't know the way out. And neither does anyone else here. I do not see any redemptive value in beating my chest while proclaiming my faith in knowing the way out, when I clearly don't know. > You must know that I think that > announcements of 'attainments' of any kind on an open forum are highly > suspect and in need of strong justification. No need to fret. Anyone with attainments is still firmly in the same boat with all the other fellow travellers. If their attainments can make the journey more bearable for everyone, all good and well. If not, then their attainments amount to nothing. > > You must know as well, of course, that I don't need a justification of > any kind from you. Its just that you felt the need to bring it up. > It's cool, man. > Sincerely, > > Scott. > I was really interested to read about your jamming with friends. I'd love to know what instrument(s) you play, and what genres you like? (sorry if I fail to remember you already having told me before :-)) Cheers Herman #94235 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 10:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/2 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "Try as I might, I do not see any connection to what I was > intending to convey. If you want to spell out what you believe the > misunderstanding is, preferably in conversational English, I would be > more than happy to consider." > > Scott: You think that the brain is the centre of experience. > Now that I understand! Thanks for rephrasing it. Slightly rephrased, I would agree with it unhesitatingly. The brain is central to experience. Could I just say that I don't believe I'm being terribly radical or revolutionary in having such a belief. That the ayatanas are a sine qua non of experience is accepted in Theravadin Buddhism, and by me alike. Cheers Herman #94236 From: "robmoult" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 10:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 robmoult Hi Scott & Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Scott: You think that the brain is the centre of experience. > > > > Now that I understand! Thanks for rephrasing it. > > Slightly rephrased, I would agree with it unhesitatingly. The brain is > central to experience. > ===== As we will see later, there is growing evidence that the brain is not central to experience (and this is the orthodox Theravada position as well). But let us put that discussion on hold for the moment. :-) Metta, Rob M :-) #94237 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 12:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi RobM, 2009/1/2 robmoult : > > As we will see later, there is growing evidence that the brain is not > central to experience (and this is the orthodox Theravada position as > well). But let us put that discussion on hold for the moment. :-) I look forward to the raising of any arguments that the ayatanas are not central to experience in Theravada. Whenever, and in whichever thread :-) Cheers Herman #94238 From: "sprlrt" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 12:44 am Subject: Re: Understanding White Powder - Section 1 sprlrt Hi Herman, > ... white powder, 5 mg for bardo, 10 mg for anatta, 20 mg for nibbana. The word intoxicant derives from toxic, poison. And poisoning the body will certainly have effects on the mind too, not those you mentioned, though. Alberto #94239 From: "robmoult" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 1:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 robmoult Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > I look forward to the raising of any arguments that the ayatanas are > not central to experience in Theravada. > ===== Ayatanas yes, brain no! :-) But we are jumping ahead of ourselves! Metta, Rob M :-) #94240 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 1:41 am Subject: Vipassanaa. Survey Ch 34, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, I shall post Ch34 of Kh. Sujin's book "Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. This is about the Development of Vipassanaa. Questions and remarks are welcome. --------- Dialogue on Vipassanaa. Chapter 1 The Natural Way of Development Questioner: Among the forty kinds of meditation subjects of samatha I prefer “Mindfulness of Breathing”. However, I understand that, by means of this subject, I cannot eradicate defilements, that I cannot realize the noble Truths and reach nibbaana. Sujin: Through samatha defilements cannot be eradicated, nor can the noble Truths be realized and nibbaana be attained. Q. : I think that people’s aim is to eradicate defilements and attain nibbaana. However, they do not understand what in daily life the cause of clinging is. They do not know when there is lobha. If someone just wishes to eradicate defilements without knowing them as they are, there is clinging to a result. Is it then possible for them to develop satipatthaana? S. : No, it is impossible. Q. : Can we develop both samatha and vipassanaa? S. : People will know for themselves whether they are developing samatha or vipassanaa. However, if there is no right understanding of these different ways of development, neither samatha nor vipassanaa can be developed. Q. : Could you please give some directions for the development of vipassanaa? S. : Nobody can hasten the development of satipatthaana. The goal of satipatthaana is the eradication of defilements. However, a person who does not know his defilements is not motivated to follow the way leading to their eradication. If someone would line up children who are ignorant of their defilements and tell them to eradicate defilements by the development satipatthaana, they would not want to eradicate defilements. How could they then develop satipatthaana? All people, children and adults alike, have a great deal of defilements. If one would ask them whether they would wish to get rid of them, most of them would answer that they do not wish to. Therefore, one should not try to force others to develop satipatthaana. ---------- Nina. #94241 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 1, 2009 9:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa. Survey Ch 34, no 1. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - What I have to say here is not favorable. It is a negative assessment, and I caution any who don't wish to read such about Khun Sujin to stop here and read no further. Unfortunately, I find no surprises in the following. What I find most distressing occurs at the outset, where Khun Sujin fails to correct the questioner about anapanasati as taught by the Buddha, not pointing out to him/her that it is not a means solely of samatha bhavana, but a complete means of implementing the four foundations of mindfulness and leading one to awakening. Also, the questioner's 3rd question is not actually answered, but side-stepped, and the 4th question is answered as I would expect - in effect, "No, there are no activities that can be intentionally undertaken to cultivate insight." I remember a film by Woody Allan in which he is waiting on line ("in queue," for speakers of the King's English) to see a film, and someone in the crowd starts loudly talking to others, quite pompously, about the work of Rod McKuen, clearly disgusting Mr. Allan by his pretentious manner. Then, as in all good fantasies, Mr McKuen, himself, steps out of the group of people waiting to enter the theatre and addresses the self-styled expert on McKuen, forecefully saying to him "You know nothing of my work!!" At times it is my fantasy that the Buddha would "step out of the crowd"! With metta, Howard #94242 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 3:21 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Threes (37-39) and commentary, part 1. nilovg Dear friends, Sutta:[3.37] Three kinds of seniors, to wit, an aged layman, an eminent bhikkhu, a bhikkhu officially ranked as 'senior.' (Tayo theraa : jaatithero, dhammathero, sammutithero) ---------- N: Thero means elderly. The co. gives as the first meaning of thero, elderly by birth, thus aged, referring to an elderly layman. Then there is the meaning of thero as to Dhamma and the Co refers to the Anguttara Nikaaya text (IV, 22) and renders this in short: these are four dhammas that have to be developed by a thero. A thero is virtuous, has heard much, has acquired the four stages of jhaana, having eradicated the aasavas he is without them; he has realized by his own thorough understanding in this very life freedom of mind and freedom by wisdom, he attains these and dwells therein. Someone is called a Dhamma elder who is endowed with one or several dhamma qualities that were mentioned. --------- The subco adds that he is endowed with firm siila and that he has heard much (bahussuto), that he has studied the scriptures (referred to as sutta, geyya, etc.). He has eradicated the aasavas, and ignorance is totally absent. ------ As to the third meaning of thero, the Co states that there is the name thero in conventional language and that novices call a bhikkhu ‘thero’ who has gone forth for a long time. -------------- Co: Therattike jaatimahallako gihii jaatitthero naama. ‘‘Cattaarome, bhikkhave, therakara.naa dhammaa... ******** Nina. #94243 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 3:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "...Slightly rephrased, I would agree with it unhesitatingly. The brain is central to experience...That the ayatanas are a sine qua non of experience is accepted in Theravadin Buddhism, and by me alike." Scott: The ayatanas are not the brain. Sincerely, Scott. #94244 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 3:33 am Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation kenhowardau Hi Herman and Alex, This is a great question and always a good one to answer. I'm just a little disappointed that you don't already know the answer. You have asked it dozens of times. (But who's counting?) :-) --------------------- Herman: > > I love it when you let the cat out of the bag :-) I wonder why you think that trying to understand is OK, but that any other form of directed effort meets with your derision? Alex" > I agree with Herman. Why is it ok do develop understanding and yet it is not OK to do Jhana, Samma-Samadhi, etc? ---------------------- Firstly, let me correct any suggestion that it is not OK to do jhana. Jhana is wonderful - it is second only to satipatthana. (Even though there is an infinitely long gap between first and second in this case!) :-) It is also OK to develop right understanding, of course. But is that necessarily what I am doing? I don't think so. I partake in DSG discussions, but ignorance, attachment, conceit and wrong view are never far away. This is just a part of my daily routine. To some tiny (but precious) extent it probably does involve the development of right understanding, but let's not call it that: I don't. ----------------------------------------- A: > Why is it okay to travel to Bangkok to see KS and not okay to sit down and let go of kama and as much as possible in order to reach Jhana? ----------------------------------------- Discussing Dhamma is something I love to do. But, again, when I go to Bangkok etc., it is with my usual baggage (of ignorance, attachment, conceit . . .). It could, however, also involve the development of right understanding, couldn't it? After all, the suttas (suttas Alex!) do say that hearing the true Dhamma, wisely considering it, discussing it with good friends and understanding it *are* factors that lead to enlightenment. Are there any other factors that lead to enlightenment (according to the suttas)? None that I know of! Ken H PS: "Letting go of kamma!" That's a new one, Alex. How, dare I ask, does one let go of kamma? #94245 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 4:13 am Subject: Re: cornerstone kenhowardau Hi Connie, ------------ <. . .> KH: > if I couldn't say anything nice about Karunadasa's essay I shouldn't say anything at all. Therefore . . . C: > Sorry, Ken! Don't let me stop you. It's just a matter of my own surliness getting out of hand. I do think, overall, the essay supports the commentaries, which I also believe are not out of line with the Canon, but what of it. ---------------- Well there you are! That shows how ignorant I am: I thought the article was basically a denial of the commentaries. I do read the instalments, but without much comprehension. As Sukin and I have tried to explain, reading blocks of text - that are not broken up into conversational snippets - is not my (our) forte. It's like having Attention Deficit Disorder. :-) ------------------------- C: > I *should* actually be grateful for a chance to consider other sides and have to laugh at myself for even suggesting we're all going to agree on what was taught. The list would shut down if it went according to my suggestions. Next, I'll be out crusading for The One Universal Buddhist Church... all according to my p.o.v., of course... say, I already have been! apologies all around! -------------------------- Accepted but redundant! How do I join this church, by the way? :-) Ken H #94246 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 4:18 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "If that is so, does it not conflict with what is said in the texts? For there is no mention of any development of it towards oneself in what is said in the Vibha"nga: 'And how does a bhikkhu dwell pervading one direction with his heart filled with lovingkindness? Just as he would feel lovingkindness on seeing a dearly loved person, so he pervades all beings with lovingkindness' (Vbh. 272); and in what is said in the Pa.tisambhidaa: 'In what five ways is the mind-deliverance of lovingkindness [practised] with unspecified pervasion? May all beings be free from enmity, affliction, and anxiety and live happily. May all breathing things...all who are born...all persons...all those who have a personality be free from enmity, affliction, and anxiety and live happily' (Ps.ii,130); and in what is said in the Mettaa Sutta: 'In joy and safety may all beings be joyful at heart' (Sn 145). [Does it not conflict with those texts?]" The Path of Purity. "This being so, does it not contradict what is said in the Vibha"nga: 'And how, monks, does a monk live suffusing one quarter of the globe with a heart full of love? Just as on seeing a dear charming person one would fall in love, so he suffuses all beings with love'; what is said in the Pa.tisambhidaa: 'In which five ways is the emancipated heart of love a suffusing unspecifically? May all beings be without enmity, without ill-will, untroubled; may the keep the self well. May all living things, all creatures, all persons, all those who are included in a personality, be without enmity, without ill-will, untroubled; may the keep the self well!' and so on; and what is said in the Mettaa Sutta: - 'May all beings be well and safe, May the be well in heart.' and so on, seeing that in these passages love is not developed towards oneself?" Eva.m sante ya.m vibha"nge (vibha. 643) vutta.m â€" 'Katha~nca bhikkhu mettaasahagatena cetasaa eka.m disa.m pharitvaa viharati? Seyyathaapi naama eka.m puggala.m piya.m manaapa.m disvaa mettaayeyya, evameva sabbe satte mettaaya pharatii' ti. 'Ya~nca pa.tisambhidaaya.m (pa.ti. ma. 2.22) â€" 'Katamehi pa~ncahaakaarehi anodhisophara.naa mettaa cetovimutti bhaavetabbaa, sabbe sattaa averaa hontu' abyaapajjaa aniighaa sukhii attaana.m pariharantu. Sabbe paa.naa...sabbe bhuutaa...sabbe puggalaa... sabbe attabhaavapariyaapannaa averaa abyaapajjaa aniighaa sukhii attaana.m pariharantuu' tiaadi â€" Vutta.m. Ya~nca mettasutte (khu. paa. 9.3; su. ni. 145) â€" 'Sukhinova khemino hontu, Sabbasattaa bhavantu sukhitattaa' tiaadi. â€" Vutta.m, ta.m virujjhati. Na hi tattha attani bhaavanaa vuttaati ce. Sincerely, Scott. #94247 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 5:09 am Subject: AS time nichiconn Dear friends, the 'Planes of Time' section continues: So there is, first, an actual and regular interpenetration with lower spheres, including their different time levels; and, second, there are the potential or rare contacts with the higher planes of existence and time, which may extend up to the four formless absorptions. The last of them (which may be followed by the attainment of cessation) is called , "the sphere of neither-perception-nor-nonperception" ("the ultimate limit of perception," Anagaarika Govinda). The twofold negation in the name of this meditative state has to be understood as referring not only to the function of perception but to all components of consciousness. Here consciousness has reached such a degree of refinement that even the name "consciousness" is no longer quite appropriate and is retained only because there is still a residuum of sublime mental activities directed to the most abstract and sublime object imaginable: the previously obtained experience of the sphere of nothingness, which is the preceding stage of attainment. Here the tension between the subject and object is naturally so exceedingly low that all that we call consciousness and time is on the point of vanishing completely. Consciousness, in fact, means to be aware of an object, and "time experience" means being aware of the relative movements of the subjective and objective aspects of a perceptual process. peace, connie buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhistudy.pdf #94248 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 5:12 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn dear Friends, Karunadasa continues: In what sense the dhammas represent the final limits into which empirical existence can be analysed is another question that drew the attention of the Theravada commentators. It is in answer to this that the term paramattha came to be used as another expression for dhamma. It was noted earlier that the use of this term in this sense was occasioned by the Theravadins' response to the Puggalavadins' assertion that the person exists as real and ultimate. In the Abhidhammic exegesis this term paramattha is defined to mean that which has reached its highest (uttama),65 implying thereby that the dhammas are ultimate existents with no possibility of further reduction. Hence own-nature (sabhava) came to be further defined as ultimate nature (paramattha-sabhava).66 The term paramattha is sometimes paraphased as bhutattha (the actual).67 This is explained to mean that the dhammas are not non-existent like an illusion or mirage or like the soul (purisa) and primordial nature (pakati) of the non-Buddhist schools of thought.68 The evidence for their existence is not based either on conventions (sammuti) or on mere scriptural authority (anussava).69 On the contrary, their very existence is vouchsafed by their own intrinsic nature.70 The very fact of their existence is the very mark of their reality. As the Visuddhimagga observes: "It (= dhamma) is that which, for those who examine it with the eye of understanding, is not misleading like an illusion, deceptive like a mirage, or undiscoverable like the self of the sectarians, but is rather the domain of noble knowledge as the real unmisleading actual state." 71 The kind of existence implied here is not past or future existence, but present actual and verifiable existence (satvijjamanata).72 This emphasis on their actuality in the present phase of time rules out any association with the Sarvastivadins' theory of tri-temporal existence. Thus, for the Theravadin, the use of the term paramattha does not carry any substantialist implications. It only means that the mental and material dhammas represent the utmost limits to which the analysis of empirical existence can be pushed. peace, connie zeh-verlag.de/download/dhammatheory.pdf #94249 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 6:31 am Subject: Re: cornerstone nichiconn Dear Prospective Member, K: How do I join this church, by the way? :-) ---------- c: Thanks for asking, but there's really nothing you can do. There is only dhamma. I'll work on my propaganda material, though. peace, connie #94250 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 6:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa. Survey Ch 34, no 1. nilovg Hi Howard, Good you react, it always gives stuff for thinking. Op 2-jan-2009, om 11:41 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > What I have to say here is not favorable. It is a negative assessment, > and I caution any who don't wish to read such about Khun Sujin to > stop here > and read no further. ------- N: No worry in the world, reactions welcome as I said. And do continue, also with regard to the following postings. --------- > Unfortunately, I find no surprises in the following. -------- N: I am not surprised by your reactions, if you know what I mean ;-)) -------- > What I find most > distressing occurs at the outset, where Khun Sujin fails to correct > the > questioner about anapanasati as taught by the Buddha, not pointing > out to him/her > that it is not a means solely of samatha bhavana, but a complete > means of > implementing the four foundations of mindfulness and leading one to > awakening. > -------- N: This was not the point in this context. The subject matter was anapanasati as a meditation subject of samatha. Only that, see the questioner. Well, by samatha defilements are subdued, not eradicated. Besides, Kh. Sujin herself said many times that this can be a subject of samatha as well as an object of vipassanaa. It needs a careful explanation and cannot be dealt with in a few words. Mind, here we are only at the beginning of the Ch. on Vipassanaa. It has to be thoroughly understood what breath is and in what way it can be object of insight. Not a simple matter, it needs great understanding. ------- > H: Also, the questioner's 3rd question is not actually answered, > but side-stepped, ------ N: point 2 and point 3: If someone just wishes to eradicate defilements without knowing them as they are, there is clinging to a result. Is it then possible for them to develop satipatthaana? S. : No, it is impossible. ------- N: I add: very important. In the suttas it is stated that also akusala has to be known. That is why I do not believe that while being 'in jhana' insight can be developed. What abut all the akusala that arises? All akusala has to be known and understood when it appears. If conceit is never realized, how can it be eradicated. I find it worrysome if people exclude akusala as object of awareness. -------- N: Here is point 3: Q. : Can we develop both samatha and vipassanaa? S. : People will know for themselves whether they are developing samatha or vipassanaa. However, if there is no right understanding of these different ways of development, neither samatha nor vipassanaa can be developed. N: I add: there must be right understanding of samatha and vipassana, and if there are misunderstandings no way to develop either of them. --------- > H: and the 4th question is answered as I would expect - in effect, > "No, there > are no activities that can be intentionally undertaken to cultivate > insight." ------- N: She answered: 'Nobody can hasten the development of satipatthaana.' That is good. There has to be clear understanding of what satipatthaana is. And also clear understanding of one's defilements, otherwise there is no motivation. Thus, she did not say: nothing can be done, but: understanding, understanding has to be developed. One cannot just practise without knowing anything. ****** Nina. #94251 From: "robmoult" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 6:41 am Subject: Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 2 robmoult Hi All, From my paper: ===== Discussion of Death in the Suttas and Abhidhamma In the Gilâna Sutta (SN 41.10), a group of devas converse with Citta the Householder on his deathbed. Citta's friends and relatives thought that Citta was delirious, because they could not see the "angels" with whom Citta was talking. This Sutta shows that devas or radiant beings may visit a layperson on their deathbed. However, it must be remembered that Citta was no ordinary householder. Citta had achieved the second stage of sainthood (Sakadâgâmi) and was held up by the Buddha as a role model for laypeople. The devas, unaware that he was already a Sakadâgâmi, wanted Citta the householder to wish that he would become a future "universal monarch". This suggests that a last thought can condition rebirth. In the Mahâkammavibhanga Sutta (MN 136) and elsewhere, the Buddha clearly states that a last thought conditions the next rebirth. ===== I joked about the story of Citta, saying that the Devas wanted Citta to make a last thought moment wish to be a universal monarch so that he would make great offerings to them in the future... in other words, they had an agenda! During the subsequent discussion, Ven. Sujato questioned whether the Suttas supported the Theravadin view that it was only the last thought moment which conditioned rebirth linking. I believe that Ven. Sujato's point was that the last thought could be only one of the factors which condition rebirth. I read carefully the wording of the Mahakammavibanga Sutta (MN136). For example, this sutta talks about a person who has done bad things being reborn in a heaven because, "(perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death." From this selection only, one could suggest that the thought at the moment of death was only one of the possible conditions. I then quoted the Yodhajiva Sutta (SN 42.2) [good thing that I had my texts with me!]. In this Sutta, Yodhajiva asks if those warriors killed in battle go to a special heaven. After some prompting, the Buddha replied, "When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb." I used this quote to say that the Suttas supported the idea that it was only the last thought moment which directed rebirth. The Mahayana and Tibetan speakers said that their traditions also agreed that it was the last thought moment which conditioned rebirth. I am not sure that Ven. Sujato was convinced... he said that he was going to check the original Chinese Agamas to confirm the agreement with the sense of the Pali Nikaya on this point. Of course, the later Abhidhamma talks about the four types of kamma (weighty, death-proximate, habitual and reserve), but that is not in the original Abhidhamma texts nor in the Suttas. It was a really interesting debate. Comments anybody? Metta, Rob M :-) #94252 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 6:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation nilovg Dear Alan, Op 1-jan-2009, om 17:43 heeft Alan McAllister het volgende geschreven: > A: The object of mettacitta is all beings? > > > N: The mettacitta that has grown great, that is, with unlimited > > metta, is the object of jhaana. > > A: The object of jhaana is mettacitta? ---------- N: I have to correct myself. I did some research: Visuddhmagga Ch IX, 47, where pervading metta is explained:< 'everywhere and equally': to all classed as inferior, medium, superior, friendly, hostile, neutral etc., just as to oneself.' ... 'Entire' (sabbaavant): possesing all beings (sabbasattavant); associated with all beings, is the meaning. World is the world of all beings.> Thus, all beings are the object of jhaanacitta. Atthasaalini (Expositor I, p. 263): as to the Divine States: Expositor II (p. 523): the following jhaanas have an undefinable state as object:<...the divine states of Fourth Jhaana because they arise with the conception of person as object...> Thus it is clearly stated that beings are the object of mettaacitta. Nina. #94253 From: "Alan McAllister" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 7:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation drampsych Nina: Thank you so much for clarifying that. So, just so I get it right: Whereas the object of mettacitta can be many beings or even a single being, the object of jhaanacitta is all beings. with metta, Alan #94254 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 2:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and all) - In a message dated 1/2/2009 8:12:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: #94248 What Karunadasa says in the foregoing matches partially (though not fully) my view. Where, in speaking of paramattha dhammas, he says "The evidence for their existence is not based either on conventions (sammuti) or on mere scriptural authority (anussava)," I agree, but in a strictly limited, very specific way: At any instant during the experiencing of "a" paramattha dhamma, say "a warmth rupa," for example, what is actually experienced at that instant is truly experienced and independent of thinking and convention. But during the (very brief) period that "this" warmth is experienced, after the prior object of consciousness (perhaps a sound), and before the next (perhaps a sight), there is constant alteration of "that warmth," so that at no two instants are the experiences identical, and thus it is only a convention, due to similarity, to think of and refer these different experiences as "the same" or as "instances of the same phenomenon." Moreover, even with regard to a single instant of consciousness, as soon as the mind puts thought or word to that experience, conceptually isolating it and identifying it as an observed entity, convention comes into play. So, in one way not convention, but in other ways, yes convention. Where Buddhaghosa writes ""It (= dhamma) is that which, for those who examine it with the eye of understanding, is not misleading like an illusion, deceptive like a mirage, or undiscoverable like the self of the sectarians, but is rather the domain of noble knowledge as the real unmisleading actual state," even if his reference is to the unnamed, unconceptualized, directly known, instantaneous and current element of experience, as soon as it is thought of as an "it", as a separate entity, there already is convention. With metta, Howard Emptiness *(From the Uraga Sutta) __________________________ Reality *(From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #94255 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 3:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa. Survey Ch 34, no 1. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/2/2009 9:37:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Good you react, it always gives stuff for thinking. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you, Nina. --------------------------------------- Op 2-jan-2009, om 11:41 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > What I have to say here is not favorable. It is a negative assessment, > and I caution any who don't wish to read such about Khun Sujin to > stop here > and read no further. ------- N: No worry in the world, reactions welcome as I said. And do continue, also with regard to the following postings. --------------------------------------- Howard: Again, thank you. I want to give frank comment, but I regret causing upset. ----------------------------------------- --------- > Unfortunately, I find no surprises in the following. -------- N: I am not surprised by your reactions, if you know what I mean ;-)) ---------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! ----------------------------------------- -------- > What I find most > distressing occurs at the outset, where Khun Sujin fails to correct > the > questioner about anapanasati as taught by the Buddha, not pointing > out to him/her > that it is not a means solely of samatha bhavana, but a complete > means of > implementing the four foundations of mindfulness and leading one to > awakening. > -------- N: This was not the point in this context. The subject matter was anapanasati as a meditation subject of samatha. Only that, see the questioner. Well, by samatha defilements are subdued, not eradicated. Besides, Kh. Sujin herself said many times that this can be a subject of samatha as well as an object of vipassanaa. It needs a careful explanation and cannot be dealt with in a few words. Mind, here we are only at the beginning of the Ch. on Vipassanaa. It has to be thoroughly understood what breath is and in what way it can be object of insight. Not a simple matter, it needs great understanding. --------------------------------------- Howard: The questioner, however, was concerned with realizing the 4NT and the relationship of anapanasati to it, and not mentioning the full significance of anapanasati was remiss, as I view the matter. ----------------------------------------- ------- > H: Also, the questioner's 3rd question is not actually answered, > but side-stepped, ------ N: point 2 and point 3: If someone just wishes to eradicate defilements without knowing them as they are, there is clinging to a result. Is it then possible for them to develop satipatthaana? S. : No, it is impossible. ----------------------------------------- Howard: I had no problem with the reply to the 2nd question. Note that I didn't point to that. ----------------------------------------- ------- N: I add: very important. In the suttas it is stated that also akusala has to be known. That is why I do not believe that while being 'in jhana' insight can be developed. What abut all the akusala that arises? All akusala has to be known and understood when it appears. