#95000 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma. egberdina Hi Dave, 2009/1/18 dkotschessa : > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman Hofman > wrote: >> >> If you are neither nama nor rupa, why is it important to know > which is which? >> > > It'd say that it's precisely because they are not-self that it's > important to understand which is which. > I don't get it, I'm afraid. If you'd care to expand a little that would be much appreciated. Cheers Herman #95001 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings egberdina Hi Dave, 2009/1/18 dkotschessa : > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > > Rupa doesn't experience anything for itself, so our experiences of > feelings, perceptions, etc. are nama experienced by citta (which is > also nama) but conditioning and conditioned by form (rupa). > > "If I get it aright." As our Tang would say. > If you're going to be part of the gang here, you may as well get used to the fact that there are some here, including myself, who see no increase in understanding in your above formulation from just people or beings experiencing stuff. Both formulations are dualistic, there is a something, whether it be a being or a citta, that experiences something other than itself. I, for one, say that the "experiencer" is not experienced as such, they are the product of thought about the experience. If we want to limit ourselves to what is being experienced only, then we should limit ourselves to describing what happens, not explaining it. WE do not experience conditionality or causality, we think it. Cheers Herman #95002 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear TG, (Rob E.), Regarding: TG: "Hummmm..." Scott: Thanks for the reply. Sincerely, Scott. #95003 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/18 Scott : > Dear All, > > Continuing: > > The Path of Purification. Thank you for posting this series. > > "23. But if resentment does not subside when he admonishes himself > thus, then he should review the fact that he himself and the other are > owners of their deeds (kamma). Further to our recent discussion on faith v doubt: I cannot help but see in these instructions an acknowledgement of the need to constantly review what we are doing and whether that is achieving it's desired effect, and to always consider if there are not other options available. This seems to me the anti-thesis of a faith based approach, but very much a trial and error approach. Cheers Herman #95004 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Itivutthaka, monks. was: Hearing Dhamma egberdina Hi Nina and Scott, 2009/1/18 Nina van Gorkom : > Dear Scott, > Op 16-jan-2009, om 22:31 heeft Scott het volgende geschreven: > >> I'll look forward to re-considering the passage >> on 'monks.' > ------- > N: I like the way listening with mindfulness is emphasized here. and > how 'unerringly listening and paying attention' are conditions for > attaining enlightenment. > He 'curbs any haughtiness or debasement'. Conceit is not a good > disposition for listening. It is an unfortunate fact that we are not in a position to mindfully listen to One who Knows. But we should not fall into the trap of believing that mindfully reading the texts is in any way comparable, or a valid substitute towards the same end. Cheers Herman #95005 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. egberdina Hi Nina, 2009/1/17 Nina van Gorkom : > Dear friends, > > > S. : When there is right mindfulness, sammå-sati, of the eightfold > Path there truly is wise attention. It is not necessary to sit and > concentrate on a meditation subject. When someone believes that he > should sit and concentrate with the purpose of having sati, he has > the wrong understanding that there is a self who could make sati > arise at a fixed time. However, sammå-sati does not have to wait > until one has paid respect by chanting texts. Who is paying respect > to the Buddha? If someone does not know that the answer is, nåma and > rúpa, he takes the realities at that moment for self. He has an idea > of, "I am paying respect", he clings to an idea of self who chants > texts. Sammå-sati can arise and be aware of any reality which appears > when we are paying respect or chanting texts, or at other moments, no > matter which posture we assume. > Quite often when I read the pronouncements of KS, the thought strikes me that I am reading just so much sophistry. Sophistry is defined as being 1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning or 2. a false argument; sophism. Who is paying respect to the Buddha? is just a string of empty words dressed up as something pretending to be meaningful. Why doesn't KS ask the more pertinent question and ask Who is the Buddha? Probably because she will not be able to answer without falling prey to her own sophistry. Cheers Herman #95006 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "Thank you for posting this series." Scott: You're welcome. H: "Further to our recent discussion on faith v doubt: I cannot help but see in these instructions an acknowledgement of the need to constantly review what we are doing and whether that is achieving it's desired effect, and to always consider if there are not other options available. This seems to me the anti-thesis of a faith based approach, but very much a trial and error approach." Scott: I see your point, Herman. Thanks. Sincerely, Scott. #95007 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Itivutthaka, monks. was: Hearing Dhamma scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "It is an unfortunate fact that we are not in a position to mindfully listen to One who Knows. But we should not fall into the trap of believing that mindfully reading the texts is in any way comparable, or a valid substitute towards the same end." Scott: Thanks for the interesting point. Sincerely, Scott. #95008 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 6 egberdina Hi RobM, 2009/1/16 robmoult : > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: >> > ===== >> >> If I can inherit the habits and memories of others (and I don't >> dispute the evidence for a minute), then this is proof positive that >> beings do not inherit only the effects of their own kamma. >> > ===== > These memories are not "inherited" in a technical sense as there was > no bilogical connection between the girl in this existence and the > girl in her previous existence. However, this shows that > accumulations (memory and habits come from accumulations) do continue > with the "life stream" (bhavanga-sota), so they are "inherited" in an > alegorical sense. > What is clear across many schools of Buddhism is the recognition of the need for there to be some kind of system of accumulation to account for development within an individual over time. And I can see that need as well. > There was another video highlighting a number of heart transplant > patients who, after receiving a new heart, suddenly underwent a > slight personality change and took on the habits of the heart donor. > This is not two sets of consciousness (posession) and not a "shared > past kamma", but rather a shared set of accumulations. This suggests > that the organ of the heart may pay a role as a storehouse of > accumulations (Yogacara's alaya-vijnana); I do not believe that there > is any Theravadin equivalent. To incorporate this into the Theravadin > Abhdidhamma, I suggested that the whole body acted as "that matter in > dependence on which the mind element and the mind consciousness > element occur". There were some doctors in the room who mentioned > that the medical journals had never recorded any transfer of habits > when other organs were transplanted... it only happens with heart > transplants. I posited that perhaps the heart organ had a "stronger > concentration" of accumulations and the other organs had a "weaker > concentration" (I am skating on thin ice here :-) ). I know :-) > > I would like to differentiate here between kamma and habits. > > According to the Patthana, volitional states of mind can be a > conditioning factor for future vipaka (kamma-resultant) states of > mind through asynchronous kamma condition. This is kamma. > > According to the Patthana, certain strong past objects, mental states > or concepts can condition all future mental states (not just vipaka > mental states). These are habits. > > Both of these conditions transcend death. > I think that for any theory of accumulation to hold it's own, it must be more than just theorising, it needs to be demonstrable. I can see that form is a very good candidate to function as an accumulator, because form demonstrably informs, and is informed. This is a very succinct way of saying that form is demonstrably altered by interaction with other form. The transfer and development of genetic information from one generation to another is a good example of this. I look like my father :-) What is lacking in all the theories (that I am aware of) of the accumulation of mental states across the boundary of death is a demonstrable mechanism whereby this happens. Cheers Herman #95009 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Itivutthaka, monks. was: Hearing Dhamma scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Regarding: N: "I like the way listening with mindfulness is emphasized here. and how 'unerringly listening and paying attention' are conditions for attaining enlightenment. He 'curbs any haughtiness or debasement'. Conceit is not a good disposition for listening." Scott: I think this is correct, about conceit. And I think that developed mindfulness - which would be the recollecting, the calling back to mind, the remembering, the bearing in mind, the opposite of superficiality and of obliviousness - would be condition while listening. And, I think that when we can't listen to Dhamma we can read Dhamma, and, if mindfulness arises, this can condition further understanding. I like thinking of the perfect way in which the words of the Buddha would form themselves and be sound to be heard by the wise. Sincerely, Scott. #95010 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:56 pm Subject: [dsg] The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions /and Re: Suttas- the ... kenhowardau Hi Howard, ----------- <. . .> H: > Well, is there? ;-) That depends, I suppose, on whom it is you're talking to? So, do you have answers to your questions? It sounds like you are just mimicking Khun Sujin! ;-) ------------ Yes, I suppose I have commandeered that famous question and given it my own interpretation (which may or may not be the one K Sujin intended). When I am asked it I sometimes stare back blankly. Sometimes, however, I remember there are dhammas (seeing, visible object, hearing, audible object . . .) coming and going while we speak. Either way, there are just dhammas - either with pariyatti or without. There is no me who is either mindful or unmindful - wise or ignorant. Just dhammas! Just like now! O'oh, there's another one I've stolen! :-) Ken H #95011 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation jonoabb Hi Sarah, Herman and Rob E > >From the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation of MN43: > > "Friend, there are two conditions for the arising of right view: the > voice of another (S: parato ghosa) and wise attention (S: yoniso > manasikara)."* > > [* "MA: 'The voice of another' (parato ghosa) is the teaching of > beneficial Dhamma. These two conditions are necessary for disciples > to arrive at the right view of insight and the right view of the > supramundane path. But paccekabuddhas arrive at their enlightenment > and fully enlightened Buddhas at omniscience soley in dependence on > wise attention without "the voice of another."]< > .... "Voice of another" as "the teaching of beneficial Dhamma". Yes, this commentarial explanation is the interpretation I've been referring to. Thanks for bringing this up. Herman, we were discussing the relative importance of the voice of another and wise attention. According to the teachings, without hearing "beneficial Dhamma", there can be no wise attention of the kind that accompanies moments of insight, since the way things truly are is too deep and complex to be self-discovered. For one with an interest in the teachings, hearing the Dhamma appropriately explained may be a condition for the arising of understanding. Of course, other factors have a bearing also; as ever, no fixed rule ;-)) Robert, regarding your discussion with Ken concerning "studying the Dhamma" as simply another instance of a chosen activity, the factor properly stated (i.e., as mentioned in the texts) is "hearing the true Dhamma", that is to say, hearing the Dhamma explained n a way that is appropriate for our level of understanding and accumulated tendencies (vs., for example, the broad statements contained in the suttas). This is a matter of vipaka and not a matter of doing something (such as choosing to listen). As Ken explained, the studying the suttas with the idea that it was an activity that would condition awareness to arise would also be an instance of wrong view/practice. Jon #95012 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation jonoabb Hi Rob > I guess the question that remains for me then is a pretty simplistic > one, but, given the non-existence of beings as anything but kandhas, > what is the purpose of metta? It is not a question of there being a "purpose". We are talking about an individual mental factor that arises, just like the many other kusala or akusala mental factors. When the object of consciousness is another sentient being, and the consciousness is kusala, then the mental factor of alobha, in this context called metta, is present. Kusala is worth being developed, while akusala is not ;-)) Jon #95013 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. jonoabb Hi Howard > Well, I've explained why I don't like it. For me, the connotation is > suggestive of unilateral existence as an entity, and I consider that to be > opposite of the thrust of the Buddha. But, of course, we each speak and write as > we choose. This connotation of the term "reality" may well be valid in certain contexts, but that is not necessarily a reason for rejecting the use of the term in the context of conditioned dhammas. > Impermanence does not necessarily connote lack of inherent > characteristic. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The usage of 'inherent' bothers me, given that the very existence of > conditioned phenomena is a borrowed one. > ---------------------------------------------- That is my point. There is an objection on "philosophical" grounds, but that requires a certain mindset to be of any significance. For a person not versed in "philosophical" discussion, no such objection arises. Jon #95014 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions /and Re: Suttas- the ... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/17/2009 8:56:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: When I am asked it I sometimes stare back blankly. Sometimes, however, I remember there are dhammas (seeing, visible object, hearing, audible object . . .) coming and going while we speak. ============================== Well, yes: Sometimes good questions don't call for words as an answer but for an action instead. That happens when the question (such as "Are there dhammas now?") is really a kind of prodding reminder of the sort the Zen folks call a "turning word" which serves as a trigger for attending to what there is at that very moment and seeing it as it is - a bit like a meditation paddle on the small of the back. With metta, Howard (From Mishkan T'filah, the new Reform prayerbook) #95015 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - > Howard: > The usage of 'inherent' bothers me, given that the very existence of > conditioned phenomena is a borrowed one. > ---------------------------------------------- That is my point. There is an objection on "philosophical" grounds, but that requires a certain mindset to be of any significance. For a person not versed in "philosophical" discussion, no such objection arises. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: IMO, it's not that simple. As you know, I believe that the speech we use affects our mind, belief, inclinations, and actions. Speech is a force, and our language usage needs to be carefully guarded as to its effect. --------------------------------------------- Jon ========================= With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #95016 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:24 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Howard! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: It seems that some commentaries, > not part of the Tipitaka of course, do refer to namas and rupas as 'paramattha > dhammas' but the Sutta Pitaka does not, and it is a further question that > you raise as to whether the Abhidhamma uses that terminology. > I would add three comments: 1) The commentarial term 'paramattha dhamma' > means "ultimate phenomenon," and there is nothing in the term 'paramattha > dhamma' that suggests a translation of "ultimate REALITY," 2) I take > 'paramattha' in the context of 'paramattha dhamma' to mean "ultimate" only in the > sense of not being (considered as) a collective phenomenon further reducible to > components, though the commentaries DO countenance three stages to rupas, > namely arising, standing while altering, and ceasing, and 3) If I am correct in > the view I express in 1) and 2), even if the term 'paramattha dhamma' does > occur in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, there is no reason to assume that this amounts > to Abhidhamma asserting self-existence of phenomena. > > With metta, > Howard Well this is quite intriguing. It would be interesting to know how the sense of dhammas as being not only irreducible but self-existent developed as an interpretation, and how modern this movement is. It seems that there is an awful lot in the interpretation of the translations, and it becomes more than a little significant how those terms are actually meant. What really excites me though is that in seeing this potential for variable interpretation of the meaning of the dhammas, I have developed a greater enthusiasm for the Abdhidhamma itself. It seems that it may have a great value as an analysis even to those who don't subscribe to an objective world of substantive dhammas, rather than dhammas as a corrolary to the mind's activity. Plus, there is quite a lot of commentary that includes meditation as an important part of the Abhidhamma analysis, and all that is fascinating to me. To be honest, the actual quotes from the commentaries have always seemed quite insightful and interesting, and don't have the same stamp of one-dimensionality that one can sometimes fall into in considering namas and rupas as static categories of being. So there's a lot to look into - if one can find an English translation of *anything.* :-) I found an English version of part of the Patthana in a Burmese on-line bookshop by the way, and ordered it. I am looking forward to going through it. Best, Robert ---------------------------------------- #95017 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings epsteinrob Hi Dave! > > Rupa doesn't experience anything for itself, so our experiences of > feelings, perceptions, etc. are nama experienced by citta (which is > also nama) but conditioning and conditioned by form (rupa). > > "If I get it aright." As our Tang would say. I understand that Rupa doesn't experience anything itself - that much I get. What I was suggesting is that for a physical process to be a rupa *it* has to be experienced directly, not merely inferred. So the idea that the brain is doing such and such would not be a rupa but a concept. Does that make sense? I think to be a rupa you would have to be directly experiencing a synapse lighting up, or looking at a slice of brain under a microscope and directly discerning its physical qualities. :) Best, Robert ======================================= #95018 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:41 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Scott! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Rob E., > > Regarding: > > R: "...if you happen to know of a place in the Abhidhamma itself > where it says that the namas and rupas are 'paramatha dhammas' I would > love to read such a segment. I find it hard to find such things in > English, so a quote would be helpful if you know of one." > > Scott: No I don't know of such a place. If you're looking for that > exact phrase, I doubt you'll find it. Maybe Nina or Sarah know. > > Why do you need to see it so written? I think it is very standard > Abhidhamma to understand the dhammaa described therein to be > considered paramattha. If its a question simply of not accepting the > whole consideration, then that's fine. Many do not. Yes, for me it is a question of not accepting such a "consideration" on faith, but wanting to see the source of such a philosophy, standard or not. My admittedly not very thorough look through summaries of Abhidhamma history and commentary suggest that the ultimate reality approach to the dhamma theory is *not* the only one, and that it is not the only standard approach to Abhdidhamma or to the status of dhammas either. If the Abhidhamma does not itself reference this theory in this way, it is, or should be, of some interest where the commentators that do hold this view got it from. > > If you take Dhammasa"nga.ni, for example, you'll find that it refers > to 'states', which are 'dhammaa.' I think you'll find that these are > analysed to the 'ultimate' or 'highest' level of analysis and thus > stand as not further reducible or analysable. Thus you have citta, > cetasika, ruupa, and Nibbaana as paramattha - and no more. I believe > that the Commentators elaborate this distinction fully. I think that those are good categories, but that the meaning and status of "ultimate" is what is at issue, and to what extent we focus on the nature of dhammas as the main focus. The idea that Nibbana is a dhamma that is experienced by citta seems like an objectification and externalization of the awakening process to something "in the world," albeit not the world of form per se. It seems to establish an objective dimension of things that nibbana is part of, which seems to be a difficulty, at least to me. > > Sorry I couldn't be of assistance. Your response was of assistance. Thanks for answering and breaking down the ultimate categories for me. Kind of you to reply in any case. Best, Robert ======================================== #95019 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The object of meditation in metta meditation epsteinrob Hi Jon! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob > > > I guess the question that remains for me then is a pretty simplistic > > one, but, given the non-existence of beings as anything but kandhas, > > what is the purpose of metta? > > It is not a question of there being a "purpose". We are talking > about an individual mental factor that arises, just like the many > other kusala or akusala mental factors. > > When the object of consciousness is another sentient being, and the > consciousness is kusala, then the mental factor of alobha, in this > context called metta, is present. > > Kusala is worth being developed, while akusala is not ;-)) > > Jon Hi Jon. It still doesn't make sense to me that having *any* view of "another sentient being" could ever be kusala, given that it is a delusion. Having kusala metta arise for a delusory concept of a person would seem to be wishing non-suffering to a source of suffering, namely the very illusion of self that we are trying to gain release from. Best, Robert ----------------------------- #95020 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Scott and TG. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear TG, (Rob E.), > > Regarding: > > TG: "Hummmm..." > > Scott: Thanks for the reply. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. Well that is the most kusala exchange I've seen in a long time. I think the beneficent sound-waves without regard to literal meaning are quite apparent on both sides. Best, Robert ==================================== #95021 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:50 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Alberto! :-P --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Hi Robert E., > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > > > > > Presuming to uncover the same dhammas in the same way the Buddha did, > > > i.e. just sitting and "meditating" is, imo, bound to fail... > > > > Why do you think this? Based on what? And how do you know this? You > > did say "imo," but is that all it is, an opinion? Based on what? > > > > Only Buddhas in their last round of existance can attain enlightenment > wihout the support of the sasana (the right Dhamma). I thought you > knew that... > > Alberto Actually I don't profess to know the specifics of who may be enlightened by what at any given time, but thanks for letting me know that! In any case, I never said that one would meditate "without support of the right Dhamma." So tell me, how do you guarantee that one has "the right Dhamma" and would meditation somehow exclude one from having it? I personally would only want to meditate *with* the right Dhamma, if that could be arranged. Thanks much, Robert ==================================== #95022 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:20 pm Subject: Accumulations nichiconn Dear Howard, other Accumulators, I just read this sutta tonight and thought if you hadn't seen it before either, you'd be interested as well... Gradual Sayings vol.I, p.105: Accumulation [Text i, 121 III, 3, $23] 'Monks, these three persons are found existing in the world. What three? Herein, monks, a certain person accumulates^1 acts of body, speech and thought that are discordant. As a result of so doing he is reborn in a world that is discordant. So reborn in such a world, contacts that are discordant affect him. Thus affected by discordant contacts he experiences feeling that is discordant, utterly painful, such as, for instance, dwellers in Purgatory feel. Herein again, monks, a certain person accumulates acts of body that are harmonious, acts of speech that are harmonious, acts of thought that are harmonious. As a result of this he is reborn in a world that is harmonious. So reborn, harmonious contacts affect him. Thus affected he experiences feeling that is harmonious, utterly blissful, such as the devas of the Pure Abodes feel. Yet again, monks, a certain person accumulates acts of body, speech and thought that are both discordant and harmonious. So doing he is reborn in a world that is both discordant and harmonious. Thus reborn, contacts both discordant and harmonious affect him. Thus affected he experiences feelings both discordant and harmonious, a mixture^2 of pleasure and pain, such as for instance some human beings, some devas and some dwellers in Purgatory feel. So there are these three persons found existing in the world.' p105 n1: Abhisankharoti = raasim karoti. Comy. p105 n2: Text adds sanki.n.nam, not in Sinh. text or Comy. peace, connie #95023 From: "sprlrt" Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:50 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sprlrt Hi Robert E., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Actually I don't profess to know the specifics of who may be > enlightened by what at any given time, but thanks for letting me know > that! In any case, I never said that one would meditate "without > support of the right Dhamma." So tell me, how do you guarantee that > one has "the right Dhamma" and would meditation somehow exclude one > from having it? > > I personally would only want to meditate *with* the right Dhamma, if > that could be arranged. > There is nothing magic in the Dhamma, being about dependent origination, causes and results of dhammas which by definition are anatta, unrelated to the self (i.e. Robert and Alberto will never manage to actually understand them). Alberto P.S. In one of K. Sujin audios there's a dialogue that goes a bit like this: Q: We don't like akusala, how can we get rid of it? A: By developing panna Q: And how do we develop panna? A: (... standard KS aswer to this Q) Q: Does it take long? A: It takes a very long time. Q: Is there a shortcut? A: Yes... Q: Well, what is it? A: Lobha. #95024 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:43 am Subject: Survey, Ch 35, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, The Buddha explained about dhammas, realities, and people who develop satipatthåna can verify them; they can know the characteristics of the dhammas which naturally appear, just as they are. However, the Dhamma is subtle and deep. For example, when a person learns that visible object is the reality appearing through the eyes, he may think that it is not difficult to understand this. But theoretical understanding is not the same as understanding of the characteristic of seeing when he sees. If he does not develop satipatthåna so that paññå becomes keener, he cannot realize the characteristics of nåma and rúpa as they are. When one sees, visible object is experienced through the eyes, but what one sees one takes for people, beings and different things. Then doubt arises and people wonder what visible object is like, what characteristic it has. Visible object is the reality which appears when our eyes are open and there is seeing, not yet thinking about anything. Then the characteristic of visible object can appear naturally, as it is. As paññå develops, one can become familiar with the fact that visible object which appears is not a being, person, self, or anything else. Visible object is only the reality which appears through the eyes, that is its true nature. If people are not inclined to study and investigate the characteristic of visible object, it will be impossible for them to let go of the clinging to the idea they always had of seeing, namely, seeing people, beings or different things. Q. : What is the meaning of studying characteristics? S. : When sati is aware and someone considers the characteristic of whatever appears, that reality can be known as nåma, which experiences something, or as rúpa which does not experience anything. Then one studies the characteristic of non-self of that reality. It is nåma or rúpa, non-self. This kind of study is different from thinking about terms or naming realities. When paññå is developed to the degree that it is more accomplished, it can penetrate the three general characteristics of nåma and rúpa: impermanence, dukkha and anattå. ********** Nina. #95025 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. nilovg Dear Alberto, Op 18-jan-2009, om 8:50 heeft sprlrt het volgende geschreven: > Q: Does it take long? > Acharn: It takes a very long time. > Q: Is there a shortcut? > Acharn: Yes... > Q: Well, what is it? > Acharn: Lobha. -------- N: Thanks for this rendering of the audio. I appreciate it and it reminds me. We may sometimes wonder: will we ever know the truth? Then there is already a wrong approach with clinging to my progress. If you have more snippets like this, I would be very glad. Nina. #95026 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:05 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. nilovg Dear Herman, Dave, Herman, you find those empty words, but consider the following. Op 18-jan-2009, om 1:11 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > Who is paying respect > > to the Buddha? If someone does not know that the answer is, nåma and > > rúpa, he takes the realities at that moment for self. He has an idea > > of, "I am paying respect", --------- N: This saying requires truthfulness, honesty to oneself. Is it not so that with whatever we do self, self is involved. It is so deeply accumulated. For those who do not see this, Kh S's words may seem meaningless, but it requires true consideration, humility and honesty to get the meaning. This point is connected with your discussion with Dave: H: If you are neither nama nor rupa, why is it important to know which is which? Dave: It'd say that it's precisely because they are not-self that it's important to understand which is which. ------- N: We can say in general no self, no self, but what is it exactly that is non-self? The same for the characteristic of impermanence, what is it exactly that arises and falls away. This specific nama and that specific rupa. If insight is not developed of nama appearing now, rupa appearing now, the characteristics of impermanence and anatta will not be penetrated. When citta such as seeing appears to sati, the rupa such as visible object does not appear at the same time to sati. Only one object at a time can be experienced and known as it is, either a citta, a cetasika or a rupa. The stage of insight that realizes the arising and falling away of nama and rupa cannot be realized before the first stage: knowing nama as nama and rupa as rupa. ******* Nina. #95027 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:59 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "24. Having reviewed ownership of deeds in himself he should review it in the other also: 'And what is the point of his getting angry with you? Will it not lean to his own harm? For that venerable one is owner of his deeds, heir of his deeds ... he will become the heir of whatever he does. And this is not the kind of deed to bring him to full enlightenment, to undeclared enlightenment or to the disciples grade, or to any such position as the status of Brahmaa or Sakka, or to the throne of a Wheel-turning Monarch or a regional king, etc., and to the manifold suffering in the hells, and so on. By doing this he is like a man who wants to throw dust at another against the wind and only covers himself with it'. For this is said by the Blessed One: 'When a fool hates a man that has no hate, Is purified and free from every blemish, Such evil he will find comes back to him, As does fine dust thrown up against the wind' (Dh. 125). Path of Purity. "Having thus pondered the fact that he has his own deeds, he should ponder that another man also has his own deeds. 