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Where did the Buddha state that *every* unwholesome state that ever arises must be known and understood as such before awakening? What is required is that all defilements be eventually uprooted as a result of considerable purification and a number of acts of transformative wisdom, after which final awakening guarantees that no further unwholesome states will occur. Nina, you are setting up a straw man with the straw made from iron, and such a straw man can never be knocked down. There are other non-Buddhist schools, perhaps the Jains - I don't recall, who teach that liberation occurs only by countering (i.e., balancing) every instance of "bad" kamma, with each and every "particle" of bad kamma nullified in advance of liberation. This is similar. ----------------------------------------------- If conceit is never realized, how can it be eradicated. I find it worrysome if people exclude akusala as object of awareness. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I certainly do not exclude it. In fact, I speak about the four right efforts as essential practice again and again and again. ---------------------------------------------- -------- N: Here is point 3: Q. : Can we develop both samatha and vipassanaa? S. : People will know for themselves whether they are developing samatha or vipassanaa. However, if there is no right understanding of these different ways of development, neither samatha nor vipassanaa can be developed. N: I add: there must be right understanding of samatha and vipassana, and if there are misunderstandings no way to develop either of them. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: The response of "People will know for themselves whether they are developing samatha or vipassanaa" is a side-stepping of the question. The answer *should* be "Yes, we CAN and SHOULD develop both, and the Anapanasati Sutta shows how." ------------------------------------------------ --------- > H: and the 4th question is answered as I would expect - in effect, > "No, there > are no activities that can be intentionally undertaken to cultivate > insight." ------- N: She answered: 'Nobody can hasten the development of satipatthaana.' That is good. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, IMO it is bad. And for SURE the Buddha would admonish Khun Sujin for such an assertion. -------------------------------------------------- There has to be clear understanding of what satipatthaana is. And also clear understanding of one's defilements, otherwise there is no motivation. Thus, she did not say: nothing can be done, but: understanding, understanding has to be developed. One cannot just practise without knowing anything. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: In the course of practicing guarding the senses and following the teachings in, for example, the Anapanasati Sutta, one comes to directly know the defilements and their uprooting. This WILL hasten the development of insight into the four foundations of mindfulness and will hasten awakening. ----------------------------------------------- ****** Nina. =========================== With metta, Howard *(From the Avarana Sutta) #94256 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 3:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone TGrand458@... Hi Connie, Howard, All If the body/mind complex relies on what is experienced as the determinant of what is "reality," it seems to me there are no bounds to what "delusions" will be come to considered "realities." Insight knows that whatever phenomena arises contains nothing 'of its own' due to 'conditionality. The "Dhammas" theory seems to go in the opposite direction. If we examine the statement below, we can see statements that are in absolute conflict with the Suttas... .............................................................. In a message dated 1/2/2009 7:35:43 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Connie (and all) - In a message dated 1/2/2009 8:12:24 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _nichicon@..._ (mailto:nichicon@...) writes: dear Friends, Karunadasa continues: In what sense the dhammas represent the final limits into which empirical existence can be analysed is another question that drew the attention of the Theravada commentators. It is in answer to this that the term paramattha came to be used as another expression for dhamma. It was noted earlier that the use of this term in this sense was occasioned by the Theravadins' response to the Puggalavadins' assertion that the person exists as real and ultimate. In the Abhidhammic exegesis this term paramattha is defined to mean that which has reached its highest (uttama),65 implying thereby that the dhammas are ultimate existents with no possibility of further reduction. Hence own-nature (sabhava) came to be further defined as ultimate nature (paramattha-(sabhava)(s The term paramattha is sometimes paraphased as bhutattha (the actual).67 This is explained to mean that the dhammas are not non-existent like an illusion or mirage or like the soul (purisa) and primordial nature (pakati) of the non-Buddhist schools of thought.68 The evidence for their existence is not based either on conventions (sammuti) or on mere scriptural authority (anussava).69 On the contrary, their very existence is vouchsafed by their own intrinsic nature.70 The very fact of their existence is the very mark of their reality. As the Visuddhimagga observes: "It (= dhamma) is that which, for those who examine it with the eye of understanding, is not misleading like an illusion, deceptive like a mirage, or undiscoverable like the self of the sectarians, but is rather the domain of noble knowledge as the real unmisleading actual state." 71 The kind of existence implied here is not past or future existence, but present actual and verifiable existence (satvijjamanata)but prese emphasis on their actuality in the present phase of time rules out any association with the Sarvastivadins' theory of tri-temporal existence. Thus, for the Theravadin, the use of the term paramattha does not carry any substantialist implications. It only means that the mental and material dhammas represent the utmost limits to which the analysis of empirical existence can be pushed. ........................................................ TG: Here's what the Buddha says about mental and "material" phenomena ... paraphrasing -- "they are coreless, unsubstantial, empty, void, like a mirage, like a conjurer's trick." Above it is being said that "they are not deceptive, not like a mirage." I think this is a case of analysis losing sight of the heart of the matter (conditionality) and producing a conclusion that is the antithesis of the Buddha's teaching. A sad state of affairs IMO. It is impossible to "look" at the elements or aggregates and come to the conclusion that these 'outcomes of conditionality' are "vouchsafed by their own intrinsic nature." Only with Nibbana could such a claim bear any resemblance to the truth. Even then the idea of "own intrinsic nature" is highly suspect...for it seems to be merely a way to disguise a type of self-view. ...................................................................... peace, connie ================================ What Karunadasa says in the foregoing matches partially (though not fully) my view. Where, in speaking of paramattha dhammas, he says "The evidence for their existence is not based either on conventions (sammuti) or on mere scriptural authority (anussava)," I agree, but in a strictly limited, very specific way: At any instant during the experiencing of "a" paramattha dhamma, say "a warmth rupa," for example, what is actually experienced at that instant is truly experienced and independent of thinking and convention. But during the (very brief) period that "this" warmth is experienced, after the prior object of consciousness (perhaps a sound), and before the next (perhaps a sight), there is constant alteration of "that warmth," so that at no two instants are the experiences identical, and thus it is only a convention, due to similarity, to think of and refer these different experiences as "the same" or as "instances of the same phenomenon." Moreover, even with regard to a single instant of consciousness, as soon as the mind puts thought or word to that experience, conceptually isolating it and identifying it as an observed entity, convention comes into play. So, in one way not convention, but in other ways, yes convention. Where Buddhaghosa writes ""It (= dhamma) is that which, for those who examine it with the eye of understanding, is not misleading like an illusion, deceptive like a mirage, or undiscoverable like the self of the sectarians, but is rather the domain of noble knowledge as the real unmisleading actual state," even if his reference is to the unnamed, unconceptualized, directly known, instantaneous and current element of experience, as soon as it is thought of as an "it", as a separate entity, there already is convention. ................................................ TG: This is good Howard. True "warmth" is experienced. But once it is considered "its own thing," then it is misinterpreted. For those moments that "warmth" flows-across-experience, there is no 'it' in regards to "it," rather, there is a conglomeration of uncountable conditions that have and are merging to generate such an experience. To look for the "essence or intrinsic nature" of warmth, (as a particular), is to look through the eyes of delusion and the answers will be delusional. TG OUT #94257 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 4:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 TGrand458@... Hi Scott and Herman In a message dated 1/1/2009 9:57:42 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > You must know that I think that > announcements of 'attainments' of any kind on an open forum are highly > suspect and in need of strong justification. .................................................. TG: Almost everything written in here is to some degree or another an "announcement" that something has been attained, even if it is just the understanding of commentaries. However, Scotts statement brings to mind some of the monks who claimed "final knowledge" in the presence of some "doubter's. When the doubter's question those monks, the monks merely responded... paraphrasing -- "whether you believe it or not, final attainment has been achieved." Why would they care to try to "justify it" at all, much less "strongly justify it." In fact, it would be impossible to justify it to folks who had little or no basis to understand it. So they were aloof from concern in the matter of justification. TG OUT #94258 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 10:05 am Subject: Letting go off Kamma truth_aerator Hi Ken, >--- "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Herman and Alex, > > PS: "Letting go of kamma!" That's a new one, Alex. How, dare I ask, > does one let go of kamma? Kamma = intentional action. Arahant does not do any new Kamma. Furthermore by developing lots of good merit the effects of past kamma is attenuated. Ex: Angulimala. If he didn't become an Ariyan, then his next rebirths could have been in hell. But by becoming Arahant the kammic retribution for killing 999 people was greatly diminished. With mega metta! #94259 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 10:11 am Subject: Re: Vipassanaa. Survey Ch 34, no 1. truth_aerator Dear Nina and all, >Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Questioner: Among the forty kinds of meditation subjects of samatha I > prefer "Mindfulness of Breathing". However, I understand that, by > means of this subject, I cannot eradicate defilements, that I cannot > realize the noble Truths and reach nibbaana. "I myself, monks, before my Awakening, when I was still an unawakened bodhisatta, often dwelt in this [meditative] dwelling. While I was dwelling in this [meditative] dwelling, neither my body nor my eyes were fatigued, and the mind — through lack of clinging/sustenance — was released from mental fermentations. "If a monk should wish, 'May memories & resolves connected to the household life be abandoned within me,' he should attend closely to this very same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. "If a monk should wish, 'May I, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enter & remain in the cessation of perception & feeling,' then he should attend closely to this very same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.008.than.html and Anapanasati leads to Arhatship as well. Just read Anapana-Samyutta. > Sujin: Through samatha defilements cannot be eradicated, nor can >the noble Truths be realized and nibbaana be attained. Jhana is the path to awakening. MN36 I am offended by these things that you've posted, Nina! #94260 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 10:12 am Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn Hi, Howard, I appreciate your even trying to talk about all this next to impossible to put into words stuff where everything seems all contradictory and twisted: Only ever the present moment and yet it's subdivided into it's own past and future portions wherein there is both and neither existence and/or non-existence of any own unique thing that must yet be exactly the same only different "all at once". Talk about your white powder! There's all the flakiness of snow here. connie #94261 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 10:31 am Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn Hi, TG, TG: True "warmth" is experienced. But once it is considered "its own thing," then it is misinterpreted. c: and yet, and yet... how can we even speak of "warmth", or anything else? what other thing could it be than "itself"? why does it seem we want to deny "ultimate realities" the same considerations we do "anything" else? off to watch "it" snow. connie #94262 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 5:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 1/2/2009 1:12:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: Hi, Howard, I appreciate your even trying to talk about all this next to impossible to put into words stuff where everything seems all contradictory and twisted: Only ever the present moment and yet it's subdivided into it's own past and future portions wherein there is both and neither existence and/or non-existence of any own unique thing that must yet be exactly the same only different "all at once". Talk about your white powder! There's all the flakiness of snow here. connie ========================== Thank you for writing, Connie. :-) I am edified by the fact that you see a depth and complexity to all this, and the difficulty involved in trying to express it! It seems to me that the most basic mistake we can make is in thinking that any of this is "simple"! ;-) With metta, Howard *(Anonymous) #94263 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 11:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa. Survey Ch 34, no 1. nilovg Dear Alex, Op 2-jan-2009, om 19:11 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > I am offended by these things that you've posted, Nina! -------- N: Why offended when hearing other opinions? It can be useful and stimulating to hear other opinions. Nobody tries to convert you. Nina. #94264 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 11:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone nilovg Dear Ken, Op 2-jan-2009, om 13:13 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > That shows how ignorant I am: I thought the > article was basically a denial of the commentaries. ------- N: Sometimes in agreement with the Co, but sometimes presented in a way that lacks something, as I said. Too bookish, where is daily life? Nina. #94265 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 11:38 am Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn Hi again, TG - turns out it's not snowing, so, re: <...the Visuddhimagga observes: "It (= dhamma) is that which, for those who examine it with the eye of understanding, is not misleading...>, that is, the eye of understanding knows the answer to "what substance could there be in form, feeling, volitional formations, consciousness?" no contradiction, TG. connie out #94266 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 7:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: cornerstone TGrand458@... Hi Connie In a message dated 1/2/2009 10:33:12 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: Hi, TG, TG: True "warmth" is experienced. But once it is considered "its own thing," then it is misinterpreted. c: and yet, and yet... how can we even speak of "warmth", or anything else? what other thing could it be than "itself"? .................................................. TG: It is a mere conglomeration of conditions/circumstances. It can be spoken of as 'warmth'...with knowledge that "it" is not "itself," but an empty outgrowth of conditions. For practical/conventional purposes we speak of 'warmth.' Insightfully we know better...that there is no intrinsic-own-nature of that we call 'warmth.' ....................................................... why does it seem we want to deny "ultimate realities" the same considerations we do "anything" else? ........................................................... TG: Because the considerations of "anything" having its own characteristics are the delusional outlooks propagated by attachment. So too the idea of "ultimate realities." TG OUT #94267 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 12:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Vipassana & Samatha truth_aerator Dear Nina and all, >Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alex, > Op 2-jan-2009, om 19:11 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > > > I am offended by these things that you've posted, Nina! > -------- > N: Why offended when hearing other opinions? It can be useful and > stimulating to hear other opinions. Nobody tries to convert you. > Nina. It is very sad when people claim what Buddha has NOT said and said quite the contrary. Regarding "samatha": Is perception of the skeleton considered Samatha or Vipassana? "Bhikkhus, when the perception of the skeleton is developed and cultivated, one of two fruits is to be expected: either final knowledge in this very life or, if there is a residue of clinging, the state of non-returning". 46.57 (1) The Skeleton pg 1619 CDB What about the kasina exercises mentioned by the Buddha and talked about in VsM? If they are so 'useless' for Nibbana, then why did the Buddha teach them? With best 2009 metta, #94268 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 1:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "That is a very worthwhile question to ask. Every moment again. And I think the answer is revealed only in each moment. And that is thinking......while the moment has vanished long ago." Scott: Well, you sort of twisted the question, answering obliquely, as is your coy, elusive wont. You state that 'the answer is revealed only in each moment' and that one thinks of 'the answer' post-hoc. Which is it? Thinking later or now, in the moment? And is it thinking? You seem cursed with an extremely sharp intellect, Herman, and are forever slicing yourself to ribbons with it. I love to think but sometimes there is too much thinking. I suggest that you come again and again to interact on DSG because you are looking for something. Why else? I don't think you know how to ask for it. You don't just appear on the list to be contrary, I imagine (or hope), but you appear contrary because you don't know how learn any other way. I think you hope that someone can prove something to you that you can't yet get from experience. The problem is that this 'something' has to be experienced and it is experience (Dhamma/dhammaa) alone that is the teacher and this, no one directs and no one gives to another. (The other problem, of course, is that you're too smart for your own good and no one knows how to give you what you want - no one can match you - leaving you bored and frustrated). H: "...There is not anything theoretical about say, putting a source of heat under a pot of water, and it boiling after a while. It is repeatable ad infinitum. Likewise, there is nothing theoretical about Bruce and his white powder and what is experienced when he ingests it, it really does happen. The seeing of before .. after succession of events does not require a theoretical understanding. It is given. On the other hand, theoretical understanding is not given, it is extracted, post hoc, from the given." Scott: Bruce, white powder, ingestion - these are conventional designations of what really does *not* happen, actually. Very theoretical - so much so that it is delusion. The above view is something like, 'I'll believe it when I see it.' The scientific method is part of modern day religious ritual, not Dhamma. The Buddha said that the Dhamma is to be seen here and now. This is not the Buddha's way of formulating a statement about the 'scientific method,' brilliantly anticipating modern science millenia in advance. The knowing occurs unbidden, non-intellectually, and non-dually in the moment. There is a way things are, and things are this way whether seen or not, but, unlike the Religion of Science and its comforting rituals and beliefs of eternity, the way things are is very difficult to penetrate. H: "I may well not understand the differences between naama and ruupa at the theoretical level. What would change, in your opinion, if I understood the theoretical difference between nama and rupa? Would water still boil? Could Bruce still temporarily blast his sense of self to kingdom come, at will?" Scott: These latter are the wrong questions. What would change would have nothing to do with water's boiling point (ruupa), the effects of substance abuse (ruupa and naama), or Bruce (pa~n~natti), rather what would change, bit by bit, would be the strength of pa~n~naa (naama). And experience, with pa~n~naa, effects di.t.thi (view). So, with Right View from the beginning, even a beginning as tender as to be in relation to intellectual understanding, it is view that changes. And with the changing of view, it is the delusory and conventional that gives way and the ongoing reality is glimpsed. In the Commentary to the Brahmajaala sutta (as translated by Bh. Bodhi, pp. 128-129) 'designational terms' (adhivuttipadaani-adhivacanapadaani) are discussed: "...Sub. Cy. (a) 'Designational terms': this signifies conceptual terms (pa~n~nattipadaani). A designation is a concept (or appellation, (pa~n~natti), as, for example, in calling servants one uses as an aid (adhikaara) a mere word (vacanamatta) like siriva.d.dhaka. (b) Or else the prefix adhi signifies 'existing above' (uparibhaava). A designation is a word for what exists above; that it, it is a derivative concept (upaadaapa~n~natti), conceived in reference to something (assumed to exist) above (the actually existing things) such as primary and derived matter, etc. Therefore 'conceptual theorems' should be considered as terms signifying 'conceptual entities (pa~n~nattidiipakapadaani). For things such as 'self' and 'world' (the focal concerns of the views to follow) are mere conceptual entities (pa~n~natimatta), not ultimate realities (paramattha) like material form, feeling, etc. "Cy. (2) Views are called adhivutti because they do violence to the real meaning (bhuuta.m attha.m) and do not apprehend things according to their true nature (yathaasabhaavato). Adhivuttipadaani are, therefore, terms signifying views. "N.Sub.Cy. 'They do violence to the real meaning': because they exceed the real true nature of things; or the overshoot the mark and pass (the real nature) by. "Sub. Cy. Views are called adhivutti because of their excessive character (adhivuttitaa). For views superimpose (ajjhaaroptevaa) upon the specific-natured dhammas a superfluous, unreal meaning, such as eternity, nature, substantiality, soul, body, etc." Scott: What changes? View. Sincerely, Scott. #94269 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 2:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 2 egberdina Hi RobM and all, 2009/1/3 robmoult : > Hi All, > > From my paper: > > ===== > > Discussion of Death in the Suttas and Abhidhamma > In the Gilâna Sutta (SN 41.10), a group of devas converse with Citta > the Householder on his deathbed. Citta's friends and relatives > thought that Citta was delirious, because they could not see > the "angels" with whom Citta was talking. This Sutta shows that devas > or radiant beings may visit a layperson on their deathbed. That's one way of putting it. Another way of putting it would be that devas can appear when there is great physiological stress. Citta saw the devas, his friends didn't. DN20 also gives clues as to how devas may be made manifest. Two different translations follow: 8. "Monks, hosts of devas have assembled. Do know them well." And they (the monks) hearing the word (sasanam) of the Buddha, strove ardently (to see and know them). 9. There arose in them knowledge of perceiving the non-humans. Some saw one hundred, some thousand non-humans (devas and brahmas), and others seventy thousand non-humans. 10. Some saw one hundred thousand non-humans, others saw countless numbers, every quarter being filled with them. and "The deva hosts have approached. Detect them, monks!" Listening to the Awakened One's instruction, they made a diligent effort. Knowledge appeared to them, vision of non-human beings. Some saw 100, some 1,000, some 70,000, some had vision of 100,000 non-human beings. Some gained vision of innumerable devas filling every direction. === It is clear that with diligent effort/ardent striving an arahant will see devas. The sutta gives a clue as to what is meant by this effort/striving. Again, two translations: The terrestrial devas remain in their realm. Those bent on meditation frequent rocky clefts. Well composed they (arahants) live like solitary lions overcoming the fear that causes hair to stand on end, with immaculate minds, pure, serene, and undefiled." Those who live where spirits dwell, who live in mountain caves, resolute, concentrated, many, like hidden lions, who have overcome horripilation, white-hearted, pure, serene, and undisturbed: It is clear that the conditions in which intense meditation occurs bring one into the realm of the devas. I would like to posit that meditation at this level is akin to the near-death of the body, resulting in identical experiences. Also, for anyone who is not already aware of it, the Internet is awash with reports of experiences of DMT use. Just Google it. The most common report is that of interaction with non-human creatures. DMT is a naturally occuring substance, produced by many different living things, plant and animal alike. It can also be synthesised in a lab. DMT, produced in the human brain, has been linked to dreams and all manner of spiritual experiences and awakenings. Cheers Herman #94270 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 2 truth_aerator Hi Herman, RobM and all interested. I get it what you say, Herman, or imply to say: that all these Angels, giant snakes, etc are simply overactive brain & brain chemistry. Hey, if you are alone in a dark cave without any sights or sounds, that sort of sensory deprivation can lead to visions and so on. Lack of oxygen can cause those too and hallucinogenic mushrooms could be accidentally ingested. However, just because something can be hallucinated it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. All it means that it can be hallucinated. One can mispercieve/hallucinate hardness or softness, this doesn't mean that these do not exist. On can see walls in dreams, it doesn't mean that walls (rupa) do not exist. Interesting thing is that many astrounats have reported seeing flying serpents, ufo's and strange objects in space. Some strange objects have been videotaped as well. So when I read about "serpents" and other strange creatures found in pali canon, it could be true. See movies on google such as "Secret Space". Alien is perhaps a modern term for Devas, Asuras, Nagas, etc of the Hindus. With best wishes '09, #94271 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 4:53 pm Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn well, back to square one, ken. there's really no need to have to wade thru all this meditation manual stuff - abhidhamma and commentaries. A little rote might go a long way. The first entrance exam answer: dhammas: elementary constituents behind the manifest phenomena of empirical (huh?) existence. it's optional whether you write an essay or just nod (off): how might these bare phenomena (suddhadhamma) arising and perishing in accordance with their conditions be considered bricks, persons &/or substances? is it fair to say "'anything' means 'anything'" or might one just as well say nothing? basically, if you believe in dhamma, you know it has nothing & everything to do with daily life, which in those terms is devoid of personality. say, how 'bout slogans? peace, connie #94272 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 6:21 pm Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn dear Howard, H: I am edified by the fact that you see a depth and complexity to all this, and the difficulty involved in trying to express it! It seems to me that the most basic mistake we can make is in thinking that any of this is "simple"! c: and yet, a seven year old child can understand it. but this one? one way of keeping things simple or less tedious is to use the given (er, "provisional") vocabulary, etc., "conventionally" - not having to basically write out own commentaries everytime we want to try to say anything. that "edified" has been popping into my head all day. Huh? thanks for answering about the "functions" and all earlier. peace, connie #94273 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 6:31 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Concerning 'pervasion' and 'suffusing': Eva.m sante ya.m vibha"nge (vibha. 643) vutta.m 'Katha~nca bhikkhu mettaasahagatena cetasaa eka.m disa.m pharitvaa viharati? Seyyathaapi naama eka.m puggala.m piya.m manaapa.m disvaa mettaayeyya, evameva sabbe satte mettaaya pharatii' ti. "...pervading one direction with his heart filled with lovingkindness..." "...suffusing one quarter of the globe with a heart full of love..." Scott: The Paa.li phrase in question is: mettaasahagatena cetasaa PTS PED: "Saha1 (indecl.)...prep. & prefix, meaning: in conjunction with, together, accompanied by; immediately after..." "Gata [pp. of gacchati in medio -- reflexive function] gone, in all meanings of gacchati...1. literal: gone away, arrived at, directed to...2. in applied meaning: gone in a certain way, i. e. affected, behaved, fared, fated, being in or having come into a state or condition..." "Gacchati [Vedic gacchati, a desiderative (future) formation from ...5. to go as a stronger expression for to be, i. e. to behave, to have existence, to fare...Here belongs gati 'existence,' as mode of existing, element, sphere of being, and out of this use is developed the periphrastic use of gamËš, which places it on the same level with the verb 'to be' (see b)...(b) periphrastic (w. ger. of governing verb): nagara.m pattharitvaa gaccheyya 'would spread through the town'..." "Cetasa2 (adj.) [orig. the gen. of ceto used as nominative] only in...sucetasa of a good mind, good -- hearted...paraphrased by Buddhaghosa as sundaracetasa; paapacetasa of a wicked mind, evil -- minded..." "Ceto (nt.) [Sk. cetas]=citta...II. Cetaso (gen.) (a) heart...III. Cetasaa (instr.) -- (a) heart. mettaa -- sahagatena c. (with a h. full of love)..." "Citta2...I. Meaning: the heart (psychologically), i. e. the centre & focus of man's emotional nature as well as that intellectual element which inheres in & accompanies its manifestations; i. e. thought..." Scott: Knowing that consciousness does not 'go anywhere' or go into 'anyone', it is clear from the above that 'pervading' or 'suffusing' with mettaa refers to the way in which adosa cetasika 'suffuses' or 'pervades' citta and all accompanying mental factors with its particular (non-dual) 'flavour' in that kusala moment when lovingkindness arises. I assume this also refers to the javana process, wherein there are as many as seven sequential moments of this sort of kusala citta. Sincerely, Scott. #94274 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 7:49 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nichiconn Scott: Knowing that consciousness does not 'go anywhere' or go into 'anyone', it is clear from the above that 'pervading' or 'suffusing' with mettaa refers to the way in which adosa cetasika 'suffuses' or 'pervades' citta and all accompanying mental factors with its particular (non-dual) 'flavour' in that kusala moment when lovingkindness arises. I assume this also refers to the javana process, wherein there are as many as seven sequential moments of this sort of kusala citta. connie: so if we're going to say "radiating metta" it's in the sense of treating the cancer of hate in our own being. javanas in the sense or mind door process or both? must be both. she guesses. peace, connie #94275 From: "nichiconn" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 8:16 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nichiconn dear Scott, All, sorry about the last one getting away like i was just talking to myself. > javanas in the sense or mind door process or both? must be both. she guesses. c: wrongly! the sense door process wouldn't be relevant here. peace, connie #94276 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 1/2/2009 9:22:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: dear Howard, H: I am edified by the fact that you see a depth and complexity to all this, and the difficulty involved in trying to express it! It seems to me that the most basic mistake we can make is in thinking that any of this is "simple"! c: and yet, a seven year old child can understand it. but this one? one way of keeping things simple or less tedious is to use the given (er, "provisional") vocabulary, etc., "conventionally" - not having to basically write out own commentaries everytime we want to try to say anything. ----------------------------------------- True. (Except that never being able to properly express experience keeps one looking for better ways!) ----------------------------------------- that "edified" has been popping into my head all day. Huh? -------------------------------------- Howard: I used it in the sense of "uplifted, gladdened, and encouraged." --------------------------------------- thanks for answering about the "functions" and all earlier. peace, connie ============================= Connie, it's always good to speak with you, but I must say that recently it has been a positive delight. :-) With metta, Howard *(From the Diamond Sutra) #94277 From: "nichiconn" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 8:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: cornerstone nichiconn Dear Howard, > > one way of keeping things simple or less tedious is to use the given (er, > "provisional") vocabulary, etc., "conventionally" - not having to basically > write out own commentaries everytime we want to try to say anything. > ----------------------------------------- > True. (Except that never being able to properly express experience keeps one looking for better ways!) > ----------------------------------------- c: and me all cryptical, yes. and even if we parrot the words, what's the flavour of our own filling?... so to speak. > ============================= > Connie, it's always good to speak with you, but I must say that recently it has been a positive delight. :-) > You, too Howard, thanks. Gotta tell you, though, i sure get sick of listening to me... and now one of us has just won an arguement and i've got to go back to the mettaa corner. peace, connie #94278 From: "nichiconn" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 8:51 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nichiconn dear connie and friends, depends. if the concept of a living being is actually right in range of the physical senses... there's your object. and if you say, hold open the post office door for them? active mettaa, haha. if you were a master, you'd pop in and out of jhaana. daily life. ok, will you drop it now... maybe go to bed? peace, connie ps. howard, would that be something like "the other kind of jhaana" you had in mind? i keep thinking about it because of the 'not tightly focussed' or however you put it part. c. #94279 From: "nichiconn" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2009 9:36 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nichiconn connie, > ok, will you drop it now... maybe go to bed? c: ok, as soon you admit there's no Being in the sense doors. g'night. connie #94280 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 12:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > I'm starting to think you are not actually the Robert I thought you were. > > Cheers > > Herman > Sorry to hear that. Was the Robert you mistook me for less argumentative? Robert [or whomever] ========================== #94281 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 12:09 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > > > The reason it is redundant is because I am not sure you have > answered > > the question. I understand that you are saying you were not > agitated > > and were not railing, although to me your written tone did not > appear > > matter-of-fact, but appeared quite frustrated or agitated, or > whatever > > you might like to call it. But my question is whether you are > able to > > experience metta towards those writers while objecting to their > > instructions, and that you have not answered, as redundantly > insistent > > as I may be. > > > > After all, since this is a Buddhist group and not a Hallmark card, > I > > would love a direct answer to that question. > > Oh, for pete's sakes, I did answer that question! I don't feel any > animosity toward whoever came up with those instructions so of > course I feel metta toward them. I already told you, I practice > sending metta to all being everywhere, so logically that includes > whoever came up with those instructions. I can even send metta to > you, Robert, even though you won't stop badgering me! :-) > > Metta, > James > Sorry I'm so late, but thought I would drop back in to stop badgering you. Sorry about that! :-) Robert ========================= #94282 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 12:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > > > > > Thank you for that distinction. What is the residue that remains > with > > Nibbana? > > James: The kamma which has yet to expire. > > > > In the sense that Nibbana takes place while one is still living > some > > semblance of the earthly life. > > James: Yes, nibbana takes place while one is still living the > appearance of an earthly life. However, one who has achieved > nibbana is not like a regular human being. You might want to read > this article "Nibbana as Living Experience": > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html > > > > > Robert > > > > Metta, > James > Thank you James; at first glance it is very interesting. Robert = = = = = = = = #94283 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 12:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner jonoabb Hi Rob E A belated welcome back to the list, Rob! > Sorry to hear that. Was the Robert you mistook me for less argumentative? > > Robert [or whomever] You always were rather argumentative, as I recall ;-)), ;-)) Jon #94284 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 12:18 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? jonoabb Hi Alex > > Yes, but the concentration that is a factor of the Noble Eightfold > > Path is the momentary concentration that accompanies the path > > consciousness. > > Sutta quotes please? To my understanding, the Noble Eightfold Path is a reference to the enlightenment moment (or it's mundane predecessor, insight development), and its factors are the factors accompanying the moments of enlightenment (or insight). This I think is the import of the sutta references to Noble Eightfold Path. See for example the sutta quoted in my last post concerning the factors for stream entry (SN 55:5): "What is the stream? "This Noble Eightfold Path is the stream; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. "What is a stream-enterer? "One who possesses this Noble Eightfold Path is a stream-enterer: this venerable one of such a name and clan." The Noble Eightfold Path is (itself) the stream. And a stream- enterer is one who "possesses" the Noble Eightfold Path. > Concentration is defined as 4 Jhanas. Yes, samma-samadhi of the Noble Eightfold Path is defined in terms of the 4 jhanas. Given the understanding of the Noble Eightfold Path and its factors as mentioned above, this means that at the moment of enlightenment, the accompanying mental factor of samadhi is of the intensity of jhana. What about all the times when the Buddha (and > others) could remain up to 7 days motionless, in one posture and in > concentration? Sorry, but I don't understand the point you are making here. Jon #94285 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 12:22 am Subject: Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear radiation workers, > > c: What's it mean to "radiate" or "send" metta? Is there a technical term for it? > > James: I don't know. The suttas tell a story of the Buddha being charged by a wild elephant. He "radiated" or "sent" metta to the elephant and that made the elephant stop. I don't know the technical term for that. Maybe Nina would know. > > c: palikanon.com/english/pali_names/n/naalaagiri.htm Here, it's "an elephant of the royal stables" but "Just then, a woman, carrying a child, saw the elephant coming and fled, in her terror dropping the child at the Buddha's feet. As the elephant was about to attack the child, the Buddha spoke to him, suffusing him with all the love at his command, and, stretching out his right hand, he stroked the animal's forehead. Thrilling with joy at the touch, Naalaagiri sank on his knees before the Buddha, and the Buddha taught him the Dhamma. " > > > I think, James, we agree that if metta arises within myself, it's already there & there's no point to "sending" it to myself. > > James: Exactly! > > > RobEp: I think somewhere in here is floating around a self-concept that is not quite clarified. Is there a "self" to either fill up with metta or to send metta to? Is there an "other" to send metta to from "oneself?" If one is sending or radiating metta, what is it that is doing that, or more mechanically, how is it taking place? > > c: I'm quite willing to accept that living beings are the object of metta. So, yes, how are we to understand the "travelling" of thought? Does my thinking actually arise in other people, that is, is it that metta 'goes out' or that the (mental) targets are 'brought in'? > > peace, > connie My own belief and experience suggest that there is some actual kind of radiation of thought and energy, and that metta, happiness, goodwill, [also other things like "badgering" :-) ] send out a certain vibration that effects others. Ultimately, all thoughts, feelings, emanations, energies of various kinds arise and create chain reactions, perhaps at times only on a microscopic level. However, studies have now shown - weirdly enough by actual scientists - that knowing someone who is in a happy state a certain distance from oneself, even if there is no direct contact, makes one happier, as in some form they are picking it up and getting it into their own nervous system. I didn't see the whole article, but am anxious to find it. I think I heard a brief excerpt on the news. Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = = = #94286 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 12:29 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Hi Alex. > > In other words, were there specific practices or stages you went > > through that led from one step to the next, or a more general > > meditative regimen, such as samatha meditation, that led there > > naturally over time? > > Practice daily, the morning being a very good time. Watch sila so as > to avoid regrets and such. Try to keep in mind the meditation subject > through the day. > > I did focus quite a bit on what you like to call "samatha" type of > meditations so it has helped. Just curious - what would you call this kind of meditation? I am trying to unify my terminology where I can... > > > Another question, which may be adding too much to this, but is > > related, would be, the relation between jhana and vipassana. Do you > > think that the meditation that leads to vipassana is of a > >different - more active - nature, eg, cultivating sati, than that > >leading to jhana, > > There has to be sati, alertness and energy in the Jhana as well. > Without them one could very quickly be overwhelmed with arisen > hindrances and fall from Jhana. thanks for that note. > > >or is it from within jhana that vipassana is generated? > > > > Thanks, > > Robert > > Lets see MN64 sutta: > > "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)." > http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- > Nikaya/Majjhima2/064-maha-malunkhyaputta-e1.html > > Sounds like insight practice as well! okay. > > > Maybe the samatha & vipassana split is a later analytical scholastic > elaboration of a path that is fluid and inclusive. that would be nice. I have been trying to get that together in my mind. not necessarily the best place.... > > It is funny that the sutta support for "Insight Knowledges" is found > in Jhana suttas and the Venerable monk traditionally believed to > teach Abhidhamma (Ven. Sariputta) did very heavy jhana work (see > MN111 Anupada sutta). > > > With best wishes, > Thank you, very interesting. Best, Robert ======================= #94287 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 12:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone jonoabb Hi TG > Insight knows that whatever phenomena > arises contains nothing 'of its own' due to 'conditionality. The description of a phenomenon as "containing nothing of its own" is one of those glosses on conditionality that is not actually found in the texts, as far as I know. Does it serve any purpose to introduce such additional attributes? Jon #94288 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 12:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone kenhowardau Hi Connie, Jon, TG and Howard, ------------ > > TG: True "warmth" is experienced. But once it is considered "its own thing," then it is misinterpreted. > c: and yet, and yet... how can we even speak of "warmth", or anything else? what other thing could it be than "itself"? ------------- -------------------- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi TG > > > > Insight knows that whatever phenomena > > arises contains nothing 'of its own' due to 'conditionality. > > The description of a phenomenon as "containing nothing of its own" is > one of those glosses on conditionality that is not actually found in > the texts, as far as I know. Does it serve any purpose to introduce > such additional attributes? --------------------- Thank you Connie and Jon, we must continue to ask TG and Howard the obvious questions. By trying too hard to be tactful and to not put them on the spot we will only do them a disservice in the long run. "It's own thing!" The silliness of Nagarjuna and his followers is epitomised by this meaningless jargon. What is "own thing?" What is "own being? How can a "thing" be a "thing" but not it's "own thing?" How can it lack its "own being" and still "be?" It can't! This is psychobabble at it's worst - that tries to make a mockery of the Dhamma. If the had Buddha really believed there was just a sea of conditions with no separate, definable things he would not have taught the difference between right and wrong, pleasant and unpleasant and so on. There would be no difference! Hope this doesn't sound like I got out on the wrong side of the bed this morning! :-) Ken H #94289 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 12:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vipassana & Samatha jonoabb Hi Alex Just butting in here with a comment. > What about the kasina exercises mentioned by the Buddha and talked > about in VsM? > > If they are so 'useless' for Nibbana, then why did the Buddha teach > them? No-one is saying that samatha is "useless". Samatha is encouraged by the Buddha because (a) it is a high level of kusala and (b) its development to the level of jhana is appropriate for many (particularly, but not exclusively, for those living the monk's life). Furthermore, in many suttas the Buddha taught how jhana could be the basis for enlightenment. This is relevant for those who have already developed both samatha and vipassana to a high degree. Jon #94290 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 1:00 am Subject: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > 2008/12/30 Robert Epstein : > >> > > > Hi Herman, > > Your fun sutta illustrates the reason I said that it is a mistake to > > worry too much about conventions and literalisms. The fact that one > > says "I" in reference to the organism with which their experience is > > associated > > There you have it in a nutshell. You acknowledge the locus of identity. > > says little one way or the other about their identification > > with the kandhas involved. They may easily use this "I" as a mere > > convention, while an egoic person on the other hand might hide their > > egoic attachment by using fancy language that never mentions a word > > involving entity. While it may be worthwhile to think and speak in > > terms that do not refer to a particular "I" seen as a separate entity > > associated with a particular bodymind, it would mainly be an exercise > > in awareness and not in itself a ridding of self. > > > > On the other hand, an awakened person, such as the Buddha, refers to > > themselves all the time, and even advertises that they are "beyond > > attachment to form," etc. > > Still, the Buddha was the continuity of conditions as manifested in > his body. And his body was his body by not being anyone else's body, > or any other object for that matter, or the continuity of conditions > that made them that body or object. It is a thorny issue, but is it possible that you are confusing association with identity? One may be associated with "their car" without thinking they "are their car" or that they don't exist without their car. But we tend to think that the body with which we are associated is our self or a part of a self that we assume to have, rather than a vehicle with which we perform certain functions. > > > How would the Buddha get any followers if > > he didn't make this claim? So I'm not sure if I understand your > > objection. I gave you my wonderful metaphor of referring to > > characters in the movie theatre, and you said that the fictititious > > character could not refer to himself as a fiction. Either the > > character exists or does not. He cannot be identified only to then be > > denied existence. But the actor can. He can say "You know that > > character that I play? He doesn't really exist, he just appears in a > > script or in a film." > > I agree that the actor can say that he was acting out a fiction, a > make believe. But when the actor says that while acting out that > fiction, he wasn't doing that, that is when to cal the men in white > coats :-) Sure; but in saying that "I am not a human being, I only play one on TV" he is not quite saying that; he is just saying that the human being I appear as is not my true self. Likewise, if he says "I know there is this body, mind, etc., and various conditions, but I am free of the deluded concept of an in-dwelling self that is running the show" that is not deluded, that is enlightened. And not self-contradictory, just a fact. To get rid of seeming linguistic contradiction, I would say that when he says "I" in the above sentence, the "I" is meant as "the awareness being reported upon in this act of speech," rather than some person within deciding to report on it. > You seem to deny the dual nature of our lives > > in samsara - we actually do appear to be individuals leading lives > > with volition, etc., while at the same time it is possible to develop > > the insight that this is not actual. > > I do not think that it is the development of insight to deny kamma. I didn't deny it; I said it was not the correct [actual] interpretatio of what is taking place. I said "we actually do appear...." etc. Yes, I am denying that this is our identity; not that it takes place. > It doesn't mean that the > > appearance of such suddenly vanishes, only that is revealed as a > > fictitious existence. So we can in fact say, "See this individual > > over there - there is an organism and kandhas and such, but there is > > actually no one at home there. It is empty, just a bunch of > > cause-and-effect events, one after the other." > > Ahh, I see. I think we are having this discussion because you conflate > identity and agency. I am only talking about self as in identity. You > acknowledge the individual. That is identity. Not to me, any more than acknowleding that I own a car means it is my identity. It is something I use, associate with, etc., but isn't me. The word self is used by > a human organism to refer to that self-same organism. In common self-reference, but not necessarily in metaphysics in which one tries to be more precise, if identity is the topic at hand. That is > self-reference. I accept that the organism lacks agency, that it is a > bunch of cause-and-effects. Okay, then why call it a self, rather than just a psychophysical organism? Self implies some form of separate agency, so why defend it as the term of choice? But one organism is distinguished from > another by having different causes and effects. Sure, but that doesn't mean that they are selves or part of self. The following from > Nagasena vs King Milinda may settle the matter: > > 'Now what do you think, O king? You were once a baby, a tender thing, > and small in size, lying flat on your back. Was that the same as you > who are now grown up?' > > 'No. That child was one, I am another.' > > 'If you are not that child, it will follow that you have had neither > mother nor father, no! nor teacher. You cannot have been taught either > learning, or behaviour, or wisdom. What, great king! is the mother of > the embryo in the first stage different from the mother of the embryo > in the second stage, or the third, or the fourth 1? Is the mother of > the baby a different person from the mother of the grown-up man? Is > the person who goes to school one, and the same when he has finished > his schooling another? Is it one who commits a crime, another who is > punished by having his hands or feet cut off 2?' > > 'Certainly not. But what would you, Sir, say to that? ' > > **The Elder replied: 'I should say that I am the same person, now I am > grown up, as I was when I was a tender tiny baby, flat on my back. For > all these states are included in one by means of this body.'** > > > > In doing so, the > > apparent person does not disappear; but their status is changed, so we > > can refer to them, and say, as I think the Buddha might, "They only > > appear as such; their identity is only a matter of name and form." > > > > The Buddha can speak about himself and say that he is not attached to > > the illusion of entity, etc. He refers to persons being free of > > attachment to various forms all the time, or being mired by them and > > experiencing sufferings. By doing so, is he making the fiction of > > self a reality? > > There is the illusion of agency, the self who is making its own > causes. There is nothing illusory about the continuity of > cause-and-effect by means of this body. Then why not just call it "this body?" Why call it "a self?" I think you may want to get more out of that word than you think you do, if I can be that presumptuous - at least that's how it seems. More from Milinda: > > 'Suppose a man, O king, were to light a lamp, would it burn the night through?' > > 'Yes, it might do so.' > > 'Now, is it the same flame that burns in the first watch of the night, > Sir, and in the second?' > > 'No.' > > 'Or the same that burns in the second watch and in the third?' > > 'No.' > > 'Then is there one lamp in the first watch, and another in the second, > and another in the third?' > > 'No. The light comes from the same lamp all the night through.' > > **'Just so, O king, is the continuity of a person or thing > maintained.** One comes into being, another passes away; and the > rebirth is, as it were, simultaneous. Thus neither as the same nor as > another does a man go on to the last phase of his self-consciousness > .' > > Whether it is a lamp or a body or whatever, there is the continuity of > conditions, and that, in another word, is identity. I think the opposite, that seeing the one condition fall away and the next arise would show that there is not an identity, but a shifting set of conditions; and that the sense of agency, identity, and separate interior being rise and fall together. It is because we are not discerning this magic trick of shifting conditions with enough attention, that we assume the illusion of "an identity" and furthermore associate it with some or another form. That form does not have to only end at the body's boundaries. I can be so attached to my car that if it gets dented I feel wounded; then that is part of my assumed identity too - just as false as identifying with my foot. Robert = = = = = = = = = = #94291 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 1:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > 2008/12/30 Robert Epstein : > > Given this absolute view of life as a prison, how does one account for > > moments of kusala, sati, vipassana, etc., and how does one account for > > the life of a Buddha or Bodhisattva, who are clearly released from all > > clinging, yet continue to run around and teach, in the Buddha's case > > for around 40 years? Was he still suffering as he taught? > > > > There is no getting past the tilakkhana, I'm afraid. > > "Whether Perfect Ones appear in the world, or whether Perfect Ones do > not appear in the world, it still remains a firm condition, an > immutable fact and fixed law: that all formations are impermanent, > that all formations are subject to suffering, that everything is > without a self'' > > > > Most make a distinction between the physical sufferings of old age, > > disease and death that attend the physical existence and the suffering > > intended by the Buddha, which is that caused by clinging and aversion, > > as well as the ignorance that cause them. If you are saying that one > > can only be free of the latter type of suffering by entering > > parinibbana and ending human life completely, you are denying any > > distinction between nibbana, which is complete freedom while still > > alive, and parinibbana, the final form of nibbana in which form itself > > is relinquished. In fact, are you not denying the possibility of > > nibbana altogether? > > Nibbana is cessation of feeling and perception. That can be temporary, > or it can be permanent. > > > > > > Too extreme, I would say, and annihilationist in nature, which Buddha > > warned against. To say there is no possibility of liberation while > > still living a human life, is make nibbana dependent on annihilation. > > It is not the middle way. > > If you think there can be nibbana while being cognisant of being a > living human being, you are going to be disappointed :-). Nibbana > isn't dependent on annihilation, it isn't dependent on anything. But > as long as there are perceptions of any kind, they are anicca, anatta > and dukkha. And it is those perceptions that are dependent. And they > will cease, given the right conditions. Cessation is not annihilation. > > Cheers > > > Herman > Thanks for a good response. Robert = = = = = = = = #94292 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 1:02 am Subject: Re: Vipassanaa. Survey Ch 34, no 1. sprlrt Hi Nina, I've transcripted some of K. Sujin passages on this subject - Alberto from the audio file 2005-10-12.e Benares: "Even the word jhana, does one understand clearly what it means? What is jhana? When one doesn't know what jhana is how can one say that is useful... If it is jhana... but who knows whether it is or not... Just using the word jhana when is not jhana yet. And if it is jhana, it's not as good as vipassana, and it is very, very difficult too, and one has to spend lots of time to develop it, so why not developing right understanding instead? Let's see the differences between samadhi and samatha, otherwise they're mixed up. Samadhi is concentrantion, while samtha is calmness. One has to understand what jhana is and what jhana means before talking about it, otherwise it seems we are talking about something we don't know at all, just talk and talk about it. Jhana means burnt up, the defilements, with calm and not with understanding, two different ways. With calm is not satipatthana, with panna is satipatthana, and the former burns the defilements only temporarily, the latter completely and absolutely. Without sati knowing what and when citta is kusala and is not kusala citta is impossible to develop calm. But one uses the term jhana while there is no understanding of moments of calmness from moments of akusala. And jhana burns up, temporarily, the nivarana only, the hindrances, while vipassana burns up avijja, ignorance, as well. And when there is sati there's calm as well, because all kusala citta have calmness, samatha. So can there be development of samatha without the develpment of kusala citta? Can samatha be developed without knowing when is kusala and when is not kusala? Is it easy to develop samatha to the level of absorbtion concentration we call jhana? See, it's not easy at all. Concentration, can be kusala or akusala, that's why in tipitaka there is samma samadhi and miccha samadhi, it doesn't mean that there must always be samma samadhi, there is also miccha samadhi, and who knows about that? Panna knows what is what, but a person who concentrate on an object with attachment doesn't know that at that moment there's concentration, but it is akusala, so it cannot be samma samadhi, it ha to be miccha samadhi." #94293 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 1:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone epsteinrob Thank you Nina; that reminded me of some things I had heard on this list in the past, and also put it together in a very nice coherent form for me to look at. I appreciate it. Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: #94116 #94294 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 2:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: different opinions, was: Vipassana & Samatha nilovg Dear Alex, Op 2-jan-2009, om 21:46 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > N: Why offended when hearing other opinions? It can be useful and > > stimulating to hear other opinions. Nobody tries to convert you. > > Nina. > > It is very sad when people claim what Buddha has NOT said and said > quite the contrary. --------- N: You certainly have to contribute something to the list, and your sutta quotes are appreciated. But if people do not agree, no need to shout. Take Howard as example: he and I differ in outlook, but Howard just explains calmly what his outlook is. In that case people will listen, but when you say: the other person teaches adhamma, he goes contrary to the Buddha, nobody will listen anymore. Moreover, this is not the tradition of our list here. It is natural that there are different opinions and everybody should take his own responsibility with regard to what he says. Nina. #94295 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 5:46 am Subject: Vipassanaa, Survey, Ch 34, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, Some people, when they hear about defilements, may not like to have them, but do they really know their defilements? Attachment, lobha, is a defilement. Do people want to have lobha? They may not like the idea of having lobha, but actually, people like lobha each and every moment. This shows that one does not understand the characteristic of the defilement of lobha. We can find out whether we really understand lobha as a defilement or not. Is the food delicious? Are our cloths and the things with which we beautify ourselves nice? Is the music pleasing, the odour fragrant, the chair soft and confortable? Is what we touch agreeable? Although some people do not like the idea of having lobha and think that they should not have it, they can find out that citta likes lobha all the time. The development of satipatthåna is the development of sati and paññå. It is not: trying to have concentration, samådhi. Q. : What is attå-saññå, remembrance of self? S. : Attå-saññå is remembrance (saññå) with clinging to the concept of self (attå), thus, wrong perception of self. We do not need to have doubts about attå-saññå because we all are familiar with it. When a person has realized the noble Truths at the attainment of the first stage of enlightenment, the stage of the streamwinner, sotåpanna, the wrong view is eradicated which takes realities for self, for beings or for people. However, there is bound to be attå- saññå if one has not developed satipatthåna. There is bound to be ignorance and wrong view if sati does not arise, if there is no awareness of the characteristics of realities as they naturally appear through one doorway at a time. Wrong view takes the realities which appear for a compound, a “whole”, for something which lasts, for attå, self. If people do not know at this moment realities as they are, there is bound to be attå-saññå, the remembrance or perception that it is “I” who is seeing, and that what is seen is a being, a person, a self. ********** Nina. #94296 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 12:53 am Subject: Jhana and Everyday Life & Practice (Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 1/2/2009 11:51:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: dear connie and friends, depends. if the concept of a living being is actually right in range of the physical senses... there's your object. and if you say, hold open the post office door for them? active mettaa, haha. if you were a master, you'd pop in and out of jhaana. daily life. ok, will you drop it now... maybe go to bed? peace, connie ps. howard, would that be something like "the other kind of jhaana" you had in mind? i keep thinking about it because of the 'not tightly focussed' or however you put it part. c. =============================== No, I don't think it'd be quite the same. I think that the jhana taught the Buddha, while supportive of many functions common to daily life is nonetheless different from non-jhanic consciousness even for arahants. For arahants, of course, all consciousness is perfect, but some states may be more useful for specific activities than other states. As I see it, jhanas aren't to be preferred except for special purposes. For non-arahants they are special for bhavana and as temporary "retreats" from the grosser levels of samsara, and for higher ariyans they might additionally be convenient to slip into for particular useful activities, making the exercise of various abilities more effective, though this last is just guess work on my part. Actually, this is all largely guess work on my part. Alex, it seems, has way more experirnce than I in this area. My past experience with jhanas has been quite limited though well matching textual description, and my current experience with jhana is meager and miles from mastery. To improve on this, I would have to greatly increase my meditation practice from the regular but minimal one of one or two "sittings" a day. And I'm unlikely to do that, because I have a rather full (retired) householder's life. I do try "take up the slack" with other elements of practice including ongoing mindfulness of mind and body - attending mostly to change, guarding the senses - the 4 right efforts, study & serious contemplation of the Dhamma, and, for dana, being an active volunteer for an organization that works to help homeless families. This is a "compromise practice" that is worthwhile, I think, but very far from that of a (dedicated) bhikkhu. That, I think, will have to wait until "the next time around"! ;-) With metta, Howard *(From the Avarana Sutta) #94297 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 6:42 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Threes (37-39) and Commentary, part 2. nilovg Dear friends, Sutta: DN 33.1.10(38) Three grounds based on merit: that of giving, of morality, of meditation. (Tii.ni pu~n~nakiriyavatthuuni: daanamaya.m pu~n~nakiriyavatthu, siilamaya.m pu~n~nakiriyavatthu, bhaavanaamaya.m pu~n~nakiriyavatthu.) ------- N: The Co states that they are called a basis of meritorious action because they are the basis for what is beneficial. The Co. refers to the three periods of kusala cetanaa: before the actual giving, during the act and the reflection about it afterwards. It also refers to kusala kamma performed through body, speech and mind. As to kusala kamma through the mind, the person who gives boiled rice etc. may think with kusala citta about his giving, or he may reflect on the perfection of generosity. ------- The subco states that one reflects on the perfection of daana that was a condition for Buddhahood. ------- Co: Giving can also be seen under the heading of siila as a way of service or helping others. -------- Subco: it can be seen as siila of performance (caarittasiila) when he reflects on it that giving is the tradition of his family. ---------- N: Caaritta siila is siila of performance and vaaritta siila is siila of avoidance. There is caaritta siila when one performs kusala through body and speech such as helping, paying respect, following a noble family tradition. Vaaritta siila is abstaining from akusala. ------- Co: Or,when he understands the decay and destruction of the gifts (deyyadhamma) that he is going to give it is the meritorious action of bhaavanaa, mental development. ------- subco: He understands that as there was the kusala cetanaa in the past, there will be in the future. N: Giving in the past conditions giving in the future. (to be continued) ******** Nina. #94298 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 6:49 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "It does not conflict. Why not? Because that refers to absorption. But this [initial development towards oneself] refers to [making oneself] an example. For even if he developed lovingkindness for a hundred or a thousand years in this way, 'I am happy' and so on, absorption would never arise. But if he develops it in this way: 'I am happy. Just as I want to be happy and dread pain, as I want to live and not to die, so do other beings, too', making himself the example, then desire for other beings' welfare and happiness arises in him. And this method is indicated by the Blessed One's saying: 'I visited all quarters with my mind Nor found I any dearer than myself; Self is likewise to every other dear; Who loves himself will never harm another' (S.i,75; Ud 47)." The Path of Purity. "There is no contradiction. How is that? Because those passages are spoken by way of ecstasy; the statement here is made by way of making oneself the witness. For even though one develop love for onself for a hundred years, a thousand years, in this way: 'May I be well!' and so on, he will not attain to ecstasy. When he who cultivates the wish, 'May I be well!' appeals to himself as testimony that 'as I wish to be happy, have a distaste for misery, wish to live, do not wish to die, so other beings also wish for the same,' then a wish arises in him that they also may enjoy blessings and happiness. The way also has been shown by the Blessed One in the words: - 'The whole wide world we traverse with our thought, And nothing find to man more dear than soul. Since aye so dear the soul to others is, Let the soul-lover harm no other man,' (Kindred Sayings i,102; and Note 2, p.101)." Ta~nca na virujjhati. Kasmaa? Ta~nhi appanaavasena vutta.m. Ida.m sakkhibhaavavasena. Sacepi hi vassasata.m vassasahassa.m vaa 'aha.m sukhito homii' tiaadinaa nayena attani metta.m bhaaveti, nevassa appanaa uppajjati. 'Aha.m sukhito homii' ti bhaavayato pana yathaa aha.m sukhakaamo dukkhapa.tikkuulo jiivitukaamo amaritukaamo ca, eva.m a~n~nepi sattaati attaana.m sakkhi.m katvaa a~n~nasattesu hitasukhakaamataa uppajjati. Bhagavataapi â€" 'Sabbaa disaa anuparigamma cetasaa, Nevajjhagaa piyataramattanaa kvaci; Eva.m piyo puthu attaa paresa.m, Tasmaa na hi.mse paramattakaamo' ti. (sa.m. ni. 1.119; udaa. 41); â€" Vadataa aya.m nayo dassito. Sincerely, Scott. #94299 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 7:04 am Subject: AS time nichiconn dear friends, "time" continues: The borderline of consciousness and time, reached in that fourth formless absorption, is transcended by the . This is trenchantly expressed by the exclusion of that meditative state (1) from the normal time order of subsequent mental states, and (2) from the systematization of all "things" in the Dhammasa'nga.nii. The first point, exclusion from the normal time order, is stated in the Pa.t.thaana (Pa~nha-vaara #'s 4,5) in the following way: "After emergence from the attainment of cessation, the (previously obtained) wholesome state of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-nonperception is a condition for the attainment of fruition (of the nonreturner or arahant), by way of proximity or contiguity condition (anantara- or samanantara-paccaya)." When the time relation of the two other states is said to be one of immediate succession, this means that the intervening attainment of cessation is not counted. The obvious conclusion to draw is that the state of cessation is assumed to take place on quite a different time level. This is emphasized by the statement that from the view of the human time rhythm, the attainment of cessation may last for seven days. peace, connie #94300 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 7:04 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn dear friends, Karunadasa continues: The description of dhammas as paramattha means not only their objective existence (paramatthato vijjamanata) but also their cognizability in an ultimate sense (paramatthato upalabbhamanata).73 The first refers to the fact that the dhammas obtain as the ultimate, irreducible data of empirical existence. The second refers to the fact that, as such, the content of our cognition can also be finally analysed into the self-same elements. This is not to suggest that it is only the dhammas that become objects of knowledge; for it is specifically stated that even pannattis, i.e. concepts, which are the products of the synthetical function of the mind and hence lack objective counterparts, are also knowable (neyya).74 73. See VsmM 227; Mvn 258; ItiA 142. 74. Abhvk 445. In point of fact, in the technical terminology of the Abhidhamma, the term dhamma is sometimes used in a wider sense to include anything that is knowable.75 In this sense, not only the ultimate realities -- the dhammas proper -- but also the products of mental interpretation are called dhammas. To distinguish the two, the latter are called asabhava-dhammas, i.e. dhammas devoid of objective reality.76 The use of this term in this wider sense is reminiscent of its earlier meaning as shown in the Pali Nikayas, where it is used in a very general sense to include all cognizable things on the empirical level. However, there is this situation to be noted: Although both dhammas and concepts (pannattis or asabhava-dhammas) constitute the content of knowledge, it is into the dhammas that the content of knowledge can be finally analysed. Thus there is a close parallelism between the dhammas on the one hand and the contents of knowledge on the other. That is to say, the ultimate irreducible data of cognition are the subjective counterparts of the ultimate irreducible data of objective existence. peace, connie #94301 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 7:04 am Subject: nama and rupa, to Lukas. nilovg Dear Lukas, When I heard on the Thai recording about nama and rupa I thought of the series you were asking for. Rupa is the reality that does not know anything and it cannot be blended with nama, the reality that experiences something. Before we can have more understanding of nama and rupa we should know that all realities are dhammas. Kh. Sujin: There is seeing now but there must also be something that is seen: nama and rupa. They are very ordinary realities of daily life, but we should know that they are dhammas. They arise because of conditions. Seeing is dependent on eyesense, without eyesense there cannot be seeing. And so it is with hearing, smelling, tasting and experiences through the bodysense, they are dependent on the appropriate bases. All this seems very ordinary and one may wonder what this has to do with the Buddha's wisdom. He taught us that all these realities are the cause of sukha and dukkha in our life. We become quite absorbed in what we experience but in reality there is no self, no person, only dhammas that arise and fall away. That is the world. Dhammas are all that is reality but because of ignorance we take dhammas for self. We think: 'I see, I hear', but they are impermanent dhammas. Dhammas of a moment ago have gone. When we listen to words that are spoken, there is hearing that hears sound and thinking of the meaning, but they all fall away. Our life is sukha and dukkha. When there is sukha we are quite absorbed, but it is impermanent. When there is dukkha we are troubled, we cannot stand it. But we cannot choose when sukha arises and when dukkha, they are dependent on conditions, beyond control. We have to be born again and again and experience sukha and dukkha. When right understanding develops we will be removed from dukkha, little by little. The Buddha showed the Way. So long as there is tanhaa, clinging, there will be dukkha. When we do not listen to the Dhamma we do not know when there is tanhaa, but it arises time and again. When there is no understanding there cannot be purification of citta and we take all realities for self. It is pa~n~naa that eradicates defilements. ****** Nina Nina. #94302 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 7:08 am Subject: Re: Jhana and Everyday Life & Practice (Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX ...) nilovg Hi Howard, Op 3-jan-2009, om 14:53 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > for dana, being an > active volunteer for an organization that works to help homeless > families. ------- N: Can you tell us more? Then we have an extra opportunity for anumodana daana. I do appreciate your kusala. Nina. #94303 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 3:08 am Subject: Re: Jhana and Everyday Life & Practice (Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/3/2009 10:09:10 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 3-jan-2009, om 14:53 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > for dana, being an > active volunteer for an organization that works to help homeless > families. ------- N: Can you tell us more? Then we have an extra opportunity for anumodana daana. I do appreciate your kusala. Nina. =========================== I'm hesitant in speaking about this, Nina, because what I do is just a tiny contribution to people's welfare. What I'll say is that we are making some very good progress in setting up a "network" in Nassau County (on Long Island, about 30 miles outside of NY City) for helping homeless families obtain transitional and permanent housing and improved employment. The organization, an interfaith one called "Family Promise," has networks in about 39 states (and the district of Columbia) in the U. S., it involves well over 5000 "host congregations," and it's success record across the U. S. is very strong. I co-chair the Nassau County Family Promise Host Congregation Recruitment Team. To get an idea of what Family Promise does, you could check out the web site _http://www.nihn.org/_ (http://www.nihn.org/) . I'll also say a bit more at the end in a postscript. At this point, we have 11 committed host congregations: 9 churches and 2 synagogues, and we expect a good number more to sign on soon. We also have about the same number of committed support congregations. I wish we could have moved more quickly, because the cold weather is upon us, but the process of establishing a working network requires time and patience. With metta, Howard P. S. To give a synoptic idea of what Family Promise is about, I'll copy here the resolution I managed to get the Social Action Committee of our small (reform jewish) temple to approve and that I will be presenting to the temple board on the 14th of this month. (Note: 'Tzedakah' means "charity" or "justice," and 'tikkun olam' means "healing the world.") Social Action Committee Resolution on Family Promise Support Congregation Status for Community Reform Temple Preamble. A Family Promise network such as that which is now being built in Nassau County consists of three primary elements: 1) The centerpiece which is the Day Center, the official address of the group of 3-5 homeless families (no more than 14 people) for as long as they are in the program, where the families receive their mail, where they shower and do their laundry, where the work for finding housing and improved employment is done by the families under the guidance of a certified social worker, and from where the school-age kids go to & return from school each day, 2) A group of 13 or more Host Congregations, houses of worship at which the families are overnight guests for a week at a time at some one of these congregations, with volunteers providing (and sharing) meals, toys for the children, companionship, and (two) volunteers to stay over at night, with most volunteers being from the Host Congregation whose week it is and the remainder coming from Support Congregations. After each week, the families move on to another Host Congregation. 3) A group of Support Congregations, each of which provides support mainly in terms of encouraging congregants to volunteer at nearby Host Congregations, and also in providing occasional help in other ways such as by monetary donation (for example tzedakah projects at synagogues). Resolution. Whereas Community Reform Temple is dedicated to bringing the Judaism of the synagogue out into the world in an active effort of tikkun olam, whereas the aims and methods of Family Promise are in line with tikkun olam, whereas being a Support Congregation requires no providing of Temple space or materials, and whereas being a Support Congregation is beneficial for the spiritual well being of our congregants, most especially our young people, it is hereby resolved that Community Reform Temple commits itself to adopting the status of "Family Promise Support Congregation" and to allowing its being listed as such in Family Promise documents. #94304 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 8:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vipassana & Samatha truth_aerator Hi Jon, >"jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > Just butting in here with a comment. > > > What about the kasina exercises mentioned by the Buddha and talked > > about in VsM? > > > > If they are so 'useless' for Nibbana, then why did the Buddha teach > > them? > > No-one is saying that samatha is "useless". Samatha is encouraged by > the Buddha because (a) it is a high level of kusala and (b) its > development to the level of jhana is appropriate for many > (particularly, but not exclusively, for those living the monk's life). > > Furthermore, in many suttas the Buddha taught how jhana could be the > basis for enlightenment. This is relevant for those who have already > developed both samatha and vipassana to a high degree. > > Jon > It is good to hear that, With 2009 metta, #94305 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 9:02 am Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? truth_aerator Hi Jon and all, > "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex Thank you for your justification of N8P being momentary. While your justifications were not as good as I've hope, at least you have tried. > What about all the times when the Buddha (and > > others) could remain up to 7 days motionless, in one posture and in > > concentration? > > Sorry, but I don't understand the point you are making here. > > Jon What I've meant is that Jhana (or meditation) doesn't have to last for a moment. It can last UP TO 7 CONTINIOUS DAYS. So the reading of samma- samadhi being only momentary is not correct in all cases. With best wishes, #94306 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 9:33 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nichiconn Hi, RobEp, All, RobEp: My own belief and experience suggest that there is some actual kind of radiation of thought and energy, and that metta, happiness, goodwill, [also other things like badgering" :-) ] send out a certain vibration that effects others. Ultimately, all thoughts, feelings, emanations, energies of various kinds arise and create chain reactions, perhaps at times only on a microscopic level. However, studies have now shown - weirdly enough by actual scientists - that knowing someone who is in a happy state a certain distance from oneself, even if there is no direct contact, makes one happier, as in some form they are picking it up and getting it into their own nervous system. I didn't see the whole article, but am anxious to find it. I think I heard a brief excerpt on the news. c: Just my own prejudice here that the Buddha already set out all the explanations of conditional relations, etc. we really need to know; and yes, it is extremely complex. If another explantion can be explained in terms of "Buddha's science", well and good; if not, it's worthless apart from say, entertainment value or increasing ignorance. The point I've been trying to make regarding "radiation" is that unless we appreciate the difference between naama and ruupa our understanding of experience is, to say the least, highly suspect. So much for tact. I'd suggest that naama will never be known by "microscopic" or other mechanical means. peace, connie #94307 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 11:21 am Subject: radiation therapy nichiconn Hi again, RobEp, All, just some more re: ... "knowing someone who is in a happy state a certain distance from oneself, even if there is no direct contact, makes one happier, as in some form they are picking it up and getting it into their own nervous system." As Nina said to Howard about his "networking" (-scientific enuf?): N: Can you tell us more? Then we have an extra opportunity for anumodana daana. I do appreciate your kusala. c: There's an example of the 'matter' of "transferring merit" in daily life. Might there some relation to the joy enlightment factor as well? For a textual example, here's the Path of Purity on developing muditaa: << He who strives for the developing of sympathy also should not begin with the loved one and the others. For a loved one, just because of his being loved, is not a proximate cause of sympathy, much less the neutral person and the enemy. Persons of the opposite sex, and the dead, are not fit objects. A very dear friend, however, may be the proximate cause. He who is spoken of in the Commentary as a drinking companion, is indeed very sympathetic. He laughs first, speaks afterwards. Therefore he should first be suffused with sympathy. On seeing or hearing of a loved person happy, well-off, joyful, one should express sympathetic joy, saying: "Joyful indeed is this being. How good! How splendid!" Concerning this specific meaning it is stated in the Vibha"nga {p.274}: "And how does a monk live, suffusing one quarter of the globe with heart full of sympathy? As, on seeing a person, loved, lovable, he would be joyful, so he suffuses all beings with sympathy." If his drinking companion or loved one was happy in the past, he is now poor and evil in conduct. Calling to mind his former happiness, "This one in the past had plenty of wealth and retinue, and was always joyful," and dwelling on the mode of his joy, one should express joy. "Again in the future he will get back his glory and ride on elephant-crupper, horseback, golden palanquin, and so on": - thus dwelling on the mode of his future joy also, one should express joy. Having expressed sympathy (i.e. joy) for a dear person, the monk in due course should express it for a neutral person, and for an enemy. If, as has been said above, his hatred for the enemy arises, it should be calmed as in the case of love. Breaking down the barriers through equality of mind towards the three persons, and himself as the fourth and practising, developing, repeating the sign, as already mentioned under love, he should increase the ecstasies by means of the threefold and fourfold Jhaanas. Furthermore, the change of heart, namely, the unspecified suffusion in five forms, the specific suffusion in seven forms, the suffusion through the quarters in ten forms, and the blessings such as "Happy he sleeps," are to be understood in the manner stated under love. >> vism 316 peace, connie #94308 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 11:23 am Subject: Re: Jhana and Everyday Life & Practice (Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX ...) nilovg Hi Howard, I read your report with great interest. You do a good work and I appreciate it, Nina. Op 3-jan-2009, om 17:08 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > What I'll say is that we are making some very good progress in setting > up a "network" in Nassau County (on Long Island, about 30 miles > outside of NY > City) for helping homeless families obtain transitional and > permanent housing > and improved employment. #94309 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 6:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 1/3/2009 12:33:06 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: The description of a phenomenon as "containing nothing of its own" is one of those glosses on conditionality that is not actually found in the texts, as far as I know. Does it serve any purpose to introduce such additional attributes? Jon .............................. TG: How about these "glosses" from the Suttas directed toward the Five Aggregates -- Conditioned, Dependent, Nonself, Empty, Hollow, Coreless, Void, Insubstantial, Like Mirage, Like Conjurer's Trick? Yes, it serves a purpose. It thwarts substantialist attachment oriented views of "own characteristics" and "ultimate realities." What arises completely dependent on "something else" has Nothing of Its Own. This should not only be announced, it should be reflected on over and over as much as possible. TG OUT #94310 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 6:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone TGrand458@... Hi Ken H. In a message dated 1/3/2009 12:47:19 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: "It's own thing!" The silliness of Nagarjuna and his followers is epitomised by this meaningless jargon. What is "own thing?" What is "own being? How can a "thing" be a "thing" but not it's "own thing?" How can it lack its "own being" and still "be?" It can't! This is psychobabble at it's worst - that tries to make a mockery of the Dhamma. If the had Buddha really believed there was just a sea of conditions with no separate, definable things he would not have taught the difference between right and wrong, pleasant and unpleasant and so on. There would be no difference! .......................................................... TG: TG: How about these "glosses" from the Suttas directed toward the Five Aggregates -- Conditioned, Dependent, Nonself, Empty, Hollow, Coreless, Void, Insubstantial, Like Mirage, Like Conjurer's Trick? The above terms appear in the Suttas. "Ultimate realities" and "own characteristics" DO NOT. Yes, it serves a purpose. It thwarts substantialist attachment oriented views of "own characteristics" and "ultimate realities." What arises completely dependent on "something else" has Nothing of Its Own. This should not only be announced, it should be reflected on over and over as much as possible. This is the meaning of 'no-self.' This is why the teaching of 'no-self, found in the SUTTAS, does not just deal with assemblages of elements and aggregates called "persons/selves," but deals with the elements and aggregates of such as well! ............................................................. Hope this doesn't sound like I got out on the wrong side of the bed this morning! :-) ........................................................ TG: Not at all. You seem to be in top form today. ;-) TG OUT #94311 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 11:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nilovg Dear Alex, Rob Ep, Howard, Op 3-jan-2009, om 9:29 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > Lets see MN64 sutta: > > > > "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: ------------- N: translations are different and we should compare. Here is B.B. transl: <.. a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhaana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. "Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling... etc.