'And what will he also do by getting angry with thee? Will not his anger lead to his harm? He has verily his own deeds, he is heir, matrix, kinsman, and so on to them. He will be the heir of whatever deeds he does. And these deeds of his are not capable of bringing him any success as aforesaid. He who does such deeds is like a man who facing the wind wishes to throw dust at another man but only throws it on himself.' "For this has been uttered by the Blessed One: 'Whoso doth wrong the man that hath no guile The pure in heart, and from all error free On him, poor fool, his wicked act recoils, Like fine dust that is thrown against the wind' (Kindred Sayings i,20; Dhammapada 125)." Eva.m attano kammassakata.m paccavekkhitvaa parassapi eva.m paccavekkhitabbaa 'esopi tava kujjhitvaa ki.m karissati? Nanu etasseveta.m anatthaaya sa.mvattissati? Kammassako hi ayamaayasmaa kammadaayaado ... ya.m kamma.m karissati, tassa daayaado bhavissati. Ida~ncassa kamma.m neva sammaasambodhi.m, na paccekabodhi.m, na saavakabhuumi.m, na brahmattasakkattacakkavattipadesaraajaadisampattiina.m a~n~natara.m sampatti.m saadhetu.m samattha.m, atha kho saasanato caavetvaa vighaasaadaadibhaavassa ceva nerayikaadidukkhavisesaana~ncassa sa.mvattanikamida.m kamma.m. Svaaya.m ida.m karonto pa.tivaate .thatvaa para.m rajena okiritukaamo puriso viya attaana.myeva okirati. Vutta~nheta.m bhagavataa - 'Yo appadu.t.thassa narassa dussati, Suddhassa posassa ana"nga.nassa; Tameva baaaaa.m pacceti paapa.m, Sukhumo rajo pa.tivaata.mva khitto' ti. (dha. pa. 125; su. ni. 667); Sincerely, Scott. #95028 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:55 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear Rob E., Regarding: R: "Yes, for me it is a question of not accepting such a 'consideration' on faith, but wanting to see the source of such a philosophy, standard or not." Scott: I see. I think that the stance that acceptance 'on faith' is somehow naive or inferior reflects an under-consideration of the function of confidence - and an over valuation of the desirability of thinking for one's self. I think that a more thorough consideration of what it might reflect, should someone not find doubt arising about a certain thing, might be possible. I suppose that someone who accepts something - that is, finds no doubt about a certain thing - could be seen as some sort of bumpkin, a shallow sort of one who glides along without use of his own capacity to think for himself. While this could conceivably be the case, it might not necessarily be so. It is the same for one in whom doubt arises and conditions a desire to have proof of the textual support for a given position arises but for whom no concomitant energy to seek this out for himself appears. Such a one might be considered to be lazy or possibly merely disputatious. And this would not necessarily be so either. In each case, while possible, neither of these caricatures might apply. In each case, it should be easy to note, neither one is actually willing these particular constellations of dhammas to arise. Neither one 'can help' the particular 'stance' that supervenes and results in the experience of the two disparate views. In other words, it is no more my 'fault' that confidence conditions a given view than it is yours that doubt does. While confident in the 'proof' that 'naama and ruupa are paramattha dhammaa,' is implicit in the whole of the Abhidhamma - in the use of the term 'dhamma,' in the description of each dhamma, in the analysis of the interaction, the conditionality, and the characteristics of each dhamma, and so on - I am aware that it is not, nor can it be, in the mere reading that one finds 'proof'. This point is one shared by many of differing views: It is a function of dhammas arising and interacting from moment-to-moment, no matter what the activity, that constitutes 'proof'. What would the experiential 'proof' of the notion of a 'paramattha dhamma' be? And if such a proof were to arise, how can this be transferred from one to another? R: "My admittedly not very thorough look through summaries of Abhidhamma history and commentary suggest that the ultimate reality approach to the dhamma theory is *not* the only one, and that it is not the only standard approach to Abhdidhamma or to the status of dhammas either." Scott: In the past I'd ask to learn more of these views, but don't feel such a desire at present, I'm sorry to say. Of course, given the nature of views, many 'approaches' can be conceived of. I personally find that I tend to eschew any opinion of my own. I just wish to learn as clearly as I can what these opinions of the Commentators are, to consider the basis for these opinions, and leave it at that. I am in no position to create my own theory of things. Do I think I am familiar enough with the Suttas, with the language of the Suttas, with the whole broad context and mind-set of the Ancient Commentators, let alone the Buddha himself, to actually have the temerity to come up with my own theory? No, I'm just a bumpkin. R: "If the Abhidhamma does not itself reference this theory in this way, it is, or should be, of some interest where the commentators that do hold this view got it from." Scott: Perhaps, should the energy arise in you, you might find some of this. I've found that there is much energy, from time-to-time, for this ongoing pursuit. For me, and to the extent that conditions will allow, I have to rely on an acceptance that the way I see it is the way I see it, that this is conditioned, that certain uncontrollable accumulations and conditions are intricately wound up in my overall experience of learning and understanding the Dhamma (intellectually and otherwise). I accept that this differs from your own experience. Sincerely, Scott. #95029 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 1/17/2009 11:24:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: It seems that some commentaries, > not part of the Tipitaka of course, do refer to namas and rupas as 'paramattha > dhammas' but the Sutta Pitaka does not, and it is a further question that > you raise as to whether the Abhidhamma uses that terminology. > I would add three comments: 1) The commentarial term 'paramattha dhamma' > means "ultimate phenomenon," and there is nothing in the term 'paramattha > dhamma' that suggests a translation of "ultimate REALITY," 2) I take > 'paramattha' in the context of 'paramattha dhamma' to mean "ultimate" only in the > sense of not being (considered as) a collective phenomenon further reducible to > components, though the commentaries DO countenance three stages to rupas, > namely arising, standing while altering, and ceasing, and 3) If I am correct in > the view I express in 1) and 2), even if the term 'paramattha dhamma' does > occur in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, there is no reason to assume that this amounts > to Abhidhamma asserting self-existence of phenomena. > > With metta, > Howard Well this is quite intriguing. It would be interesting to know how the sense of dhammas as being not only irreducible but self-existent developed as an interpretation, and how modern this movement is. It seems that there is an awful lot in the interpretation of the translations, ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I think that's so. ------------------------------------------ and it becomes more than a little significant how those terms are actually meant. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Indeed. ------------------------------------------- What really excites me though is that in seeing this potential for variable interpretation of the meaning of the dhammas, I have developed a greater enthusiasm for the Abdhidhamma itself. It seems that it may have a great value as an analysis even to those who don't subscribe to an objective world of substantive dhammas, rather than dhammas as a corrolary to the mind's activity. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, the Abhidhamma has been described by some as an "ethical psychology," and I think that, at least in part, that's a correct description. The two main books, though, the Dhammasangani and the Patthana, are very dry and difficult (for me at least) to appreciate to the extent I suspect they deserve. (I don't have the Patthana in English but have to rely on a synopsis instead. As for the Dhammasangani, the English translation I own is HORRIBLE!) --------------------------------------------- Plus, there is quite a lot of commentary that includes meditation as an important part of the Abhidhamma analysis, and all that is fascinating to me. To be honest, the actual quotes from the commentaries have always seemed quite insightful and interesting, and don't have the same stamp of one-dimensionality that one can sometimes fall into in considering namas and rupas as static categories of being. So there's a lot to look into - if one can find an English translation of *anything.* :-) ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I own none of the commentaries. Of what I've read quoted, I've found some things that I think go very much in the right direction and some that do not. (The Sutta Pitaka is my primary yardstick.) But what I can learn from and profit from I happily do. Much of the further psychology developed in the commentaries is material I find quite interesting, very clever, and very appealing, but the basic khanavadic perspective incorporated there is not my cup of tea. (Of course, it is still possible for me to gain from commentarial psychology by replacing the stop-motion, film-frame scenario with a process-oriented, or activity-oriented, one.) ----------------------------------------------- I found an English version of part of the Patthana in a Burmese on-line bookshop by the way, and ordered it. I am looking forward to going through it. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: WOW! How much of it is included in that? ----------------------------------------------- Best, Robert ============================= With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #95030 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Accumulations upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 1/18/2009 1:20:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: Dear Howard, other Accumulators, --------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! ------------------------------------------- I just read this sutta tonight and thought if you hadn't seen it before either, you'd be interested as well... Gradual Sayings vol.I, p.105: Accumulation [Text i, 121 III, 3, $23] ================================ I consider "accumulation" terminology to be metaphorical. Each instance of a specific sort of kamma serves right then as a condition for a corresponding sort of vipaka. Each repetition of that sort of kamma right then serves to strengthen the eventual result. The appearance is that of an accumulating, and so that is the term used. With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #95031 From: "robmoult" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 6 robmoult Hi Ken and Howard, > > ----------------------------- > RM: > This model is not from the Suttas or from the orginal > Abhidhamma texts. > ----------------------------- > > But there are people, including many at DSG, who see that model (as > you call it) very clearly in the suttas and Abhidhamma-pitaka. > ===== In my earlier message, when I wrote, "fifteen centuries after the Buddha's parinibbana", I was not referring to the idea of a series of mental states but rather the specific details of the death process. The idea of discrete mental states is, of course, from the original Abhidhamma texts (this is the core of the Dhammasangani) and the idea of a sequence of mental states involved in perception can be found in the Vimutimagga, which predates Buddhaghosa. However the specific sequence of mental states involved in the death process is a much later development. Metta, Rob M :-) #95032 From: "dkotschessa" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings dkotschessa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > I understand that Rupa doesn't experience anything itself - that much > I get. What I was suggesting is that for a physical process to be a > rupa *it* has to be experienced directly, not merely inferred. So the > idea that the brain is doing such and such would not be a rupa but a > concept. Does that make sense? > > I think to be a rupa you would have to be directly experiencing a > synapse lighting up, or looking at a slice of brain under a microscope > and directly discerning its physical qualities. :) Sure, the brain itself is rupa, and you could do something like that if you wanted to experience "brain" directly. We can do all those things you mentioned. In fact that's the only way that we even know the brain is there. In fact it's probably when we started looking at the rupa of the brain that we started to become conditioned towards physicalism. Scientifically, that's considered progress, while dharmically speaking, not so much. The original "32 parts of the body" in the Buddhist lists were "31 parts" excluding brain. They though the brain was the stuff that came out of your nose when you sneezed. Clearly they didn't think as much of it as we do. When it got added back in the list it got put somewhere around "feces." Surely the IDEA that the brain is such and such is nama. -Dave K #95033 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:12 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Scott. Well I think you have given me a very thorough rundown of how a particular view arises in response to impersonal conditions. Although it does not entail a specific discussion of the subject of the dhamma theory and its conception, perhaps the rundown of how you see conditions leading to a view from your particular Abhidhamika perspective, is equally valuable in its own right. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Rob E., > > Regarding: > > R: "Yes, for me it is a question of not accepting such a > 'consideration' on faith, but wanting to see the source of such a > philosophy, standard or not." > > Scott: I see. I think that the stance that acceptance 'on faith' is > somehow naive or inferior reflects an under-consideration of the > function of confidence - and an over valuation of the desirability of > thinking for one's self. I do not at all mean to characterize the element of faith as inevitably implying that the person having such faith is a naive bumpkin. In that regard, I think you overstate the negative case against such a person. The case against the person who looks for the reasons for a philosophical stance as being based on "doubt," and as having an overly skeptical nature, is also not necessarily accurate, even though I know you meant it to be a caricature in both cases. I don't experience "doubt" arising in the sense that there is a theory that I would like to believe, but "doubt" is preventing it. Instead I find myself in the position of someone who sees a particular view being espoused and does not understand what the basis for it is, except via certain texts that are referred to, and are taken as true. Although I am sure there is much more study and verification involved, if I were to be told that the basis in this philosophy was only faith, then I would think there is something missing, although the element of faith is not bad in and of itself. It is not that one must "think for oneself" but that one should have an understanding of why a theory is correct. If there is not a complete understanding and one fills in with "faith," I think the Buddhist approach would be to say that such faith should be based on having tested the theory and found that up to the point tested, it works. In the case of the dhamma theory, that would mean having had some glimpse of actual dhammas arising, or at least some movement in the direction of seeing the conceptual object world break down to some extent into the direction of the description of dhammas, if not actually individual cittas taking their progression, a level of perception that I would not expect any of us to have, although it would be nice. So to me it is not just a matter of faith versus doubt, but one of how much faith is appropriate based on how much knowledge and experience, and whether they have a proportionate and sensible relationship, rather than, in the extreme case, adopting a theory that works on paper and is comforting or interesting to one, without any experiential basis. After all, it is a life philosophy, so adopting it has probably not taken place without quite a bit of consideration, and I'm sure that is true for you as well. My own desire for such consideration and information, to the extent, as you say, I have the energy for it, is not therefore just a skeptical exercise of "doubt," but a legitimate inquiry on which an understanding might be based. It is very possible that you have had the kinds of experiences that lead you to at least partially verify the dhamma theory as you understand it. If so, that would be of interest. I am curious with any spiritual practice, to understand whether it is something that has a concrete change in the perception of practitioners, leading to a lessening of doubt and suffering. In your case, it seems to have nicely removed doubt, and I applaud you for that. I am still left curious about the experiential basis, which you may share if you desire, or not. I think your other statements about what a person might do if they have the energy and want to investigate, etc., are reasonable and make sense. Anyway, thanks for your thorough reply. Best, Robert ============================= #95034 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:16 am Subject: AS time nichiconn Dear Friends, This installment completes Nayanoponika's section on "The Concept of the Present in the Abhidhamma": It should be mentioned that the commentarial fourfold division of uppanna does not appear in the explanation of the "triad of things arisen" (uppanna-tika) but of the phrase at the beginning of the Consciousness Chapter in the Dhammasa'nga.ni. It is said tht in this context the first category of "presently arisen" applies, that is, things presently or actually arisen. In the canonical triad itself, uppanna is defined by exactly the same words a paccuppanna. But as the defining of terms are rather noncommittal we must not conclude that the meaning of "presently arisen" necessarily holds true here as well. Also, the statement in the Atthasaalinii that the "triad of things arisen" extends over two time periods (i.e., past and future) does not necessitate that limitation for "presently arisen", because the commentarial conception of uppanna does not comprise the actual of the past but only their persisting energy, that is, their conditioning influence, still active or latent in the present and the future. It has to be noted further that in the commentarial conception of the term uppanna, the "things bound to arise" (uppaadino dhammaa) are only a subdivision belonging to akaasakat'uppannaa, though not mentioned under that name. In the triad, however, they are not included in the term uppanna but form a separate class. Although, as we see, the Atthasaalinii does not in any way relate the four categories of uppanna to the canonical triad, we feel justified in doing so because both groups of terms are obviously intended to introduce a more elastic and dynamic conception of time. So we suggest that the commentarial four categories may be taken to cover the same field as the uppannaa dhammaa and uppaadino dhammaa of the canonical triad. For any further development of Abhidhamma though it seems to us important to bring into relation, and if possible into agreement, the terminology of the different periods of the Abhidhamma literature, as far as it is philosophically justified, even if, as in our present case, no complete historical proof can be furnished. #95035 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:18 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn Dear Friends Karunadasa continues: Although the theory of pannatti is formally introduced in the works of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, it is in the Abhidhamma commentaries that we find more specific definitions of the term along with many explanations on the nature and scope of pannattis and on how they become objects of cognition. For example, because pannattis are without corresponding objective reality, the commentaries call them asabhava-dhammas -- things without a real nature -- to distinguish them from the real elements of existence.115 Since sabhava, the intrinsic nature of a dhamma, is itself the dhamma, from the point of view of this definition what is qualified as asabhava amounts to an abhava, a non-existent in the final sense. It is in recognition of this fact that the three salient characteristics of empirical reality -- origination (uppada), subsistence (thiti), and dissolution (bhanga) -- are not applied to them. For these three characteristics can be predicated only of those things which answer to the Abhidhammic definition of empirical reality.116 Again, unlike the real existents, pannattis are not brought about by conditions (paccayatthitika). For this same reason, they are also defined as "not positively produced" (aparinipphanna). Positive production (parinipphannata) is true only of those things which have their own individual nature (avenika-sabhava).117 Only a dhamma that has an own-nature, with a beginning and an end in time, produced by conditions, and marked by the three salient characteristics of conditioned existence, is positively produced.118 notes: 115. Abhvk 346. 116. See KvuA 198-99. 117. AMM 114ff. 118. Ibid. 116. (: - another one for you, Sarah... AMM?? peace, connie #95036 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Howard! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I own none of the commentaries. Of what I've read quoted, I've found > some things that I think go very much in the right direction and some that do > not. (The Sutta Pitaka is my primary yardstick.) But what I can learn from and > profit from I happily do. Much of the further psychology developed in the > commentaries is material I find quite interesting, very clever, and very > appealing, but the basic khanavadic perspective incorporated there is not my cup of > tea. (Of course, it is still possible for me to gain from commentarial > psychology by replacing the stop-motion, film-frame scenario with a > process-oriented, or activity-oriented, one.) That is an interesting approach, and makes sense to me. There is no reason not to make use of the insight of such works and do so from a perspective that fits your understanding of the process. > ----------------------------------------------- > > I found an English version of part of the Patthana in a Burmese > on-line bookshop by the way, and ordered it. I am looking forward to > going through it. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > WOW! How much of it is included in that? > ----------------------------------------------- I have no idea! I do know that it's called "Patthana, Volume II" and I could not find a "Volume I" anywhere which I thought was pretty funny. I was reading the rundown of the Abhidhamma and the history of various compilations and commentaries on Access to Insight - it was a great article, to be honest, and it caused me to get interested in the Patthana. Since "Volume II" would include the Abhidhamma view of how meditation is used to discern the dhammas, I was anxious to see that. My kamma apparently then led me to this little bookshop online and for a few dollars they are sending me the text from Burma. They seem very nice, and charge "Buddhist" prices for the texts - one book I found was around $1.50 US, and cheap airmail shipping too. Here is a link to the book at the bookstore: http://www.myanmarbookshop.com/EngBookDetails.aspx?intSupplierID=1&intBookID=120\ 53 Hmn...now that I look at it again, it may be a discussion of the Patthana - hope it's the Patthana itself at least in part. Hard to tell........ I'll receive it within a few weeks and let you know.... Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = = #95037 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:31 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Threes (42-43) and commentary, part 2. nilovg Dear friends, sutta: Walshe DN 33.1.10(43) 'Three more kinds of wisdom: based on thought, on learning [hearing], on mental development [meditation]. [Aparaapi tisso pa~n~naa - cintaamayaa pa~n~naa, sutamayaa pa~n~naa, bhaavanaamayaa pa~n~naa.] ------- N: The Co and subco to this sutta text are similar to the ‘Dispeller of Delusion” II, p. 156-158, and Vis. XIV, 14 and tiika (subco). I shall quote the latter: Relevant text Vis. XIV, 14: And this is said: 'Herein, what is understanding consisting in what is reasoned? In the spheres of work invented by ingenuity, or in the spheres of craft invented by ingenuity, or in the sorts of science invented by ingenuity... ------- N: Someone invents himself, without hearing it from someone else, things that can help others in the field of carpentry, agriculture etc. He thinks of the wellbeing of others. After that understanding of the truth of paramattha dhammas is dealt with. --------- Text Vis.: preference, view, choice, opinion, judgement, liking for pondering over things, that concerns ownership of deeds (kamma) or is in conformity with truth or is of such kind as to conform with (the axioms) "Materiality is impermanent" or "Feeling ... perception ... formations ... consciousness is impermanent" that one acquires without hearing it from another--that is called understanding consisting in what is reasoned. ' -------- The Tiika: Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:37 am Subject: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions /and Re: Suttas- the time to epsteinrob Hi Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > There is one little hurdle we have to get over and then everything > will become clear. I, among others, am talking about a here-and-now > practice. It is not like a conventional practice in which a > persisting being develops a skill over the course of time. (The whole > purpose of the Dhamma is to show that there is no persisting being, > so why should we insist on practising it as if there were one?) > > There are paramattha dhammas now, aren't there? Is there complete > direct right understanding (pativedha) of them? Is there partial > direct right understanding (patipatti) of them? Is there indirect > (theoretical) right understanding (pariyatti) of them? > > If there is any kind of right understanding of a presently arisen > dhamma it will be because the conditions for it are in place, won't > it? > > And what are those conditions that need to have been put in place? > Some suttas describe them as "the voice of another and appropriate > attention." Others suttas describe them more fully as: association > with the wise, hearing the true Dhamma, wise consideration and > correct application (of that true Dhamma). > > So the practice is entirely in the present moment: Right practice > occurs (or fails to occur) here and now - by conditions. It does not > occur over a period of time to a persisting being, and at the > instigation of that persisting being, as do conventionally understood > practices. > > Ken H I notice that in your list of descriptions there is "correct application" of the Dhamma. Obviously the Dhamma can only be applied, rightly or wrongly, in the present moment. That is a given, whether we understand it that way or not. Still, even dhamma theory is forced to include accumulations which are passed on from citta to citta otherwise there would be no progress of any kind, and there *is* progress, even in dhamma theory, which leads to nibbana, albeit after an interminably long period. So why couldn't one meditate as "correct application" understanding that one sits in the moment to perceive the present dhamma with sati, and repeat as necessary, if you will, understanding that with right practice the right accumulations will arise? Why is that any different than applying dhamma theory while sitting in front of a book? The idea that meditation is inherently future-oriented I think is quite false. The practice of mindfulness-oriented meditation is indeed to be present to the actuality of the present moment, just as dhamma theory would describe. Even in Mahayana Soto zen, we are told that "just sitting" is the goal itself and that the discernment that arises when all goals and intentions have been dropped, is the correct practice. Best, Robert ========================== #95039 From: "dkotschessa" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings dkotschessa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman Hofman wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > 2009/1/18 dkotschessa : > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > > > > Rupa doesn't experience anything for itself, so our experiences of > > feelings, perceptions, etc. are nama experienced by citta (which is > > also nama) but conditioning and conditioned by form (rupa). > > > > "If I get it aright." As our Tang would say. > > > > If you're going to be part of the gang here, you may as well get used > to the fact that there are some here, including myself, who see no > increase in understanding in your above formulation from just people > or beings experiencing stuff. Both formulations are dualistic, there > is a something, whether it be a being or a citta, that experiences > something other than itself. > > I, for one, say that the "experiencer" is not experienced as such, > they are the product of thought about the experience. If we want to > limit ourselves to what is being experienced only, then we should > limit ourselves to describing what happens, not explaining it. WE do > not experience conditionality or causality, we think it. > > Cheers > > > Herman Herman, I haven't been here long enough to know what your background is, suttawise, abhidhammawise, and so forth, and what views you may have here that will effect the discussion. I am basically here to discuss Abhidhamma as it appears in the Abhidhamma pitaka and as it is taught by Nina herself. My Abhidhamma knowledge is in it's infancy (I'm only on chapter 4 of Ninas book) so I won't be able to answer you with Nina's fluency. Having said that, I think what you're saying is that you see a "being" as being no different than "citta." Whereas I would say that what we take as a being is actually just a process of the arising and passing of cittas - each experiencing an object. There isn't any citta that doesn't have an object. As for your second paragraph, I'm afraid I don't follow you at all. -DaveK #95040 From: "dkotschessa" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma. dkotschessa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman Hofman wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > 2009/1/18 dkotschessa : > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman Hofman > > wrote: > >> > >> If you are neither nama nor rupa, why is it important to know > > which is which? > >> > > > > It'd say that it's precisely because they are not-self that it's > > important to understand which is which. > > > > I don't get it, I'm afraid. If you'd care to expand a little that > would be much appreciated. I think Nina explained it better in another post. I have to explain things in very simple language (because as I said, I am not too bright) so my explanations tend to be a bit long. I think in terms of backwards planning. The goal of Abhidhamma is ultimately to go beyond an intellectual grasp of the not-self teaching and understand it directly. An intermediate step towards that would be to learn to experiencing the rising and passing of the different cittas within our sphere of experience. An intermediate step towards that would be to differentiate between the different kinds of cittas. Cittas, as well as cetasikas and nibanna (3 of the four paramattha dhammas) are nama. Before we can differentiate cittas we'd have to be able to differentiate between nama and rupa. As Nina pointed out, this is the first stage of insight. For a Sutta based approach I'd say the Satipatthana sutta starts with the Body as the first foundation of mindfulness for the same reason. We start with the body, then to feelings (which are the intermediate point between the body and mind). Then to the mind, then to mental objects (dhammas). We start with the body, IMO, becuase we experience it most directly as "I, mine, myself." -Dave K #95041 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 1/18/2009 10:30:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: > Howard: > WOW! How much of it is included in that? > ----------------------------------------------- I have no idea! I do know that it's called "Patthana, Volume II" and I could not find a "Volume I" anywhere which I thought was pretty funny. ------------------------------------------- Howard: That kind of thing seems to happen a lot. ----------------------------------------- I was reading the rundown of the Abhidhamma and the history of various compilations and commentaries on Access to Insight - it was a great article, to be honest, and it caused me to get interested in the Patthana. Since "Volume II" would include the Abhidhamma view of how meditation is used to discern the dhammas, I was anxious to see that. My kamma apparently then led me to this little bookshop online and for a few dollars they are sending me the text from Burma. They seem very nice, and charge "Buddhist" prices for the texts - one book I found was around $1.50 US, and cheap airmail shipping too. Here is a link to the book at the bookstore: http://www.myanmarbookshop.com/EngBookDetails.aspx?intSupplierID=1&intBookID=1 2053 -------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks. :-) ----------------------------------- Hmn...now that I look at it again, it may be a discussion of the Patthana - hope it's the Patthana itself at least in part. Hard to tell........ I'll receive it within a few weeks and let you know.... ------------------------------------ Howard: I'll be waiting! ;-) --------------------------------- Best, Robert ======================= With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #95042 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:22 am Subject: re: Accumulations nichiconn Howard: I consider "accumulation" terminology to be metaphorical. Each instance of a specific sort of kamma serves right then as a condition for a corresponding sort of vipaka. Each repetition of that sort of kamma right then serves to strengthen the eventual result. The appearance is that of an accumulating, and so that is the term used. c: Sure and a person could say that any word is just the finger pointing at the mooon. I liked how the sutta pointed out that the whole future experienced by the architect is informed by his past building techniques. peace, connie #95043 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. upasaka_howard Hi again, Robert - In a message dated 1/18/2009 10:30:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Here is a link to the book at the bookstore: http://www.myanmarbookshop.com/EngBookDetails.aspx?intSupplierID=1&intBookID=1 2053 Hmn...now that I look at it again, it may be a discussion of the Patthana - hope it's the Patthana itself at least in part. Hard to tell........ I'll receive it within a few weeks and let you know.... ============================= Robert, I just looked at the web site. What you have ordered isn't part of the Patthana, but is part of the discussion of it by Venerable U Narada. I actually own the PTS hardcover version of Part I, which is a 241 page book that is a guide to pages 1-12 of the Patthana! (As you can guess, that involves an enormous amount of additional material and explanation than there is in just those 12 pages! There is material quoted from the VISM and lots of other sources.) With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #95044 From: "colette" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:47 am Subject: Re: Accumulations ksheri3 VERY GOOD, connie. I would like to comment on this when I can get to a computer and have some privacy. Something is amiss tonight, the astrall is EXTREMEL HOT. I cannot sleep. toodles, colette > > Gradual Sayings vol.I, p.105: Accumulation [Text i, 121 III, 3, $23] > #95045 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Accumulations nilovg Hi Howard, Op 18-jan-2009, om 14:19 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I consider "accumulation" terminology to be metaphorical. Each > instance > of a specific sort of kamma serves right then as a condition for a > corresponding sort of vipaka. Each repetition of that sort of kamma > right then serves > to strengthen the eventual result. The appearance is that of an > accumulating, > and so that is the term used. ---------- N: The note said: rasi.m karoti, he makes a heap. That is metaphorical. Just one nitpicking: Each repetition of that sort of kamma right then serves to strengthen the eventual result. Kamma will give a specific result, but we cannot say another (similar) kamma will strengthen that result, that must be another moment of result, a vipaakacitta. We can say though, that another similar kamma can intensify the tendency to act such or so. Nina. #95046 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. nilovg Dear Rob Ep (and Howard) I thought so. It is excellent and I use it a lot. Makes very good reading. Nina. Op 18-jan-2009, om 17:30 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Robert, I just looked at the web site. What you have ordered isn't > part > of the Patthana, but is part of the discussion of it by Venerable U > Narada. I > actually own the PTS hardcover version of Part I, which is a 241 > page book > that is a guide to pages 1-12 of the Patthana! (As you can guess, that > involves an enormous amount of additional material and explanation > than there is in > just those 12 pages! There is material quoted from the VISM and > lots of other > sources.) #95047 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Accumulations upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/18/2009 1:43:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 18-jan-2009, om 14:19 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I consider "accumulation" terminology to be metaphorical. Each > instance > of a specific sort of kamma serves right then as a condition for a > corresponding sort of vipaka. Each repetition of that sort of kamma > right then serves > to strengthen the eventual result. The appearance is that of an > accumulating, > and so that is the term used. ---------- N: The note said: rasi.m karoti, he makes a heap. That is metaphorical. Just one nitpicking: Each repetition of that sort of kamma right then serves to strengthen the eventual result. Kamma will give a specific result, but we cannot say another (similar) kamma will strengthen that result, that must be another moment of result, a vipaakacitta. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I'm not so sure, Nina. A group of conditions may contribute to the same future result. It makes no sense to me to exempt kamma from those conditions. ---------------------------------------------- We can say though, that another similar kamma can intensify the tendency to act such or so. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh, okay, fine! Actually, that is what I meant and what I should have said. It might require several, or even many, acts of the same sort of kamma to reach the required threshold for the vipaka to occur. ------------------------------------------ Nina. =========================== With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #95048 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:42 pm Subject: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions /and Re: Suttas- the time to kenhowardau Hi Robert E, The suttas are about the arising and ceasing of conditioned dhammas. (That is all there is, apart from nibbana, so what else would the suttas be about?) In this sutta (the one that lists the four factors leading to enlightenment) the main conditioned dhamma being described is panna. My rough understanding of the four factors is: 1) Panna knows the wise when it encounters them: 2) panna recognises correct descriptions of conditioned dhammas when it hears them: 3) panna knows the correct considerations that arise from hearing about conditioned dhammas: 4) panna applies that theoretical knowledge directly to the conditioned-dhamma arammana that is present now. So it's all about dhammas - the things that are being conditioned to arise and fall away now. It is not about illusory sentient beings and their illusory activities (such as formal meditation). --------------- <. . .> RE: > even dhamma theory is forced > to include accumulations which are passed on from citta to citta > otherwise there would be no progress of any kind, --------------- You agree that nothing is actually passed on from citta to citta, don't you? So your choice of words was just an unfortunate one: you weren't claiming to have discovered the atta. :-) Accumulations change ever so slightly all the time. Every citta changes the history of cittas, and so every new citta has new - slightly different - accumulations from the one before it. "Progress" - if there is to be such a thing - must be something that happens in a single moment of consciousness, which is the world (loka). So progress must ultimately be the function of panna and its accompanying right effort, which lessen conditions for akusala and increase conditions for kusala. ------------------------ RE: > and there *is* > progress, even in dhamma theory, which leads to nibbana, albeit after > an interminably long period. ------------------------ Yes, when panna occurs it grows ever so slightly, and fully developed panna knows nibbana. But the interminably long period involved is just a concept, isn't it? The entire world arises for the first time and ceases for the last time in the present moment. There are no survivors! :-) -------------------------------- > So why couldn't one meditate as "correct application" understanding > that one sits in the moment to perceive the present dhamma with sati, > and repeat as necessary, if you will, understanding that with right > practice the right accumulations will arise? -------------------------------- Knowing that nothing survives, why would anyone *want* to meditate? True meditation (bhavana) occurs as the result of right understanding of conditioned dhammas, not as the result of wanting. ------------------- RE: > Why is that any > different than applying dhamma theory while sitting in front of a book? ------------------- Remember, the application of dhamma theory is actually the momentary function of panna. It is not a conventional activity of illusory sentient beings - regardless of whether those illusory beings are said to be sitting on a cushion or reading a book. Bearing that in mind I would say the only difference between sitting in formal vipassana meditation and sitting in front of a book is that the former is likely to happen only when there is wrong understanding of vipassana. The latter can happen at any time. --------------- RE: > The idea that meditation is inherently future-oriented I think is > quite false. The practice of mindfulness-oriented meditation is > indeed to be present to the actuality of the present moment, just as > dhamma theory would describe. Even in Mahayana Soto zen, we are told > that "just sitting" is the goal itself and that the discernment that > arises when all goals and intentions have been dropped, is the correct > practice. ---------------- Yes, well, those ideas will always develop when the true teaching has been lost or overlooked. Without right understanding of conditioned dhammas those types of meditation are the only ones we can know, aren't they? Ken H #95049 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 6 egberdina Hi KenH, 2009/1/17 kenhowardau : > Hi Herman, > > I felt a bit impolite not replying to this message, but you didn't > really expect a reply, did you? > Well, I wasn't writing rhetorically, if that is what you mean. > ---------------- > H: > You might agree with me that the characteristic of consciousness > is that it is knowing [something]. If there is no knowing [something], > there is no consciousness. > ---------------- > > You began by using the term "knowing" in a way that I would > reluctantly accept. That is, as a synonym for the correct > term, "experiencing". Yes, that is how I meant it. > > ------------------------ > H: > I wonder why people are adamant that there is knowing of > something that is unknown? > ------------------------ > > Then you used "knowing" in the sense of "direct right understanding." > So you have played a conjurer's trick to create the illusion of a > paradox where none really existed. > No, I didn't mean correct right understanding in relation to "death cittas". I meant experience. Why are people adamant there is a death citta or a bhavanga citta when there is no experience of these, or even a recollection of these experiences? These seem to me not to be experiences, not even direct right understanding, but wishful conjectures that are required to plug holes in wishful theories. A citta without an perience, a knowing of something, is not a citta, is it? Cheers Herman #95050 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings sarahprocter... Hi Dave K, (& Chris*), Welcome to DSG ....I'd have welcomed you sooner, but we've been away for the weekend (currently in Fiji) with very limited internet access. In any case, I see you've made yourself at home and are taking the diverse 'welcomes' in your stride:-). I'm happy to read about your appreciation of and interest in the Abhidhamma. --- On Sun, 18/1/09, dkotschessa wrote: >Having said that, I think what you're saying is that you see a "being" as being no different than "citta." Whereas I would say that what we take as a being is actually just a process of the arising and passing of cittas - each experiencing an object. There isn't any citta that doesn't have an object. .... S: That's true.... Of course it is both the namas and rupas which are taken for a being. It is particular cittas and particular cetasikas, such as sanna (memory), vitakka (thinking) and ditthi (wrong view) that take these for beings. Looking forward to more of your reflections, comments, blogs and questions! Btw, where do you live, Dave? I'd be interested to hear anything else about your background interest in the Dhamma too. (If you've already told us any of this, no need to repeat - I'm behind with my reading and will get to it.) Thanks again for your participation. Metta, Sarah *p.s Chris, Thx for the kind words you gave Dave about DSG. The other day, we went on a day trip to a small remote island for a picnic and snorkelling with a few others. One of them was a friendly lady called Sharon Pearl Yamamoto who lives in the Blue Mountains and has been interested in Buddhism and Goenka-style meditation for a long time. We actually knew some old friends in common from the 70s. Anyway, discussing retreats and so on in the Blue Mts, I mentioned your name and it rang a bell, but not very loudly! ========================= #95051 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: cornerstone sarahprocter... Hi Connie & Herman, Thank you both for the salty logic: > > c: This reminds me of the wagonload of salt... sorry i don't remember where it comes from right now... but the people have this pile of white stuff / visible object on the wagon and call it salt even though salt would have to be known by taste & they weigh this much 'salt' on the scale when it's actually the property of, i think, the earth element. Huh? Just that I think the substance Is the quality and it's our thinking that gets confused. Don't really know whether that's K's point, but that's my take. > >H: From Milinda 2:3. The King appears to be a pushover for a mish-mash > of spurious logic, that confuses the experience of saltiness with the > causes of saltiness. S: Thx for giving the full quote, Herman. I'm glad we all appreciate Milinda. .... Metta, Sarah ======== #95052 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings egberdina Hi Sarah, 2009/1/19 sarah abbott : > Hi Dave K, (& Chris*), > > > *p.s Chris, Thx for the kind words you gave Dave about DSG. The other day, we went on a day trip to a small remote island for a picnic and snorkelling with a few others. One of them was a friendly lady called Sharon Pearl Yamamoto who lives in the Blue Mountains and has been interested in Buddhism and Goenka-style meditation for a long time. We actually knew some old friends in common from the 70s. Anyway, discussing retreats and so on in the Blue Mts, I mentioned your name and it rang a bell, but not very loudly! > ========================= Sharon and I were good friends in the late eighties. We did the same Uni course together, and had many discussions about many things. I even attended a retreat in the Blue Mts through her prompting. I lost all contact with her after Uni. It's a small world, they say :-) Cheers Herman #95053 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:55 pm Subject: Re: cornerstone sarahprocter... Hi Connie & all, Many thanks for the full Vism context to the quote Karunadasa gives here: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Karunadasa: Hence it is contended that in the case of material elements which are positionally inseparable it is not possible to say: "This is the quality of that one and that is the quality of this one." 95 > 95. Vsm 444-45. <...> > Vism (PPn) ch.14: > 43. But some give as their reason that it is because these [several sensitivities] are [respectively] aided by visible data, etc., as qualities of fire, and so on. {17} They should be asked 'But who has said that visible data, etc., are qualities of fire and so on? [445] For it is not possible to say of primary elements, which remain always inseparable, {18} that "This is a > 44. quality of this one, that is a quality of that one"'. <....> S: In other words, we can never say that one element is the quality of another element, because they are 'distinct' elements with their pariticular characteristics, even though they arise together in a kalapa. (of course, When panna develops, the characteristic of a particular element, say visible object, can be known.) .... <...> >45.....Just as the natures of visible objects, etc., are dissimilar from each other though there is no difference in the primaries that form a single group, so too are eye-sensitivity, etc., though no other cause of their difference exists'. {20} This is how it should be taken. > But what is it that is not common to them all? {21} It is the kamma itself that is the reason for their difference. <....> .... S: Even though the kinds of 'ingredients' of a particular kind of kalapa remain the same, the ingredients themselves, such as visible object or eye-sense are never the same in any two kalapas. Here it is discussing primary elements conditioned by kamma. So while the quote of Karunadasa's is correct, out of context and careful study, I think it's most likely to be misunderstood. I'll be interested in any of your further comments too. Metta, Sarah ======= #95054 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings sarahprocter... Hi Herman, (& Chris), --- On Mon, 19/1/09, Herman Hofman wrote: >Sharon and I were good friends in the late eighties. We did the same Uni course together, and had many discussions about many things. I even attended a retreat in the Blue Mts through her prompting. I lost all contact with her after Uni. It's a small world, they say :-) ... S: How about that?!! She's staying at a resort, the 'Pearl', an hour away from Suva and I may go to visit it again tomorrow. I got to know all the guests on Friday when I was trying to round up enough numbers for the boat trip. I felt like I was the local cheer-leader! Most these folk, inc. Sharon's group, had suffered nights sleeping at the ariport or on coaches or in back-packer hostels without water or electricity, but lots of mosquitoes, when arriving in the floods at the airport during the cylcone a few days earlier! Sharon, her sweet daughter and I became friends immediately. I might go back and see her and all my other new friends tomorrow. If so, she'll be delighted to hear of another friend in common! I gave her the DSG name - perhaps your presence will motivate her to have a look when she returns to computer-land! Btw, she's restoring a large old place near Leura which she plans to turn into a boutique hotel, mainly catering to the Japanese, I understood. On the discussion front, nothing too deep. At one point when we were discussing different characters of children, she suggested that having good fortune in this life, we can then determine the course life runs and asked if I agreed. Well, you know my answers by now. Metta, Sarah ======== #95055 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner sarahprocter... Hi James & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > James: ....I wrote that the entire > section on metta in the Vism. has to be taken into consideration. > That is because that is the way Buddhaghosa wrote it. ... S: OK. good. I go further and say the entire Tipitaka and ancient commentaries need to be taken into consideration too! ... >In no way do > I mean to support that weird philosophy which states that every > sutta is somehow the Abhidhamma. That's just plain crazy! .... S: I think that what some of us have suggested is that the Abhidhamma runs throughout the suttas and we can't just pick a phrase or two out of individual suttas and think we can understand the teachings in this way. We need a lot of help from the Teachings. [Connie, could you kindly re-post or give me a link to your quote, maybe from Asl., about how we can't read one or two suttas in isolation - not that this is what James was saying, I hasten to add before being accused of twisting more words. Thx.] .... > >S: So this was my point too, the Buddha encouraged us to have metta > > anytime to anyone so that it can develop and become a brahma > vihara. > > James: Again, this isn't what the Buddha taught. The Brahma viharas > are developed at a specific time with a specific goal in mind. .... S: Why not now whilst we write to each other? If 'we put metta off' until a specific time, it may or may not arise by conditions. ... >You > are not going to develop the Brahma viharas by going around through > out your day smiling at everyone. That is going to be fake metta > (which I have written extensively about before). ... S: I agree that when smiling, there may or may not be any metta. There may just be a lot of attachment and ignorance. However, if metta doesn't arise during the day when we associate with others or think of others, its quality cannot be known and it cannot develop. ... > > >S: It develops through an understanding of its quality and value. > Never > > is there a 'self' that follows instructions or does anything about > it > > whilst sitting or standing or at any other time. > > James: Not true. Not true. Not true. There are instructions to > follow and a person is not going to be able to develop the Brahma > viharas within a single lifetime unless he/she follows those > instructions. ... S: My emphasis was on how there has to be right understanding of what metta is and there is never a Self who develops it, ever. Are you saying that these two points, i.e a) right understanding and b) no Self are 'Not true' with regard to the development of metta? ... > > > > > Let's pursue this (at a very slow pace this end) until the rain > > ceases:-). > > James: I hope the rain has settled down- it seems that this metta > topic never will! ;-)) ... S: As predicted, the rain has settled down before the topic has...:-)) Metta, Sarah ========= #95056 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:48 pm Subject: Re: Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 5 sarahprocter... Hi Rob M & all, I'm enjoying reading your paper and reading the discussions on it. I appreciate your attempts to 'bridge' different 'approaches'. Briefly here... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: ... > The Suttas make it clear that we cannot necessarily trust our senses, > but "out of body experiences" are also described in the Suttas. Out > of body experiences are described in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN 2) > and elsewhere as a by-product of the highest level of jhaana: <...> > Comments? .... S: My comment is that there is nothing in common between so-called modern "Out of body experiences" and arupa-jhana "by-products" - but I think in your tactful way, this is the point you're making too? Metta, Sarah ======= #95057 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings egberdina Hi Sarah, 2009/1/19 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman, (& Chris), > > On the discussion front, nothing too deep. At one point when we were discussing different characters of children, she suggested that having good fortune in this life, we can then determine the course life runs and asked if I agreed. Well, you know my answers by now. > If you see Sharon again, and she has trouble remembering me, you might mention Robin Hall, a lecturer we became very friendly with at a personal level. And yes, I understand what you are saying. Sharon had many interesting beliefs, and it sounds like she still does :-) I assume that she would have thought exactly the same about my beliefs. It didn't matter, we got along great. That neither of us identified particularly strongly with any of our views was probably helpful. Cheers Herman #95058 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:05 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nichiconn Dear Sarah, S: Connie, could you kindly re-post or give me a link to your quote, maybe from Asl., about how we can't read one or two suttas in isolation - not that this is what James was saying, I hasten to add before being accused of twisting more words. Thx. c: I'd sure like to, but I've been half puzzled over it myself since you mentioned it the other day. Do you have any other clues for me? peace, connie #95059 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:58 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear Rob E., Regarding: R: "...It is very possible that you have had the kinds of experiences that lead you to at least partially verify the dhamma theory as you understand it. If so, that would be of interest. I am curious with any spiritual practice..." Scott: Sorry to disappoint you, Rob, but I don't believe in discussing 'experiences' - not that I've had any - on an open forum. Nor do I believe in 'spiritual practise'. I did really enjoy reading Buddhaghosa's introduction to his commentary on the Minor Readings (Khudakkataa.tha), The Illustrator of Ultimate Meaning (Paramatthajotikaa). I very much appreciate the sentiments he expressed: "I honour the Jewel Threeness first That should be honoured most of all. Then I shall make a comment versed In certain Minor Books withal. Though their profundity would make Such work too hard an occupation For one who like myself is not A giver of the Dispensation, Yet still today we find no break In the former Teachers Explanation, And we likewise have not forgot The Master's ninefold Dispensation. So I this work will undertake Because the Ancients' explanation Will be my standby, too, I wot, Beside the [Master's] Dispensation Let love of Truth the motive be, Not liking for self-praise, nor aim To carp at others and give blame: So listen attentively." [Uttama.m vandaneyyaana.m, vanditvaa ratanattaya.m; Khuddakaana.m karissaami, kesa~nci atthava.n.nana.m. Khuddakaana.m gambhiirattaa, ki~ncaapi atidukkaraa; Va.n.nanaa maadisenesaa, abodhantena saasana.m. Ajjaapi tu abbocchinno, pubbaacariyanicchayo; Tatheva ca .thita.m yasmaa, nava"nga.m satthusaasana.m. Tasmaaha.m kaatumicchaami, atthasa.mva.n.nana.m ima.m; Saasana~nceva nissaaya, poraa.na~nca vinicchaya.m. Saddhammabahumaanena, naattukka.msanakamyataa; Naa~n~nesa.m vambhanatthaaya, ta.m su.naatha samaahitaati.] Sincerely, Scott. #95060 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:02 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sarahprocter... Hi Scott, TG & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear TG, (Suan, should you wish to continue), > > Regarding the context: Visuddhimagga XXI [7. Knowledge of Reflexion] > > "47. Being thus desirous of deliverance from all the manifold > formations in any kind of becoming, generation, destiny, station, or > abode, in order to be delivered from the whole field of formations he > again discerns these same formations, attributing to them the three > characteristics by knowledge of contemplation of reflexion. > > So eva.m sabbabhavayonigati.t.thitinivaasagatehi sabhedakehi > sa"nkhaarehi muccitukaamo sabbasmaa sa"nkhaaragataa muccitu.m puna te > eva.m sa"nkhaare pa.tisa"nkhaanupassanaa~naa.nena tilakkha.na.m > aaropetvaa parigga.nhaati. > > Scott: 'Reflexion' is 'pa.tisa"nkhaanupassanaa~naa.nena.' <...> .... Sarah: i.e the 10th stage of vipassana ~naa.na - the knowledge of equanimity about conditioned dhammas From Survey: "The tenth stage of vipassanaa ~naa.na is knowledge of reflexion, pa.tisa"nkhaa ~naa.na. When pa~n~naa arises which wants to be liberated from naama and ruupa and this wish has become stronger, pa~n~naa will be inclined to consider over and over again the three general characteristics of conditioned dhammas: impermanence, dukkha and anattaa. When pa~n~naa clearly realizes the characteristic of impermanence of all conditioned dhammas that arise and fall away, it sees them as completely devoid of any security, as fleeting, unenduring, changeable, unstable and as no refuge. When pa~n~naa clearly realizes the characteristic of dukkha of all conditioned realities which arise and fall away, it sees them as continually oppressive, as something threatening from which there is no escape, as something incurable, as danger, as something unattractive, not worth clinging to. When pa~n~naa clearly realizes the characteristic of anattaa of all conditioned realities that arise and fall away, it sees them as empty, void, as something that cannot be owned, as beyond control. The pa~n~naa that clearly realizes the three characteristics of all conditioned dhammas, sa"nkhaara dhammas, is knowledge of reflexion, pa.tisa"nkhaa ~naa.na." .... > Scott: It is clear that we are dealing with the function of pa~n~naa > in this case. ... Sarah: Pa~n~naa of a very high degree.... Metta, Sarah ======= #95061 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner sarahprocter... Hi Connie, Scott & Sutta Experts, --- On Mon, 19/1/09, connie wrote: >S: Connie, could you kindly re-post or give me a link to your quote, maybe from Asl., about how we can't read one or two suttas in isolation .... >c: I'd sure like to, but I've been half puzzled over it myself since you mentioned it the other day. Do you have any other clues for me? ... S: Let's see.... 1) It was posted during or just before the recent deluge of posts.. maybe Nov or Dec at a guess 2) It was before we left for Fiji for sure 3) It made me think of Han and his comments about reading suttas in isolation - I thought I might re-post it when he's next around or when I see him in Bangkok Of course it may have all been another dream. Just as Howard's didn't ring a bell for me, no reason why mine should ring a bell for you... And now I have one for Scott & all: The recent Metta extracts about ignoring the ill behaviours and reflecting on the good ones and so on reminds me of the MN sutta along the same lines. I've posted from it before. Which sutta is it? Metta, Sarah ======== #95062 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: cornerstone sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > One of the reasons Howard's aunt can detect the ingredients, is that > she has previously tasted them, individually, not as part of the > whole. That is a luxury not even panna is afforded, there is no > possibility of isolating individual characteristics of an experience > and know them as they would be if the other characteristics weren't > there. In any "mind moment", all factors of that moment are present > and mutually conditioning, and that moment is known as a whole. .... S: While it is true that no nama or rupa arises in isolation as you say, mutually conditioning, at the moment a nama or rupa is experienced, only one characteristic appears or is experienced. For example, at the moment of seeing, the visible object which is experienced actually arose in a group supported by other rupas, including the four primary rupas. However, what is seen is not temperature or solidity, for example - only visible object. Likewise, it awareness and right understanding arise in a javana process, visible object can be known, not a mish-mash of mutually conditioning rupas at such a moment, because only the one characterisitic appears. No need to agree:-). Metta, Sarah p.s I have no doubt that Sharon will remember you..... she definitely has such accumulations to do so....will report back if I see her. If not, I have her email add. ===== #95063 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:44 pm Subject: Re: A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas sarahprocter... Hi Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "szmicio" wrote: > > S: Also if she (or anyone else) is free to join us, Nina, Lodewijk > and > > other friends when we're in Bangkok during the first two weeks of > > February, we'd be delighted to welcome them. > > L: Please record this Dhamma discussion. ... S: Yes, we always record... ... > > Are there any recordings from this April meeting 2008? ... S: Yes, and they'll be available in due course....pls be patient. The next to be put up on dsg.org will be the day of K.Sujin's 80th, Jan 2007. Metta, Sarah ======== #95064 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:46 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sarahprocter... Hi Alberto & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > I think that the Dhamma is about understanding what is actually real, > the dhammas, and that it doesn't relegate them to some sort of > undefinenable limbo where the self can safely ignore them. ... S: You have a great way with words....I love this! Also loved the one on the sizes of Self....only L and XL these days:-) Metta, Sarah ========= #95065 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:51 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. egberdina Hi Nina, 2009/1/18 Nina van Gorkom : > Dear Herman, Dave, > Herman, you find those empty words, but consider the following. > Op 18-jan-2009, om 1:11 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > >> Who is paying respect >> > to the Buddha? If someone does not know that the answer is, nåma and >> > rúpa, he takes the realities at that moment for self. He has an idea >> > of, "I am paying respect", > Thanks for you reply. I will add some comments below. > --------- > N: This saying requires truthfulness, honesty to oneself. The very simple, non-deluded answer to KS's question "Who is paying respect to the Buddha?" is "I am". But if that is said in the belief that the being who says "I am" is the cause or the creator of paying of respect, then yes, they are quite mistaken. Is it not > so that with whatever we do self, self is involved. Unless it is clarified, this use of self is ambiguous. Self as cause/creator is one thing, self as identity is a totally different thing. There is no wrong view involved in saying "That is Nina" while pointing to you. It would be wrong view, but of a different kind to say "That is Lodewijk" while pointing to you. It is so deeply > accumulated. For those who do not see this, Kh S's words may seem > meaningless, but it requires true consideration, humility and honesty > to get the meaning. What I see is confusion about the meanings of words. > This point is connected with your discussion with Dave: > > H: If you are neither nama nor rupa, why is it important to know > which is which? > > Dave: It'd say that it's precisely because they are not-self that it's > important to understand which is which. > ------- > N: We can say in general no self, no self, but what is it exactly > that is non-self? No-self means there is no soul that controls events or is the cause for things to happen. No-self does not mean that one thing is not distinguishable from another, ie that things are not identifiable. (have identity) The same for the characteristic of impermanence, > what is it exactly that arises and falls away. This specific nama and > that specific rupa. If insight is not developed of nama appearing > now, rupa appearing now, the characteristics of impermanence and > anatta will not be penetrated. As long as you are talking about this specific nama and that specific rupa then you are agreeing with me that namas and rupas are identifiable (have identity). When citta such as seeing appears to > sati, the rupa such as visible object does not appear at the same > time to sati. Only one object at a time can be experienced and known > as it is, either a citta, a cetasika or a rupa. > The stage of insight that realizes the arising and falling away of > nama and rupa cannot be realized before the first stage: knowing nama > as nama and rupa as rupa. Identifying phenomena seems unconnected to seeing that there is no soul causing/creating the arising and ceasing of phenomena. The question "Who is paying respect to the Buddha?" is asked by whom? KS, of course! Does she believe in a soul? I don't have a clue, but if she does, it is not her soul that caused / created that belief :-) Cheers Herman #95066 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: What you have ordered isn't part > of the Patthana, but is part of the discussion of it by Venerable U Narada. I > actually own the PTS hardcover version of Part I, which is a 241 page book > that is a guide to pages 1-12 of the Patthana! (As you can guess, that > involves an enormous amount of additional material and explanation than there is in > just those 12 pages! Robert ======================= #95067 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Howard! Whoops, left out the top greeting... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: What you have ordered isn't part > of the Patthana, but is part of the discussion of it by Venerable U Narada. I > actually own the PTS hardcover version of Part I, which is a 241 page book > that is a guide to pages 1-12 of the Patthana! (As you can guess, that > involves an enormous amount of additional material and explanation than there is in > just those 12 pages! Robert ======================= #95068 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Nina! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep (and Howard) > I thought so. It is excellent and I use it a lot. Makes very good > reading. > Nina. Thanks, Nina, I will look forward to getting "volume II." Perhaps then I will work backwards to "volume I." :-) Best, Robert - - - - - - - - - - - - - #95069 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:08 pm Subject: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, Well, we were going strong, but inevitably the party never lasts..... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > Thank you, Sarah. My understanding of metta towards oneself would > just be that as one would see various kandhas as impersonal, those > associated with oneself could just as easily be included. After all, > if there is no sense of "I," why would one make a distinction between > "my" kandhas and someone else's. They are all formations in need of > peace, I would think, wherever they may seem to reside. .... S: A good defence! It's true that when there is understanding of khandhas, or any dhamma as a dhamma, there is no interest or idea at such a time of 'mine' or 'yours'. However, when we're talking about the development of the brahma viharas, it is not a reality (a nama or rupa) which is the object, but other beings. At such a time, as you wrote in the post I liked, ideas of *me* and *my concerns* are incompatible with friendliness and care of others. Now of course, there can be at one moment friendliness or metta towards the person one is helping and at the next moment an understanding of visible object or sound as a dhamma, not self. These are different kinds of wholesome consciousness arising, of course. ... > > I would think there would be a real difference between sending metta > to my identity as "the Robert person" and sending metta to the kandhas > which arise impersonally within my experience from a more impersonal > point of view. I think it would depend on the perspective. ... S: There can certainly be wise reflection about these khandhas, but there cannot be metta towards them. However we dress it up, when we'd like ourselves or our khandhas to be happy, to cross the road easily or to become enlightened, it's attachment, not metta. .... > > Another point would be that aversion is often an inverted form of > attachment. If I am excluding myself from the radiating of metta, > doesn't that create a dark spot, a place of separation in the field of > metta? .... S: When we wish others well, actually, no metta is 'radiated', we just have the others' welfare in mind and assist accordingly. Thinking of oneself is the dark spot (or rather 'pit') we live with most the day. ... > By exclusion am I not overly emphasizing "myself" as something > that is bad to send lovingkindness? Why would I do that except out of > some form of concern over the "I?" .... S: When we care for others, there is no thought or emphasis on 'myself' at all. It is when we think of ourselves and our own happiness without concern for others that there is the overly emphasizing 'myself'". Perhaps you might like to go back and re-read that piece you wrote before which I enjoyed about going to work, helping others along the way. Metta, Sarah ======== #95070 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sangiiti Sutta Threes (34-36) , and commentary, part 1. sarahprocter... Dear Nina & all, I liked the way you concluded (#93720): --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >Before hearing about the Dhamma, we thought > that a self was seeing or hearing, but through the teaching of the > aayatanas we can come to understand that there are only elements that > come together at a given moment so that the experience of objects can > occur. The experience does not belong to a person. ... S: This is what the teaching of the ayatanas or elements comes down to - the arising of various elements, 'coming together' by conditions, so that various experiences of objects occur. No room for any person to do anything. Again, it just depends on various conditions as to whether there will be any understanding of what is experienced or not. Metta, Sarah ======= #95071 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:27 pm Subject: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions /and Re: Suttas- the time to epsteinrob Hi Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > The suttas are about the arising and ceasing of conditioned dhammas. > (That is all there is, apart from nibbana, so what else would the > suttas be about?) Still, that is a most general description. It is the equivalent of me summarizing a book about driving to California by saying "It is about travelling." It doesn't account for any of the specifics, or wht they lead to as conditions. > > In this sutta (the one that lists the four factors leading to > enlightenment) the main conditioned dhamma being described is panna. > My rough understanding of the four factors is: 1) Panna knows the > wise when it encounters them: 2) panna recognises correct > descriptions of conditioned dhammas when it hears them: 3) panna > knows the correct considerations that arise from hearing about > conditioned dhammas: 4) panna applies that theoretical knowledge > directly to the conditioned-dhamma arammana that is present now. > > So it's all about dhammas - the things that are being conditioned to > arise and fall away now. It is not about illusory sentient beings and > their illusory activities (such as formal meditation). I still can't fathom why you think that reading a book is not about an illusory sentient being who is reading the book, but that meditating must be about an illusory sentient being who is meditating. It is a question of x and y. In both cases the being doing the activity is illusory. > --------------- > <. . .> > RE: > even dhamma theory is forced > > to include accumulations which are passed on from citta to citta > > otherwise there would be no progress of any kind, > --------------- > > You agree that nothing is actually passed on from citta to citta, > don't you? It seems a hair-splitting distinction to me, as accumulations, characteristics etc. do wind up getting into the next citta by whatever convoluted mechanism one would like to describe. I don't see an "atta" being claimed in saying that these are passed on, through the corrolary means or whatever. > Accumulations change ever so slightly all the time. Every citta > changes the history of cittas, and so every new citta has new - > slightly different - accumulations from the one before it. that is what I meant by "passing on." As I said it is a hair-splitting distinction, and I don't see what difference it makes frankly whether cittas pass material from one to the next or they just get there by some mystical mechanism known only to panna. In either case the accumulations get over to where they need to go. > "Progress" - if there is to be such a thing - must be something that > happens in a single moment of consciousness, which is the world > (loka). So progress must ultimately be the function of panna and its > accompanying right effort, which lessen conditions for akusala and > increase conditions for kusala. It is that sort of convoluted substantive mechanical view that seems to be more a presumption than an actuality, and lends a sensibility like that of reading an engineering manual to the experience of the moment. > ------------------------ > RE: > and there *is* > > progress, even in dhamma theory, which leads to nibbana, albeit > after > > an interminably long period. > ------------------------ > > Yes, when panna occurs it grows ever so slightly, and fully > developed panna knows nibbana. But the interminably long period > involved is just a concept, isn't it? The entire world arises for the > first time and ceases for the last time in the present moment. > > There are no survivors! :-) If it weren't for the accumulations and their knowledge and experience that *does* [however you may put it] get passed on, this would be more accurate. However, by hook or by crook, memory and knowledge and experience of other moments does get referenced within subsequent cittas, so there is more than a repeated "Groundhog's Day" [ifyou've seen the film] where a totally fresh naked moment is experienced from scratch. The accumulations are experienced and that is why we are capable of forming the illusion of continuity, time, self in the first place. Putting it all back to square one and ignoring the accumulations does not account for them, and does not adequately do away with them either, but it is a convenient way to simplify your thought process. To me [or to the stream of cittas that arise as I write] it seems more sensible to understand what those accumulations are and what they are able to accomplish, rather than dismissing them as nonexistent even while talking about how they magically turn up in the next "totally isolated independent citta" which is a bit contradictory in any case. > -------------------------------- > > So why couldn't one meditate as "correct application" understanding > > that one sits in the moment to perceive the present dhamma with > sati, > > and repeat as necessary, if you will, understanding that with right > > practice the right accumulations will arise? > -------------------------------- > > Knowing that nothing survives, why would anyone *want* to meditate? Why would anyone want to read the Abdhidhamma? It's the exact same question, but you think they are different because you have attachment to one and aversion to the other, based on prejudice and a specific philosophy. You have never answered the question of why reading Abhidhamma commentary or discussing them third-hand is more kusala than first-hand meditation on the nature of the moment as it arises. Please answer something other than "it is just conditions and dhammas," as that is already established, and doesn't answer the question. > True meditation (bhavana) occurs as the result of right understanding > of conditioned dhammas, not as the result of wanting. Who said that meditation must be based on wanting anymore than reading a sutta or a commentary. Please, what's the difference? > > ------------------- > RE: > Why is that any > > different than applying dhamma theory while sitting in front of a > book? > ------------------- > > Remember, the application of dhamma theory is actually the momentary > function of panna. It is not a conventional activity of illusory > sentient beings - regardless of whether those illusory beings are > said to be sitting on a cushion or reading a book. Great, then let's stop reading abhidhamma, talking about it, etc. and then I'll agree to also stop meditating. > > Bearing that in mind I would say the only difference between sitting > in formal vipassana meditation and sitting in front of a book is that > the former is likely to happen only when there is wrong understanding > of vipassana. And why exactly is that? What is so inherently evil about the meditation that the Buddha and his followers engaged in? The latter can happen at any time. Meditation can happen anytime too. And what if I decide to read the commentaries every day at 3 pm. Is that inherently akusala? > > --------------- > RE: > The idea that meditation is inherently future-oriented I think > is > > quite false. The practice of mindfulness-oriented meditation is > > indeed to be present to the actuality of the present moment, just as > > dhamma theory would describe. Even in Mahayana Soto zen, we are > told > > that "just sitting" is the goal itself and that the discernment that > > arises when all goals and intentions have been dropped, is the > correct > > practice. > ---------------- > > Yes, well, those ideas will always develop when the true teaching has > been lost or overlooked. How is that different than the true teaching? Please explain. Without right understanding of conditioned > dhammas those types of meditation are the only ones we can know, > aren't they? It seems that meditation that focuses on the present dhamma *is* right understanding of conditioned dhammas. How is it not, in your opinion. You assert this, but offer no justification for this assertion. Please give an answer that makes sense of this assertion. This particular branch of abhidhamma study seems totally prejudiced against any form of meditation. Calling it "formal meditation" and saying that is bad doesn't make it akusala just by saying so. No explanation is ever given as to why it must lead to wrong understanding and so it just appears to be simple prejudice and dogma. Some sort of explanation would be helpful. Thanks, Robert =================== #95072 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:31 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > "I honour the Jewel Threeness first > That should be honoured most of all. > Then I shall make a comment versed > In certain Minor Books withal. > Though their profundity would make > Such work too hard an occupation > For one who like myself is not > A giver of the Dispensation, > Yet still today we find no break > In the former Teachers Explanation, > And we likewise have not forgot > The Master's ninefold Dispensation. > So I this work will undertake > Because the Ancients' explanation > Will be my standby, too, I wot, > Beside the [Master's] Dispensation > Let love of Truth the motive be, > Not liking for self-praise, nor aim > To carp at others and give blame: > So listen attentively." Well that is nice, Scott. Hopefully we all have some love for the truth as we are capable of understanding it. Robert =================== #95073 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:35 pm Subject: Further Consideration Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Co... epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > S: When we care for others, there is no thought or emphasis > on 'myself' at all. It is when we think of ourselves and our own > happiness without concern for others that there is the overly > emphasizing 'myself'". Perhaps you might like to go back and re-read > that piece you wrote before which I enjoyed about going to work, > helping others along the way. It sounds like you are saying that metta is about extending out towards others with lovingkindness. If that is the case it is understandable why self would not come into it in any form. My thought is just not to discriminate and cause boundaries of self around an area to be excluded, but perhaps that just doesn't come into it either. Best, Robert ================= #95074 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:37 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Alberto. Hi Alberto! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Hi Robert E., > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: In one of K. Sujin audios there's a dialogue that goes a bit like > this: > Q: We don't like akusala, how can we get rid of it? > A: By developing panna > Q: And how do we develop panna? > A: (... standard KS aswer to this Q) > Q: Does it take long? > A: It takes a very long time. > Q: Is there a shortcut? > A: Yes... > Q: Well, what is it? > A: Lobha. > And why would meditation inherently be a false shortcut? Any explanation? Robert = = = = = = = = #95075 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:05 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nichiconn Dear Sarah, KenH, re: isolated readings -- maybe this one: Vis ch.xi, 27 says that defining the elements << is given in brief in the Mahaasatipa.t.thaana Sutta (D.ii.294), and in detail in the Mahaahatthipaduupamaa Sutta (M.i.185), the Raahulovaada Sutta (M.i.421) and the Dhaatuvibha'nga Sutta (M.iii.240). >> and goes on to give some details about constituents and characteristic in brief and by analysis. Then, in case we still haven't figured it out, gives 13 ways of giving attention to the elements. and (lol) in my own defense, I did say {#93761} to KenH re Karunadasa and Nyanatiloka: "Hope you'll let me know if they say something out of line." (Whew! I thought maybe I'd just dreamed that, too!) Again, thanks for taking me up on it! peace, connie #95076 From: "connie" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:29 pm Subject: Re: cornerstone nichiconn Dear Sarah, <...> 45.....Just as the natures of visible objects, etc., are dissimilar from each other though there is no difference in the primaries that form a single group, so too are eye-sensitivity, etc., though no other cause of their difference exists'. {20} This is how it should be taken. > But what is it that is not common to them all? {21} It is the kamma itself that is the reason for their difference. <....> .... S: Even though the kinds of 'ingredients' of a particular kind of kalapa remain the same, the ingredients themselves, such as visible object or eye-sense are never the same in any two kalapas. Here it is discussing primary elements conditioned by kamma. So while the quote of Karunadasa's is correct, out of context and careful study, I think it's most likely to be misunderstood. I'll be interested in any of your further comments too. c: o! my turn to nit-pick: colour's not really a primary element but one of the derived ones... about which: vism xv, 3: << It makes visible (ruupayati), thus it is a visible datum (ruupa); the meaning is that by undergoing an alteration in appearance (colour) it evidences what state is in the mind (lit. heart). >> again, like the Accumulation Sutta earlier today / #95022. peace, connie #95077 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:08 pm Subject: Hello ptaus1 Hi all, I'm new here, just thought I should introduce myself before posting questions. I've been studying Theravada Buddhism for a few years now, though I kept trying to avoid abhidhamma as it just seemed too hard. Recently, I came across Nina Van Gorkom's online books – ADL, Cetasikas, and Conditions, and having read them, I have to say I'm really fascinated by abhidhamma now. Of course, there are many things I don't understand, so I'm reading these books again trying to go more in depth and I hope it is OK to post questions about abhidhamma here as I go. I see that Nina is a member here so I'm grateful for this opportunity to learn from her, as well as from other members - many here seem very knowledgeable, so I'll be grateful for any advices you can offer in the future. I have to say that I'm still very much a beginner, so I apologise beforehand for any misusing of terminology and possible misunderstandings. Sincerely, Pt #95078 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello nilovg Dear Pt, Welcome here. I am delighted that you are interested in the Abhidhamma. Questions are really welcome, since I learn from questions, especially beginner's questions. It helps me to consider more the Abhidhamma. We can never learn enough, and we all are beginners. And then, we have to study the realities of our daily life. We try to make the connection with daily life so that we see that the Abhidhamma is not theory. This makes our study very lively. Nina. Op 19-jan-2009, om 7:08 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > Recently, I came across Nina Van Gorkom's online books – > ADL, Cetasikas, and Conditions, and having read them, I have to say > I'm really fascinated by abhidhamma now. Of course, there are many > things I don't understand, so I'm reading these books again trying to > go more in depth and I hope it is OK to post questions about > abhidhamma here as I go. #95079 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Accumulations nilovg Hi Howard, Op 18-jan-2009, om 20:34 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > It might require several, or even many, acts of the same sort of kamma > to reach the required threshold for the vipaka to occur. -------- N: Akusala kamma such as lying, produces a result later on, akusala vipaakacitta. We cannot speculate much on this, it is the field of the Buddhas. I would not speak of reaching the threshold, just asynchronous kamma-condition. BUt I understand that you think of the accumulation (ayuhaana) of kamma that can produce result even after aeons. Also, we cannot say that it takes many acts to produce result. Each moment of kamma action brings its result. In the commentaries there is even a differenciation between the first javanacitta and the following ones in one series, about their producing result in this life and in future lives, but this detail is a difficult subject for me. Nina. #95080 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma. nilovg Dear Dave, I would like to add something to your interesting observations. Op 18-jan-2009, om 17:04 heeft dkotschessa het volgende geschreven: > For a Sutta based approach I'd say the Satipatthana sutta starts > with the Body as the first foundation of mindfulness for the same > reason. We start with the body, then to feelings (which are the > intermediate point between the body and mind). Then to the mind, > then to mental objects (dhammas). We start with the body, IMO, > becuase we experience it most directly as "I, mine, myself." -------- N: For teaching purposes the Buddha started with the body, with rupas. But, in order to understand rupa, there should also be awareness of nama. Hardness appears, but there is also the experience of hardness and they are different realities. There are bodily painful feeling and also mental unpleasant feeling arising with citta rooted in aversion. Actually, in the development of satipatthana there is no first and no afterwards. Sati arises because of conditions and is aware then of this rupa or that nama, very shortly. It cannot be directed to this or that object, it just arises because of its own conditions, in its own time. Nina. #95081 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:38 pm Subject: Survey, Ch 35, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, Q. : When my eyes are open I am seeing, but I do not pay attention to anything else. How can there be sati? S. : We cannot prevent the arising and falling away of cittas which succeed one another, that is their nature. When sati arises it can be aware of whatever reality appears naturally, just as it is. Q. : For most people the aim of the development of satipatthåna is to become free from dukkha. When paññå has arisen one will be free from dukkha. S. : Freedom from dukkha cannot be realized easily. Paññå should first be developed stage by stage, so that ignorance, doubt and wrong view which takes realities for self can be eliminated. If people develop sati and paññå naturally, they will know that paññå grows very gradually, because ignorance arises many more times a day than kusala. This was so in past lives and it is also like this in the present life. Q. : The problem is that when an object impinges on one of the doorways I am bound to be forgetful, I lack sati. S. : That is quite normal. When sati is still weak yet it cannot arise immediately. Q. : I have studied the text the monks chant in the morning, about the khandhas of clinging, upadåna khandhas. There is clinging to the five khandhas and this is dukkha. What does this mean? S. : The five khandhas of clinging are certainly dukkha. So long as there is ignorance of the true nature of the dhammas which appear, there is bound to be happiness and sorrow. The arising of happiness and sorrow is a kind of dukkha, because at such moments there is no calm, no freedom from defilements. People do not know the difference between kusala citta and akusala citta when paññå does not arise. We all enjoy having lobha. There is no end to the enjoyment of lobha, unless paññå discerns the difference between the moment of kusala, when there is non-attachment, and the moment of lobha, when there is pleasure, amusement, desire, enjoyment or clinging. When paññå does not arise, we enjoy defilements, we like to have lobha; it never is enough, no matter whether we experience an object through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense or the mind-door. Generally people do not know that such moments are dukkha, that they are harmful and dangerous. Thus, the five khandhas of clinging are dukkha. ********** Nina. #95082 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cornerstone sarahprocter... Dear Connie, --- On Mon, 19/1/09, connie wrote: <...> >c: o! my turn to nit-pick: colour's not really a primary element but one of the derived ones... .... S: 'not really', not at all, thx. I think I was referring to the primaries about which it had said: "37. 1. Herein, the eye's characteristic is sensitivity of primary elements that is ready for the impact of visible data; or its characteristic is sensitivity of primary elements originated by kamma sourcing from desire to see. {14} Its function is to pick up [an object] {15} among visible data. It is manifested as the footing of eye-consciousness. Its proximate cause is primary elements born of kamma sourcing from desire to see." .... S: But really, it's getting late (for me) here and so I've pretty well lost the plot.... If I say more, there will be more nit-picking or picking up of unrelated objects... .... >vism xv, 3: << It makes visible (ruupayati), thus it is a visible datum (ruupa); the meaning is that by undergoing an alteration in appearance (colour) it evidences what state is in the mind (lit. heart). >> again, like the Accumulation Sutta earlier today / #95022. ... S: Hmmm, I'd have to see the context for that one too.... Metta, Sarah p.s Sorry, the 'isolation' text wasn't the one in my dream..... ========= #95083 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > .... > > >S: So this was my point too, the Buddha encouraged us to have > metta > > > anytime to anyone so that it can develop and become a brahma > > vihara. > > > > James: Again, this isn't what the Buddha taught. The Brahma > viharas > > are developed at a specific time with a specific goal in mind. > .... > S: Why not now whilst we write to each other? James: So, are you suggesting that as you wrote this to me, Sarah, you felt for me boundless love as a mother for her only child? And be honest! If you are saying that this is what we should do, then you should be able to do that. As I posted before from a sutta, the Buddha taught that we should not feel ill-will toward those we meet but we should also extend that good will toward all beings everywhere. A person simply cannot develop that type of boundless metta with just one person as the object. The suttas state this, the commentaries state this, the Vism. states this, Sarah, where is your support for your ideas? for me? If 'we put metta off' > until a specific time, it may or may not arise by conditions. James: Metta is to be developed in everyday situations and through meditation on the Brahma-viharas. Just trying to be "nice to other people" in everyday situations is not going to develop metta because anger will easily arise when one is provoked. The metta will not be strong enough. The Buddha also spoke about this: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.than.html > ... > > >You > > are not going to develop the Brahma viharas by going around through > > out your day smiling at everyone. That is going to be fake metta > > (which I have written extensively about before). > ... > S: I agree that when smiling, there may or may not be any metta. > There may just be a lot of attachment and ignorance. However, if > metta doesn't arise during the day when we associate with others or > think of others, its quality cannot be known and it cannot develop. James: I never said that it could not arise during the day. Metta comes in various degrees and because of various predilections. But the point is to develop a metta so stong, so big, so vast, that nothing could shake it. This is what the Buddha taught: "Suppose that a man were to come along carrying a hoe & a basket, saying, 'I will make this great earth be without earth.' He would dig here & there, scatter soil here & there, spit here & there, urinate here & there, saying, 'Be without earth. Be without earth.' Now, what do you think ¡X would he make this great earth be without earth?" "No, lord. Why is that? Because this great earth is deep & enormous. It can't easily be made to be without earth. The man would reap only a share of weariness & disappointment." "In the same way, monks, there are these five aspects of speech by which others may address you: timely or untimely, true or false, affectionate or harsh, beneficial or unbeneficial, with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. Others may address you in a timely way or an untimely way. They may address you with what is true or what is false. They may address you in an affectionate way or a harsh way. They may address you in a beneficial way or an unbeneficial way. They may address you with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. In any event, you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person's welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will keep pervading the all- encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will equal to the great earth ¡X abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.than.html > ... > S: My emphasis was on how there has to be right understanding of what > metta is and there is never a Self who develops it, ever. Are you > saying that these two points, i.e a) right understanding and b) no > Self are 'Not true' with regard to the development of metta? James: This is absolutely not related to anything we are discussing. > ... > S: As predicted, the rain has settled down before the topic has...:-)) James: The topic could settle down very quickly if you could give me some sort of support from the Tipitaka which you so cherish in its entirety. :-) > > Metta, > > Sarah Metta, James #95084 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:05 am Subject: Papers from Understanding Death and Beyond Conference - Kuala Lumpur christine_fo... Hello all, Could I please encourage everyone who is interested to go to http://www.c2rc.org and download the papers. Most are 7 to 12 pages long and will only be available for download until 2 February. List of papers presented: Understanding Death & Beyond: Keynote Address by Ven Aggacitta Bhikkhu Nature of the `Disembodied Spirit': A Comparison from Various Experiential & Empirical Angles compiled by Ven Aggacitta Bhikkhu Out-of-Body Experience (OoBE)& Near-Death Experience (NDE) by Wendy Loh Lai Si Past Life Experience Through Regression Hypnosis by Dr Selina Chew, PhD, C.Ht Past Life Experience Through Children's Spontaneous Recall by Dr. Phang Cheng Kar (MD) Psychics Descriptions of Related Paranormal Phenomena (NDE & OoBE) by Master Law Thim Fook Related Paranormal Phenomena Perceivable through Scientific Means | by Ven Kumara Bhikkhu Perspective of Early Buddhism by Ven Bhikkhu Sujato Perspective of Orthodox Theravada by Rob Moult Perspective of Chinese Mahayana Buddhism ~ Paper coming soon! by Dr Fa Qing Modern Scholars' Perspective of Buddhist Texts & Interpretations Cited Above by Dr Max Deeg Understanding Death & Beyond: Summary & Conclusion by Ven Aggacitta Bhikkhu metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #95085 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings egberdina Hi Dave, 2009/1/19 dkotschessa : > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman Hofman > wrote: >> > > Having said that, I think what you're saying is that you see > a "being" as being no different than "citta." Whereas I would say > that what we take as a being is actually just a process of the > arising and passing of cittas - each experiencing an object. There > isn't any citta that doesn't have an object. > How is a citta different from the experienced object? If, as you say, citta is what experiences, then that is identical in meaning with a being that experiences. It is a basic statement of what amounts to a subject/object duality. > As for your second paragraph, I'm afraid I don't follow you at all. >> I, for one, say that the "experiencer" is not experienced as such, >> they are the product of thought about the experience. If we want to >> limit ourselves to what is being experienced only, then we should >> limit ourselves to describing what happens, not explaining it. WE >> do not experience conditionality or causality, we think it. What I was attempting to say was that the subject, the alleged thing that experiences, is not actually experienced. It is a product of thought/inference/deduction. Cheers Herman #95086 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: cornerstone egberdina Hi Sarah, 2009/1/19 sarahprocterabbott : > Hi Herman, > > .... > S: While it is true that no nama or rupa arises in isolation as you > say, mutually conditioning, at the moment a nama or rupa is > experienced, only one characteristic appears or is experienced. For > example, at the moment of seeing, the visible object which is > experienced actually arose in a group supported by other rupas, > including the four primary rupas. However, what is seen is not > temperature or solidity, for example - only visible object. > > Likewise, it awareness and right understanding arise in a javana > process, visible object can be known, not a mish-mash of mutually > conditioning rupas at such a moment, because only the one > characterisitic appears. > > No need to agree:-). > Believe me, if I found things to be the way you describe them, I would agree with you in a flash. Cheers Herman > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s I have no doubt that Sharon will remember you..... she definitely > has such accumulations to do so....will report back if I see her. If > not, I have her email add. > ===== Cool. Herman #95087 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. nilovg Dear Ann, Op 17-jan-2009, om 4:58 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven: > >> 1.'"One speaks of 'the world,' Lord. In how far is there are world > or > > the designation 'world'?" "When there is the eye and visible forms, > > visual consciousness and things cognizable by visual consciousness; > > when there is the ear and sounds...; nose and smells...; tongue and > > flavours...; body and tangibles...; mind and ideas, mind- > > consciousness and things cognizable by mind-consciousness--then > there > > is a world and the designation 'world'."'