> In this translation he does not stay in jhaana when he realizes rupa, feeling, etc as impermanent. The Co states (B.B.note656): As I read this, I conclude that he is mindful with insight of the jhanafactors that just occurred.: We can still call it the present reality. Also now we can be aware of the present moment, but its characteristic has just fallen away: the present tense can be used. He is aware also of rupa, the sutta states. Nina. #94312 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 8:13 am Subject: Re: Jhana and Everyday Life & Practice (Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/3/2009 2:28:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I read your report with great interest. You do a good work and I appreciate it, Nina. =========================== Thank you for the encouragement, Nina. I appreciate that! :-) With metta, Howard *(Anonymous) #94313 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 1:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi Alberto, 2009/1/2 sprlrt : > Hi Herman, > > >> ... white powder, 5 mg for bardo, 10 mg for anatta, 20 mg for nibbana. > > The word intoxicant derives from toxic, poison. > And poisoning the body will certainly have effects on the mind too, > not those you mentioned, though. > Could you let me know whether you are speaking from experience? Cheers Herman #94314 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 8:28 am Subject: Correction of Silly Error in My Reply Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa. Survey Ch 34, no 1. upasaka_howard Hi again, Nina - In a message dated 1/2/2009 5:41:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: I remember a film by Woody Allan in which he is waiting on line ("in queue," for speakers of the King's English) to see a film, and someone in the crowd starts loudly talking to others, quite pompously, about the work of Rod McKuen, clearly disgusting Mr. Allan by his pretentious manner. Then, as in all good fantasies, Mr McKuen, himself, steps out of the group of people waiting to enter the theatre and addresses the self-styled expert on McKuen, forcefully saying to him "You know nothing of my work!!" At times it is my fantasy that the Buddha would "step out of the crowd"! ============================== In the foregoing, please replace "Rod McKuen" by "Marshall McLuhan." (LOL!) The film, BTW, was "Annie Hall," which came out in 1977 and is recognized as one of Allan's very best. With metta, Howard *(Anonymous) #94315 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 1:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation egberdina Hi KenH, 2009/1/2 kenhowardau : > Hi Herman and Alex, > > > It is also OK to develop right understanding, of course. But is that > necessarily what I am doing? I don't think so. I partake in DSG > discussions, but ignorance, attachment, conceit and wrong view are > never far away. This is just a part of my daily routine. To some tiny > (but precious) extent it probably does involve the development of > right understanding, but let's not call it that: I don't. > I sincerely think that you show great wisdom in saying the above. ----------------------------- > > Discussing Dhamma is something I love to do. But, again, when I go to > Bangkok etc., it is with my usual baggage (of ignorance, attachment, > conceit . . .). > And again. > It could, however, also involve the development of right > understanding, couldn't it? It may, or may not. AN 2:125-126 "Monks, there are these two conditions for the arising of wrong view. Which two? The voice of another and inappropriate attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of wrong view." "Monks, there are these two conditions for the arising of right view. Which two? The voice of another and appropriate attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of right view." It seems to me that the voice of the other is not the critical factor. The selection of only a few specific people to listen to betrays a pre-existing view, a prejudice if you like. In those cases, what may appear to have the quality of appropriate attention, is in fact no more than a re-organising of prejudices. Cheers Herman #94316 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 1:35 pm Subject: Re: cornerstone nichiconn Hi TG, Anyone, TG: How about these "glosses" from the Suttas directed toward the Five Aggregates -- Conditioned, Dependent, Nonself, Empty, Hollow, Coreless, Void, Insubstantial, Like Mirage, Like Conjurer's Trick? The above terms appear in the Suttas. "Ultimate realities" and "own characteristics" DO NOT. c: How about you - quoting directly, please - show where they do appear used in a fashion that contradicts the Suttantas? looking forward to your examples, connie #94317 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 1:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 2 egberdina Thanks, Alex, as always, for your comments, 2009/1/3 Alex : > Hi Herman, RobM and all interested. > > > I get it what you say, Herman, or imply to say: that all these > Angels, giant snakes, etc are simply overactive brain & brain > chemistry. Hey, if you are alone in a dark cave without any sights > or sounds, that sort of sensory deprivation can lead to visions and > so on. Lack of oxygen can cause those too and hallucinogenic > mushrooms could be accidentally ingested. > > Yes, whatever is seen, heard, felt etc is not independent of the conditions in which it was seen, heard, felt. > However, just because something can be hallucinated it doesn't mean > that it doesn't exist. All it means that it can be hallucinated. > > One can mispercieve/hallucinate hardness or softness, this doesn't > mean that these do not exist. On can see walls in dreams, it doesn't > mean that walls (rupa) do not exist. > I agree with you. I prefer to say that whatever is experienced is experienced. I do not think that there is a "real" reality hidden behind what is experienced. But what we do is verify our experiences by investigation, or invalidate them as the case may be. Yesterday I was driving home, and in the distance I saw a sheep at the side of the road. I prepared to slow down, just in case it ran onto the road. As I got closer, it turned out to be a mailbox. Had I stopped the car when I first saw the sheep, it was always going to be a sheep that I saw. Moving closer, it was either going to stay a sheep, or turn out to be something else. What I saw, depended on the conditions in which it was seen I think the same applies to the case of devas. Certainly, the experience of devas is a valid one. Cheers Herman #94318 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 2:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/3 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "That is a very worthwhile question to ask. Every moment again. And > I think the answer is revealed only in each moment. And that is > thinking......while the moment has vanished long ago." > > Scott: Well, you sort of twisted the question, answering obliquely, as > is your coy, elusive wont. You state that 'the answer is revealed > only in each moment' and that one thinks of 'the answer' post-hoc. > Which is it? I think what is revealed is that you believed the question, while asking it, to have one single and correct answer. You then reveal yourself to be that person who attributes a lack of some wholesome quality or other to those who disagree. > Scott: What changes? View. Thank you. Cheers Herman #94319 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 2:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone kenhowardau HI TG, ------ <. . .> KH: > > Hope this doesn't sound like I got out on the wrong side of the bed this morning! :-) > > TG: > Not at all. You seem to be in top form today. ;-) ------ That's a relief, I'm glad I got away with it! I felt it was one of those times when something had to be said and, if your friends couldn't say it, no one could! :-) ---------------------- TG: > How about these "glosses" from the Suttas directed toward the Five Aggregates -- Conditioned, Dependent, Nonself, Empty, Hollow, Coreless, Void, Insubstantial, Like Mirage, Like Conjurer's Trick? ---------------------- Quite often people can read something and get the wrong impression, can't they? Take a hypothetical case in which someone reads those sutta quotes and thinks they mean "nothing exists!" In this hypothetical case that person's friends explain, "The suttas are saying that the things that really exist are devoid of a lasting self (atta). The suttas are not saying the things that exist are somehow devoid of existence. That would be impossible - a contradiction in terms - wouldn't it?" Then the first person says, "Oh yes, how silly of me, thanks for pointing that out." And his friends say, "It wasn't silly at all, old chap, anyone can make a mistake." :-) --- Now let's take another hypothetical case in which Person A is still not convinced. His friends point to the ancient commentaries, which back up what they have already explained. Or his friends say, "These sutta quotes must be understood in the context of the entire Tipitaka, mustn't they? The Buddha was the only teacher who taught anatta, and he explained it in many different ways to many different people. If someone were to read one of those explanations and misunderstand it, that person could remedy his mistake by comparing the explanation with other explanations in other suttas. Couldn't he? "Anatta means there is no permanent being that carries on from past to present to future. Some people in the Buddha's day thought (like you do) that anatta might have meant there was nothing at all. (!) To them the Buddha explained that he was not one of the teachers who taught "nothing exists:" he was one of the teachers who taught "things do exist." And what were those things? They were citta, cetasika and rupa. They were the things that bore inherent characteristics, one of which was anatta (no permanent self or soul)." If, in this hypothetical case, person A is still not convinced then his friends must consider the possibility that he has another agenda. Maybe he is a spy from one of those naughty externalist teachings and is just trying to lure people away from the true teaching (of anatta). So what if he is? Even in such an extreme case it still wouldn't hurt to discuss the Dhamma with him - for as long as he was willing. Maybe at some time - in this life or in a future life - he will benefit from it. Ken H #94320 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 2:58 pm Subject: Re: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... egberdina Hi RobE, 2009/1/3 Robert Epstein : > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > >> >> Ahh, I see. I think we are having this discussion because you conflate >> identity and agency. I am only talking about self as in identity. You >> acknowledge the individual. That is identity. > > Not to me, any more than acknowleding that I own a car means it is my > identity. It is something I use, associate with, etc., but isn't me. > > The word self is used by >> a human organism to refer to that self-same organism. > > In common self-reference, but not necessarily in metaphysics in which > one tries to be more precise, if identity is the topic at hand. > > That is >> self-reference. I accept that the organism lacks agency, that it is a >> bunch of cause-and-effects. > > Okay, then why call it a self, rather than just a psychophysical > organism? Self implies some form of separate agency, so why defend > it as the term of choice? > No, you still do not understand me. Self, in terms of identity, is opposed against other. There are kinds of psychophysical organisms, including healthy humans, who can come to at least a partial understanding of conditionality, of how some things work. They can come to understand that whatever is experienced, is experienced through one body, and no other one. There is an understanding that volition is paired with the moving of these body parts, not the body parts of others. On the other hand, your typically narcissistic solipsistic psychophysical organism known as a baby, does not distinguish between self/other. There is the expectation that volition is instrumental everywhere without limit. It normally takes a shopping centre aisle, full of people, for the young one to realise, in a screaming fit of despair, the limits of self :-) Not that there is a shortage of adults, while understanding to a degree the difference between self and other, who do not entertain magical thinking at some time or another. And by magical thinking I mean a failure to understand the limits within which volition is functional. A healthy being knows the limits of self (as identity). I hope that clarifies. If not, I won't tire of explaining it further :-) Cheers Herman #94321 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 3:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Understanding White Powder - Section 1 kenhowardau Hi Herman (and Alberto), ------------- H: > > > ... white powder, 5 mg for bardo, 10 mg for anatta, 20 mg for nibbana. > > > A: > > The word intoxicant derives from toxic, poison. And poisoning the body will certainly have effects on the mind too, not those you mentioned, though. > > H: > Could you let me know whether you are speaking from experience? ---------- Herman, are you just trying to be confrontational, or are you really unsure about the affects of drugs? Do you really think the experience of bardo (whatever that is) or anatta or nibbana could be brought about by drugs? Ken H #94322 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 3:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey, Ch 34, no 2. egberdina Hi Nina, 2009/1/4 Nina van Gorkom : > Dear friends, > > Some people, when they hear about defilements, may not like to have > them, but do they really know their defilements? Attachment, lobha, > is a defilement. Do people want to have lobha? They may not like the > idea of having lobha, but actually, people like lobha each and every > moment. This shows that one does not understand the characteristic of > the defilement of lobha. We can find out whether we really understand > lobha as a defilement or not. Is the food delicious? Are our cloths > and the things with which we beautify ourselves nice? Is the music > pleasing, the odour fragrant, the chair soft and confortable? Is what > we touch agreeable? Although some people do not like the idea of > having lobha and think that they should not have it, they can find > out that citta likes lobha all the time. Yes, what you say is very true. Having an interest in anything is lobha. Without lobha, things are uninteresting. A person who shows no interest in things is quickly assumed to be depressed, but that, of course, doesn't have to be the case. Cheers Herman #94323 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 3:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding White Powder - Section 1 egberdina Hi KenH, > > Herman, are you just trying to be confrontational, or are you really > unsure about the affects of drugs? Do you really think the experience > of bardo (whatever that is) or anatta or nibbana could be brought > about by drugs? > Of course I am serious. Ever been under general anaesthetic? What about that experience was not a cessation of feeling and perception while still alive? Anyways, I was asking Alberto to qualify the certainty with which he made his pronouncement. Experience is the best qualifier, IMO. Cheers Herman #94324 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 4:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] nama and rupa, to Lukas. egberdina Hi Nina, 2009/1/4 Nina van Gorkom : > Dear Lukas, > > When I heard on the Thai recording about nama and rupa I thought of > the series you were asking for. > Rupa is the reality that does not know anything and it cannot be > blended with nama, the reality that experiences something. Before we > can have more understanding of nama and rupa we should know that all > realities are dhammas. When we talk to somebody in the street, we talk to a seen form, and we know that the seen form knows what we are saying. If we thought for a moment that bodies were incapable of knowing anything, we wouldn't interact with them. Of course we do not believe that it is the colours and brightnesses we see that know what we are saying, and of course, we do not think that people are only colours and brightnesses. But everything we deal with in interacting with others is forms of some kind. And those forms, in their combination, know things. Where is the reality in what you say? Cheers Herman #94325 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 4:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner truth_aerator Dear Dear Nina, >Nina van Gorkom wrote: #94311 Even the Bhikkhu Bodhi text does NOT say that one gets out of Jhana. It says that he abides in Jhana. Attained to it he reflects that all things with insight knowledges. The pali texts too do not say that one enters Jhana. One exist Jhana. One recollects what has happened before or IN Jhana. The similiar passage in AN9.36 is treated in the same manner by Ven. TB. Thank you for replying though, With best wishes, #94326 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] nama and rupa, to Herman truth_aerator Dear Herman, What I understand in that is that body by itself does NOT know. It is the consciousness that "knows". Body without consciousness and vitality is as intelligent as a log. With best wishes, #94327 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 5:47 pm Subject: Understanding tranquilizers- Section 101 truth_aerator Hi Herman, >"Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi KenH, > > Ever been under general anaesthetic? What > about that experience was not a cessation of feeling and perception > while still alive? > So is your question this: Why doesn't one become an Arahant or Anagamin after cessation of perception &feelings brought by anaesthesia? Possible answers: a) Lack of mindfulness at the crucial time of emerging from it, the mind is too clouded by effects of drugs. b) lack of wisdom. c) It isn't the same attainment. With best wishes, #94328 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 5:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1 scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "I was really interested to read about your jamming with friends. I'd love to know what instrument(s) you play, and what genres you like? (sorry if I fail to remember you already having told me before :-))" Scott: I'm the bass player. I have an Epiphone Dot (don't want to spend the money on Gibson 335), but just fool around with that at home. I've been using a Fender Precision bass lately, but also have a little Epiphone Hofner 'tribute' semi hollow-body bass which, with smooth-wrap strings, is quite fun to play. I personally like the early punk stuff and the whole so-called 'indie' scene, but, since we're old, the blues often happens. We do our own lame stuff, jam endlessly to this or that riff, and are doing covers like Interpol's Roland and Joy Division's She's Lost Control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVc29bYIvCM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XjZbCIA728&feature=related Do you play? Sincerely, Scott. #94329 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nina (and Rob) - > > In a message dated 12/31/2008 5:33:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > Not only kamma, also good and bad tendencies are accumulated. Howard > was wondering how one citta can contain all this. Citta is not a room > with limited space, it is mental, it is unlimited in what it can > contain. Even aeons of accumulations. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Nina, this is an article of faith on your part, not a matter of > knowledge. > ---------------------------------------------- Is nibbana not also a matter of faith for almost everyone? And yet is it not the end-state of Buddhism? ie, is there not some faith involved in the whole enterprise? And to what areas would you think it appropriate? Robert ================= #94330 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 8:57 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob For Sarah: Below are some examples from commentary that clearly are giving directives about what does and does not work in metta meditation. It would not make sense to interpret this as "it may happen this way and if it does, this will also happen" when it is clearly giving examples of how to switch the object of metta so that the attainment of the jhaana is effected. I think that rather than try to skew some of the syntactical structures in these passages to make it appear that they were written without any indication of an agent that might act upon them, one can say that reading the passage will have the desired effect upon a consciousness that is ready to receive it, and it can be read just the way it is translated without admitting agency or volition to a "person" who receives it. In other words, I think that you can translate the Pali either way and still understand that even if a person is addressed or invoked by convention, that this does not mean that either the author of the commentary believed that there is a volitional person involved, or that such a person is necessary in order for the instruction to have its effect. Hopefully what I have said is not too unclear - it wasn't too easy to get it down.... Best, Robert =========================== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear All, > > Continuing: > > The Path of Purification. > > "7. But if he develops it towards a dead person, he reaches neither > absorption nor access. A young bhikkhu, it seems, had started > developing lovingkindness inspired by his teacher. His lovingkindness > made no headway at all. He went to the senior elder and told him. > 'Venerable sir, I am quite familiar with attaining jhaana through > lovingkindness, and yet I cannot attain it. What is the matter?'. > The elder said, 'Seek the sign, friend, [the object of your > meditation]'. He did so. Finding that his teacher had died, he > proceeded with developing lovingkindness inspired by another and > attained absorption. That is why it should not be developed towards > one who is dead." > > The Path of Purity. > > "Developing love towards the dead, one reaches neither ecstasy nor > access. Once a young monk began to stir up love towards his teacher. > Love would not come. So he went to the Elder and said, 'Sir, I have > been practising the Jhaana attainment of love but I cannot enter into > it. What may be the reason?' The Elder said, 'Look, friend, for the > outward sign.'* And the monk, looking for it, knew that the teacher > was dead, and directing his love towards another Elder, entered upon > attainment. Therefor love should not be developed for the dead." > > *I.e. 'See if he is alive.' > > Kaalakate pana bhaavento neva appana.m, na upacaara.m paapu.naati. > A~n~nataro kira daharabhikkhu aacariya.m aarabbha metta.m aarabhi. > Tassa mettaa nappavattati. So mahaatherassa santika.m gantvaa 'bhante, > pagu.naava me mettaajhaanasamaapatti, na ca na.m samaapajjitu.m > sakkomi, ki.m nu kho kaara.na'nti aaha. Thero 'nimitta.m, aavuso, > gavesaahii'ti aaha. So gavesanto aacariyassa matabhaava.m ~natvaa > a~n~na.m aarabbha mettaayanto samaapatti.m appesi. Tasmaa kaalakate na > bhaavetabbaava. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > #94331 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 9:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alan McAllister" wrote: > > Ken: > > Your compassionate reply is appreciated. > > I would assume that loving-kindness meditation, at least as it is > commonly practiced, works with concepts. For instance, if I send > metta to my brother, I have to have some concept of my brother, and I > rely on all the conventional associations to conjur up my sense of > him. For the same reason, I don't see any problem with sending metta > to myself, since "myself" is a concept. If, on the other hand, if we > can do metta without any concepts, then it would not make sense to > send metta to myself or anyone else for that matter. > > But, then again, I could be entirely wrong here. > > metta, > Alan In a way that's always the problem, that the Path is addressed to living beings while at the same time such living beings are admonished that they do not really exist as such but are only piles of events and associations. It is necessary for all sentient beings to be saved from the suffering of delusion but the delusion is that there are sentient beings who are suffering. So in a sense, the illusion of self suffers under its own existence. Where does this illusion live, and who experiences it? The answer seems to be that consciousness is tricked into thinking it is a separate entity and consciousness suffers this illusory existence until it is freed, but it is a slightly convoluted situation. When you send metta to another person, maybe you are really sending metta to the suffering consciousness that person represents, if that is not too far a stretch. Robert = = = = = = = = = #94332 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 4:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Rob (and Nina) - In a message dated 1/3/2009 11:21:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nina (and Rob) - > > In a message dated 12/31/2008 5:33:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > Not only kamma, also good and bad tendencies are accumulated. Howard > was wondering how one citta can contain all this. Citta is not a room > with limited space, it is mental, it is unlimited in what it can > contain. Even aeons of accumulations. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Nina, this is an article of faith on your part, not a matter of > knowledge. > ---------------------------------------------- Is nibbana not also a matter of faith for almost everyone? ---------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, and we should speak of it as such. I, personally, find nibbana plausible and I have a strong belief in it. I do not have strong belief in infinite accumulations of tendencies. I can call myself a Buddhist even without a belief in literal accumulations, though not without a belief in nibbana. But in either case, it is just a matter of belief for us, and it should only be stated as such by us. -------------------------------------- And yet is it not the end-state of Buddhism? --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, it's realization is the goal. --------------------------------------- ie, is there not some faith involved in the whole enterprise? ----------------------------------------- Howard: There is, in much of it, but how much and in what particulars varying from person to person. Whatever one has not experienced but believes in should be presented as such - merely believed in. What one has directly known goes beyond belief. Having experienced jhana, I know it to be fact. Having experienced absence of sense of self, I know that 6-sense-door consciousness can function without any sense of personal identity. Whatever is directly experienced is known as reality, but what has not been directly experienced should not be expressed as fact. It should be expressed as merely believed in. ---------------------------------------- And to what areas would you think it appropriate? -------------------------------------------- Howard: The greater the evidence for something, the more justified the confidence in it. (BTW, I prefer translating 'saddha' as "confidence" rather than as "faith".) --------------------------------------------- Robert ========================== With metta, Howard *(Anonymous) #94333 From: "colette" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] nama and rupa, to Lukas. ksheri3 HAPPY NEW YEAR HERMAN, Bravo! Encore! Is there any reality in what Nina was saying? toodles, colette #94334 From: "colette" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 9:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] nama and rupa, to Herman ksheri3 "Well then she's gonna have to hold up her end of the log" Det. Harry Callaghan of the S.F. police Dept. Hi Alex, Happy New Year! I laughed at your lines! thank you for bringing some humor to my dismal life. BTW, thank you as well, connie, I remember you speaking to me of how we are both trapped in the cellar where it's cold and dark, etc., my neighbor has flooding problems in his basement as well. Your view is very humorous but it leaves open the potential that you see a difference and seperation between the "Mind-Body-Spirit" tri- kaya. What is this word, "vitality"? Is that "spirit" or is it the kundalini force as it travels the shashumna? Does it reside in the Heart Chakra? I'm trying to be cute here but they are valid questions that require meditation. HAPPY NEW YEAR man. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > What I understand in that is that body by itself does NOT know. It is > the consciousness that "knows". Body without consciousness and > vitality is as intelligent as a log. > > > With best wishes, > #94335 From: "colette" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 9:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone ksheri3 I'm Honored Robert, thank you for participating! HAPPY NEW YEAR! I'm still plodding through your never ending wisdom on that Yogacara stuff i.e. TRANSFORMATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS, et al. As you alluded to below -- I don't have cut & paste capabilities on this computer so please bare with me -- "Is nibbana not also a matter of faith..." "And yet it is not the end state of Buddhism" <.....> Abiding in the "bliss" of wisdom concerning the transience of Nibbana is a very fleeting thing and takes focussed concentration to even be aware of the conscious state when it occurs as well as the willingness (confidence in/of) to let go of grasping the reality of this worldly consciousness when that transient consciousness appears. Only then is a Transformation of consciousness even remotely possible. As a magikian or juggler the aspirant can learn that they can take reality and suspend it but it doesn't disappear, it remains reality and can't be taken from somewhere and not be placed somewhere else or somewhere other, thus it must be "Juggled" -- psst, "motion" "heat" get the picture? YES SIR! Isn't there some fraction of faith every day a person opens their eyes and begins a new day? I am so impressed by your grasp of this knowledge. THANK YOU! Ask an insurance agent if any home that they are willing to insure, is a very safe place to live and that living in that domecile does not come with risks i.e. slipping in the bath tub and hitting the head causing contusions or death in the case of a seizure in some Central American resort area? Abiding in every second a person has in this life is a sign and an act of faith and hope. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION! AGAIN HAPPY NEW YEAR! toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Is nibbana not also a matter of faith for almost everyone? And yet is > it not the end-state of Buddhism? > > ie, is there not some faith involved in the whole enterprise? And to > what areas would you think it appropriate? > > Robert > > ================= > #94336 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 9:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > A belated welcome back to the list, Rob! > > > Sorry to hear that. Was the Robert you mistook me for less > argumentative? > > > > Robert [or whomever] > > You always were rather argumentative, as I recall ;-)), ;-)) > > Jon > Hi Jon! Tee hee; thank you for verifying that! Thanks for the welcome and nice to hear from you. Happy New Year! Robert = = = = = = = = = #94337 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 9:38 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Hi, RobEp, All, > > RobEp: My own belief and experience suggest that there is some actual kind of radiation of thought and energy, and that metta, happiness, goodwill, > [also other things like badgering" :-) ] send out a certain vibration that effects others. Ultimately, all thoughts, feelings, emanations, energies of various kinds arise and create chain reactions, perhaps at times only on a microscopic level. However, studies have now shown - weirdly enough by actual scientists - that knowing someone who is in a happy state a certain distance from oneself, even if there is no direct contact, makes one happier, as in some form they are picking it up and getting it into their own nervous system. I didn't see the whole article, but am anxious to find it. I think I heard a brief excerpt on the news. > > c: Just my own prejudice here that the Buddha already set out all the explanations of conditional relations, etc. we really need to know; and yes, it is extremely complex. If another explantion can be explained in terms of "Buddha's science", well and good; if not, it's worthless apart from say, entertainment value or increasing ignorance. > The point I've been trying to make regarding "radiation" is that unless we appreciate the difference between naama and ruupa our understanding of experience is, to say the least, highly suspect. So much for tact. I'd suggest that naama will never be known by "microscopic" or other mechanical means. > peace, > connie Hi Connie. I find it interesting when science verifies some aspect of that which for most of us remains invisible, although we may feel or perceive certain things to some extent. It is no substitute for our own experience, but one needn't necessarily reject it either, as a kind of echo of what one may understand. I do think that it is also sometimes helpful to counteract our prejudices as Western people that there is no activity taking place other than that which we are designed to easily perceive. If we realize that "radiating" or "generating" a certain state may in fact reach others, it may make a difference in how we practice. Best, Robert - - - - - - - - - - - - #94338 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 9:40 pm Subject: Re: radiation therapy epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Hi again, RobEp, All, > > just some more re: ... "knowing someone who is in a happy state a certain distance from oneself, even if there is no direct contact, makes one happier, as in some form they are picking it up and getting it into their own nervous system." > > As Nina said to Howard about his "networking" (-scientific enuf?): > > N: Can you tell us more? Then we have an extra opportunity for anumodana daana. I do appreciate your kusala. > > c: There's an example of the 'matter' of "transferring merit" in daily life. Might there some relation to the joy enlightment factor as well? > > For a textual example, here's the Path of Purity on developing muditaa: Thanks, Connie, a worthwhile passage. Robert = = = = = = = = = = = #94339 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 9:41 pm Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? jonoabb Hi Alex > Thank you for your justification of N8P being momentary. While your > justifications were not as good as I've hope, at least you have tried. Do you have any response to the passage? > > What about all the times when the Buddha (and > > > others) could remain up to 7 days motionless, in one posture and in > > > concentration? > > > > Sorry, but I don't understand the point you are making here. > > > > Jon > > What I've meant is that Jhana (or meditation) doesn't have to last for > a moment. It can last UP TO 7 CONTINIOUS DAYS. So the reading of samma- > samadhi being only momentary is not correct in all cases. Thanks for this observation. What is the textual basis for the notion that jhana is continuous and thus cannot be momentary? Jon #94340 From: "colette" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 9:31 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner ksheri3 Hi Robert, > It would not make sense to interpret this as "it may happen this way > and if it does, this will also happen" when it is clearly giving > examples of how to switch the object of metta so that the attainment > of the jhaana is effected. > colette: could you comment on the distions between states of Jhaana you are speaking of here or give me directions to investigate the previous researches of my predessessors? I have trouble with "objectifying" the different states of consciousness you speak of here, in the context of meditational practices. I clearly notice different characteristics resulting from different stimuli and different techniques THUS I classify them as different states. I've found through other practices, such as applying Yogacara techniques, that different states are very noticable and either averse or enjoyable (conducive). I'd like to compare previous data to my own practices. > I think that rather than try to skew some of the syntactical > structures in these passages to make it appear that they were written > without any indication of an agent that might act upon them, one can > say that reading the passage will have the desired effect upon a > consciousness that is ready to receive it, and it can be read just the > way it is translated without admitting agency or volition to a > "person" who receives it. > colette: I think that you speak of skewing the "test data" so that it gives pleasure to the company that is paying for the experimentation and will receive FDA approval once the transaction has been completed. The aspirant can enter the meditation but having pre- conceived notions about "outcomes" is fruitless, don't you think? It probably has a negative effect on the actuality of the meditational practice thus, in skewing the data, it promotes the manifestation of "Snake Oil Salesman". I'm sorry for my incompleteness here in your kindness to honor me with the chance to particpate with you but I'm getting weary and need to seperate myself from this medium of interference. toodles, colette > In other words, I think that you can translate the Pali either way and > still understand that even if a person is addressed or invoked by > convention, that this does not mean that either the author of the > commentary believed that there is a volitional person involved, or > that such a person is necessary in order for the instruction to have > its effect. > #94341 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 9:57 pm Subject: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: Rob E: > > I hope that clarifies. If not, I won't tire of explaining it further :-) Hi Herman. I am glad, because I am not tired of this yet either! I think we are talking of two different things from two different perspectives. One of the fallacies that we sometimes suffer from is that the state of "innocence" of "being aware of what is happening in the moment without conceptualizing" is somehow the same for a baby and for a spiritually adept adult. They are quite different in that the baby has no control and no understanding, while the adult has to transcend the sense of self-importance in order to enter into such a state while still maintaining a kind of adult presence and skillfulness. The "Oneness" experienced by a baby is as you say, narcissistic in nature, while the "oneness" that might be experienced by an adult is one of losing self-importance and self-centeredness. The limits of volition are indeed somewhat defined by the conditions of life and the capabilities of the organism, but the kind of realization of non-volition I am talking about is not about such limits; it is about the nature of the identity of the consciousness that resides within and about that organism. It is like becoming a witness of activity instead of imagining oneself to be the actor. When I move my hand, is there a "me" commanding the hand to move? No, there is a thought that says "move the hand." Or a reflex. Is there a "me" lurking within that tells that thought to be thought of? No, it takes place spontaneously in response to some other set of conditions, touched off by an external event, memory, sensation or other stimulus. Is there a self that directs that stimulus to touch off that other thought and action? No, there is simply the mechanics of what spurs it to take place. So I am not talking about limits of volition and narcissism of the psychological thought, but of an ontological understanding that there is no "God" of the body within which directs all these operations and such agent happening to bear your name or my name. To call all these operations "Robert" and assume that there is an entity that responds to this, other than a chain of internal and external activities that are set off by it, is a presumption of a certain pattern of thoughts, not a reality that one can identify, locate and describe. If you attempt to describe the "self" you wind up replicating the entire process. The "self" if anything is just this complex of processes, the kandhas. There is no one in the center of the storm acting as director of the whole affair, although these activities are well coordinated just by the nature of the processes to a certain extent. Again, you are talking about limits and the form of identity. I am talking about the nature of identity itself; that it is a concept, not a reality outside of concept. Do I still not understand you, or do you not understand me, or both? :) Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = #94342 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 10:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > .... > Howard: > The greater the evidence for something, the more justified the > confidence in it. (BTW, I prefer translating 'saddha' as "confidence" rather than as > "faith".) > --------------------------------------------- Hi Howard! What you say makes sense, and I would agree with it. Good to keep in mind what one plausibly believes in and what one has discovered from experience. Of course, one can have faith or confidence - both somewhat related - in what one has experienced or those things on the same pathway one has experienced. If you have experienced first jhana, it's easier to have "faith" that jhana 2 and 3 are realities that can be attained. etc. And that makes nibbana seem plausible as well. [I have a question regarding the relation of jhana to vipassana, but it is off the current question - if you can say a word about this though I would appreciate it.] Thanks, Robert = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #94343 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 10:07 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > It would not make sense to interpret this as "it may happen this way > > and if it does, this will also happen" when it is clearly giving > > examples of how to switch the object of metta so that the attainment > > of the jhaana is effected. > > > > colette: could you comment on the distions between states of Jhaana > you are speaking of here or give me directions to investigate the > previous researches of my predessessors? I have trouble > with "objectifying" the different states of consciousness you speak > of here, in the context of meditational practices. Hi Colette. I'll have to refer you to those here - and there a few - who have experienced these states. I have not experienced jhaana except perhaps momentarily at times, so I can't go into detail except theoretically. Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = = = #94344 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 10:31 pm Subject: O/T: Music [was: Re: [dsg] Understanding White Powder - Section 1] epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > We do our own lame stuff, jam > endlessly to this or that riff, and are doing covers like Interpol's > Roland and Joy Division's She's Lost Control. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVc29bYIvCM > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XjZbCIA728&feature=related Funny, Scott, you all look rather young in the video. :-) Best, Robert P.S. Haven't been playing lately, but I play tenor sax, clarinets, piano and guitar, vocals, etc. Out of practice for the moment but a nice collection of horns. :-) ------------------------------------- #94345 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 11:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] First Noble Truth- We are All in Prison nichiconn Dear James, did you donate The Visuddhimagga as well? I don't remember whether anyone mentioned ch.14's similes, but here they are: 220. 4. As to simile: the materiality aggregate [as object] of clinging is like a sick-room because it is the dwelling-place, as physical basis, door, and object, of the sick man, namely, the consciousness aggregate as object of clinging. The feeling aggregate as object of clinging is like the sickness because it afflicts. The perception aggregate as object of clinging is like the provocation of the sickness because it gives rise to feeling associated with greed, etc., owing to perception of sense desires, and so on. The formations aggregate as object of clinging is like having recourse to what is unsuitable because it is the source of feeling, which is the sickness; [479] for it is said 'Feeling as feeling is the formed that they form' (S.iii,87), and likewise 'Because of the unprofitable kamma having been performed and stored up resultant body-consciousness has arisen accompanied by pain' (Dhs.556). The consciousness-aggregate as object of clinging is like the sick man because it is never free from feeling, which is the sickness. 221. Also they are (respectively) like the prison, the punishment, the offence, the punisher, and the offender. And they are like the dish, the food, the curry sauce [poured over the food], the server, and the eater. {83} This is how the exposition should be known as to simile. {83}. 'The matter of the body is like the prison because it is the site of the punishment. Perception is like the offence because owing to perception of beauty, etc., it is a cause of the punishment, which is feeling. The formations aggregate is like the punisher because it is a cause of feeling. Consciousness is like the offender because it is afflicted by feeling. Again, matter is like the dish because it bears the food. Perception is like the curry sauce because, owing to perception of beauty, etc., it hides the food, which is feeling. The formations aggregate is like the server because it is a cause of feeling; and service is included since one who is taking a meal is usually served. Consciousness is like the eater because it is helped by feeling' (Pm.504). For Caaraka (prison) see Ch.XVI,§18. Nina's study posts for these two paragraphs: #54677, #54737 peace, connie #94346 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 11:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone jonoabb Hi TG > TG: How about these "glosses" from the Suttas directed toward the Five > Aggregates -- Conditioned, Dependent, Nonself, Well said (except that I think the sutta phrase is "dependently conditioned"). BTW, these are the attributes themselves; they are not "glosses" on anything. Empty, Hollow, Coreless, Void, > Insubstantial, Like Mirage, Like Conjurer's Trick? Are you sure that all of these descriptions pertain to all 5 khandhas? > Yes, it serves a purpose. It thwarts substantialist attachment oriented > views of "own characteristics" and "ultimate realities." The introduction of expressions such as "containing nothing of its own" and "not a thing in itself", in addition to the (numerous and) established sutta and commentary terms such as you've already quoted, only serves to obfuscate. For a start, the expressions are of uncertain meaning, even to a person versed in the Theravada texts. Secondly, if they add anything to those established terms, what is the basis for that added angle, other than your own notion? In support you claim that these expressions help prevent "substantialist attachment oriented views". But these supposed views are just more introduced notions not found in the texts. (Hence my "bogeyman" comment of a few posts ago ;-)) > What arises completely dependent on "something else" has Nothing of Its Own. > This should not only be announced, it should be reflected on over and over > as much as possible. You are saying that dependency of arising means no inherent characteristic. On what basis exactly do you say (contrary to the orthodox Theravadan approach) that these notions are mutually exclusive? In the expressions from the suttas quoted above you mention both "dependent" and "nonself". In the texts, "anatta" is given as a "characteristic" of dhammas. I do not see any inconsistency between that and being dependent. Jon #94347 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Jan 3, 2009 11:47 pm Subject: Re: nama and rupa, to Lukas. szmicio Dear Nina I will be glad if you will continue nama-rupa series. It's a very good reminder. I still think about my akusala. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Lukas, > > When I heard on the Thai recording about nama and rupa I thought of > the series you were asking for. #94348 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 12:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding tranquilizers- Section 101 egberdina Hi Alex, Thank you for your probing question. 2009/1/4 Alex : > Hi Herman, > >>"Herman Hofman" wrote: >> >> Hi KenH, >> >> Ever been under general anaesthetic? What >> about that experience was not a cessation of feeling and perception >> while still alive? >> > > So is your question this: Why doesn't one become an Arahant or > Anagamin after cessation of perception &feelings brought by > anaesthesia? > > Possible answers: > a) Lack of mindfulness at the crucial time of emerging from it, the > mind is too clouded by effects of drugs. > > b) lack of wisdom. > > c) It isn't the same attainment. > You have suggested very good possible answers. I think all three are correct. I think we might be in agreement that these days it is possible to chemically induce any number of states that in the days of the Buddha were only possible to arrive at through directed effort. It is possible these days for any run-of-the-mill person to experience the most mind blowing or mind numbing experience, for as little as maybe $5, $10, $20. No effort required, no wisdom required, no cutting-off required. I think it is extremely dangerous for these states to be for sale. Without the proper foundation, as laid out in, for example in MN24 (the chariot relay sutta), the consequences of seeing what one is not prepared for can be horrendous. As a consequence of this new chemical era, we probably need to acknowledge that the attainment of a particular state of mind amounts to nothing, if taken on its own. Cheers Herman #94349 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 12:26 am Subject: Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation kenhowardau Hi Herman, ------- <. . .> H: > I sincerely think that you show great wisdom in saying the above. ----------------------------- Thank you, but you are too kind. All of my pearls of wisdom are mere variations on a single theme, namely: 'the world that is to be understood is the presently arisen namas and rupas.' Apply that to any question raised at DSG and you can't go wrong. :-) ------------ <. . .> KH: > > It could, however, also involve the development of right > understanding, couldn't it? H: > It may, or may not. ------------- Just to reiterate what we were talking about: Dhamma discussion in its ultimately real, single-moment, form is always bhavana (development of right understanding). But *concepts* of Dhamma discussion (at DSG and in Bangkok etc) may or may not involve moments of bhavana. ------------------- H: > AN 2:125-126 "Monks, there are these two conditions for the arising of wrong view. Which two? The voice of another and inappropriate attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of wrong view." "Monks, there are these two conditions for the arising of right view. Which two? The voice of another and appropriate attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of right view." H: > It seems to me that the voice of the other is not the critical factor. The selection of only a few specific people to listen to betrays a pre-existing view, a prejudice if you like. In those cases, what may appear to have the quality of appropriate attention, is in fact no more than a re-organising of prejudices. ---------------- I don't attempt to interpret suttas. I suspect, however, this one might be saying that 'past association with the wise' and 'past appropriate attention to what has been heard from the wise' are conditions for a presently arisen paramattha dhamma to be known with right understanding here and now. Ken H #94350 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 12:38 am Subject: Re: Sangiiti Sutta Threes (37-39) and Commentary, part 2. gazita2002 Hello Nina and other friends firstly, happy new year to you. secondly, I need a little clarification on something..... > Dear friends, > > Sutta: DN 33.1.10(38) Three grounds based on merit: that of giving, > of morality, of meditation. > ---------- > N: Caaritta siila is siila of performance and vaaritta siila is siila > of avoidance. > There is caaritta siila when one performs kusala through body and > speech such as helping, paying respect, following a noble family > tradition. Vaaritta siila is abstaining from akusala. azita: ...."such as helping, paying respect, following a noble family traditon".... helping is kind of self explanatory; however the next two a rather vague for me. Who would one 'pay respect' to in this day and age? seems like few folk these days are worthy of respect. 'following a noble family tradition' sounds a little dated. dont mean to be pedantic here, but not coming from a 'noble family' there are no traditions I would want to follow - unless I wnated to wipe myself out with excessive alcohol ingestion. the dhamma is a condition for me to have some doubts and dosa these days, or is it the other way around - doubt and dosa are conditions for the dhamma to sound vague and slightly unbelievable - however if its all true then maybe this doubt and dosa will disappear!!!!! may all beings be happy azita #94351 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 12:41 am Subject: Vipassana, Survey Ch 34, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, When someone has only theoretical understanding of realities that is the result of listening to the Dhamma, he is not able to directly understand nåma and rúpa as they are. He does not realize that what he sees and conceives as people and beings, is in reality only that which appears through the eyes. Therefore, we should time and again investigate the Dhamma we hear and study, we should ponder over it in all details. Only in this way the meaning of the words which designate characteristics of realities can be fully understood. The wording “that which appears through the eyes” describing the characteristic of visible object is altogether appropriate. It explains that visible object is only an element (dhåtu) appearing through the eyes so that it can be seen. No matter what colour it is: red, green, blue, yellow or white, a bright or a dull colour, it must appear when it impinges on the rúpa which is eyesense. When someone, after having seen what appears through the eyesense, does not understand realities as they are, there is bound to be attå-saññå. He takes what was seen for people, beings or things. When people are absorbed in different colours, it causes them to think of a “whole”, of shape and form, and thus there is remembrance (saññå) of the outward appearance of persons and things. When it seems that one sees people, beings or things, there are in reality only different colours which are seen, such as black, white, the colour of skin, red or yellow. If people would not interprete different colours or “translate” them into shape and form, they would not conceive them as beings, people or things. Therefore, when we see and we are then absorbed in the shape and form, in the outward appearance (nimitta) and the details of things, we should know that this occurs only because colour appears. When colours appear, we think about them, interprete them and “translate “ them into shape and form of different things. ************ Nina. #94352 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 12:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] nama and rupa, to Lukas. nilovg Hi Herman, Op 4-jan-2009, om 1:08 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > When we talk to somebody in the street, we talk to a seen form, and we > know that the seen form knows what we are saying. -------- N: See Alex's answer: Nina. #94353 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 12:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sangiiti Sutta Threes (37-39) and Commentary, part 2. nilovg Dear Azita, always good to hear from you. Op 4-jan-2009, om 9:38 heeft gazita2002 het volgende geschreven: > azita: ...."such as helping, paying respect, following a noble family > traditon".... helping is kind of self explanatory; however the next > two a > rather vague for me. > > Who would one 'pay respect' to in this day and age? seems like few > folk these days are worthy of respect. -------- N: Politeness coming from the heart. In gesture or speech. It is just daily life. Courteousness. Can also appear in your writing Emails. Many opportunities. Or in the street: seeing a handicapped person and making room for him or opening a door. -------- > A: 'following a noble family tradition' sounds a little dated. dont > mean > to be pedantic here, but not coming from a 'noble family' there are no > traditions I would want to follow - unless I wanted to wipe myself out > with excessive alcohol ingestion. ------- N: It can be applied: say, parents give a good example. During the war Lodewijk's mother gave soup and other food, carrying it to a needy family. Lodewijk went along helping her. This is a good example one will not forget for life. Later on the roles were reversed: there was scarcity of food in his family, and the family that was needy before could get food from the black market and they came bringing it to the house of Lodewijk's family, bacon and so on. Don't fall over noble family, that fitted in at that time. ------- > > A: the dhamma is a condition for me to have some doubts and dosa > these days, or is it the other way around - doubt and dosa are > conditions for the dhamma to sound vague and slightly unbelievable - > however if its all true then maybe this doubt and dosa will > disappear!!!!! -------- N: Remember what Ven. Dhammadhara said: if the reality is doubt be aware of it. It is just a dhamma, it is conditioned. Even doubt can be known as it is. I heard on a recording this morning that Kh Sujin said that one should not be disheartened. If the Dhamma sounds vague, we can listen again. The next day it can be more meaningful. Anything special you find unbelievable? This is a good point for discussion. Nina. #94354 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 1:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Understanding White Powder - Section 1 sprlrt Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Alberto, > > 2009/1/2 sprlrt : > > Hi Herman, > > > > > >> ... white powder, 5 mg for bardo, 10 mg for anatta, 20 mg for nibbana. > > > > The word intoxicant derives from toxic, poison. > > And poisoning the body will certainly have effects on the mind too, > > not those you mentioned, though. > > > > Could you let me know whether you are speaking from experience? > I suppose many adult people had some experiences with toxic substances in their youth, I had anyway. I remember that some were pleasant, other unpleasant. I'm just grateful that taking poison didn't turn into an addiction, a habit, the most powerful conditoning factor of all, a.k.a. pakatupanissaya paccaya, dogs eat excrements because of that, and like it too. Alberto #94355 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 1:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: nama and rupa, to Lukas. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 4-jan-2009, om 8:47 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > I will be glad if you will continue nama-rupa series. It's a very good > reminder. > I still think about my akusala. ------- N: It depends with what kind of citta you think. We can have aversion about it. Perhaps we think of ourselves as 'a good person who should not have any akusala', but it is very valuable that the Buddha taught us what conceit is. Conceit is akusala and it can accompany akusala citta with lobha. We can think with gratefulness of the Dhamma the Buddha taught instead of being discouraged. Nina. #94356 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 1:06 am Subject: Mahabhuta szmicio Dear Dhamma friends The 4 Great Elements are: vaayo dhatu patthavi dhatu tejo dhatu aapo dhatu Vibhanga(Khandhavibhango) says that are not derived. They arise simultaneously and are also accompanied by derived rupas. All mahabhutarupas are object of kayavi~n~niana(body consiousness). Hovewer I have some questions. Can body consiousness experience all mahabhutas simultaneously? What's with aapo dhatu? Can body consiousness experience it? Or only manovi~n~niana can? Best Wishes Lukas #94357 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 1:37 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Threes (37-39) and Commentary, part 3. nilovg Dear friends, (continuation of the bases of meritorious action): Further, the Co explains that there are seven more bases of meritorious action and gives examples of these. Respect is one of them, and the following example is given by the Co.: someone sees an aged bhikkhu and he goes out to meet him, takes his bowl, greets him and shows him the way, doing all this with respect. Helping or service, veyyaavacca, is another base of meritorious action. Someone sees a bhikkhu who is more elderly because of the special observances (vata) he practises, who enters the village for alms. He then takes his bowl and offers him almsfood. After someone has offered the four requisites he transfers merit in saying: may the merit be for all beings. This is the base of transfer of merit, pattaanuppadaana. With regard to other people’s generosity, he says: saadhu, welldone, and this is the base of anumodana daana. With regard to the base of the teaching of Dhamma, if someone wants a great deal of gain this is not of much fruit. If someone teaches Dhamma well practised by himself without expecting anything for himself, then teaching is a base of meritorious action. When someone listens to the Dhamma with the thought: ‘They will know me as a faithful devotee’, this is not of great fruit. Another person again may listen to the Dhamma with enthusiasm and humility, thinking, ‘this will be of great fruit to me’, and that is the basis of meritorious action of listening to the Dhamma. -------- The subco adds that by listening with enthusiasm and humility he can help others by the teaching of Dhamma. It can be a condition for right practice both for himself as well as for others and thus it is very fruitful. --------- As to the straightening of one’s views (di.t.thujjugata), when this accompanies whatever meritorious deed one performs, this is of great fruit. N: This can accompany all the meritorious actions. Before one may have had wrong view about kamma and vipaaka, not knowing what kusala is nor understanding its value. Through the Dhamma one may acquire more understanding of kusala and akusala and their results and learn that they arise because of conditions, that they are not self. ---------- The subco refers to the Vibhanga text about wrong view and right view: there is no offering, or, there is offering. This deals with kamma and its result. ---------- The Co classifies the meritorious actions that are summarized as daana, siila and bhaavanaa as ten in all: respect and helping are forms of siila, transfer of merit and appreciation of others’ kusala are forms of daana, teaching Dhamma and listening to the Dhamma are ways of bhaavanaa. Straightening one’s views goes together with all the three, thus with daana, siila and bhaavanaa. ------------------------------- N: There are many levels of straightening one’s views. We can learn that generosity can only arise when there are the right conditions, and if it does not arise there cannot be any giving. As we read in the subco, kusala cetanaa of the past conditions kusala cetanaa today, and kusala cetanaa is impermanent, and so are the gifts. If an opportunity for giving arises one should not neglect such an opportunity. If one delays giving, the receiver may have disappeared or may have died. We read that one may reflect on the perfection of giving. Giving can be a perfection when one does not expect any gain for oneself. Then generosity will be purer. ----------------- Co: Pu~n~nakiriyavatthuusu daanameva daanamaya.m. Pu~n~nakiriyaa ca saa tesa.m tesa.m aanisa.msaana.m vatthu caati pu~n~nakiriyavatthu.... ********** Sutta: DN 33.1.10(39) Three grounds for reproof: based on what has been seen, heard, suspected. (Tii.ni codanaavatthuuni: di.t.thena, sutena, parisa'nkaaya.) ------------ N: The Co explains bases for reproof as reasons of reproof. It elaborates: on having seen a transgression he reproves: seen by the fleshly eye or by the divine eye. As to he reproves after having heard: having heard words of someone else by the natural ear or by the divine ear. --------- N: The divine eye and the divine ear are supranatural powers acquired through jhaana. --------- As to based on what is suspected, the Co adds: suspected by seeing, by hearing and by experiencing through the other doorways (muta). This is an explanation in brief and the Co. to the Vinaya gives the detailed explanation. ----------- The subco: reproval is the inquiry as to the conduct of someone else in order to correct him. -------------- Co: Codanaavatthuuniiti codanaakaara.naani. Di.t.thenaati ma.msacakkhunaa vaa dibbacakkhunaa vaa viitikkama.m disvaa codeti.... ********** Nina #94358 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 1:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey, Ch 34, no 2. nilovg Hi Herman, Op 4-jan-2009, om 0:07 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > Having an interest in anything is > lobha. Without lobha, things are uninteresting. ------- N: Understand the citta at that moment. We may be misled by the word interest, this can also be piiti, or rapture. This can be akusala but also kusala. One may with kusala citta have a genuine interest in the Dhamma, seeing its value. Nina. #94359 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mahabhuta nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 4-jan-2009, om 10:06 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > The 4 Great Elements are: > vaayo dhatu > patthavi dhatu > tejo dhatu > aapo dhatu > > Vibhanga(Khandhavibhango) says that are not derived. They arise > simultaneously and are also accompanied by derived rupas. > > All mahabhutarupas are object of kayavi~n~niana(body consiousness). > --------- N: No, the Element of Water, cohesion, can only be experienced through the mind-door. Thus tangible object are three rupas: solidity, appearing as hardness or softness, heat, motion or pressure. -------- > > L: Can body consiousness experience all mahabhutas simultaneously? ------ N: only one tangible object at a time. Citta can experience only one object at a time. When hardness is experienced heat cannot be experienced at the same time. --------- Nina. #94360 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 2:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nilovg Dear Scott, Op 3-jan-2009, om 3:31 heeft Scott het volgende geschreven: > Concerning 'pervasion' and 'suffusing': > > Eva.m sante ya.m vibha"nge (vibha. 643) vutta.m -------- N: I think you have received the PTS freebook: Co on the Itivuttaka. Herein are many passages on metta p. 222. I quote a part (p. 227) on metta and the perfections where it is emphasized so much that the Bodhisatta is intent on the wellbeing of others and does not think of his own comfort: < And so it is that the Great Bodhisattas, being committed to providing the entire world with well-being and happiness, give alms that are the source of happiness without remainder to all beings, without classifying them by way of their utmost [power of] discrimination in terms of "They ought to be given to this one; they ought not to be given to this one", undertake morality solely for the sake of the well-being and happiness of these, resort to renunciation for the sake of fulfilling their morality, cleanse their insight for the sake of non-confusion as regards their well-being and happiness, initiate sturdy energy solely for the sake of ever increasing that well-being and happiness, tolerate beings' various types of offence, owing to that same disposition towards their well-being, even after that have reached a heroic state (viirabhaava.m) by way of the utmost energy (viriya), remain true to their Vow made by way of "We will give this to you, we will do [this for you]" and so on, [and] become those of unshakeable resolve solely for the purpose of that well- being and happiness of theirs. Through their unshakeable loving- kindness where these are concerned they put them before themselves, being indifferent, owing to that same disposition towards their well- being, where any impropriety on their part is concerned, whilst though they put them before themselves, they wish for no service in return....