[SN 35:68] > > A. the above sutta speaks of: ... the eye and visible forms, visual > consciousness and things cognizable by visual consciousness; ..." > > I am wondering why 4 things are listed. ------ N: You observed this very well. I compared PTS, B.B. and Thai translations, which are similar. The Co does not explain anything here. Then I took the Pali, the Samiddhisutta: atthi (there is) cakkhum (eye) atthi ruupa (visible object) atthi cakkhuvi~n~na.na.m (seeing) atthi cakkhuvi~n~naatabbaa dhammaa (dhammas to be known by seeing). The words atthi are one after the other, and I am inclined to read it this way: the last one is a repetition with emphasis. I could elaborate: we have to remember to attend to the dhammas cognizable by seeing, no matter they are a pleasant or an unpleasant object. But this is my personal view. ----- > A: What then do we > take visible forms to be - visual object as well? ------- N: visible object, but rupa is translated by some as form, or visible form. Just visible object. --------- > > > 2. '"'All' will I show you, O monks. And what is 'all'? The eye and > > visible forms, ear and sounds, nose and smells, tongue and flavors, > > mind and ideas--this, O monks, is what is called > 'all'."' [SN35:22]"" > > A. Again here, I would have expected to see the various sense > consciousness as well, as in the eye, visible forms and seeing etc. ----- N: B.B.: here is meant the all of the aayatanas. The manaayatana, mindbase, includes all cittas. Pali: Mano ca dhammaaca. All the sense- cognitions are included in mano, mind. ****** Nina. #95088 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:24 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nilovg Hi James, Op 16-jan-2009, om 12:37 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > N: Metta is extended to all living creatures, it is said. > > As to seeking birth, (Pali: sambhavesino), the Co explains (In > the > > Illustrator of Ultime Meaning): of > > the four kinds of womb generation(see e.g. M i.73), creatures > that > > are eggborn or uterus-born are called those that yet seek to be > as > > long as they have not broken the egg-membrane or the caul- > membrane > > [respectively];... > I type only one example, there are more > aspects > > to it. > > James: I don't really buy this commentary explanation. First, it > doesn't fit in with the sutta. The sutta reads: > > "weak or strong, without exception, > long, large, > middling, short, > subtle, blatant, > seen & unseen, > near & far, > born & seeking birth:" > > These are all opposite pairs. According to Buddhism, life begins at > conception. So, there is really no opposite between a being that is > born and a being still in the womb. > > Secondly, could a being in the womb be said to be "seeking birth"? > I don't think so. The seeking of birth is at the stage of death, > the last consciousness. Now, if the Buddha had said "born and yet- > to-be born" I would agree with the commentary. But, as it stands, I > don't". > > Actually, this lines suggests some sort of bardo phase to the > rebirth process; but that's a different subject. -------- N: When dealing with the object of metta, we think of beings. From a certain point of view we can speak of beings seeking birth or as you prefer: yet to be born. Then we take birth in conventional sense. When thinking of the first moment of life, we can call that birth in the absolute sense, but here this is not necessary. -------- > J: My point is that > no one, not even a dead relative, should be excluded from metta. My > brother and sister are dead and I extend metta and good wishes to > them often. That doesn't mean that I think that they receive those > blessings in the grave. I know that they are alive in another > form. ------ N: They should not be excluded from wholesome thoughts, but this is not strictly the extending of metta. When we do a good deed we can 'extend merit' to dead relatives. Or we can think of them with gratefulness for the good things they have done when still alive. Then the cittas are wholesome cittas. ------- > > J: You say to radiate metta to only those who are alive. But, > according to the Vism., we all die repeatedly when dhammas arise and > pass away. So, just where are the "alive" beings to recieve this > metta? For that matter, where are the "dead" beings? ------- N: In the case of metta the object is a being who is alive, but seeing things from the point of view of ultimate realities, momentary death and birth, this is a different aspect. ------ Nina. #95089 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassana in Jhana nilovg Hi Alex, Op 15-jan-2009, om 2:37 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > In MN106 the Anenja sutta it starts with 4th Jhana and goes to 2nd > aruppa Jhana. If what you say is true, then it even supports my claim > more. The Ven. MahaMogallana DID HEAR . > > > > > > > N: > and rising up from musing and hearing the sound of the > elephants, > > > >he heard it between the attainments. > > > > > > No, Nina. The whole point is that he has heard the sound WHILE > in the > > > attainment. > > ------- > > N: Hearing sound is citta of the sensuous plane, not jhanacitta. > > Sutta quote please. ------ N: We can conclude this from all the descriptions of jhana. For example, the Buddha said of ruupajhaana: this is abiding in ease here and now (di.t.thadhamma sukhavihaara). He is temporarily free from kaama. As I said before: aloof, secluded from kaama. Kaama is vatthukaama, the object of sensedesire, and kilesa kaama, the defilements arising on account of them. As to the Ane~njasutta, the fourth ruupajhaana is the foundation for reaching aruupajhaana. But the point of the sutta is deeper. There is a~nenja that is higher and more effective: the imperturbability of the arahat who cannot be shaken by defilements. We should carefully study the context of each sutta and not insist too much on this or that meaning of a specific term. For this reason I am disinclined to prove things with sutta terms. ****** Nina. #95090 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 19-jan-2009, om 5:20 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > The recent Metta extracts about ignoring the ill behaviours and > reflecting on the good ones and so on reminds me of the MN sutta > along the same lines. I've posted from it before. Which sutta is it? ------ N: I have one here: A. III, 185, 186. (PTS: Book of the Fives, Ch XVII, Malice, § 162. Nina. #95091 From: "sprlrt" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:18 am Subject: What the Buddha said... to whom? sprlrt Hi, K. Sujin often asks this question when asked about quotes from Suttas which seem to contradict her understanding on basic aspects of the Dhamma, including formal, sitting meditation (samatha) and informal, daily life practice (satipatthana). In the Anguttara Nikaya BPS Anthology vol 1 e 2 trans. by Nyanaponika I came across an example of two passages where her question makes a lot of sense, both entitled "The Visible Teaching": Alberto AN 3.53: "Once a certain Brahmin wen to see the Blessed One...." A: He asks a question to which the Budhha answers: "When, o Brahmin, a man is impassioned with lust, he is overwhelmed and infatuated by lust, then he thinks (and plans) for his own harm, he thinks (and plans) for the harm of others, he thinks (and plans) for the harm of both, and he experiences in his mind suffering and grief. He also leads a bad life in deeds, words and thoughts, and he does not understand, as it really is, his own welfare, nor the welfare of others, nor the welfare of both." "But when lust has been abandoned, he neither thinks (and plans) for his own harm, nor for the harm of others, nor of both; and he does not experience in his mind suffering and grief. He will not lead a bad life in deeds, words and thoughts, and he will understand, as it really is, his own welfare, the welfare of others and the welfare of both. In this way, Brahmin, is the Dhamma visible here and now." AN 6.47: "Once a wandering ascetic, Moliya Sivaka by name, adrressed the Blessed one as follows:" A: He asks exactly the same question, word by word, that the Brahmin had asked: "It has been said, venerable sir, that "the Dhamma is visible here and now." In how far, venerable sir, is the Dhamma visible here and now, of immediate result, inviting to come and see, onward-leading and directly experienceable by the wise?" A: Same question, different answer: "Well, Sivaka, I shall in return put a qustion to you about this. As you please you may answer. What do you think, Sivaka, when there is greed in you, will you know it "There is greed in me"? And when there is no greed in you, will you know it, "There is no greed in me"? - "Yes, venerable sir, I shall know it." "If you thus know of the greed present in you, that it is there; and when the greed is absent that there is none in you - that is a way how the Dhamma is visible here and now..." #95092 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:04 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "25. But if it still does not subside in him when he reviews ownership of deeds in this way, then he should review special qualities of the Master's former conduct. "26. Here is the way of reviewing it: 'Now you who have gone forth, is it not a fact that when your Master was a Bodhisatta before discovering full enlightenment, while he was still engaged in fulfilling the perfections during the four incalculable ages and a hundred thousand aeons, he did not allow hate to corrupt his mind even when his enemies tried to murder him on various occasions?" Path of Purity. "If, in spite of his pondering the fact that each man has his very own deeds, his hatred does not subside, he should then recall the virtues of the Teacher's former conduct. This is how he should do it: 'Monk, is it not a fact that before the Enlightenment the Teacher, while he was still fulfilling, as the unenlightened Buddha-to-be, the Perfections for four incalculable periods and a hundred thousand cycles, was not offended with his murderous enemies in various places?" Sace panassa eva.m kammassakatampi paccavekkhato neva vuupasammati, athaanena satthu pubbacariyagu.naa anussaritabbaa. Tatraaya.m paccavekkha.naanayo â€" ambho pabbajita, nanu te satthaa pubbeva sambodhaa anabhisambuddho bodhisattopi samaano cattaari asa"nkhyeyyaani kappasatasahassa~nca paaramiyo puurayamaano tattha tattha vadhakesupi paccatthikesu citta.m nappaduusesi. Sincerely, Scott. #95093 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:20 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Regarding: Me: "'Reflexion' is 'pa.tisa"nkhaanupassanaa~naa.nena.'" Sarah: "i.e the 10th stage of vipassana ~naa.na - the knowledge of equanimity about conditioned dhammas...From Survey: 'The tenth stage of vipassanaa ~naa.na is knowledge of reflexion, pa.tisa"nkhaa ~naa.na ...' Sarah: Pa~n~naa of a very high degree...." Scott: Thanks, Sarah. A very high degree. Sincerely, Scott. #95094 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vipassana in Jhana scottduncan2 Dear Nina, (and Alex), Regarding: A: "...No, Nina. The whole point is that he has heard the sound WHILE in the attainment." N: "Hearing sound is citta of the sensuous plane, not jhanacitta...I am disinclined to prove things with sutta terms." Scott: I am also disinclined to 'prove things with sutta terms', but, upon reading the following sutta, I thought of this thread and post the sutta for interest sake only, suggesting that Saariputta was obviously not experiencing the sensuous plane while in attainment (I actually found the sutta humourous, in a way): Udaana, Meghiya Chapter. 4. Moonlight. "So was there heard by me on one occasion when the Lord was staying at Raajagaha, at the Squirrels' Feeding Ground in the Bamboo Grove. And on that occasion, the venerable Saariputta and the venerable Mahaamoggallaana were staying in Kapotakandaraa. And on that occasion, the venerable Saariputta was seated in the open air, by night, in the moonlight, with his head-hair newly shaven off, after attaining a certain concentration (a~n~natara.m samaadhi.m samaapajjitvaa). "And on that occasion, two yakkhas who were friends were going to the southern quarter from the nothern quarter on some business or other. And those yakkhas saw the venerable Saariputta seated in the open air, by night, in the moonlight, with his head-hair newly shaven off; and, upon seeing him, one yakkha said this to the second yakkha: 'Something tempts me, my friend, to give this recluse a blow on the head'. With this thus said, that yakkha said this to that yakkha: 'Whoa, my friend, do not lay hold of that recluse! Lofty is this recluse, my friend, one of great potency, one of great majesty'. And for a second time ... And for a third time ... " Then that yakkha, without heeding that yakkha, gave the venerable Saariputta a blow on the head. And so great was it, that with that blow one would not only cause a naaga of seven ratanas or one of seven-and-a-half ratanas to sink bu also cleave a great mountain peak; and yet that yakkha fell right there into the Great Niraya (Hell), saying: 'I'm burning! I'm burning!' "And the venerable Mahaamoggallaana saw with his heavenly eye, quite pure, transcending that of humans, that blow being given to the venerable Saariputta on the head by that yakkha and, upon seeing (same), he approached the venerable (elder) Saariputta; and, having approached, he said this to the venerable Saariputta: 'I trust, friend, that you are bearing up; I trust that you are finding sustenance; I trust there is (for you) nothing spelling dukkha', (whereupon he replied:) 'I am bearing up, friend Moggallaana, I am finding sustenance, frind Moggallaana; yet this head of mine is a fraction dukkha'. "It is a marvel, friend Saariputta, it is an unprecedented thing, friend Saariputta, the extent to which the venerable Saariputta is one of great potency, is one of great majesty. Just now, friend Saariputta, a certain yakkha gave you a blow on the head. And so great was that blow, that with that blow one would not only cause a naaga of seven ratanas or one of seven-and-a-half ratanas to sink but also cleave a great mountain peak. And yet, on the contrary, the venerable Saariputta speaks thus: 'I am bearing up well, friend Moggallaana; yet this head of mine is a fraction dukkha'. "(To this the venerable Saariputta replied:) "It is a marvel, friend Moggallaana, it is an unprecedented thing, friend Moggallaana, the extent to which the venerable Mahaamoggallaana is one of great potency, is one of great majesty, inasmuch, namely, as he can behold even a yakkha, whereas we presently do not behold even a dust-heap pisaacaka'. "And the Lord, fathoming this matter, gave rise at that time to this Udaana: "The one for whom the heart, comparable to a rock, steadfast, does not quiver, being detached where (things) enticing are concerned, (and which heart) is not disturbed where that susceptible of anger is concerned, the one whose heart has been so developed - whence will dukkha come to him?" Sincerely, Scott. #95095 From: "sprlrt" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:35 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sprlrt Hi Robert E., > And why would meditation inherently be a false shortcut? Any explanation? Meditation, when referring to the Dhamma, s just a poor translation of the pali word bhavana, development, practice. Development (accumulation) of panna, the only (kusala) dhamma that can understand all other dhammas (kusala, akusala or abiyakata) and in the process gradually dispelling avijja (taking dhammas for self, beings or things) and other supposedly unwanted akusala dhammas such as lobha, dosa (the only dhamma actually bothersome for the self) , ditthi etc. The progress of panna can be divided into suta, cinta and bhavana maya panna, studying, considering the Dhamma and development proper, satipatthana, seeing dhammas as they really are. Theory and practice then, in that order. Alberto #95096 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:03 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Nina & Dave) - In a message dated 1/18/2009 11:51:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Nina, 2009/1/18 Nina van Gorkom : > Dear Herman, Dave, > Herman, you find those empty words, but consider the following. > Op 18-jan-2009, om 1:11 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > >> Who is paying respect >> > to the Buddha? If someone does not know that the answer is, nÃ¥ma and >> > rúpa, he takes the realities at that moment for self. He has an idea >> > of, "I am paying respect", > Thanks for you reply. I will add some comments below. > --------- > N: This saying requires truthfulness, honesty to oneself. The very simple, non-deluded answer to KS's question "Who is paying respect to the Buddha?" is "I am". But if that is said in the belief that the being who says "I am" is the cause or the creator of paying of respect, then yes, they are quite mistaken. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: It is also mistaken, I believe, if it is said in the belief that this "I who pays respect" is anything other than a convention, i.e., that there is a real, identifiable actor. But I would go further: Even this "paying respect" is nothing other than a convention, and, in fact, as I see it, every action that we name, in fact every so called paramattha dhamma is, as an identifiable entity, only a convention, and I say this, because, as I see it, change is constant, nothing remains as is for any time at all, and it is a convention to identitfy (i.e., make the same) "the content" at different times, and without such identifying of contents, there is no capturing of a real entity at any instant. The foregoing, however, is not to disparage convention, for there would be no navigating the world for us samsara-bound folks and no interaction among us without convention. ---------------------------------------------- Is it not > so that with whatever we do self, self is involved. Unless it is clarified, this use of self is ambiguous. Self as cause/creator is one thing, self as identity is a totally different thing. There is no wrong view involved in saying "That is Nina" while pointing to you. It would be wrong view, but of a different kind to say "That is Lodewijk" while pointing to you. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Recognizing and distinguishing identities of people and also of macro-objects and even of the much adored paramattha dhammas is just fine - necessary even, so long as it is realized that these identities are all a matter of convention and not reality, and this is so because entities of all sorts are only matters of convention. Reality will be known to us only with full awakening, but "we" won't be there for that! ;-)) --------------------------------------------- It is so deeply > accumulated. For those who do not see this, Kh S's words may seem > meaningless, but it requires true consideration, humility and honesty > to get the meaning. What I see is confusion about the meanings of words. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: What I see is everybody dealing with nothing but convention and each of us, in his/her own way, pointing to certain of these conventions and saying "Reality! Reality! Reality!" What I see the Buddha as having done is pointing to all sorts of conventionalities, and in a thoroughgoing manner saying "Impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self, insubstantial, contingent, ultimately unreal, and, most of all, to be relinquished." The Buddha said to let it all go, but we, each in our own way, grasp at lifelines. ----------------------------------------------- > This point is connected with your discussion with Dave: > > H: If you are neither nama nor rupa, why is it important to know > which is which? > > Dave: It'd say that it's precisely because they are not-self that it's > important to understand which is which. > ------- > N: We can say in general no self, no self, but what is it exactly > that is non-self? No-self means there is no soul that controls events or is the cause for things to happen. No-self does not mean that one thing is not distinguishable from another, ie that things are not identifiable. (have identity) ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I see no-self as, in part, pointing exactly to identity-less-ness and no-thing-ness in every conventional phenomenon we come up with. (And, in case anyone should wonder, this is not nihilism.) ----------------------------------------------- The same for the characteristic of impermanence, > what is it exactly that arises and falls away. This specific nama and > that specific rupa. If insight is not developed of nama appearing > now, rupa appearing now, the characteristics of impermanence and > anatta will not be penetrated. As long as you are talking about this specific nama and that specific rupa then you are agreeing with me that namas and rupas are identifiable (have identity). ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Change is constant. All the same, and in fact for that very reason(!), nothing real arises or ceases. ----------------------------------------------- When citta such as seeing appears to > sati, the rupa such as visible object does not appear at the same > time to sati. Only one object at a time can be experienced and known > as it is, either a citta, a cetasika or a rupa. > The stage of insight that realizes the arising and falling away of > nama and rupa cannot be realized before the first stage: knowing nama > as nama and rupa as rupa. Identifying phenomena seems unconnected to seeing that there is no soul causing/creating the arising and ceasing of phenomena. -------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that identifying is the very basis for atta-view at all levels. -------------------------------------------- The question "Who is paying respect to the Buddha?" is asked by whom? KS, of course! Does she believe in a soul? I don't have a clue, but if she does, it is not her soul that caused / created that belief :-) Cheers Herman =========================== With metta, Howard Emptiness (From the Uraga Sutta) __________________________ Reality (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #95097 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 1/19/2009 12:05:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard! Whoops, left out the top greeting... ============================== LOLOL! Smart guy that I am, I knew that you weren't dissing me! ;-)) With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #95098 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:11 am Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? abhidhammika Hello sprlrt, Nina and other like-minded persons How are you? sprlrt wrote: "K. Sujin often asks this question when asked about quotes from Suttas which seem to contradict her understanding on basic aspects of the Dhamma, including formal, sitting meditation (samatha) and informal, daily life practice (satipatthana)." Who told you that satipatthana is informal daily life practice? Thank you in advance. Best wishes Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #95099 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:52 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. nilovg Hi Howard and Herman, I think both of you made the whole matter into something very complicated, identity, identifying, conventional, macro objects, paramattha dhammas which would all be conventional? I do not wish to try to answer all your points, I would stumble over all these notions. Kh Sujin simply wanted to help people to see sakkaya di.t.thi, personality belief. It has to be known when and where it arises. Paying respect to the Buddha, that is actually the kusala citta observing siila through body and speech. Conventional? It is kusala citta, and certainly, Howard, it falls away. Herman: Kh Sujin would not deny: this is N. this is L. But she pointed to sakkaya di.t.thi. Howard: As to conventional truth, let us say: anything other than realities represented by the words citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbaana is conventional truth. Nina. Op 19-jan-2009, om 15:03 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Who is paying respect > >> > to the Buddha? If someone does not know that the answer is, > nåma and > >> > rúpa, he takes the realities at that moment for self. He has > an idea > >> > of, "I am paying respect", > > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It is also mistaken, I believe, if it is said in the belief that > this "I > who pays respect" is anything other than a convention, i.e., that > there is a > real, identifiable actor. But I would go further: Even this "paying > respect" > is nothing other than a convention, and, in fact, as I see it, > every action > that we name, in fact every so called paramattha dhamma is, as an > identifiable entity, only a convention, and I say this, because, as > I see it, change is > constant, nothing remains as is for any time at all, and it is a > convention > to identitfy (i.e., make the same) "the content" at different > times, and > without such identifying of contents, there is no capturing of a > real entity at > any instant. The foregoing, however, is not to disparage > convention, for there > would be no navigating the world for us samsara-bound folks and no > interaction among us without convention. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Recognizing and distinguishing identities of people and also of > macro-objects and even of the much adored paramattha dhammas is > just fine - necessary > even, so long as it is realized that these identities are all a > matter of > convention and not reality, and this is so because entities of all > sorts are > only matters of convention. Reality will be known to us only with full > awakening, but "we" won't be there for that! ;-) > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > What I see is everybody dealing with nothing but convention and > each of > us, in his/her own way, pointing to certain of these conventions > and saying > "Reality! Reality! Reality!" What I see the Buddha as having done > is pointing > to all sorts of conventionalities, and in a thoroughgoing manner > saying > "Impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self, insubstantial, contingent, > ultimately > unreal, and, most of all, to be relinquished." The Buddha said to > let it all go, > but we, each in our own way, grasp at lifelines. > ----------------------------------------------- > (snipped to avoid long posts) > #95100 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:57 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Herman) - In a message dated 1/19/2009 9:52:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard and Herman, I think both of you made the whole matter into something very complicated, identity, identifying, conventional, macro objects, paramattha dhammas which would all be conventional? I do not wish to try to answer all your points, I would stumble over all these notions. Kh Sujin simply wanted to help people to see sakkaya di.t.thi, personality belief. ========================== Not both of us, Nina, just me. I dealt with what you see as complications, not Herman. (Of course, I don't view them as complications but as important. ;-) With metta, Howard Emptiness (From the Uraga Sutta) __________________________ Reality (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #95101 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. nilovg Dear Rob Ep, Op 19-jan-2009, om 6:07 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > Thanks, Nina, I will look forward to getting "volume II." Perhaps > then I will work backwards to "volume I." :-) ------ N: Vol II I found too complicated. And as to Vol I, the explanations are very good, but all those numbers of common conditions (in the same group) these I did not pay much attention. These are in the beginning of the book. Too complicated for me and I do not like numbers, I have a block here. Nina. #95102 From: "connie" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:37 am Subject: AS time nichiconn Dear Friends, We come now to Nyanatiloka's part 4. Concluding Remarks (p.112) The past course of movement, and the direction to which a process moves, doubtlessly belong to the co-determining factors of a present situation. Parts of the past and of the future are, though not real, yet , in the sense of acting on the present. In the life of the individual as well as in human history this fact is illustrated by the powerful influence of traditions and of ideals, the one being the surviving past, the other the anticpated future. But there is still another unreal factor acting upon the present: the potency or potentiality of a situation, comprising its unmanifested possibilities, its neglected aspects, the deliberately excluded alternatives, the roads open but not pursued. Never can all the aspects and potentialities of a situation manifest themselves simultaneously. Some may well appear in the next moment, others in the near or distant future, either after being remembered and taken up consciously or after undergoing a subliminal maturing process. But the significance of these potentialities is not restricted to the future. They are operative in that very moment. For example, the excluded alternatives will influence the speed, the energy, and the duration of the movement proceeding in the direction decided upon. This influence may be retarding or accelerating, according to circumstances. That is to say, these potentialities are co-determining factors of what we may call the "specific weight" of the of the given situation; and on this "specific weight" depends the amount of influence that the particular moment of consciousness itself is able to exercise. In this connection, whether or not there was conscious awareness of the various potentialities and alternatives is also a relevant factor. Here enters the Abhidhammic distinction of spontaneous (asa'nkhaarena) and nonspontaneous (sasa'nkhaarena, "prompted") actions. {73} {73} See also p.90, where the importance of the factor of potentiality has been dealt with in another context. ...to be continued, connie #95103 From: "connie" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:37 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn Dear Friends, Karunadasa continues: Further, pannattis differ from dhammas in that only the latter are delimited by rise and fall; only of the dhammas and not of the pannattis can it be said, "They come into being having not been (ahutva sambhonti); and, after having been, they cease (hutva pativenti)." 119 Pannattis have no own-nature to be manifested in the three instants of arising, presence, and dissolution. Since they have no existence marked by these three phases, such temporal distinctions as past, present, and future do not apply to them. Consequently they have no reference to time (kalavimutta).120 For this self-same reason, they have no place in the traditional analysis of empirical existence into the five khandhas, for what is included in the khandhas should have the characteristics of empirical reality and be subject to temporal divisions.121 Another noteworthy characteristic of pannattis is that they cannot be described either as conditioned (sankhata) or as unconditioned (asankhata), for they do not possess their own-nature (sabhava) to be so described.122 Since the two categories of the conditioned and the unconditioned comprise all realities, the description of pannattis as exempt from these two categories is another way of underscoring their unreality. notes: 119. VsmM 210. 120. (ADSVM 36). 121. MA II 299. 122. (KvuA 92).} connie #95104 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:03 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > -------- > N: When dealing with the object of metta, we think of beings. From a > certain point of view we can speak of beings seeking birth or as you > prefer: yet to be born. Then we take birth in conventional sense. > When thinking of the first moment of life, we can call that birth in > the absolute sense, but here this is not necessary. James: What is necessary is to determine what the Buddha meant when you used the words "birth" and "seeking birth". It doesn't matter what the commentary states. Remember, the commentary is just someone else's opinion. It doesn't matter if it is ancient or modern, it is still just an opinion. When the Buddha spoke of "birth", did he just mean when the baby pops out of the womb (or the bird cracks out of the egg)? That seems to me very unlikely. That would mean that a baby in the womb experiences no suffering because he/she has yet to be born. Remember the first noble truth which states that birth is suffering. So, a baby in the womb and a bird in the egg must be free from suffering? Secondly, a being who is "seeking birth" could not possibly be a being still in the womb. A being in the womb is not "seeking birth"- birth is just going to naturally occur for that being. There is no need to "seek" it, and there is no seeking it. That is like saying that beings, because they will eventually die, are "seeking death". We don't seek being born and we don't seek death, they just occur. The Buddha obviously meant something deeper to these two phrases. Now, Nina, you try to gloss it over and state that we shouldn't think of the ultimate, only the conventional. Well, isn't that convenient... most of the time you are singing the praises of the ultimate. Now, when I want to get ultimate, you switch the rules on me!! ;-)) Metta, James #95105 From: "sprlrt" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:18 am Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? sprlrt Hi Suan, > > Who told you that satipatthana is informal daily life practice? > Not you for sure :-) Alberto #95106 From: "dkotschessa" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma. dkotschessa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > N: How I love Abh for Dummies, because are we not all dummies when > still ordinary people? I am interested in anything you will report > about this, also what is going on in E-Sangha. If I can help with > questions from them, you are always free to copy what I write here. Thanks. I'll be starting on Chapter 5 probably later today. > > D: My only question about Chapter 4 so far is that it talks about > > prompted and unprompted cittas. Understanding a prompted citta is > > easy enough - I think, but I am having a little harder time > > understanding what the conditions are for an unprompted citta. > > Could you give an example? > -------- > N: We studied with Larry Visuddhimagga Ch XIV. First I quote: > about citta rooted in lobha, and there are eight kinds. The second > one is prompted. > view, prompted > ************************************************************ > Vis: When it is with consciousness that is sluggish and urged on, > then it is the second kind. > Subco to Vis: > > As to the expression (with citta that is) sluggish, this means slow, > not keen. Such citta occurs being urged on by oneself or by someone > else, and thus he said, "(with a citta that is) urged on". > > 3. accompanied by pleasant feeling, without wrong view, unprompted > ************************************************************ > Vis. But when a man is happy and content only, without placing wrong > view foremost, and indulges in sexual intercourse, or covets others' > good fortune, or > steals others' goods, with consciousness that in its own individual > essence is eager without being urged on, then it is the third kind. > > -------- > So, it is a matter of the citta with lobha having strength, arising > spontaneaouly, unprompted, or being weak, not keen, prompted. > I may see food and immediately take a liking to it or I may not be so > keen but still take it. This could be an example of unprompted and > prompted. > However, cittas are so fast and we cannot catch the different types. > We should not try to find out. The Abhidhamma just explains that > there are different types with different intensities. > > ***** > Nina. Ok, I can run with that for now. The difference between unmprompted and prompted seems to be not very vital to me right now, and I can likely go on further with the understanding you've given me here. Thank you! -Dave K #95107 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Papers from Understanding Death and Beyond Conference - Kuala Lumpur upasaka_howard Hi, Chris - Thanks for the url. BTW, I thought that the "phantom leaf" phenomenon mentioned in the paper on Kirlian photography is really interesting! With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #95108 From: "dkotschessa" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings dkotschessa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Dave K, (& Chris*), > > Welcome to DSG ....I'd have welcomed you sooner, but we've been away for the weekend (currently in Fiji) with very limited internet access. > > In any case, I see you've made yourself at home and are taking the diverse 'welcomes' in your stride:-). I'm happy to read about your appreciation of and interest in the Abhidhamma. > > > --- On Sun, 18/1/09, dkotschessa wrote: > > >Having said that, I think what you're saying is that you see > a "being" as being no different than "citta." Whereas I would say > that what we take as a being is actually just a process of the > arising and passing of cittas - each experiencing an object. There > isn't any citta that doesn't have an object. > .... > S: That's true.... Of course it is both the namas and rupas which are taken for a being. It is particular cittas and particular cetasikas, such as sanna (memory), vitakka (thinking) and ditthi (wrong view) that take these for beings. Thank you for that clarification yet. I haven't got quite that far in Abhidhamma yet but it's a good preview. > Looking forward to more of your reflections, comments, blogs and questions! > > Btw, where do you live, Dave? I'd be interested to hear anything else about your background interest in the Dhamma too. (If you've already told us any of this, no need to repeat - I'm behind with my reading and will get to it.) I am currently living in Delaware, having spent most of my life in ennsylvania. I've probably been seriously interested in Dhamma for about 5 years or so, and less seriously interested for maybe 10. 