> ****** Nina. #94361 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 5:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation jonoabb Hi Robert (and Alan) > In a way that's always the problem, that the Path is addressed to > living beings while at the same time such living beings are admonished > that they do not really exist as such but are only piles of events and > associations. The "problem" could alternativley be stated as: The Path is a description in conventional language of ultimate truths/realities. Stated thus, it can be appreciated that it's not really such a problem (although it does take some getting around mentally;-)). > It is necessary for all sentient beings to be saved > from the suffering of delusion but the delusion is that there are > sentient beings who are suffering. Continuing in the same vein, it is so-called sentient beings who are bound to cintinue in the cycle of birth and death unless and until the Path is developed and enlightenment attained; but in the ultimate sense (in truth and reality) it is only citta, cetasika and rupa that are being spoken of. > So in a sense, the illusion of > self suffers under its own existence. Where does this illusion live, > and who experiences it? The answer seems to be that consciousness is > tricked into thinking it is a separate entity and consciousness > suffers this illusory existence until it is freed, but it is a > slightly convoluted situation. The question "Where does this illusion live, and who experiences it?" is not one that needs to be asked, since it is not a useful track to follow. > When you send metta to another person, maybe you are really sending > metta to the suffering consciousness that person represents, if that > is not too far a stretch. I would put it the other way around: When a person sends metta to another, it is simply consciousness accompanied by wholesome mental factors arising, having as its object the idea of a sentient being. Jon #94362 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 5:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation jonoabb Hi Herman (and KenH) > AN 2:125-126 > "Monks, there are these two conditions for the arising of wrong view. > Which two? The voice of another and inappropriate attention. These are > the two conditions for the arising of wrong view." > > "Monks, there are these two conditions for the arising of right view. > Which two? The voice of another and appropriate attention. These are > the two conditions for the arising of right view." > > It seems to me that the voice of the other is not the critical factor. > The selection of only a few specific people to listen to betrays a > pre-existing view, a prejudice if you like. In those cases, what may > appear to have the quality of appropriate attention, is in fact no > more than a re-organising of prejudices. I think the voice of the other is a critical factor. In the time of the Buddha, for example, the voice of the Buddha and his chief disciples would be a suitable condition (formost) for the development of the path. But this could only happen by circumstances (i.e., not by selection). Jon #94363 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 6:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassana in Jhana nilovg Dear Alex and Howard, Op 31-dec-2008, om 22:22 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Alex: MN64 pali is interesting. My translation: > > jhanam...upassampajja(ti?) viharati =enters and abides in Jhana > Viharati = [present active] Abides, dwells, lives. Present tense. > > So yadeva tattha hoti rupagatam vedanagatam sannagatam sankharagatam > vinnanaagatam. [description of anicca dukkha anatto] ... > samanupassati. > > (So) He (ya + eva) only whatever (tattha) THERE IN THAT PLACE > (hoti) exists [ACTIVE PRESENT] connected with FORM, SENSATION, > RECOGNITION, VOLITION, CONSCIOUSNESS (or form, feelings, perceptions, > volition, consciousness). > > samanupassati = sees, percieves [active present] > > The pali readings seem to say that it is happening in the present, ie > in Jhana! -------- N: When mundane jhanacitta arises it has an object: kasinas, or one of the other meditation subjects. It is called ruupaavacaara kusala citta. It arises, if one is skillful, in a long series of jhaanacittas arising and falling away, all of them having the same object. The object could not suddenly change within such a series. That type of jhanacitta cannot have the three general characteristics as object, nor can it have nibbaana as object, then it would have to be lokuttara citta. When reading the text I do not see any problem here: whatever there exists connected with FORM, etc. Whatever is present in that jhaana he understands with insight. He does not stay'in the jhaana', we have to think of the jhaanacittas arising and falling away. As to rupa, I still have to compare with other texts and go to the other suttas you referred to. On Rob K' s forum I see that Ven. Pandita uses the expression vipassanaa ~naa.na. I have not found this expression before in the texts. -------- Nina. #94364 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 6:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa. Survey Ch 34, no 1. nilovg Dear Alberto, Op 3-jan-2009, om 10:02 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > from the audio file 2005-10-12.e Benares: > > "Even the word jhana, does one understand clearly what it means? What > is jhana? > When one doesn't know what jhana is how can one say that is useful... > If it is jhana... but who knows whether it is or not... Just using the > word jhana when is not jhana yet. ------- N: Thank you for the transcription, I find it very good. Nina. #94365 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 6:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa. Survey Ch 34, no 1. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 2-jan-2009, om 17:09 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Howard: > The questioner, however, was concerned with realizing the 4NT and the > relationship of anapanasati to it, and not mentioning the full > significance of > anapanasati was remiss, as I view the matter. > ----------------------------------------- > N: I get it that he was thinking only of concentration on breath as > is taught in many centers in Thailand, where it may not have been > explained what breath is. > ------- > > H: Also, the questioner's 3rd question is not actually answered, > > but side-stepped, > ------ > ------- > N: I add: very important. In the suttas it is stated that also > akusala has to be known. That is why I do not believe that while > being 'in jhana' insight can be developed. What about all the akusala > that arises? > All akusala has to be known and understood when it appears. > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Where did the Buddha state that *every* unwholesome state that ever > arises must be known and understood as such before awakening? ------- N: See the satipatthanasutta, mindfulness of citta, beginning with citta with lobha, citta without lobha. And then: We read in the “Kindred Sayings”(IV, Saîåyatanavagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Second Fifty, Ch II, §70, Upavåna) that the venerable Upavåna asked the Buddha: “ ‘People speak of the Visible Dhamma (sandiììhiko). In how far, Lord, is the Dhamma visible here and now, is of immediate result, invites to come and see, is onward-leading and to be directly experienced, each for himself, by the wise?’ ‘Herein, Upavåna, a monk, having seen visible object with the eye, experiences the object and his attachment to it. Of the attachment to visible object which is present in him he knows: I have attachmenH: t to visible object. If a monk, having seen visible object with the eye, experiences visible object and his attachment to it and knows that attachment to visible object is present in him, in so far, Upavåna, is the Dhamma visible here and now, is of immediate result, invites to come and see, is onward-leading, and directly experienced, each for himself, by the wise....’ ” The same is said on account of the other doorways. We then read about the monk who has no attachment to the objects which are experienced through the six doors and knows this. Since this is so, the Dhamma is visible here and now. ----------- > H: What is required is > that all defilements be eventually uprooted as a result of > considerable > purification and a number of acts of transformative wisdom, after > which final > awakening guarantees that no further unwholesome states will occur. > Nina, you > are setting up a straw man with the straw made from iron, and such > a straw man > can never be knocked down. > > ----------------------------------------------- > N: First wrong view of self has to be eradicated. Strawman, I never > get this simile. But never mind. ------- > (snipped for lack of space) > -------- > N: Here is point 3: > Q. : Can we develop both samatha and vipassanaa? > S. : People will know for themselves whether they are developing > samatha or vipassanaa. However, if there is no right understanding of > these different ways of development, neither samatha nor vipassanaa > can be developed. > N: I add: there must be right understanding of samatha and vipassana, > and if there are misunderstandings no way to develop either of them. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The response of "People will know for themselves whether they are > developing samatha or vipassanaa" is a side-stepping of the > question. The answer > *should* be "Yes, we CAN and SHOULD develop both, and the > Anapanasati Sutta > shows how." > ------------------------------------------------ > N: A subtle point. It depends on how samatha is defined, it can be > seen as the concentration factor of the eightfold Path that > accompanies right understanding. By conditions, no 'should'. > --------- > > H: and the 4th question is answered as I would expect - in effect, > > "No, there > > are no activities that can be intentionally undertaken to cultivate > > insight." > ------- > N: She answered: 'Nobody can hasten the development of satipatthaana.' > That is good. > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No, IMO it is bad. And for SURE the Buddha would admonish Khun > Sujin for > such an assertion. > -------------------------------------------------- > N: Hastening: that is not realistic, considering the amount of > ignorance and wrong view we have. There are suttas about the fields > not ready for harvesting or ready, depending on conditions. > Hastening, is this not clinging to a quick result? It suggests a > self who can hasten development. This is counteractive, as I see it. --------- > > Howard: > In the course of practicing guarding the senses and following the > teachings in, for example, the Anapanasati Sutta, one comes to > directly know the > defilements and their uprooting. This WILL hasten the development > of insight > into the four foundations of mindfulness and will hasten awakening. > ----------------------------------------------- N: Listening first and carefulling considering, and what one hears has to sink in. We are not like people in the Buddha's time who only heard a few words and then attained enlightenment. Now there are people who have to be led (neyya puggala), by discussing Dhamma, developing understanding step by step. And also people who understand the theory (pada parama) but will not attain enlightenment in this life. ******* Nina #94366 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 7:00 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "11. So he should first, as an example, pervade himself with lovingkindness. Next after that, in order to proceed easily, he can recollect such gifts, kind words, etc., as inspire love and endearment, such virtue, learning, etc., as inspire respect and reverence met with in a teacher or his equivalent or a preceptor or his equivalent, developing lovingkindness towards him in the way beginning 'May this good man be happy and free from suffering'. With such a person, of course, he attains absorption." The Path of Purity. "Therefore he should suffuse first himself with love, and immediately afterwards, to the end that it may arise easily, call to mind affectionate expressions and other causes of love and tender feeling, used by one who is dear, affectionate, and respected by him, and the virtue, learning and other causes of reverence possessed by such an one, be he his teacher or one like his teacher, his preceptor or one like his preceptor, and develop love in this way: 'May this good man be well, free from misery!' Verily in the case of such a person ecstasy is fulfilled." Tasmaa sakkhibhaavattha.m pa.thama.m attaana.m mettaaya pharitvaa tadanantara.m sukhappavattanattha.m yvaaya.m piyo manaapo garu bhaavaniiyo aacariyo vaa aacariyamatto vaa upajjhaayo vaa upajjhaayamatto vaa tassa daanapiyavacanaadiini piyamanaapattakaara.naani siilasutaadiini garubhaavaniiyattakaara.naani ca anussaritvaa 'esa sappuriso sukhii hotu niddukkho' tiaadinaa nayena mettaa bhaavetabbaa. Sincerely, Scott. #94367 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 7:18 am Subject: AS time nichiconn dear friends, to finish the section on Planes of Time: As to the second point, the exclusion from the "Enumeration of Things" (Dhammasa'nga.nii), we read in the Atthasalinii (p.346): "It has been pointed out that in this triad of wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate phenomena) the following states do not obtain: the three characteristics, the three concepts, the space obtained after the removal of the kasi.na, empty space, the object of the consciousness of the sphere of nothingness (that is, the void aspect of the consciousness of infinite space), and the ." The Muula.tiikaa remarks that all these are excluded because they are not "real things" (sabhaavadhamma): "There is no real thing not contained in the triad of the wholesome, etc." (p.160). Furthermore, the Visuddhimagga remarks (p.709): "The attainment of cessation can neither be said to be conditioned nor unconditioned (sa'nkhata-asa'nkhata), neither mundane nor supramundane (lokiya-lokuttara). Why not? Because it does not exist as a real entity (sabhaavato natthitaaya). But because it has been entered into by the meditator, it is called 'produced' (nipphanna) and not 'unproduced' (anipphanna)." When, in the above passage, the quality of a "real thing" is denied to the attainment of cessation, this certainly does not mean that this state is "unreal" in the sense of a hallucination or a figment of the imagination. We should therefore better speak of it as being "differently real" because all the data of our experience of reality and even of the most sublime sttes of absorption are absent in that state. In the same way, Nibbaana may be said to have no "existence" in terms of the khandha-world, but by denying its reality we would fall into the error of annihilationism (ucchedadi.t.thi). In this context our aim was only to put on record that Buddhist psychology of meditative experience knows of a time level that leaves our own so far behind that it can only be spoken of by a paradoxical statement, namely, by its assignation to, as well as the annulment of, seven days of our own calendar. peace, connie #94368 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 7:18 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn dear friends, part II continues: If the term paramattha brings into focus the irreducibility of the dhammas, the term aviparitabhava shows their irreversibility.77 This term means that the essential characteristic of a dhamma is non-alterable and non-transferable to any other dhamma.78 It also means that it is impossible for a given dhamma to undergo any modification of its specific characteristic even when it is in association with some other dhamma.79 The same situation remains true despite the differences in the time factor, for there is no modification in the nature of a dhamma corresponding to the divisions in time.80 Since a dhamma and its intrinsic nature are the same (for the duality is only posited for purposes of explanation), to claim that its intrinsic nature undergoes modification is to deny its very existence. notes: 77. Abhvk 4; VsmM 225: salakkhana-san1khato aviparrta-sabhavo. 78. Lakkhana-anallathatta (ADSVM 62). 79. Na hi sabhava kenaci sahabhavena sat sabhavat jahanti (Mvn 69). 80. Na hi kalabhedena dhammanat sabhavabhedo atthi (VsmM 197; ADSVM 123). peace, connie #94369 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 1/4/2009 1:03:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard! What you say makes sense, and I would agree with it. Good to keep in mind what one plausibly believes in and what one has discovered from experience. Of course, one can have faith or confidence - both somewhat related - in what one has experienced or those things on the same pathway one has experienced. If you have experienced first jhana, it's easier to have "faith" that jhana 2 and 3 are realities that can be attained. etc. And that makes nibbana seem plausible as well. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Exactly! ------------------------------------------- [I have a question regarding the relation of jhana to vipassana, but it is off the current question - if you can say a word about this though I would appreciate it.] -------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that Alex and others are in a better position to comment. My very limited past experience with what seems to have closely matched the Buddha's description of jhanas included a clear observing of what was in progress while the jhanas were in effect. In that particular case of what seems to have very clearly been jhana, it appeared to be a shuttling between the 2nd and 5th jhanas:No physical sights, sounds, or odors occurred, but magnificently pleasant bodily sensations and mind-door phenomena of great joy and a "visual" infinite expanse of space and light were central, and throughout there was clear awareness of what was transpiring. (My "wits were about me.") At the present time, I spend most of a sitting in what I suppose is pre-jhanic, with bodily sensations through all sense doors clear and dominated by pleasant sensation suffusing the entire body, and there being ease of attention to the features of the experience. At times, there are periods of probable slipping into jhana, where there occurs sort of a "click" and a deepening of the state, with concomitant increase of "peace" and a loss of seeing, hearing, and smelling. All the while, there is the capacity to maintain mindfulness of what is occurring, without getting lost in sloth & torpor or lost in thought. (There ARE sittings, of course, where mindfulness is weak and the mind is overly active or the body and mind are sleepy, and then, at least at the outset, I DO get lost in thought or in sloth & torpor. It is sloth & torpor that appears to be the strongest hindrance for me.) Incidentally, though the jhanas that I believe the Buddha to have taught do "allow" for investigation of dhammas while the jhana is in effect, I think that it liely that it is only within the 4th jhana that such investigation is really effective, and for that to be worthwhile, more than a brief "slipping in" is needed. I think that mastery is needed. ------------------------------------------- Thanks, Robert ============================= With metta, Howard * (From the Avarana Sutta) #94370 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 4:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone TGrand458@... Hi Connie In a message dated 1/3/2009 2:36:25 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: TG: How about these "glosses" from the Suttas directed toward the Five Aggregates -- Conditioned, Dependent, Nonself, Empty, Hollow, Coreless, Void, Insubstantial, Like Mirage, Like Conjurer's Trick? The above terms appear in the Suttas. "Ultimate realities" and "own characteristics" DO NOT. c: How about you - quoting directly, please - show where they do appear used in a fashion that contradicts the Suttantas? ................................................................... TG: The material in the Suttas does not contradict the Suttas. I'm afraid I don't quite understand your sentence. The source that contains these terms in one spot, I think all of the terms I listed, is in Samyutta Nikaya -- Khandhasamyutta -- A Lump of Foam. In BB's translation that appears in Vol. 1, page 951-953 TG OUT #94371 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 5:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone TGrand458@... Hi Ken H In a message dated 1/3/2009 3:39:10 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Quite often people can read something and get the wrong impression, can't they? Take a hypothetical case in which someone reads those sutta quotes and thinks they mean "nothing exists!" In this hypothetical case that person's friends explain, "The suttas are saying that the things that really exist are devoid of a lasting self (atta). ................................................... TG: No they are not. The Suttas are saying that 'all things are not self.' Not temporarily, not provisionally, but completely and at all times. ........................................................................ The suttas are not saying the things that exist are somehow devoid of existence. That would be impossible - a contradiction in terms - wouldn't it?" .......................................................................... TG: Ahh, so this is where you're going with this. I agree with your statement, but I disagree that it is part of my previous discussion or assertions. This sort of comment comes out of "left field" for me and indicates that the commentor doesn't understand what I am saying. This comment comes from a vision that sees the "things" (elements/aggregates included)of the world as either existing (as their own thing) or not existing. Conditionality does not render the things that appear as not-existing, it renders "them" as not-self. What is not-self has 'nothing of its own.' What is not-self is an "empty dependent." Not a "non-existent." And not something with "its own" characteristics. Phenomena certainly do appear/arise. They are not what they appear to be. They do not have "their own" characteristics. ............................................................ Then the first person says, "Oh yes, how silly of me, thanks for pointing that out." And his friends say, "It wasn't silly at all, old chap, anyone can make a mistake." :-) --- Now let's take another hypothetical case in which Person A is still not convinced. His friends point to the ancient commentaries, which back up what they have already explained. Or his friends say, "These sutta quotes must be understood in the context of the entire Tipitaka, mustn't they? The Buddha was the only teacher who taught anatta, and he explained it in many different ways to many different people. If someone were to read one of those explanations and misunderstand it, that person could remedy his mistake by comparing the explanation with other explanations in other suttas. Couldn't he? "Anatta means there is no permanent being that carries on from past to present to future. ............................................... TG: No. Its means no-self. The issue of isolating "a being" is near irrelevant. That is why the Buddha would discuss elements and aggregates as having no-self as well. All THINGS ARE NO-SELF. Whether you realize it or not, what you are trying to say is "a being" is not self, but the elements and aggregates are...for a short period of time. This is not directed just to you because that's what Sarah, Nina, Scott are saying too. Unwittingly to some degree ... or perhaps completely. Of course you don't actually "say this" in so many words, but your arguments say it loud and clear couched within "realities" and "own characteristic" jargon. ................................................... Some people in the Buddha's day thought (like you do) that anatta might have meant there was nothing at all. (!) ......................................................... TG: This is the proof that you have no understanding whatsoever what I am saying. (Or the Suttas for that matter.) Sorry. Its got nothing to do with my position. You see the world in terms of existence and non-existence it would appear. This is the common everyday view according to the Buddha (in at least one Sutta) and his teaching on conditionality is to thwart such views and transcend them with insight. ........................................................................... To them the Buddha explained that he was not one of the teachers who taught "nothing exists:" he was one of the teachers who taught "things do exist." And what were those things? They were citta, cetasika and rupa. They were the things that bore inherent characteristics, one of which was anatta (no permanent self or soul)." ........................................................ TG: This sort of one-sided demonstration of what the Suttas say is useful for supporting a sunstantialist outlook. But ignoring the Suttas where the Buddha denotes that phenomena do not either exist or not exist, and then proceeds to demonstrate conditionality, would be something useful for you to come to terms with. ...................................................................... If, in this hypothetical case, person A is still not convinced then his friends must consider the possibility that he has another agenda. Maybe he is a spy from one of those naughty externalist teachings and is just trying to lure people away from the true teaching (of anatta). So what if he is? Even in such an extreme case it still wouldn't hurt to discuss the Dhamma with him - for as long as he was willing. Maybe at some time - in this life or in a future life - he will benefit from it. .................................................. TG: Maybe... But you seem inflexible. ;-) TG OUT #94372 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 5:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 1/4/2009 12:29:52 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi TG > TG: How about these "glosses" from the Suttas directed toward the Five > Aggregates -- Conditioned, Dependent, Nonself, Well said (except that I think the sutta phrase is "dependently conditioned"con BTW, these are the attributes themselves; they are not "glosses" on anything. Empty, Hollow, Coreless, Void, > Insubstantial, Like Mirage, Like Conjurer's Trick? Are you sure that all of these descriptions pertain to all 5 khandhas? .......................................................... TG: Yes. Lump of Foam Sutta in Khandhasamyutta. .................................................................... > Yes, it serves a purpose. It thwarts substantialist attachment oriented > views of "own characteristics" and "ultimate realities." The introduction of expressions such as "containing nothing of its own" and "not a thing in itself", in addition to the (numerous and) established sutta and commentary terms such as you've already quoted, only serves to obfuscate. ..................................................... TG: I'll write more on "your quarters" being appalled with "introduction of expressions" later in a separate post. LOL ............................................................ For a start, the expressions are of uncertain meaning, even to a person versed in the Theravada texts. Secondly, if they add anything to those established terms, what is the basis for that added angle, other than your own notion? In support you claim that these expressions help prevent "substantialist attachment oriented views". But these supposed views are just more introduced notions not found in the texts. (Hence my "bogeyman" comment of a few posts ago ;-)) > What arises completely dependent on "something else" has Nothing of Its Own. > This should not only be announced, it should be reflected on over and over > as much as possible. You are saying that dependency of arising means no inherent characteristic. On what basis exactly do you say (contrary to the orthodox Theravadan approach) that these notions are mutually exclusive? .............................................................. TG: "The orthodox Theravadin approach"? Just what is THAT ... "your views"? I thought so. LOL ................................................................. In the expressions from the suttas quoted above you mention both "dependent" and "nonself". In the texts, "anatta" is given as a "characteristic" of dhammas. I do not see any inconsistency between that and being dependent. ................................................ TG: Anatta (no-self) is merely the absence of something. Are you saying that "the absence of something" is actually a "characteristic" that can be attributed to something in as an affirmation of "it" or as something "of its own"? Amazing. TG OUT #94373 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 10:29 am Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn Hi TG, TG: The material in the Suttas does not contradict the Suttas. I'm afraid I don't quite understand your sentence. c: lol. I was asking you to go to the sources where the terms you find objectionable are used & quote from them because to my reading, there is no contradiction with the Suttas there, either; don't worry about it. peace, connie #94374 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 5:50 am Subject: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@... Hi All In a message dated 1/4/2009 12:29:52 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: The introduction of expressions such as "containing nothing of its own" and "not a thing in itself", in addition to the (numerous and) established sutta and commentary terms such as you've already quoted, only serves to obfuscate. For a start, the expressions are of uncertain meaning, even to a person versed in the Theravada texts. Secondly, if they add anything to those established terms, what is the basis for that added angle, other than your own notion? In support you claim that these expressions help prevent "substantialist attachment oriented views". But these supposed views are just more introduced notions not found in the texts. (Hence my "bogeyman" comment of a few posts ago ;-)) ....................................................................... TG: I have noticed a tendency of some folks acting appalled by phrases or terms that may (or may not) be extrapolations of Suttas in order to try to communicate certain points. Jon is by no means the only one claiming -- "foul, this isn't in the Suttas." They act utterly befuddled as if there was no way for "their" reasoning power to grapple with such "creative" terms or phrases. Even terms as basic as "conditions" have been questioned. What is even more amazing is, this "act-tion" is coming from the quarter that postulates as their central thesis that 'dhammas' are "ultimate realities" with "their own characteristics." Terms and phrases, mind you, that don't appear in the Suttas AT ALL! What sort of debating non-sense have we here? Another example of trying to shut down other arguments, on the grounds, of which, their own central argument is the greatest violator!!! This debating TACTIC'S validity is terminated here and now!!! TG OUT #94375 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 11:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > I would put it the other way around: When a person sends metta to > another, it is simply consciousness accompanied by wholesome mental > factors arising, having as its object the idea of a sentient being. > > Jon > My question, Jon, along these lines is, if "the idea of a sentient being" is a conventional concept that does not really exist [except of course as concept,] why is it the object of metta, rather than something actual? Doesn't this just feed delusion? And if one were to pick a "real" object of metta, what could it possibly be? Put another way, why would one who is trying to awaken to reality send metta to an illusory concept of a non-existent entity? Robert ================================ #94376 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 11:13 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear TG, Regarding: TG: "I have noticed a tendency of some folks acting appalled by phrases or terms that may (or may not) be extrapolations of Suttas in order to try to communicate certain points. Jon is by no means the only one claiming -- 'foul, this isn't in the Suttas.' They act utterly befuddled as if there was no way for 'their' reasoning power to grapple with such 'creative' terms or phrases. Even terms as basic as 'conditions' have been questioned. What is even more amazing is, this 'act-tion' is coming from the quarter that postulates as their central thesis that 'dhammas' are 'ultimate realities' with 'their own characteristics.' Terms and phrases, mind you, that don't appear in the Suttas AT ALL! What sort of debating non-sense have we here? Another example of trying to shut down other arguments, on the grounds, of which, their own central argument is the greatest violator!!! This debating TACTIC'S validity is terminated here and now!!!" Scott: Dude, lighten up. As for me, I just happen to think you are Wrong. I think you put your Own Spin On Terms and I Don't Agree With the Way You Do It. I *do* think you Make Things Up. 'Creative' or not, I simply think you are wrong. Since stating that you are wrong *is* part of my 'debating tactic', yours appears to be that no one is allowed to disagree. Talk about 'debating nonsense.' Sincerely, Scott. #94377 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 11:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > [I have a question regarding the relation of jhana to vipassana, but > it is off the current question - if you can say a word about this > though I would appreciate it.] > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think that Alex and others are in a better position to comment. > My very limited past experience with what seems to have closely matched > the Buddha's description of jhanas included a clear observing of what was in > progress while the jhanas were in effect. In that particular case of what > seems to have very clearly been jhana, it appeared to be a shuttling between > the 2nd and 5th jhanas:No physical sights, sounds, or odors occurred, but > magnificently pleasant bodily sensations and mind-door phenomena of great joy and > a "visual" infinite expanse of space and light were central, and throughout > there was clear awareness of what was transpiring. The infinite expanse of space and light sound like a quite clear nimita within the descriptions I have heard. That seems like a very good signpost. (My "wits were about me.") That is very interesting to hear that you experienced the clarity of sati within the jhana. I have not gotten that deep, so it is still speculation for me, but there seems to be some difference among the Ajahns about whether clear understanding of what is experienced in jhana takes place during it or only after. I appreciate your report on this. > At the present time, I spend most of a sitting in what I suppose is > pre-jhanic, with bodily sensations through all sense doors clear and dominated by > pleasant sensation suffusing the entire body, and there being ease of > attention to the features of the experience. At times, there are periods of > probable slipping into jhana, where there occurs sort of a "click" and a deepening > of the state, with concomitant increase of "peace" and a loss of seeing, > hearing, and smelling. All the while, there is the capacity to maintain > mindfulness of what is occurring, without getting lost in sloth & torpor or lost in > thought. (There ARE sittings, of course, where mindfulness is weak and the mind > is overly active or the body and mind are sleepy, and then, at least at the > outset, I DO get lost in thought or in sloth & torpor. It is sloth & torpor > that appears to be the strongest hindrance for me.) > Incidentally, though the jhanas that I believe the Buddha to have taught > do "allow" for investigation of dhammas while the jhana is in effect, I > think that it liely that it is only within the 4th jhana that such investigation > is really effective, and for that to be worthwhile, more than a brief > "slipping in" is needed. I think that mastery is needed. > ------------------------------------------- Thank, you Howard; that description is very helpful. I do find it encouraging to hear some of the specifics of spiritual friends' practices, as it makes the sharing of the Path more concrete and "plausible." When some aspects of what you say match my own experience it verifies the commonality of practice; whereas some experiences that you report that I am not familiar with fill in a few blanks in my roadmap. That is also true of some of the good specifics that Alex has reported about jhana. This is one very healthy aspect of sangha, I think, and I appreciate it. Best, Robert ================================ #94378 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 11:24 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear TG, > > Regarding: > > TG: "...What is even more > amazing is, this 'act-tion' is coming from the quarter that > postulates as their central thesis that 'dhammas' are 'ultimate > realities' with 'their own characteristics.' Terms and phrases, mind > you, that don't appear in the Suttas AT ALL! . > Scott: Dude, lighten up. > > As for me, I just happen to think you are Wrong. I think you put your > Own Spin On Terms and I Don't Agree With the Way You Do It. ... > Sincerely, > > Scott. Dear Scott, Is there a basis in the suttas for such ideas as dhammas as ultimate realities, as TG suggests that there is not. If there is, can you give an example of indication of how this is shown to be correct? Or is it a later idea of the commentators? Thanks, Robert ============================ #94379 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 11:29 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear Robert E., Regarding: R: "Is there a basis in the suttas for such ideas as dhammas as ultimate realities, as TG suggests that there is not. If there is, can you give an example of indication of how this is shown to be correct? Or is it a later idea of the commentators?" Scott: You've been around the block here - nothing more I can say here you've not likely already heard. I was just giving TG the sort of reaction he's come to appreciate from me. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #94380 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 11:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone nilovg Dear Connie, Op 4-jan-2009, om 16:18 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > If the term paramattha brings into focus the irreducibility of the > dhammas, the term aviparitabhava shows their irreversibility.77 > This term means that the essential characteristic of a dhamma is > non-alterable and non-transferable to any other dhamma.78 It also > means that it is impossible for a given dhamma to undergo any > modification of its specific characteristic even when it is in > association with some other dhamma. --------- N: Let us give some examples. Seeing is always seeing, it experiences visible object. One can give it another name, but its characteristic does not change. Lobha is always lobha, no matter how we name it. To remember this is important for the development of satipatthana. There can be direct awareness of characteristics of realities, and we do not name them. The name is not important, but we cling to names. It is the characteristic that has to be thoroughly understood. Nina. #94381 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 7:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Connie) - In a message dated 1/4/2009 2:35:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Connie, Op 4-jan-2009, om 16:18 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > If the term paramattha brings into focus the irreducibility of the > dhammas, the term aviparitabhava shows their irreversibility.77 > This term means that the essential characteristic of a dhamma is > non-alterable and non-transferable to any other dhamma.78 It also > means that it is impossible for a given dhamma to undergo any > modification of its specific characteristic even when it is in > association with some other dhamma. --------- N: Let us give some examples. Seeing is always seeing, it experiences visible object. One can give it another name, but its characteristic does not change. Lobha is always lobha, no matter how we name it. To remember this is important for the development of satipatthana. There can be direct awareness of characteristics of realities, and we do not name them. The name is not important, but we cling to names. It is the characteristic that has to be thoroughly understood. Nina. =============================== I don't see how one could dispute this, Nina. Seeing is always different in kind from hearing, for example, because sights are different in quality from sounds. No one confuses them. But this is still not beyond convention, no matter how much we think it is. During the course of what we call "seeing" (or "hearing"), there is constant change in the quality of the consciousness and in what is experienced, and it IS a matter of convention to identify the entirety of the experience, subjective pole or objective pole, as one and the same "thing," as one and the same nama (and one and the same rupa). It is even a matter of convention to identify as an existent "thing" that which is the consciousness (or its content) at any single instant, for there is no separable actuality to any instant. "Things" of all sorts are matters of convention. At any moment, in reality, there is just "this"! Merely by means of mentality, by thought construction, we separate off from seamless reality an apparent pair of "true existents": a knowing and a known, two interrelated "entities" or "things". But reality "doesn't care" about our thinking! ;-)) With metta, Howard Emptiness (From the Uraga Sutta) __________________________ Reality (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #94382 From: "charles.dacosta@..." Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 1:07 pm Subject: Re: When and how did the view of Anatta translate, to self , in english ? charles.daco... Hi Sarah, I think of that peek and that nice Hotel restaurant often. One point I forgot to add to this mess of ideas: Even in the West, the soul is considered the essence of a being; but only in the West, I think, the self is only a differentiator (from one thing/being to another). Now, I believe that, in early India soul and self may been mixed. But nnot in the West. CharlesD. PS: I need to go back to getting the emails, I had a hard time finding this thread. #94383 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 2:01 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Robert E., > > Regarding: > > R: "Is there a basis in the suttas for such ideas as dhammas as ultimate > realities, as TG suggests that there is not. If there is, can you > give an example of indication of how this is shown to be correct? Or > is it a later idea of the commentators?" > > Scott: You've been around the block here - nothing more I can say here > you've not likely already heard. I was just giving TG the sort of > reaction he's come to appreciate from me. ;-) > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > I haven't been around as much as you might think. I'd love to hear the sutta connection to these ideas, if there is one. Robert =============================== #94384 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 2:39 pm Subject: Re: Suttas in which the Buddha held back the deep teaching? truth_aerator Hi Jon, > "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > Thanks for this observation. What is the textual basis for the > notion that jhana is continuous and thus cannot be momentary? > > Jon Remember that quote out of Therigatha about Bhikkhuni who sat for 7 days? What about Buddha in MN14 talking about sitting motionless for 7 days experience bliss and all that. "'Now, I — without moving my body, without uttering a word — can dwell sensitive to unalloyed pleasure for a day and a night... for two days & nights... for three... four... five... six... seven days & nights." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.014.than.html #94385 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 2:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone truth_aerator Hi Robert and all, >---"Robert Epstein" wrote: > Is nibbana not also a matter of faith for almost everyone? Not for me. WIth best wishes, #94386 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 2:48 pm Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn dear friends, how does this sound: there is no point to even saying 'conventional reality' if there is no *other kind* - it would be as redundant as 'paramattha dhamma.' and maybe the *otherness* is just in the words that have validity in each type of description: 1) conventional (or commonsensical) and 2) otherwise. we do not say "nama-rupa eats", people eat. It's not "computer rupa", it's either computer (commonsense) - or, one of the 'components' of the 'otherwise' non-existent computer. for sure, that's expressed better in the "20 brands of self" sermons. ? thanks, connie #94387 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 10:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 1/4/2009 12:13:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: Dude, lighten up. ................................. TG: OK Dude. LOL Coming from Scott, the suggestion I need to lighten up is something to heed indeed. .......................................... As for me, I just happen to think you are Wrong. I think you put your Own Spin On Terms and I Don't Agree With the Way You Do It. I *do* think you Make Things Up. 'Creative' or not, I simply think you are wrong. .................................................. TG: Of course you think I'm wrong, hence the argument. I think you're wrong, hence the relevance of this point ... as you and you're quarter have taken up the "creative" accusation. Your response here is a dodge of the issue. The "creation" of ultimate realities" and "own characteristics" is way out in Never Never land if the Suttas are scrutinized...all of them, not just the bits and pieces you'd reinterpret. ;-) Now, as to your above sentence...you just made that up. Not found in Suttas or commentaries...but I was able to figure out what it meant anyway. Damn I'm smart. ;-) ................................................. Since stating that you are wrong *is* part of my 'debating tactic', yours appears to be that no one is allowed to disagree. Talk about 'debating nonsense.' ....................................................... TG: This is a nonsensical statement. Of course you're allowed to disagree. You just aren't allowed to have a "playing field" with your own separate rules that apply to others but not to you ... or to remove home plate just as we're about to slide in. LOL TG OUT #94388 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 10:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@... Hi Robert and Scott In a message dated 1/4/2009 12:29:35 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: R: "Is there a basis in the suttas for such ideas as dhammas as ultimate realities, as TG suggests that there is not. If there is, can you give an example of indication of how this is shown to be correct? Or is it a later idea of the commentators?is Scott: You've been around the block here - nothing more I can say here you've not likely already heard. I was just giving TG the sort of reaction he's come to appreciate from me. ;-) .............................................. TG: I thought Robert really did a great job of taking the distractions away from the issue and focusing on the relevant. What happened to Scott's answer, or lack thereof, is puzzling. I guess he figures he can't support the "ultimate reality" or "own characteristic" claim as originating in the Suttas. Which makes the dogged determination to claim so even more puzzling. TG LIGHT OUT #94389 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 4:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hi Robert and all, > > >---"Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Is nibbana not also a matter of faith for almost everyone? > > Not for me. > > > WIth best wishes, > Hi Alex. May I ask what kind of experience you have had of nibbana - a very exciting thing to hear - and can you say anything about what this experience is like? Thanks, Robert ============================= #94390 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 4:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > TG: > What happened to Scott's answer, or lack thereof, is puzzling. I guess he > figures he can't support the "ultimate reality" or "own characteristic" claim > as originating in the Suttas. Which makes the dogged determination to claim > so even more puzzling. Dear TG: I was a little disappointed. The feeling I get is that Scott thought that was just a baiting tactic on my part. I actually would be genuinely interested in a reference to these powerful ideas in the Abhidhamma community from the suttas, or what aspects of the suttas there derive from. Believe it or not, I have not been privy to a discussion of these particulars in the past, and I thought it was a worthwhile topic to explore. Best, Robert ========================== #94391 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 4:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] accumulations, was: cornerstone truth_aerator Hi Robert, What I wanted to say that the Pure Lands or some eternal heaven is much less likely. Cessation and non-occurance of aggregates is much more likely and much more see-able. Even reflecting in retrospect on mundane experiences of total anasthesia, unconscious time gaps and so on gives a very close (not 100% like but close) experience of how peaceful the 'state' is. With best wishes, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert and all, > > > > >---"Robert Epstein" wrote: > > > Is nibbana not also a matter of faith for almost everyone? > > > > Not for me. > > > > > > WIth best wishes, > > > > > Hi Alex. > May I ask what kind of experience you have had of nibbana - a very > exciting thing to hear - and can you say anything about what this > experience is like? > > Thanks, > Robert > > ============================= > #94392 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 11:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. TGrand458@... Hi Robert In a message dated 1/4/2009 5:19:27 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Dear TG: I was a little disappointed. The feeling I get is that Scott thought that was just a baiting tactic on my part. I actually would be genuinely interested in a reference to these powerful ideas in the Abhidhamma community from the suttas, or what aspects of the suttas there derive from. Believe it or not, I have not been privy to a discussion of these particulars in the past, and I thought it was a worthwhile topic to explore. Best, Robert .......................................................... TG: You may know better than I on these matters. My understanding is that the terms "paramattha dhammas" and "sabhava" do not appear in the Suttas at all. (Well, sabhava does appear in the patisambhidamagga but there it is merely denied.) They are claimed to BE the Buddha's teaching by many in this group...and the justification follows the line of taking selective Suttas and then heavy-handedly interpreting them to be saying things that they don't actually say at all. Its self serving to those who have bought into a commentarial viewpoint from which the interpretation springs, but hardly compelling when stacked up to the entirety of the Four Great Nikayas which are often in full contradiction to such claims. The Suttas require a good deal of sensibility to unravel the more complicated messages within. Some here have chosen to be led by certain commentarial viewpoints and appear to acquiesce authority over to the commentaries. Others here let the Suttas lead and see the commentaries as more problematic. Either way, its just the result of conditions interacting. Scott perhaps thought it was a baiting tactic. Wasn't it? LOL Just kidding. I think Scott also prevaricated because the hard evidence is lacking, and it requires continual "side-winder tactics" to keep supporting "own characteristics" and "ultimate realities" as "the Buddha's teaching." BTW, I'm a little jaded in here so please do not let that influence you. ;-) TG OUT #94393 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 5:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] nama and rupa, to Herman egberdina Hi Alex and colette, 2009/1/4 Alex : > Dear Herman, > > What I understand in that is that body by itself does NOT know. It is > the consciousness that "knows". Body without consciousness and > vitality is as intelligent as a log. I see what you mean. I find it hard to reconcile DO with considering "consciousness" and "vitality" as distinct and separate realities. See, for example SN 12:35 When one is of the view that the life-principle is the same as the body, there is no leading the holy life. And when one is of the view that the life-principle is one thing and the body another, there is no leading the holy life. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata points out the Dhamma in between: From ignorance as requisite condition come fabrications. Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance, every one of these writhings & wrigglings & wigglings — 'Which aging & death? And whose is this aging & death?' or 'Is aging & death one thing, and is this the aging & death of someone/something else?' or 'The soul is the same as the body,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another' — are abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising." Cheers Herman #94394 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 5:09 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. kenhowardau Hi Rob E, ----------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@ wrote: > > > TG: > > > What happened to Scott's answer, or lack thereof, is puzzling. I > guess he > > figures he can't support the "ultimate reality" or "own > characteristic" claim > > as originating in the Suttas. Which makes the dogged > determination to claim > > so even more puzzling. > > Dear TG: > I was a little disappointed. The feeling I get is that Scott thought > that was just a baiting tactic on my part. I actually would be > genuinely interested in a reference to these powerful ideas in the > Abhidhamma community from the suttas, or what aspects of the suttas > there derive from. Believe it or not, I have not been privy to a > discussion of these particulars in the past, and I thought it was a > worthwhile topic to explore. ----------- The suttas talk about nothing else! Only the terminology varies from sutta to sutta: sometimes it's "khandhas" sometimes "elements" sometimes "nama and rupa: and at other times it's other names (see "Useful Posts" for details). TG thinks the suttas are talking about things that don't really exist (are not absolute realities (paramattha dhammas)). What do you think? Ken H #94395 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 5:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. truth_aerator Hello TG, Robert and all, parama + attha = "superior gain" NO ONTOLOGICAL COMMITMENTS NECESSERY! #94396 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 5:20 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. truth_aerator Dear KenH, >--- "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > The suttas talk about nothing else! Proof please. Thanks. #94397 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 5:59 pm Subject: Re: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... egberdina Hi RobertE, 2009/1/4 Robert Epstein : > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: > > Rob E: >> > Okay, then why call it a self, rather than just a psychophysical >> > organism? Self implies some form of separate agency, so why defend >> > it as the term of choice? >> > >> >> >> I hope that clarifies. If not, I won't tire of explaining it further :-) > > Hi Herman. > I am glad, because I am not tired of this yet either! Good :-) I think we are > talking of two different things from two different perspectives. If I can just recap where I am coming from, you questioned my use of the self word and believed that my usage must have some agency belief tied to it. One > of the fallacies that we sometimes suffer from is that the state of > "innocence" of "being aware of what is happening in the moment without > conceptualizing" is somehow the same for a baby and for a spiritually > adept adult. They are quite different in that the baby has no control > and no understanding, Yes, the baby has no voluntary control, and the adult has. while the adult has to transcend the sense of > self-importance in order to enter into such a state while still > maintaining a kind of adult presence and skillfulness. Yes, skilfullness is a good word. Adults have learned how to exercise voluntary control. > > The "Oneness" experienced by a baby is as you say, narcissistic in > nature, while the "oneness" that might be experienced by an adult is > one of losing self-importance and self-centeredness. Still, wether self-centred or not, with the arising of the impulse to go for a walk to town for almsfood, the adult is capable of bringing that to fruition. And that relies in part on an acquired, learnt understanding of how the world works. The limits of > volition are indeed somewhat defined by the conditions of life and the > capabilities of the organism, but the kind of realization of > non-volition I am talking about is not about such limits; it is about > the nature of the identity of the consciousness that resides within > and about that organism. I do not conceive of the identity of consciousness, nor of it residing in an organsim, if that helps. It is like becoming a witness of activity > instead of imagining oneself to be the actor. When I move my hand, > is there a "me" commanding the hand to move? No, there is a thought > that says "move the hand." Or a reflex. Is there a "me" lurking > within that tells that thought to be thought of? No, it takes place > spontaneously in response to some other set of conditions, touched off > by an external event, memory, sensation or other stimulus. Is there a > self that directs that stimulus to touch off that other thought and > action? No, there is simply the mechanics of what spurs it to take place. I agree with you wholeheartedly. They are good observations. Still, for one who has learnt how to enter absorption of any degree, with the arising of the impulse to do so, that impulse can be brought to fruition. There is at least a partial understanding of conditions. But when the impulse arises in one who has not learnt how to do it, the impulse cannot be brought to fruition. There is no understanding. > > So I am not talking about limits of volition and narcissism of the > psychological thought, but of an ontological understanding that there > is no "God" of the body within which directs all these operations and > such agent happening to bear your name or my name. To call all these > operations "Robert" and assume that there is an entity that responds > to this, other than a chain of internal and external activities that > are set off by it, is a presumption of a certain pattern of thoughts, > not a reality that one can identify, locate and describe. If you > attempt to describe the "self" you wind up replicating the entire > process. The "self" if anything is just this complex of processes, > the kandhas. Again, no disagreement. There is no self at the heart of learning and understanding conditionality. but still, there is the possibility of learning. > > There is no one in the center of the storm acting as director of the > whole affair, although these activities are well coordinated just by > the nature of the processes to a certain extent. > > Again, you are talking about limits and the form of identity. I am > talking about the nature of identity itself; that it is a concept, not > a reality outside of concept. > > Do I still not understand you, or do you not understand me, or both? > > Well, that depends. I am saying that without distinguishing between this and not this, and between what is self and other in terms of instrumentality (functioning in the world), learning is not possible, and skillful action is not possible. Walking around a tree, rather than straight through it, is not an atta view, but an understanding of conditionality. There is nothing conceptual about understanding conditionality, nor is it predicated on self-view. What is achieved in practice by saying that identity, as the distinguishing between this and not this, is a concept? Does the act of distinguishing thereby cease? No, the differences that are in the world are real, and not dependent on mind. Cheers Herman #94398 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 6:15 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. kenhowardau Hi Rob E, An afterthought to my previous post: The big question that needs to be asked and answered is, "Why is it so important that dhammas are - or are not - absolutely real?" Why are people so adamant about it one way or the other? Why were people prepared to split the sangha into two camps (Mahayana and Theravada) over it? I don't know the publicly acknowledged answer to this big question. It seems to me, however, that the no-paramattha-dhammas option leaves the gate open for eternity belief. You see, the teaching of conditioned dhammas (citta, cetasika and rupa) shows how there can be a world (a reality) without sentient beings. There are actions and there are results of actions, but the only actors and experiencers-of-results are these fleeting, conditioned dhammas. End of story! End of belief in us sentient beings! As I see it, Nagarjuna and his followers found a way around this teaching. They proclaimed that conditioned dhammas were no more real than sentient beings. And so the explanation of how there could be kamma and vipaka without sentient beings fell flat. Back to square one! Are you with me so far? :-) Ken H #94399 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 4, 2009 6:25 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. nichiconn Hi guys, TG: My understanding is that the terms "paramattha dhammas" and "sabhava" do not appear in the Suttas at all. (Well, sabhava does appear in the patisambhidamagga but there it is merely denied.) connie: and a term not appearing in the Suttas proves what? the funny thing is both schemes (ultimate & conventional reality or whatever you care to say) acknowledge anatta, dukkha and anatta while using terms like 'individual', 'self', 'character'... identity stuff. so what? they both use those kinds of words in the same way. peace, connie =========== * Howard's signature blocks: == A change in anything is a change in everything (Anonymous) == Entrances to holiness are everywhere. The possibility of ascent is all the time, even at unlikely times and through unlikely places. There is no place without the Presence (From Mishkan T'filah, the new Reform prayerbook) == 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) == Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains "going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it" and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible (From the Avarana Sutta) == 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) == When knowing what is to be known, he doesn't construe an [object as] known. He doesn't construe an unknown. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-known. He doesn't construe a knower. (The Buddha, speaking of himself in the Kalakarama Sutta) == See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance. (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) == /Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head; in the same way, the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities./ (From the Sacitta Sutta)