5 Years ago marks when I first started meditating in ernest, doing retreats at Zen centers and such. After awhile of becoming a bit weary of some of the attitudes I found in some zen circles I took an interest in Theravada, though I still attend meditations at a local zen center. I have visited the Bhavana Society a few times and met Bhante Gunaratana, though I've never done a formal retreat there. I do not have any kind of formal teacher, so most of my learning has occured over the internet dicussions and books. Most of my learning comes from listening to audio, and most recently I have been going through Bhikkhu Bodhi's course on the Majjhima Nikaya. I had planned to hold off on studying Abhidhamma until I was through with the Majjhima Nikaya and a few other Sutta collections, but it was actually a post from Chris on E-sangha that gave some compelling reasons to study Abhidhamma and the Suttas concurrently. It's already been of enourmous value to me. I'm also doing a study of the Vinaya as well, going through Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "Monastic Code of Discipline." -DaveK #95109 From: "dkotschessa" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings dkotschessa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman Hofman wrote: > How is a citta different from the experienced object? If, as you say, > citta is what experiences, then that is identical in meaning with a > being that experiences. It is a basic statement of what amounts to a > subject/object duality. If you're hoping for something like a nondualistic philosophy then I don't think you'll find much satisfaction in Abhidhamma. As I think was stated elsewhere, the idea of paramattha dhammas or "ultimate realities" means in the sense that they have been divided up so much they can not be divided up any more. As far as I can tell, that's about as dualistic as it gets. So, there's the object (color, for example) and there's the eye- consciousness which experiences that object. It arises and falls away just as quickly. If you're hearing and seeing something at the same time then you'd be experiencing an alternation of ear consiousness and eye consiousness, rapidly back and forth. But really it's all six senses, in a rapid series, going by so fast that they paint our picture of reality. At least that's my understanding. A citta is not a "being." I wasn't sure how to define being Abhidhammically though I said it was probably a series of cittas. But as Sara pointed out: "it is both the namas and rupas which are taken for a being. It is particular cittas and particular cetasikas, such as sanna (memory), vitakka (thinking) and ditthi (wrong view) that take these for beings." The good qualifier she used there is of course that these are "taken for a being." There is no being there, just an arising and falling of namas and rupas so quickly that they appear to be a solid object or concrete stream of conciousness that we identify with as a self. > What I was attempting to say was that the subject, the alleged thing > that experiences, is not actually experienced. It is a product of > thought/inference/deduction. Well, I guess that might be right, in the sense that Citta doesn't experience itself, but it always experiences something else. It experiences sights, sound, smells, tastes, bodysense and mind objects. But there's on attempt (as far as I know) in Abhidhamma to say that this means they are unified, since we're dealing with things about as chopped up as they can be. I'm not sure if that answers or satisfies your concern there. Like I said before I'm fairly new at Abhidhamma. -DaveK #95110 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings upasaka_howard Hi, Dave (and Herman) - In a message dated 1/19/2009 12:06:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, dkotschessa@... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman Hofman wrote: > How is a citta different from the experienced object? If, as you say, > citta is what experiences, then that is identical in meaning with a > being that experiences. It is a basic statement of what amounts to a > subject/object duality. If you're hoping for something like a nondualistic philosophy then I don't think you'll find much satisfaction in Abhidhamma. As I think was stated elsewhere, the idea of paramattha dhammas or "ultimate realities" means in the sense that they have been divided up so much they can not be divided up any more. As far as I can tell, that's about as dualistic as it gets. ============================= Duality and non-duality aside, experiencing/knowing/being-conscious-of is just an event, IMO, an occurrence (or a happening). There is no experiencer, whether thought of as person or as citta-thing; there is just the knowing. With metta, Howard (From the Diamond Sutra) #95111 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:38 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. glenjohnann Dear Nina --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > N: I compared PTS, B.B. and Thai > translations, which are similar. The Co does not explain anything > here. Then I took the Pali, the Samiddhisutta: atthi (there is) > cakkhum (eye) atthi ruupa (visible object) atthi cakkhuvi~n~na.na.m > (seeing) atthi cakkhuvi~n~naatabbaa dhammaa > (dhammas to be known by seeing). > The words atthi are one after the other, and I am inclined to read it > this way: the last one is a repetition with emphasis. I could > elaborate: we have to remember to attend to the dhammas cognizable by > seeing, no matter they are a pleasant or an unpleasant object. But > this is my personal view. > ----- A: Thank you very much for this - I had not realized that an answer to my question would take such a search through various translations, the Thai and the Pali and the commentaries. Your accumulations for such work (and that of others on the list with similar accumulations) are of great benefit for all of us. Your suggestion that the 4th (atthi cakkuvin~n~aatabbaa dhamma) is for emphasis certainly makes sense here. Ann #95112 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:50 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nilovg Hi James, Op 19-jan-2009, om 17:03 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Now, Nina, you try to gloss it over and state that we shouldn't > think of the ultimate, only the conventional. Well, isn't that > convenient... most of the time you are singing the praises of the > ultimate. Now, when I want to get ultimate, you switch the rules on > me!! ;-)) ------- N: we have to be flexible don't we? LOL. I think it best to look at the Pali and the Co. seems to give a good rendering of the Pali, but, I know you rather leave the Pali. Then you are dependent on different translations of different writers. I prefer the interpretation of the commentary. Nina. #95113 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:10 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. nilovg Hi Howard, sorry I did not quite get it. Perhaps you can give a short rendering of what you find important? The combined post did not make things easy for me, but sure there must have been a lack of patience from my side. Nina. Op 19-jan-2009, om 15:57 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Not both of us, Nina, just me. I dealt with what you see as > complications, not Herman. (Of course, I don't view them as > complications but as > important. ;-) #95114 From: Charles Thompson Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:56 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Papers from Understanding Death and Beyond Conference - Kuala Lumpur dhammasaro Warm thanks. Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@...: cforsyth1@...: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:05:28 +0000Subject: [dsg] Papers from Understanding Death and Beyond Conference - Kuala Lumpur Hello all,Could I please encourage everyone who is interested to go to http://www.c2rc.org and download the papers. Most are 7 to 12 pages long and will only be available for download until 2 February. #95115 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings egberdina Hi Howard and Dave, 2009/1/20 : > Hi, Dave (and Herman) - > > ============================= > Duality and non-duality aside, experiencing/knowing/being-conscious-of > is just an event, IMO, an occurrence (or a happening). There is no > experiencer, whether thought of as person or as citta-thing; there is just the knowing. > Right. And that is why we can safely categorise the ayatanas as a product of thought as well, in that we do not experience eye-sense or ear-sense or any other sense. These things creep in as explanations of experience, as the instruments that do the sensing. Cheers Herman #95116 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:09 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Herman) - In a message dated 1/19/2009 3:10:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, sorry I did not quite get it. Perhaps you can give a short rendering of what you find important? ----------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) Probably not. All that I said in that post is what I thought had importance. ;-) But, of course, that's just my opinion, and I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone else should find it so. As for further explainiing, I'm sorry I wasn't very clear, but I don't think I can do any better. It's really okay, let's just let it go. :-) ------------------------------------------- The combined post did not make things easy for me, but sure there must have been a lack of patience from my side. -------------------------------------------- Howard: No, it was at least partly my lack of clarity. As for the combined post being complex due to the combining, well just ignore Herman's stuff!! ;-))) ------------------------------------------- Nina. ========================== With metta, Howard Reality (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #95117 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:00 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. egberdina Hi radical Howard :-), 2009/1/20 : > Hi, Herman (and Nina & Dave) - > > In a message dated 1/18/2009 11:51:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It is also mistaken, I believe, if it is said in the belief that this "I > who pays respect" is anything other than a convention, i.e., that there is a > real, identifiable actor. But I would go further: Even this "paying respect" > is nothing other than a convention, and, in fact, as I see it, every action > that we name, in fact every so called paramattha dhamma is, as an > identifiable entity, only a convention, and I say this, because, as I see it, change is > constant, nothing remains as is for any time at all, and it is a convention > to identitfy (i.e., make the same) "the content" at different times, and > without such identifying of contents, there is no capturing of a real entity at > any instant. The foregoing, however, is not to disparage convention, for there > would be no navigating the world for us samsara-bound folks and no > interaction among us without convention. > ---------------------------------------------- I agree with you to a certain extent. But there are discoverable and knowable facts about the way samsara works that are not at all a matter of convention. The laws of nature operate despite ignorance of them. No matter how one conceives of the world, it is not that conception that places limits on our possibilities. That I cannot walk through a solid wall is a reality independent of human convention. What's more, that there are human conventions is not itself a human convention. We cannot will samsara away. > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Recognizing and distinguishing identities of people and also of > macro-objects and even of the much adored paramattha dhammas is just fine - necessary > even, so long as it is realized that these identities are all a matter of > convention and not reality, and this is so because entities of all sorts are > only matters of convention. Reality will be known to us only with full > awakening, but "we" won't be there for that! ;-)) > --------------------------------------------- That last line captures the paradox nicely. Neither a beginning or an end to samsara will ever be known. > > > > > It is so deeply >> accumulated. For those who do not see this, Kh S's words may seem >> meaningless, but it requires true consideration, humility and honesty >> to get the meaning. > > What I see is confusion about the meanings of words. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > What I see is everybody dealing with nothing but convention and each of > us, in his/her own way, pointing to certain of these conventions and saying > "Reality! Reality! Reality!" What I see the Buddha as having done is pointing > to all sorts of conventionalities, and in a thoroughgoing manner saying > "Impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self, insubstantial, contingent, ultimately > unreal, and, most of all, to be relinquished." The Buddha said to let it all go, > but we, each in our own way, grasp at lifelines. > ----------------------------------------------- I believe that the grasping precedes the psychological "we". It is not an ego or a self that grasps and clings, it is the body that does this. And the body is not a human convention, but the source of human conventions. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I see no-self as, in part, pointing exactly to identity-less-ness and > no-thing-ness in every conventional phenomenon we come up with. (And, in case > anyone should wonder, this is not nihilism.) > ----------------------------------------------- That the mind is a nothingness has no implications for the being of the world. > > > > > The same for the characteristic of impermanence, >> what is it exactly that arises and falls away. This specific nama and >> that specific rupa. If insight is not developed of nama appearing >> now, rupa appearing now, the characteristics of impermanence and >> anatta will not be penetrated. > > As long as you are talking about this specific nama and that specific > rupa then you are agreeing with me that namas and rupas are > identifiable (have identity). > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Change is constant. All the same, and in fact for that very reason(!), > nothing real arises or ceases. > ----------------------------------------------- In the realm of the mind, yes. > > > Identifying phenomena seems unconnected to seeing that there is no > soul causing/creating the arising and ceasing of phenomena. > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think that identifying is the very basis for atta-view at all levels. > -------------------------------------------- We'll have to disagree on this. I do not believe that the distinction this/not-this leads to a belief in a soul. Animals of all kinds distinguish between what is food and not-food, friend or foe, potential mate and not potential mate, my group and not my group etc etc but belief in a soul is particular to humans only. Cheers Herman #95118 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:09 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 1/19/2009 6:00:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi radical Howard :-), 2009/1/20 : > Hi, Herman (and Nina & Dave) - > > In a message dated 1/18/2009 11:51:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It is also mistaken, I believe, if it is said in the belief that this "I > who pays respect" is anything other than a convention, i.e., that there is a > real, identifiable actor. But I would go further: Even this "paying respect" > is nothing other than a convention, and, in fact, as I see it, every action > that we name, in fact every so called paramattha dhamma is, as an > identifiable entity, only a convention, and I say this, because, as I see it, change is > constant, nothing remains as is for any time at all, and it is a convention > to identitfy (i.e., make the same) "the content" at different times, and > without such identifying of contents, there is no capturing of a real entity at > any instant. The foregoing, however, is not to disparage convention, for there > would be no navigating the world for us samsara-bound folks and no > interaction among us without convention. > ---------------------------------------------- I agree with you to a certain extent. But there are discoverable and knowable facts about the way samsara works that are not at all a matter of convention. The laws of nature operate despite ignorance of them. No matter how one conceives of the world, it is not that conception that places limits on our possibilities. That I cannot walk through a solid wall is a reality independent of human convention. What's more, that there are human conventions is not itself a human convention. We cannot will samsara away. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: And I agree with you to a certain extent also! ;-) I see all thing-making as purely a matter of convention, but some stories are better predictors of experience than others. So, not all conventions are equally useful or dependable. ---------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Recognizing and distinguishing identities of people and also of > macro-objects and even of the much adored paramattha dhammas is just fine - necessary > even, so long as it is realized that these identities are all a matter of > convention and not reality, and this is so because entities of all sorts are > only matters of convention. Reality will be known to us only with full > awakening, but "we" won't be there for that! ;-)) > --------------------------------------------- That last line captures the paradox nicely. Neither a beginning or an end to samsara will ever be known. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, well, almost. An end will be known, but not by "you" or by "me". -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > It is so deeply >> accumulated. For those who do not see this, Kh S's words may seem >> meaningless, but it requires true consideration, humility and honesty >> to get the meaning. > > What I see is confusion about the meanings of words. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > What I see is everybody dealing with nothing but convention and each of > us, in his/her own way, pointing to certain of these conventions and saying > "Reality! Reality! Reality!" What I see the Buddha as having done is pointing > to all sorts of conventionalities, and in a thoroughgoing manner saying > "Impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self, insubstantial, contingent, ultimately > unreal, and, most of all, to be relinquished." The Buddha said to let it all go, > but we, each in our own way, grasp at lifeelines. > ----------------------------------------------- I believe that the grasping precedes the psychological "we". It is not an ego or a self that grasps and clings, it is the body that does this. And the body is not a human convention, but the source of human conventions. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that grasping precedes the idea of "me" and the belief in "me," but not the *sense* of "me." I see it tied right in with the sense of "me". ------------------------------------------------ > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I see no-self as, in part, pointing exactly to identity-less-ness and > no-thing-ness in every conventional phenomenon we come up with. (And, in case > anyone should wonder, this is not nihilism.) > ----------------------------------------------- That the mind is a nothingness has no implications for the being of the world. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Hey, c'mon, this is Howard you're talking to! ;-) ------------------------------------------------ > > > > > The same for the characteristic of impermanence, >> what is it exactly that arises and falls away. This specific nama and >> that specific rupa. If insight is not developed of nama appearing >> now, rupa appearing now, the characteristics of impermanence and >> anatta will not be penetrated. > > As long as you are talking about this specific nama and that specific > rupa then you are agreeing with me that namas and rupas are > identifiable (have identity). > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Change is constant. All the same, and in fact for that very reason(!), > nothing real arises or ceases. > ----------------------------------------------- In the realm of the mind, yes. > > > Identifying phenomena seems unconnected to seeing that there is no > soul causing/creating the arising and ceasing of phenomena. > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think that identifying is the very basis for atta-view at all levels. > -------------------------------------------- We'll have to disagree on this. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. ------------------------------------------ I do not believe that the distinction this/not-this leads to a belief in a soul. Animals of all kinds distinguish between what is food and not-food, friend or foe, potential mate and not potential mate, my group and not my group etc etc but belief in a soul is particular to humans only. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I don't care about souls in the "spirit" sense, but as "cores". And there ain't none. --------------------------------------- Cheers Herman =========================== With metta, Howard Emptiness (From the Uraga Sutta) #95119 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma. egberdina Hi Nina, 2009/1/19 Nina van Gorkom : > Dear Dave, > -------- > Actually, in the development of satipatthana there is no first and no > afterwards. Sati arises because of conditions and is aware then of > this rupa or that nama, very shortly. It cannot be directed to this > or that object, it just arises because of its own conditions, in its > own time. > I do not think it is useful to speak about conditions in general. If we do not know what the conditions are for certain arisings then we should say so, and if we do know what the conditions are, we can list them for the benefit of ourselves and others. But to just speak of conditions in general only is no more than expressing a view, not a truth. Happily, the conditions for the arising of sati are well known and described. There is a whole section on satipatthana in the SN, section 47. This section makes it clear that "sati in daily life" is a fiction. Rather, sati and jhana are inextricably intertwined. Cheers Herman #95120 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:32 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Regarding: S: "And now I have one for Scott & all: The recent Metta extracts about ignoring the ill behaviours and reflecting on the good ones and so on reminds me of the MN sutta along the same lines. I've posted from it before. Which sutta is it?" Scott: I've gotten stuck on MN 21 (i.e. I've been reading it over a few times). There might be others but this says as much as you note above. Did I find it? Sincerely, Scott. #95121 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:07 pm Subject: Re: Sangiiti Sutta Threes (44-45) scottduncan2 Dear Friends, Following on from: #94898 Threes (42-43) (cy: #94985, #95037) - CSCD Tii.naavudhaani â€" sutaavudha.m, pavivekaavudha.m, pa~n~naavudha.m. Walshe DN 33.1.10(44) ‘Three armaments*1047 what one has learnt, detachment, wisdom. Olds [3.44] Three weapons: the weapon of knowledge, the weapon of detachment, the weapon of wisdom. RD's [3.44] Three kins of armour:--that of doctrine learnt, that of detachment, that of knowledge. *walshe: 1047 Ways in which one is 'guarded'. **olds: [ 3.44 ] (aavudhaani; sutaa-, pavivekaa, pa~n~naa-: aavudha: PED: an instrument to fight with, a weapon, stick; suta=heard, paviveka=of detachment; wisdom; If we can hear this as "Weapons in the battle against death," the series becomes not one of grades in a heirarchy, but of choices according to circumstance. Both Walshe and Rhys Davids appear to be taking a clue from the commentaries which interpret this to mean ways in which one is able to guard or protect the self. ***rd: 3.44Detachment of body (solitude), of mind (purity), and from the conditions of rebirth. Comy. CSCD Tii.nindriyaani â€" ana~n~naata~n~nassaamiitindriya.m, a~n~nindriya.m, a~n~naataavindriya.m. Walshe DN 33.1.10(45) 'Three faculties: *1048 of knowing that one will know the unknown, of highest knowledge, of the one who knows (a~n~naata'm-~nassaamiitindirya'm, a~n~nindriya'm, a~n~naataa-v-indriya'm). Olds [3.45] Three Guiding Forces: The Guiding Force that is knowing the unknown; The Guiding Force of Omniscience; The Guiding Force of Attaining Omniscience. RD's [3.45] Three faculties:--that of coming to know the unknown, that of knowing, that of perfected knowledge. *walshe: 1048 The higher faculties of the Steam-Winner, etc. **olds: [3.45] (Indriyaani: (see: SN.V. Indriyasamyutta PTS: The Method, V.179; WP: The Faculty of Final Knowledge, II.1677; and The Powers of the Aristocrats) Attributes of Indra; Indra-like. Of or flowing from Indra. The usual "faculties," needs "...of Indra" or something that indicates that these are extra-ordinary, or god-like faculties (or, more accurately, faculties seen as godlike or wondrous). Woodward uses "controlling powers, faculties, and controlling faculties." The various Indrianis are all forms of power or attributes that are found under other categories. However when in the Pali they are found under this heading they have a much more magical, super-normal connotation. Since the idea of Indra (a god of War and Wrath, much like, if not the same as Zeus and Jupiter) was largely replaced in the Buddhist culture by the idea of Sakka (a god of good deeds, respect for the elders, and a Streamwinner), I suspect that what we have in these "faculties" is a carry-over of an old set of power categories with the terms being redefined in the Buddhist sense possibly to make the transition more comprehensable for those of the older beliefs. In the Samyutta version of these three, the heading is ~naaya, or "method" or "knack," Woodward (pp. 179): The Method There are these three controlling faculties. What three? The consciousness that 'I shall know the unknown,' the consciousness of gnosis, the consciousness of one who has the gnosis. These are the three. And he footnotes the last: Buddh. Psych. Eth. 86; VM. 491; Asl. 291; B. 'The faculty of the a~n~naataavin the holder of things known), of him who, in the philosophy of the Four Truths, has completed what was to be done.' ana~n~naata.m-~nassaamiitindriya.m: PED: the factulty of him (who believes) "I shall know what is not known (yet)." The "not-known-knowing-controlling power." a~n~nindriya.m: PED has the faculty of perfect knowledge or of knowledge made perfect; a~n~naa is a synonym for arahantship, and is the power to know whatever one wishes to know whenever one wishes to know it; a slightly different understanding of the idea of omnicience (knowing all things at all times) a~n~naataavindriya.m: PED: known, recognised. If these three are a "method," then they need to show progression as well as indicate technique. In my rendering I am suggesting they indicate: the intent to know; the inspiration of the knowable itself; the reward of knowing. ***rd: 3.45Cf. Bud. Psy. Eth., §§ 296, 364a, 555; Vibh., p. 124; P.P., p.2; Yam. II, 61. Sincerely, Scott, connie, Nina. #95122 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:35 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob Hi Scott [and Alberto.) Not meaning to hound you or Alberto unduly, but I would like to point out the contradictory nature of the language in this translation - it is full of imperatives. I would like to know if you believe it is a case of mistranslation, or if when it comes to the Abhidhamma and commentaries you feel that imperatives are fine, even though they carry the sense of doership and volition on the part of an illusory person. Below I have noted a few examples. They are very easy to find, since they occur throughout: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear All, > > Continuing: > > The Path of Purification. > > "25. But if it still does not subside in him when he reviews ownership > of deeds in this way, then he should review special qualities of the > Master's former conduct. "he should review special qualities..." clearly indicates an imperative to be taken up by a living being. > > "26. Here is the way of reviewing it: An explanation of the correct way that the person should engage in doing it. 'Now you who have gone forth, is > it not a fact that when your Master was a Bodhisatta before > discovering full enlightenment, while he was still engaged in > fulfilling the perfections during the four incalculable ages and a > hundred thousand aeons, he did not allow hate to corrupt his mind even > when his enemies tried to murder him on various occasions?" "...he did not allow hate to corrupt his mind..." clearly indicates a person who is using his will or volition to keep the hate from corrupting his mind. > > Path of Purity. > > "If, in spite of his pondering the fact that each man has his very own > deeds, his hatred does not subside, he should then recall the virtues > of the Teacher's former conduct. "He should then recall.." again clearly gives instructions for what someone *should* do to get a certain type of result, as seen in the next sentence. This is how he should do it: "This is how he should do it!" This is outrageous, calling for the Monk to behave in a specific way, according to instructions, in order to get the desired result. What happened to conditions arising in the moment and causing things to happen mechanically, without any intercession whatsoever of the will or volition of an illusory being? Can you explain this blatant invocation of the false being who is doing these actions and is being instructed in this way? Or is that Abhidhamma instructions and volition are okay, and other forms of instruction or practice that don't agree with the commentaries are not okay? Thanks, Robert P.S. By the way, since the Buddha was not offended by his murderous enemies, I hope you won't be too offended by this friendly challenge. ===================== #95123 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:40 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Alberto. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Hi Robert E., > > > And why would meditation inherently be a false shortcut? Any > explanation? > > Meditation, when referring to the Dhamma, s just a poor translation of > the pali word bhavana, development, practice. So what is all the stuff the Buddha writes about breathing and being aware of the breath, as a pathway to development of sati and satipatthana, as fully and lengthily developed in the anapanasati and satipatthana suttas? Do you think that all this attention to breathing was meant as some kind of unimportant sidenote by the Buddha when he promimently develops the technique of following breath in these suttas? Whether bhavana is translated as meditation or development or study or taking a nap, the practice of watching the breath and using it as an object of samatha, sati and vipassana is clearly indicated in these suttas, call it what you like. It is meditation by any other name. Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = #95124 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Howard! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 1/19/2009 12:05:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > Hi Howard! > Whoops, left out the top greeting... > ============================== > LOLOL! Smart guy that I am, I knew that you weren't dissing me! ;-)) > > With metta, > Howard Well I already feel guilty for being a trouble-maker - don't want to make it worse by breaking the rules. But glad you didn't take it personal, guy. :-))) Robert ========================== #95125 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Vol II I found too complicated. And as to Vol I, the explanations > are very good, but all those numbers of common conditions (in the > same group) these I did not pay much attention. These are in the > beginning of the book. Too complicated for me and I do not like > numbers, I have a block here. > Nina. Well, I will let you know if I am able to understand any of it when it arrives. I'm a bit excited to see it in any case, even though it may be beyond me. Best, Robert Ep. #95126 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:48 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear Rob E., Regarding: R: "Not meaning to hound you or Alberto unduly, but I would like to point out the contradictory nature of the language in this translation - it is full of imperatives." Scott: I think that these amount to statements about conditionality and reflect what would occur given the proper conditions. If you read Buddhaghosa, he was under no delusion regarding the fallacy of control over dhammas. The confusion lies in the translation (or in the need to seek an imperative.) Sincerely, Scott. #95127 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:17 pm Subject: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions /and Re: Suttas- the time to kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---- <. . .> RE: > I still can't fathom why you think that reading a book is not about an > illusory sentient being who is reading the book, but that meditating > must be about an illusory sentient being who is meditating. ---- That is probably the most frequently, and repeatedly, asked question on DSG. Any conventional activity - whether it is reading, meditating or buying an ice cream - will involve a multitude of moments. And any of those moments that involve, for example, 'wanting to gain something' will be akusala. That means the conventional activity of 'giving money to the poor' will not be all (if any) dana moments. For example, whenever the giver is wanting to be seen as a generous person the moment will be akusala, not dana. The same applies to conventional forms sila (refraining from harming living creatures). Whenever the motives are other than adosa the moments will be akusala, not sila. And the same applies to conventional forms of bhavana. While reading Dhamma books or to taking part in discussions at DSG etc, whenever there is wanting to gain or attain something the moments will be akusala, not bhavana. Even so, the people who understand these things still engage in various conventional forms of dana, sila and bhavana. It is not because they believe in control over the arising or non-arising of conditioned dhammas. It is simply because they are inclined to arrange their daily lives that way. And what about other conventional forms of insight development? Are there any that I haven't mentioned? Not really! The factors leading to enlightenment are: association with good friends, hearing, considering, and applying the true Dhamma. That's all. There is no mention in the Tipitaka of any other factors. There is no mention of sitting cross-legged while concentrating on thoughts or on aches and pains. There is no mention of watching the feet go up and down while walking. And why would there be, when the Tipitaka is all about understanding conditioned dhammas? Ken H #95128 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/20 Scott : > Dear Rob E., > > > Scott: I think that these amount to statements about conditionality > and reflect what would occur given the proper conditions. If you read > Buddhaghosa, he was under no delusion regarding the fallacy of control > over dhammas. The notion of control is a red herring. A red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. This is known formally in the English vocabulary as a digression which is usually denoted as "red herring". (from Wikipedia) When you heat a pan full of water it boils. The notion of control is irrelevant. AN 8:30 'This Dhamma is for one who is modest, not for one who is self-aggrandizing. This Dhamma is for one who is content, not for one who is discontent. This Dhamma is for one who is reclusive, not for one who is entangled. This Dhamma is for one whose persistence is aroused, not for one who is lazy. This Dhamma is for one whose mindfulness is established, not for one whose mindfulness is confused. This Dhamma is for one whose mind is centered, not for one whose mind is uncentered. This Dhamma is for one endowed with discernment, not for one whose discernment is weak.' Now then, Anuruddha, think the eighth thought of a great person: 'This Dhamma is for one who enjoys non-complication, who delights in non-complication, not for one who enjoys & delights in complication.' "Anuruddha, when you think these eight thoughts of a great person, then — whenever you want — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, you will enter & remain in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. When you think these eight thoughts of a great person, then — whenever you want — with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, you will enter & remain in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance... with the fading of rapture, you will remain in equanimity, mindful & alert, physically sensitive to pleasure. You will enter & remain in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous and mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' When you think these eight thoughts of a great person, then — whenever you want — with the abandoning of pleasure & pain, as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress, you will enter & remain in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. "Now, when you think these eight thoughts of a great person and become a person who can attain at will, without trouble or difficulty, these four jhanas — heightened mental states providing a pleasant abiding in the here & now — then your robe of cast-off rags will seem to you to be just like the clothes chest of a householder or householder's son, full of clothes of many colors. As you live contented, it will serve for your delight, for a comfortable abiding, for non-agitation, & for alighting on Unbinding". The notion of control is irrelevant. Cheers Herman #95129 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings epsteinrob Hi Dave! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dkotschessa" wrote: > Surely the IDEA that the brain is such and such is nama. Well that is my question, which I guess or hope that someone can clarify: would not the idea of brain be a concept? Is there a difference between an idea and a concept in Abhidhama, and is a concept not something different from a nama? My understanding is that a concept is a delusory thought that mistakes certain sense/mind events for a more general being that exists over time. So a specific thought might be a nama, but an idea of something that is not real, such as "the brain" would be a concept. I am not sure how that works, as I am more than a little confused by this. Not sure where "concept" fits in the namas. Best, Robert ================= #95130 From: "sprlrt" Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:54 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sprlrt Hi Robert E., > > So what is all the stuff the Buddha writes about breathing and being > aware of the breath, as a pathway to development of sati and > satipatthana, as fully and lengthily developed in the anapanasati and > satipatthana suttas? Do you think that all this attention to > breathing was meant as some kind of unimportant sidenote by the Buddha > when he promimently develops the technique of following breath in > these suttas? You're talking about anapana samadhi, not sati, two very different dhammas. Sati is a cetasika that arises, normally unfrequently, with all kusala citta, 8 only in the kamavacara plane. Samadhi is ekaggata cetasika, an universal cetasika that arises with all 54 kamavara citta, kusala and akusala (and also in vipaka and kiriya in which cases is not called samadhi, concentration, since it doesn't arise & fall in a succession of 7 javana of the same citta as in kusala and akusala) And samadhi has to be samma, not miccha, to be the genuine article the Buddha talked about, just the word isn't enough to make it kusala, neither is volition, without all of the many required kusala dhammas/conditions right in place. Alberto #95131 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati. was: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. nilovg Dear Rob Ep, Op 20-jan-2009, om 4:40 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > Do you think that all this attention to > breathing was meant as some kind of unimportant sidenote by the Buddha > when he promimently develops the technique of following breath in > these suttas? -------- N:This has been frequently discussed here, and my conclusion is: there need not be any problems. Do you remember years ago that you quoted the satipatthaana sutta and Jon, Sarah and I joined the discussion? I found this an occasion to quote from the Visuddhimagga, all the tetrads, where it is explained that this subject can be used both in samatha and vipassanaa. Moreover, I quoted from the commentaries. Those who are skilled in samatha can attain jhaana with this subject, but they should also develop vipassanaa so that enlightenment can be attained. In the satipatthaana sutta nothing is excluded and all that is real can be object of vipassana in order to see dhammas as non- self. If one can attain jhaana, let him be aware of the jhaanacitta as non-self. This is also explained in the Application of Mindfulness of cittas. It begins with lobha-muulacitta and as we read, also mahaggata citta is mentioned as one of the objects of vipassanaa. All is included, thus also the realities of daily life. Lobha is a reality and if there never is any awareness of it, it will be unknown and it cannot be eradicated. Nina. #95132 From: "sprlrt" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:57 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner sprlrt Hi Robert E. (and Scott), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Hi Scott [and Alberto.) > Not meaning to hound you or Alberto unduly, but I would like to point > out the contradictory nature of the language in this translation - it > is full of imperatives. I would like to know if you believe it is a > case of mistranslation, or if when it comes to the Abhidhamma and > commentaries you feel that imperatives are fine, even though they > carry the sense of doership and volition on the part of an illusory > person. > I appreciate Scott's comments to the quotes. Words are concepts, pannati, not (paramattha) dhammas, they are the Dhamma, when words refers to dhammas, in all other cases, when referring to other concepts (selves, for instance), they are, imo, just conventions from which the dhammas have to been inferred, by yet more thinking :-( Alberto #95133 From: "sprlrt" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:59 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sprlrt Hi Robert E. (and Nina) Just a correction to my previous post: Sati in kamavacara/sensous planes arises also in 8 sahetuka kusala vipaka citta as well, i.e. in most human beings bhavanga/life continuum cittas. Alberto #95134 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:06 am Subject: [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, Q. : If we are heedful when objects are impinging, for example, when visible object contacts the eye or sound contacts the ear, there will be neither happiness nor sorrow. S. : There is not “somebody” or a “self” who could be heedful or force the arising of sati. When sati arises we can know the difference between the moment with sati and the moment without sati. Q. : The five khandhas of the ordinary person must be the same as those of the arahat, but the khandhas of the ordinary person are still objects of clinging and this causes the arising of dukkha. When we gradually learn to be heedful when sense objects such as visible object or sound are impinging on the relevant doorways, do we develop satipatthåna in the right way? S. : One should remember that all dhammas are anattå, non-self, so that sati can be developed in the right way. One should know when there is sati and when there is no sati. When one has a concept of self who is heedful, satipatthana is not developed. Q. : The word anattå is difficult to understand. We can translate the Påli term attå as self and the term anattå as non-self, but we do not really understand the meaning of these terms. We may say that there is no self, but we still cling to the concept of self. S. : What is the self? Q. : We may assume that we are the “self”, but the Buddha states that there are only the five khandhas which arise together. S. : The khandhas are not a person, not a self, but if we do not know that there are only the khandhas, we assume that there is a self. Q. : Although we know this, we still think, when we are seeing, that a self is seeing. S. : That is so because we do not have yet clear comprehension of the true characteristics of the khandhas, as realities which arise and fall away very rapidly. They can be classified in different ways, namely, as past, present and future; as coarse and subtle; as internal and external; as far and near, and so on. If one can discern the characteristics of the khandhas, one will know that these realities which arise and fall away are only: rúpakkhandha (physical phenomena), vedanåkkhandha (feeling), saññåkkhandha (remembrance or perception), sankhårakkhandha (formations or activities, all cetasikas other than vedanå and saññå), viññånakkhandha (consciousness). ******* Nina. #95135 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:16 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "27. 'For example, in the Siilavani Birth Story (Jaa.i,261) when his friends rose to prevent his kingdom of three hundred leagues being seized by an enemy king who had been incited by a wicked minister in whose mind his own queen had sown hate for him, he did not allow them to lift a weapon. Again when he was buried, along with a thousand companions, up to the neck in a hole dug in the earth in a charnel ground, he had no thought of hate. And when, after saving his life by a heroic effort helped by jackals scraping away soil when they had come to devour the corpses, he went with the aid of a spirit to his own bedroom and saw his enemy lying on his own bed, he was not angry but treated him as a friend, undertaking a mutual pledge, and then exclaimed: 'The brave aspire, the wise will not lose heart: I see myself as I had wished to be' (Jaa.i,267)." Path of Purity. If in spite of his pondering the fact that each man has his very own deeds, his hatred does not subside, he should then recall the virtues of the Teacher's former conduct. This is how he should do it: 'Monk, is it not a fact that before the Enlightenment of Teacher, while he was still fulfilling, as the unenlightened Buddha-to-be, the Perfections for four incalculable periods and a hundred thousand cycles, was not offended with his murderous enemies in various places? As, for instance, in the Siilavajaataka (Jaataka i,261; tr. i, 168) he did not allow his ministers to touch even a weapon, ministers who rose to suppress the rival king who had seized the kingdom three hundred yojanas in extent, and who had been brought by a bad minister who had misconducted himself with the queen. Again, when he was buried up to the neck in the charnel-field with his thousand companions, he did not even get offended at heart, but having wrought a man's work, when jackals came scraping out the earth to devour corpses, and having won back life, ascended to his magnificent chamber by the power of a yakkha, and seeing his enemy lying on the state couch, did not get angry, but made a mutual oath, and placing in the position of a friend, said: 'A man should hope, the wise would not disgusted be: Myself I see, look you: e'en as I wished it came about.'" Seyyathida.m, siilavajaatake taava attano deviyaa padu.t.thena paapaamaccena aaniitassa pa.tira~n~no tiyojanasata.m rajja.m ga.nhantassa nisedhanatthaaya u.t.thitaana.m amaccaana.m aavudhampi chupitu.m na adaasi. Puna saddhi.m amaccasahassena aamakasusaane galappamaa.na.m bhuumi.m kha.nitvaa nikha~n~namaano cittappadosamattampi akatvaa ku.napakhaadanattha.m aagataana.m si"ngaalaana.m pa.msuviyuuhana.m nissaaya purisakaara.m katvaa pa.tiladdhajiivito yakkhaanubhaavena attano sirigabbha.m oruyha sirisayane sayita.m paccatthika.m disvaa kopa.m akatvaava a~n~nama~n~na.m sapatha.m katvaa ta.m mitta.t.thaane .thapayitvaa aaha - 'Aasiisetheva puriso, na nibbindeyya pa.n.dito; Passaami vohamattaana.m, yathaa icchi.m tathaa ahuu 'ti. (jaa. 1.1.51); Sincerely, Scott. #95136 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. upasaka_howard Hi, Alberto (and Robert) - In a message dated 1/20/2009 2:54:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sprlrt@... writes: Hi Robert E., > > So what is all the stuff the Buddha writes about breathing and being > aware of the breath, as a pathway to development of sati and > satipatthana, as fully and lengthily developed in the anapanasati and > satipatthana suttas? Do you think that all this attention to > breathing was meant as some kind of unimportant sidenote by the Buddha > when he promimently develops the technique of following breath in > these suttas? You're talking about anapana samadhi, not sati, two very different dhammas. Sati is a cetasika that arises, normally unfrequently, with all kusala citta, 8 only in the kamavacara plane. Samadhi is ekaggata cetasika, an universal cetasika that arises with all 54 kamavara citta, kusala and akusala (and also in vipaka and kiriya in which cases is not called samadhi, concentration, since it doesn't arise & fall in a succession of 7 javana of the same citta as in kusala and akusala) And samadhi has to be samma, not miccha, to be the genuine article the Buddha talked about, just the word isn't enough to make it kusala, neither is volition, without all of the many required kusala dhammas/conditions right in place. Alberto ============================== Alberto, you are mistaken. If you would read the Anapanasati Sutta carefully, you will see that it is a practice the brings the four foundations of mindfulness to fruition. It is a complete meditative practice leading to full awakening. The relevant introductory passage in that sutta is the following: "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." With metta, Howard (From the Avarana Sutta) #95137 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 6. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/20/2009 6:07:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear friends, Q. : If we are heedful when objects are impinging, for example, when visible object contacts the eye or sound contacts the ear, there will be neither happiness nor sorrow. S. : There is not “somebody†or a “self†who could be heedful or force the arising of sati. ------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, so? ------------------------------------- When sati arises we can know the difference between the moment with sati and the moment without sati. ------------------------------------- Howard: There is not “somebody†or a “self†who could know the difference between the moment with sati and the moment without sati! The selectiveness of application of this sort of response bothers me. You see, Nina, the same sort of pointless response that there is not “ somebody†or a “self†who could be heedful or force the arising of sati can be made about lots of things. In fact, this just surreptitious way of telling people to make no effort, and that, IMO, is dangerously contrary to the Dhamma. ===================== With metta, Howard Urgency /"Rouse yourself! Sit up! What good is there in sleeping? For those afflicted by disease (suffering), struck by the arrow (craving), what sleep is there? "Rouse yourself! Sit up! Resolutely train yourself to attain peace. Do not let the king of death, seeing you are careless, lead you astray and dominate you. "Go beyond this clinging, to which devas and men are attached, and (the pleasures) they seek. Do not waste your opportunity. When the opportunity has passed they sorrow when consigned to Niraya-hell. "Negligence is a taint, and so is the (greater) negligence growing from it. By earnestness and understanding withdraw the arrow (of sensual passions)."/ (From the Utthana Sutta) #95138 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: H: "When you heat a pan full of water it boils. The notion of control is irrelevant." Scott: There is no controlling dhammas. In the sutta below, wherein phrases such as 'whenever you want' or 'attain at will, without trouble or difficulty' are found, it is senseless to take this literally. Or, to do so reduces the Dhamma to the level of the mundane by suggesting that anyone can simply wish one's way to Enlightenment. That would rather eliminate the need to contemplate the thought of a great person (mahaapurisa). These phrases are manners of conventional speech describing the nature of conditionality. The Four Great Elements are inseparable and, with alteration of the relative presence of each in combination, material states are given to change - in this way they are molested. This is by conditions and follows a set of laws which, as noted, are not to be changed - are not subject to control. One cannot decide to set a pan of water to boil by placing it in a freezer; or rather, should one decide that a pan of water will boil when placed in a freezer, it will not boil, one's wish that it do so notwithstanding. The notion of control is 'irrelevant' in the sense that a wish to control the conditions by which dhammas proceed is not connected to, related to, nor has any bearing on the conditioned procession of dhammas. Thinking that one can simply decide to alter conditions and have it be so is an impossibility. Abstracting from the concept 'I can boil water by applying heat' and placing the idea of a self who acts and has a role in things such that, by his or her applying heat water boils, is mistaken. The notion of control by a self is not connected to, related to, nor has any bearing on the conditioned procession of dhammas. Consider the Sutta: AN 8:30 Anuruddhamahaavitakkasutta.m "Anuruddha, when you think these eight thoughts of a great person, then *whenever you want* quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, you will enter & remain in the first jhana..." *Yato* kho tva.m, anuruddha, ime a.t.tha mahaapurisavitakke vitakkessasi, *tato* tva.m, anuruddha, yaavadeva aaka"nkhissasi, vivicceva kaamehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakka.m savicaara.m vivekaja.m piitisukha.m pa.thama.m jhaana.m upasampajja viharissasi... Scott: 'When' (yato)...'then' (tato). This is the wording in the Paa.li. From the PTS PED: "Yato (adv.)...3. (modal) from which, out of what cause, because, in as far as..." "Tato [abl. of pron. base ta...from this, in this..." This is a statement of conditionality. Given that such-and-such is present, such-and-such will arise. There is nothing I see in the text that supports the 'whenever you want'. (Corrections please from real Paa.li experts.) There is nothing here that supports the belief that anyone can just sit down and think these eight thoughts of a great person and have any of the jhaana states arise just like that. Sincerely, Scott. #95139 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:31 am Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? abhidhammika Dear Alberto, Nina, Sarah, Ken H and other like-minded persons How are you? Alberto claimed that satipatthana was informal daily life practice. Do you agree with Alberto? Do you know where that assertion came from? Alberto failed to answer my previous question who told him that satipatthana was informal daily life practice. Alberto, if you honestly believed that satipatthana was informal daily life practice, you ought to answer my question. If that assertion was your own personal opinion (attanomati), you could also say so. On the other hand, if you were merely repeating someone else's personal opinion, who was that person? I do hope that you were not hiding the identity of the person holding that view. That would amount to being dishonest on your part. Thanking you in advance. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #95140 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:03 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. nilovg Hi Howard, I had another opportunity looking at your post. Op 20-jan-2009, om 1:09 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Recognizing and distinguishing identities of people and also of > > macro-objects and even of the much adored paramattha dhammas is > just fine > - necessary > > even, so long as it is realized that these identities are all a > matter of > > convention and not reality, and this is so because entities of > all sorts > are > > only matters of convention. Reality will be known to us only with > full > > awakening, but "we" won't be there for that! ;-)) --------- N: Paramattha dhammas are not conventional truth. They are realities to be directly experienced without having to name them. Take seeing, no matter how we call it, it experiences just visible object. We can change the name, but its characteristic cannot be altered. The same with lobha, dosa, understanding. You say: Reality will be known to us only with full > awakening, but "we" won't be there for that! ;-)). Right, no we. But one 'nitpicking' ( we seem to mimick and copy each other these days;-)) is the following: reality only to be known at full awakening? No, there is a beginning of understanding first, and as stages of insight arise understanding develops. If that would not be the case, it could never be fully developed at arahatship. Nina. #95141 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? nilovg Dear Suan, Op 20-jan-2009, om 15:31 heeft abhidhammika het volgende geschreven: > Alberto claimed that satipatthana was informal daily life practice. > > Do you agree with Alberto? -------- N: The terms formal and informal do not mean much to me. Some people want to use formal for jhana practice since one follows a certain procedure, and that is all right. I just wrote to Rob Ep about this subject and I quote that it is explained in the Visuddhimagga All is included, thus also the realities of daily life as they naturally occur now. Lobha is a reality and if there never is any awareness of it, it will be unknown and it cannot be eradicated. And this goes for all akusala cittas mentioned under mindfulness of citta. In the same sutta we read about the elements, about the postures, to be mindful whatever one is doing. Is that not daily life? In a way we can say that also the jhanalabhi practises in daily life, this is his natural inclination and he should be aware of the mahaggata cittas. Whatever our lifestyle, monk or layman, endowed with skill in jhaana or not: let us be mindful, not neglectful. Nina. #95142 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:16 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 6. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 20-jan-2009, om 14:27 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > There is not “somebody” or a “self” who could know the difference > between the moment with sati and the moment without sati! The > selectiveness of > application of this sort of response bothers me. > You see, Nina, the same sort of pointless response that there is not “ > somebody” or a “self” who could be heedful or force the arising of > sati can be > made about lots of things. In fact, this just surreptitious way of > telling > people to make no effort, and that, IMO, is dangerously contrary to > the > Dhamma. -------- N: Glad you bring this up. All this is a gentle reminder of anatta. We cannot hear this often enough, I think. Let it be repetitious, good. Make an effort, but at the same time: know that this is a cetasika that is conditioned and cannot be manipulated at will. Someone else could tell a person a thousand times: make an effort for sati, but sati cannot arise if there is no explanation first of what sati is, different from thinking, and what the object: any reality now. As to the words: , you may stumble over we, but this 'we' is a mode of explanation, allowable. it can be replaced by: it can be known that..., or better still: pa~n~naa can know that. since it is a kind of pa~n~naa. _____ Nina. #95143 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:43 am Subject: Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 7 robmoult Hi All, From my paper: ===== So how do we tie together the topics of existence beyond the gross physical body and the Theravādin view on where the mind resides? We can split the five khandhas into two groups: - Rūpa (corporeality) - Nāma (mind); includes viññāṅa (consciousness), vedanā (feeling), saññā (perception) and sankhāra (formations) [The Abhidhamma further subdivides sankhāra into fifty mental factors (cetasikas)] According to the Abhidhamma, the four khandhas grouped under nāma are tightly interconnected; they always arise together, they always fall away together, they all take the same object and they all depend on the same base (i.e. eye consciousness with associated feeling, perception and formations all depend on the sensitive part of the eye). As a group, the Abhidhamma refers to these four khandhas as a mental state (citta). According to the Abhidhamma: - The falling away of one rūpa can be a condition for multiple other rūpas arising in the next instant, resulting in multiple simultaneous rūpas - The falling away of a single citta conditions the arising of the subsequent citta in the stream; cittas arise sequentially In brief, the Abhidhamma allows for simultaneous existence of multiple rūpas but does not allow for simultaneous existence of multiple cittas. We can reconcile this "one mental state at any one time" position of the Theravāda Abhidhamma with out of body experiences by postulating that a mental state can arise a distance away (though still dependent upon) the base which they rely upon. As an analogy, we know that heavy rocks cannot normally float in mid-air, however if a rock is thrown into the air it can appear for a while that the rock is actually floating without any physical support. The energy which propels the rock into the air and makes it appear to float can be thought of as analogous to the power of the mind which allows a mental state to arise some distance away from the base upon which it depends. ===== During the discussion, one of the venerables asked if it was possible to have multiple simultaneous instances of consciousness as an explanation of out of body experiences. I replied that this was not possible according to the Theravada tradition where cittas arise sequentially, not in parallel. The venerable then asked how I explained the story of the Buddha preaching the Abhidhamma in Tavatimsa heaven while going down to earth to share it with Sariputta. I replied that just as the Buddha performed the twin miracle of simultaneously emitting fire from the top half of His body and water from the bottom half of His body (rapid switching of jhanas), the Buddha could be rapidly switching his consciousness between the Tavatimsa image (mind-made body... see Sāmaññaphala Sutta) and the earth-bound image. The venerable then referenced the simile of the six animals found at SN 35.247 in which six animals representing six senses are tied together and pull in different directions. The venerable mentioned that the animals pull simultaneously rather than one at a time in sequence. I replied that the Buddha was making an alegory regarding and it cannot be interpreted to literally. Can anybody identify any Suttas to support the idea that mental states arise sequentially, not in parallel? Metta, Rob M :-) #95144 From: "sprlrt" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:29 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sprlrt Hi Howard (Robert E) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alberto (and Robert) - > > In a message dated 1/20/2009 2:54:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > sprlrt@... writes: > > Hi Robert E., > > > > > So what is all the stuff the Buddha writes about breathing and being > > aware of the breath, as a pathway to development of sati and > > satipatthana, as fully and lengthily developed in the anapanasati and > > satipatthana suttas? Do you think that all this attention to > > breathing was meant as some kind of unimportant sidenote by the Buddha > > when he promimently develops the technique of following breath in > > these suttas? > > > You're talking about anapana samadhi, not sati, two very different > dhammas. Sati is a cetasika that arises, normally unfrequently, with > all kusala citta, 8 only in the kamavacara plane. Samadhi is ekaggata > cetasika, an universal cetasika that arises with all 54 kamavara > citta, kusala and akusala (and also in vipaka and kiriya in which > cases is not called samadhi, concentration, since it doesn't arise & > fall in a succession of 7 javana of the same citta as in kusala and > akusala) > And samadhi has to be samma, not miccha, to be the genuine article the > Buddha talked about, just the word isn't enough to make it kusala, > neither is volition, without all of the many required kusala > dhammas/conditions right in place. > > Alberto > ============================== > Alberto, you are mistaken. If you would read the Anapanasati Sutta > carefully, you will see that it is a practice the brings the four foundations of > mindfulness to fruition. It is a complete meditative practice leading to full > awakening. The relevant introductory passage in that sutta is the following: > > "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great > fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & > pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four > frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for > awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & > pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." > As I see it there is a shift of the meaning of the word sati, which in the passage from theory to the practice changes, almost unnoticed, to mean concentrating, samadhi, on a specific area of the body, the tip of the nose or the upper lip, while breathing. Alberto #95145 From: "sprlrt" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:30 am Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? sprlrt Hi Suan (and Nina), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > Dear Alberto, Nina, Sarah, Ken H and other like-minded persons > > How are you? > > Alberto claimed that satipatthana was informal daily life practice. > > Do you agree with Alberto? > > Do you know where that assertion came from? > > Alberto failed to answer my previous question who told him that > satipatthana was informal daily life practice. > > Alberto, if you honestly believed that satipatthana was informal > daily life practice, you ought to answer my question. If that > assertion was your own personal opinion (attanomati), you could also > say so. On the other hand, if you were merely repeating someone > else's personal opinion, who was that person? > > I do hope that you were not hiding the identity of the person > holding that view. That would amount to being dishonest on your part. > My view that satipatthana applies to every day informal, normal life comes from studying & considering what's in tipitaka. Now, can I ask where your view that it doesn't (applies to every day, informal, normal life) comes from? Alberto Spera #95146 From: "dkotschessa" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings dkotschessa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Hi Dave! > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dkotschessa" > wrote: > > > Surely the IDEA that the brain is such and such is nama. > > Well that is my question, which I guess or hope that someone can > clarify: would not the idea of brain be a concept? Is there a > difference between an idea and a concept in Abhidhama, and is a > concept not something different from a nama? My understanding is that > a concept is a delusory thought that mistakes certain sense/mind > events for a more general being that exists over time. So a specific > thought might be a nama, but an idea of something that is not real, > such as "the brain" would be a concept. I am not sure how that works, > as I am more than a little confused by this. Not sure where "concept" > fits in the namas. > > Best, > Robert You're introducing a lot of terminology here like "idea" and "concept" and so forth that we'd have to be very careful to define in an Abhidhammic concept. I don't know how abhidhamma defines these things strictly speaking. Of course they're nama - ideas can't have physical form, but they are likely specifically defined as a distinct series of cittas and cetasikas. I'm not sure how this relates back to the original point though. What I had said was that the physical brain is rupa. Any processes occuring in the brain are also rupa. The remaining four aggregates are nama. They are not simply the result of chemical processes in the brain - that's the physicalist view. They aren't unrelated to the brain, becuase nama and rupa condition each other. But the four non-form aggregates can occur independently of the physical processes (as in the case of formless beings, who have no rupa). -DaveK #95147 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:54 am Subject: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions /and Re: Suttas- the time to epsteinrob Hi Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Even so, the people who understand these things still engage in > various conventional forms of dana, sila and bhavana. It is not > because they believe in control over the arising or non-arising of > conditioned dhammas. It is simply because they are inclined to > arrange their daily lives that way. > > And what about other conventional forms of insight development? Are > there any that I haven't mentioned? Not really! The factors leading > to enlightenment are: association with good friends, hearing, > considering, and applying the true Dhamma. That's all. There is no > mention in the Tipitaka of any other factors. > > There is no mention of sitting cross-legged while concentrating on > thoughts or on aches and pains. There is no mention of watching the > feet go up and down while walking. And why would there be, when the > Tipitaka is all about understanding conditioned dhammas? So the Tipitaka does not mention seated breathing meditation as a form of bhavana? But it does consider sutta reading a form of bhavana? I am not well versed in the entire Sutta Pitaka by any means, but it seems to me you have overlooked the anapansati sutta. Perhaps you don't consider it part of the Tipitaka. Please clarify. In addition, you seem to have neatly avoided the idea that reading and studying sutta or Abhidhamma can just as easily have thought of gain and egoic motivation as sitting meditation. I keep trying to make this point, but I can't seem to get a specific answer on why one is more directed towards bhavana than the other. Since two of the factors leading to enlightenment are "considering and applying the true Dhamma," and since the Buddha did give forth the anapanasati sutta, it would seem to me that if you were to listen to the anapanasati sutta and if you were to apply the anapanasati sutta, you would follow the Buddha in engaging in breathing meditation, as described in his sutta. Apparently you have some way of seeing that as an improper application of the dhamma, even though Buddha did give forth this sutta. Why did he give it forth if it were not to be followed, and if it does exemplify the "right application" of the dhamma? And where in the sutta body did he say that reading Abhidhamma commetaries is "right application of the dhamma." Whereas breathing meditation is repeated continually throughout the sutta body, strangely the Abhidhamma and commentaries are not mentioned even once! However, you consider them to be "right application of the dhamma" not based on what the Buddha said, but what some intelligent folks after him said. So that is your inclination, not the Buddha's, and your inclination to say - quite incorrectly - that Buddha never mentioned breathing meditation or sitting and meditating, even though it is constantly described throughout the suttas, along with following the breath in exquisite detail, many suttas on sitting meditation and the engagement of the jhannas, etc., etc., you choose to ignore this entire body of sutta in favor of a different set of books. What on earth does that have to do with "right applicatino of the dhamma." The dhamma is not what we choose it to be, it is what the Buddha actually said. You cannot just make things up and say that they are the words of the Buddha, ignore what he actually said and say that he didn't say it. That is not a very discerning view. I have great respect for the Abhidhamma. I think the breakdown of acts of consciousness and how they develop kusala factors over the long progression of Buddhist practice - from reading sutta, to reading Abhidhamma, to considering the nature of reality as Buddha describes it, to meditation on the breath and the dhammas, all of which are discussed within the Abhidhamma as they are within the sutta pitaka, is an enormously important part of the Buddhist canon. However, I do not make believe that the parts of the sutta body or the Abhidhamma that I like the most are the only ones that exist, or that I can leave things out just because they don't accord with a certain school of philosophy. The Abdhidhamma exists and has great teaching value. The anapansati sutta and the satipatthana sutta also exist and are to be considered and practiced wisely. The anapansati and satipatthana suttas have the added advantage of actually having been spoken by the Buddha himself. This is certain. If I were a wise Buddhist practitioner, I would not ignore them but would "wisely consider and practice them" as the Buddha intended by his very own words. Best, Robert ===================================== Best, Robert ==================== #95148 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:23 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Rob E., > > Regarding: > > R: "Not meaning to hound you or Alberto unduly, but I would like to > point out the contradictory nature of the language in this translation > - it is full of imperatives." > > Scott: I think that these amount to statements about conditionality > and reflect what would occur given the proper conditions. If you read > Buddhaghosa, he was under no delusion regarding the fallacy of control > over dhammas. The confusion lies in the translation (or in the need > to seek an imperative.) > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Well we should check out a few translators and see what the real meaning of those words are. It's hard to imagine those sentences making any sense without the imperatives that are clearly there. You can follow your own philosophy and make believe that things say what you want them to, but I follow a bit of common sense in interpreting such things and if they clearly say "He who wants to accomplish X should do Y and should do it in the following way" I call that a set of instructions. If you want to say I'm "looking for imperatives" you are free to do so, but the first step in dropping delusions is not to try to twist something that is obvious around to accord with your own precious views. Take a look at the sentences I cited and tell me how you could translate them to get the instruction out of them, and turn them into "descriptions of how things would take place if certain conditions arose." I am willing to accept the idea that the Abhidhamma, like the suttas themselves, used conventional ideas in order to communicate, while still understanding them in a more non-conventional way, but I cannot accept it when someone shows me a picture of a rose and tells me it is an apple strudel, that I'm just not squinting the right way to see it "correctly." Best, Robert ======================= #95149 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:33 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Alberto. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Hi Robert E., > > > > > So what is all the stuff the Buddha writes about breathing and being > > aware of the breath, as a pathway to development of sati and > > satipatthana, as fully and lengthily developed in the anapanasati and > > satipatthana suttas? Do you think that all this attention to > > breathing was meant as some kind of unimportant sidenote by the Buddha > > when he promimently develops the technique of following breath in > > these suttas? > > > You're talking about anapana samadhi, not sati, two very different > dhammas. Sati is a cetasika that arises, normally unfrequently, with > all kusala citta, 8 only in the kamavacara plane. Samadhi is ekaggata > cetasika, an universal cetasika that arises with all 54 kamavara > citta, kusala and akusala (and also in vipaka and kiriya in which > cases is not called samadhi, concentration, since it doesn't arise & > fall in a succession of 7 javana of the same citta as in kusala and > akusala) > And samadhi has to be samma, not miccha, to be the genuine article the > Buddha talked about, just the word isn't enough to make it kusala, > neither is volition, without all of the many required kusala > dhammas/conditions right in place. > > Alberto > Without doubt, your understanding of the way things are supposed to arise according to the commentaries is far superior to my own. However, my basic reading skills are okay, and the satipatthana sutta speaks of how breathing practice leads to satipatthana, not universal samadhi, either kusala or otherwise. And the anapansati sutta is all about the development of sati, mindfulness, not some other state, no matter what your lists of conditions from other sources may dictate. For Buddha's sake, the name of the anapanasati sutta is "Sutta on the full awareness of the breathing." "Full awareness" is not samadhi but is sati. It describes the use of the breath as object to develop sati. Satipatthana sutta shows the use of breathing meditation in development of satipatthana. Instead you have a shopping list of other conditions, but you ignore the suttas themselves and their plain-spoken message. Quotes: anapansati sutta: "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit." Mindfulness = sati. How do you manage to say that this sutta is not about mindfulness of breathing, is not about development of sati? There is not way to miss it unless you are blinded by an alternate philosophy. "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination." The above statement says specifically that by being mindful of the breath [practicing sati via the breath] the four frames of reference are developed and lead to awakening. What is that? It is satipatthana! Now please, look at it, accept it and see what it says. Do not twist it into a knot. "Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit?" Okay, again sati via the breath, developed and pursued, leads to great fruit, great benefit. You see that, right? "[5] He trains himself," The monk is to "train himself." What about that? Best, Robert ============================== #95150 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati. was: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Nina! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: Do you remember years ago that you > quoted the satipatthaana sutta and Jon, Sarah and I joined the > discussion? I found this an occasion to quote from the Visuddhimagga, > all the tetrads, where it is explained that this subject can be used > both in samatha and vipassanaa. Moreover, I quoted from the > commentaries. I would find those quotes of interest again, if you happen to know how to search for that old discussion. Otherwise, that is fine, as your comments below are helpful as well. > Those who are skilled in samatha can attain jhaana with this subject, > but they should also develop vipassanaa so that enlightenment can be > attained. In the satipatthaana sutta nothing is excluded and all that > is real can be object of vipassana in order to see dhammas as non- > self. If one can attain jhaana, let him be aware of the jhaanacitta > as non-self. This is also explained in the Application of Mindfulness > of cittas. It begins with lobha-muulacitta and as we read, also > mahaggata citta is mentioned as one of the objects of vipassanaa. > All is included, thus also the realities of daily life. Lobha is a > reality and if there never is any awareness of it, it will be unknown > and it cannot be eradicated. > > Nina. I appreciate your comments, and to the extent I understand it, I think that it is important to develop vipassana and not just samatha towards jhana. To realize the presence of lobha is a danger no matter what one's form of practice. That is why it is necessary to have a way of practice that accounts for delusion. Probably a wise teacher and friend does not hurt either. It seems that you do not reject meditation, but just post warning signs on its possible misuse, which is appreciated, if I understand you correctly. Best, Robert ==================== #95151 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:38 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Alberto. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of > great > > fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when > developed & > > pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination..." Alberto: > As I see it there is a shift of the meaning of the word sati, which in > the passage from theory to the practice changes, almost unnoticed, to > mean concentrating, samadhi, on a specific area of the body, the tip > of the nose or the upper lip, while breathing. > > Alberto > How does this meaning "subtly shift?" Can you describe the reason why you think this is sneakily taking place? The word sati does not change does it? Does it have more than one meaning? The Buddha's passage does not change, he is clearly saying that mindfulness of breath leads to full awakening and has outlined each step to full awakening in brief. So how can you deny it with an imagined and unexplained "subtle shift" in meaning? Wouldn't you rather suspect that you are creating this "subtle shift" yourself, if you cannot explain why you think that it is actually there, to suit your own philosophical predispositions? Here is the sequence above - there doesn't seem to me to be room for any shifting from mindfulness to samadhi: Mindfulness of breathing (leads to) the four frames of reference (leads to) the seven factors of enlightenment (leads to) enlightenment. Where is the gap? Where is the subtlety? Where is there room for an alternate interpretation of this clear and plain sequence? I await your well-reasoned explanation. Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = = = #95152 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:40 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Hi Robert E. (and Scott), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > > > > Hi Scott [and Alberto.) > > Not meaning to hound you or Alberto unduly, but I would like to point > > out the contradictory nature of the language in this translation - it > > is full of imperatives. I would like to know if you believe it is a > > case of mistranslation, or if when it comes to the Abhidhamma and > > commentaries you feel that imperatives are fine, even though they > > carry the sense of doership and volition on the part of an illusory > > person. > > > > I appreciate Scott's comments to the quotes. > Words are concepts, pannati, not (paramattha) dhammas, they are the > Dhamma, when words refers to dhammas, in all other cases, when > referring to other concepts (selves, for instance), they are, imo, > just conventions from which the dhammas have to been inferred, by yet > more thinking :-( > > Alberto > Also true for the words of the suttas, also true for the words of the Abdhidhamma and commentaries. True for all language. So? What is the difference? These concepts clearly can lead to right understanding if understood and practiced correctly. Best, Robert ================ #95153 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. nilovg Dear Rob Ep and Alberto, This sutta requires a lot of study from all angles, but I am sure misunderstandings can be overcome. Sure, anapanasati is a subject for samathai and for vipassana, as I wrote before. And these can be developed together if a person is very skilled. But there is no rule that one must do this. Too keep the post short, I shall just quote a little from my study long ago. Op 20-jan-2009, om 19:33 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > However, my basic reading skills are okay, and the satipatthana sutta > speaks of how breathing practice leads to satipatthana, not universal > samadhi, either kusala or otherwise. And the anapansati sutta is all > about the development of sati, mindfulness, not some other state, no > matter what your lists of conditions from other sources may dictate. > For Buddha's sake, the name of the anapanasati sutta is "Sutta on the > full awareness of the breathing." "Full awareness" is not samadhi but > is sati. It describes the use of the breath as object to develop > sati. Satipatthana sutta shows the use of breathing meditation in > development of satipatthana. Instead you have a shopping list of > other conditions, but you ignore the suttas themselves and their > plain-spoken message. > > Quotes: > anapansati sutta: > > "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of > great fruit, of great benefit." > > Mindfulness = sati. How do you manage to say that this sutta is not > about mindfulness of breathing, is not about development of sati? > There is not way to miss it unless you are blinded by an alternate > philosophy. --------- N: Breath is rupa, and it can be understood as such when it appears through the bodysense, at the nosetip or upperlip. It can appear as solidity or motion or temperature. It can be known as only rupa, not my breath, as non-self. Contemplating the Body in the Body: now we go to the Co to Satipatthana Sutta (Middle length Sayings, I, 10, translated by Ven. Soma): As to the words: , this Co explains that the world is the five khandhas. Covetousness stands for sense desire and grief stands for ill will, which are, as the Co states, the principal hindrances. We read: All the different sections in the contemplation of the body are a means to remind us to be aware of rupa we take for my body. We think that we walk, sit or are breathing, but in reality there are nama and rupa. ***** Nina. #95154 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob Hi Sarah! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: What we take for Self, rightly or wrongly. Whether or not there is any > understanding at any level about the 5 khandhas, still it is oneself that > we find most dear with or without wrong view. Even for a sotapanna, it is > 'his' or 'her' rupas, vedanas, sannas, sankharas and vinnanas that are > held most dear. Hi Sarah! I agree with the main thrust of this, and I don't think we need to "hold ourselves any dearer" than we already do. That would be feeding the delusory sense of self and the attachment to this self. However, if one were to send this kind of love to oneself it would not be metta at all, it would be false self-love such as the attachment to self is already based upon. So my proposal to include oneself in the thoughts of metta is not based on the idea of holding oneself more dear, but of pacifying the sufferings within one's own kandhas, which is in the opposite direction of self-love. However, it may be that it is impossible to do this, and that the best way to quiesce the self is to send metta to others and to equalize them, in a sense, to the esteem in which oneself is already held. If this is the case, in a practical way, then that is fine. My only point was that if one were really practicing metta, and if one were doing so from a self-less standpoint, one would wish to end all suffering regardless of where it were to arise and would regard "all beings" with lovingkindness to the extent possible. It is possible that in some cases, the negative regard that we hold ourselves in only thickens the delusion of self, and needs some kind of relief in order to progress. Self-abnegation and self-loathing, for instance, can be subtle forms of attachment to self by which we make the sense of having a self more real. I think there must be a solution to this problem of "negative attachment" that we hold ourselves in, just another device often practiced by spiritually-minded people which on a subtle level reinstates the sense that their self is real. I just think it's something to look out for, like false humility, which spiritually minded folk also fall into, while covering a great degree of suppressed pride in self for being so spiritual. To say, as some of your quotes implied, that I attempt to "love others and hold them in esteem in the same way that I love myself," in other words to realize that other beings are as dear as I am, seems like a fine compromise. It acknowledges that we do hold others dear without making a big deal out of it, but goes beyond it to hold others dear as well. Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = = #95155 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:55 am Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Alberto. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Hi Robert E. (and Nina) > > Just a correction to my previous post: Sati in kamavacara/sensous > planes arises also in 8 sahetuka kusala vipaka citta as well, i.e. in > most human beings bhavanga/life continuum cittas. > > Alberto > I am not knowledgeable enough to understand these specifics, but thanks for the clarification in any case. Best, Robert ================== #95156 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep and Alberto, > This sutta requires a lot of study from all angles, but I am sure > misunderstandings can be overcome. Sure, anapanasati is a subject for > samathai and for vipassana, as I wrote before. And these can be > developed together if a person is very skilled. But there is no rule > that one must do this. > Too keep the post short, I shall just quote a little from my study > long ago. > Op 20-jan-2009, om 19:33 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > > > However, my basic reading skills are okay, and the satipatthana sutta > > speaks of how breathing practice leads to satipatthana, not universal > > samadhi, either kusala or otherwise. And the anapansati sutta is all > > about the development of sati, mindfulness, not some other state, no > > matter what your lists of conditions from other sources may dictate. > > For Buddha's sake, the name of the anapanasati sutta is "Sutta on the > > full awareness of the breathing." "Full awareness" is not samadhi but > > is sati. It describes the use of the breath as object to develop > > sati. Satipatthana sutta shows the use of breathing meditation in > > development of satipatthana. Instead you have a shopping list of > > other conditions, but you ignore the suttas themselves and their > > plain-spoken message. > > > > Quotes: > > anapansati sutta: > > > > "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of > > great fruit, of great benefit." > > > > Mindfulness = sati. How do you manage to say that this sutta is not > > about mindfulness of breathing, is not about development of sati? > > There is not way to miss it unless you are blinded by an alternate > > philosophy. > --------- > N: Breath is rupa, and it can be understood as such when it appears > through the bodysense, at the nosetip or upperlip. It can appear as > solidity or motion or temperature. It can be known as only rupa, not > my breath, as non-self. This is a good point, and Theravadin meditation is very directed towards the direct sensation as you describe, to avoid creating a concept rather than direct awareness. That is well-taken. > Contemplating the Body in the Body: now we go to the Co to > Satipatthana Sutta (Middle length Sayings, I, 10, translated by Ven. > Soma): > body in the body? For determining the object and isolating it, and > for sifting out thoroughly of the apparent compact nature of things > like continuity (santati). > Because there is no contemplation of feeling, citta or dhammas in the > body, but just the contemplating of the body only... In the body > there is no contemplation of a uniform thing.. There can be nothing > apart from the qualities of primary and derived materiality, in a > body...the character of contemplating the collection of primary and > derived materiality is comparable to the separation of the leaf- > integument of a plaintain trunk or is like the opening of an empty > fist. Therefore, by the pointing out of the basis called the body in > the form of a collection, in many ways, the sifting out thoroughly of > the apparently compact is shown. > In this body, apart from the above-mentioned collection, there is > seen no body, man, woman or anything else... > This person contemplates in this body only the body; he does not > contemplate anything else. What does this mean? In this definitely > transient, suffering, soulless body, that is unlovely, he does not > see permanence, pleasure, a soul, or beauty...> > As to the words: world>, this Co explains that the world is the five khandhas. > Covetousness stands for sense desire and grief stands for ill will, > which are, as the Co states, the principal hindrances. We read: > happiness, delight in the body and the falling into erroneous opinion > which takes as real the unreal beauty, pleasure, permanence and > substantiality of the body. With the overcoming of grief are > abandoned the discontent rooted in bodily misery, the non-delight in > the culture of body-contemplation, and the desire to turn away from > facing the real ugliness, suffering, impermanence and > insubstantiality of the body...> > > All the different sections in the contemplation of the body are a > means to remind us to be aware of rupa we take for my body. We think > that we walk, sit or are breathing, but in reality there are nama and > rupa. > > ***** > Nina. Hi Nina. It is my opinion that "the body in the body" is merely the contemplation of the sensation of the body at a given moment. While one can take a localized area such as the nose to experience the breath at a moment and understand the nama of sensation, one can also take a more "bird's eye view with the attention and feel the sensation that arises at the moment of the overall surface of the skin and sensation of the body as a whole. It is perhaps so that this involves a sequence of many different cittas that scan the entire surface of the body, but what I think that particular meditation aims at is detaching from the body as self and encountering it as mere sensation. If one were to contemplate the nature of the body in a more intellectual way, that would be getting more involved with concept, but to just to contemplate the body in the body seems to me to just contemplate the body as an "is," the sensation of bodilyness that arises without any attachment or aversion, which leads to sati with relation to the presence of the body. My interpretation may be wrong, but that is my experiential sense of it. I think all of the contemplations of the four foundations and the breath are attempts to match the Buddha's statement that "in the seen will be only the seen," etc., in other words to develop sati without any added interpretation that would lead one back into delusory concepts. Best, Robert =========================== #95157 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi again, Nina. Commmenting on my own last post to clarify: Hi Nina. It is my opinion that "the body in the body" is merely the contemplation of the sensation of the body at a given moment. While one can take a localized area such as the nose to experience the breath at a moment and understand the nama of sensation, ... It occurs to me that the sensation of the breath may be a rupa, not a nama? Because "feeling" is in the nama list, I get a bit mixed up on sensation. Thanks, Robert ========================== #95158 From: Herman Hofman Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:55 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. egberdina Hi Howard, 2009/1/20 : > Hi, Herman - > > > That last line captures the paradox nicely. Neither a beginning or an > end to samsara will ever be known. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Mmm, well, almost. An end will be known, but not by "you" or by "me". > -------------------------------------------------- For me, the very nature of any kind of knowing, any kind of consciousness, is that it is a dependent, conditioned arising and unsatisfactory. Samsara IS knowing. To know the end of samsara is to prolong it. >> ---------------------------------------------- >> Howard: >> What I see is everybody dealing with nothing but convention and each of >> us, in his/her own way, pointing to certain of these conventions and > saying >> "Reality! Reality! Reality!" What I see the Buddha as having done is > pointing >> to all sorts of conventionalities, and in a thoroughgoing manner saying >> "Impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self, insubstantial, contingent, > ultimately >> unreal, and, most of all, to be relinquished." The Buddha said to let it > all go, >> but we, each in our own way, grasp at lifeelines. >> ----------------------------------------------- I do not get the sense from the suttas that the Buddha denies temporal identity. It is the following that is denied: "This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. " MN2 What is denied is the eternal soul, not temporal identity. Ahh, but we had agreed to disagree on that :-) Cheers Herman #95159 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Nina) - In a message dated 1/20/2009 3:07:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi again, Nina. Commmenting on my own last post to clarify: Hi Nina. It is my opinion that "the body in the body" is merely the contemplation of the sensation of the body at a given moment. While one can take a localized area such as the nose to experience the breath at a moment and understand the nama of sensation, ... It occurs to me that the sensation of the breath may be a rupa, not a nama? Because "feeling" is in the nama list, I get a bit mixed up on sensation. -------------------------------------------- Howard: In English, 'feeling' and 'sensation' are often synonymous, but that is not so with the Pali. A bodily sensation is a rupa, and it may be "tasted" (i.e., felt) as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. What is translated as 'feeling' is the word 'vedana' which names the mental operation of affective "tasting," i.e., the knowing or "feeling" of an object, often a body-door rupa, as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Vedana is a mental operation just as are vi~n~nana and sati and sa~n~na. It is not that which is felt, but in English, 'feeling' may refer to that. (So, the problem lies in the translation of 'vedana'. If it didn't sound so pedantic, 'basic affective sensing' would better capture the meaning of 'vedana'.) -------------------------------------------- Thanks, Robert ============================ With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #95160 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & All, --- On Sat, 17/1/09, Robert Epstein wrote: >However, if you happen to know of a place in the Abhidhamma itself where it says that the namas and rupas are "paramatha dhammas" I would love to read such a segment. ... S: Let me repost a quote I've given before From Kathaavatthu, transl. as 'Points of Controversy' by Shwe Zan Aung & Mrs RhysDavids (PTS)(the last book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka), Book 1, 1 The Eight Refutations. The First Refutation, 1) The fivefold Affirmative Presentation. “Theravadin - Is 'the person' known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact?" [S:Puggalo upalabbhati saccika.t.thaparamatthenaa ti] Puggalavadin - Yes Th - Is the person known 'in the same way' as a real and ultimate fact is known? P - Nay, that cannot truly be said. Th - Acknowledge your refutation: i) If the person be known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, then indeed, good sir, you should also say, the person is known in the same way as [any other] real and ultimate fact[is known]. ii) that which you say here is wrong, namely, 1) that we ought to say,'the person is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact,' but 2) we ought not to say, the person is known in the same way as [any other] real and ultimate fact [is known]. iii) If the latter statement 2) cannot be admitted, then indeed the former statement 1) should not be admitted. iv) In affirming the former statement 1), while v) denying the latter 2), you are wrong. .... Summary of commentary: "Of the Existence of a Personal Entity. Controverted Point. That the 'person' is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact. (S:paramattha dhamma). From the commentary- The Theravadin questions a Puggalavadin (one who believes in the existence of a personal entity, soul, or perduring immortal essence in man) concerning his position. Who among the eighteen schools of thought were Puggalavadins? In the Saasana the Vajjiputtakas and Sammitiyas, and many other teachers besides, not belonging to the Saasana. 'Person'(puggala) means soul, being, vital principle. 'Is known': is approached and got at by the understanding, is cognized. 'Real': not taken as an effect of magic or mirage, actual. 'Ultimate'(paramattho): highest sense, not taken from tradition, or hearsay. 'Known' as one of the fifty-seven ultimates of our conscious experience (i.e 5 aggregates, 12 sense organs and objects, 18 elements, 22 controlling powers)." ***** S: I don't have my texts with me, but if you read on in the Kathavatthu, it's made very clear that 'paramattho' or what is known as a 'real and ultimate fact' (saccika.t.thaparamatthenaa) refers to namas and rupas. If you have time, please check 'Kathavatthu' and 'paramattha' in 'Useful Posts' in the files. Metta, Sarah p.s I was just watching the inauguration on a big screen in the hotel lobby with some local Fijian staff. They're pretty excited here! ======= #95161 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 6 sarahprocter... Hi Rob M, --- On Sun, 18/1/09, robmoult wrote: --------- --------- --------- ------- >In my earlier message, when I wrote, "fifteen centuries after the Buddha's parinibbana" , I was not referring to the idea of a series of mental states but rather the specific details of the death process. The idea of discrete mental states is, of course, from the original Abhidhamma texts (this is the core of the Dhammasangani) and the idea of a sequence of mental states involved in perception can be found in the Vimutimagga, which predates Buddhaghosa. However the specific sequence of mental states involved in the death process is a much later development. .... S: I think you'll find that all the details found in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (I presume your "fifteen centuries later"), can be found in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries of the Mahavihara tradition (i.e Theravada - which doesn't include the Vimutimagga.) The A.S. is a concise summary of the ancient texts, as I understand. I don't have my texts here, but see these messages of Nina's as an example of details found in the Visuddhimagga and Sammohavinodani: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/64138 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/73027 Metta, Sarah ====== #95162 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello sarahprocter... Hi PT, Many thanks for your interesting introduction! --- On Mon, 19/1/09, ptaus1 wrote: >Hi all, I'm new here, just thought I should introduce myself before posting questions. I've been studying Theravada Buddhism for a few years now, though I kept trying to avoid abhidhamma as it just seemed too hard. Recently, I came across Nina Van Gorkom's online books – ADL, Cetasikas, and Conditions, and having read them, I have to say I'm really fascinated by abhidhamma now. Of course, there are many things I don't understand, so I'm reading these books again trying to go more in depth and I hope it is OK to post questions about abhidhamma here as I go. .... S: When we realise that seeing now, like, dislike, thinking, worrying, happiness - in other words our life at this moment - is 'abhidhamma', then we become more interested in understanding more. If we think it's a set of complex details to be memorised, it's not interesting and not useful. So, looking forward to reading your questions, comments and discussions here. Please don't be concerned about mis-use of terminology or any mis-understandings. We're all here to learn and we all make mistakes and have mis-understandings or different understandings from each other. It's all 'grist for the list'! If you'd care to tell us where you live or anything else about your background with regard to your interest in the Buddha's teachings, that would be interesting too. Metta, Sarah ======= #95163 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:04 pm Subject: Re: A sutta question...or two sarahprocter... Dear Ven Aggacitto, Just briefly as I don't recall anyone else answering your questions: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "reverendaggacitto" wrote: > The deciples whom Ven.Gotama charged with going forth and expounding > the dhamma,50 or 60? some say 50 some 60. also... .... S: In the accounts I've read in the Tipitaka, I believe the number given is 60. Why are you interested, if I may ask? .... > i have heard that there is a sutta where Ven. Gotama says o.k. to > smoking tobacco.They wanted to know if they could smoke tobacco to keep > warm... true? ... S: I've not read this and I doubt it. In the Vinaya, it says alcohol or intoxicants can only be taken as medicine and only then if the taste, smell and intoxicating effect are no longer evident. OK. let me check this: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.ch08- 6.html "The Mahaavagga (VI.14.1) allows this medicine for use only as long as the taste, color, and smell of the alcohol are not perceptible. From this point, the Vinaya-mukha argues that morphine and other narcotics used as pain killers are allowable as well. Non-offenses. The Vibha"nga states that there is no offense in taking items that are non-alcoholic, but whose color, taste, or smell is like alcohol There is also no offense in taking alcohol "cooked in broth, meat, or oil." The Commentary interprets the first two items as referring to sauces, stews, and meat dishes to which alcoholic beverages, such as wine, are added for flavoring before they are cooked. Because the alcohol would evaporate during the cooking, it would have no intoxicating effect. Foods containing unevaporated alcohol — such as rum babas — would not be included under this allowance. As for alcohol cooked in oil, this refers to a medicine used in the Buddha's time for afflictions of the "wind element." The Mahâvagga (VI.14.1) allows this medicine for use only as long as the taste, color, and smell of the alcohol are not perceptible. ***From this point, the Vinaya-mukha argues that morphine and other narcotics used as pain killers are allowable as well.***" With respect, Sarah ====== #95164 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:07 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sarahprocter... Dear Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > I have deleted my initial elaborations, but might try again later. > > Maybe I could just point out the obvious snowball affect: Whenever > one piece of the paramattha-dhamma teaching is rejected other pieces > must inevitably be rejected with it. And so it goes until nothing > recognizable is left. .... S: Yes, you put that well. I'll look forward to any further elaborations in due course:-). Metta, Sarah ========= #95165 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:17 pm Subject: Re: Greetings epsteinrob Hi Dave! I'm spouting more confusion, but hope it gets clarified by someone around here eventually! See below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dkotschessa" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > > > > Hi Dave! > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dkotschessa" > > wrote: > > > > > Surely the IDEA that the brain is such and such is nama. > > > > Well that is my question, which I guess or hope that someone can > > clarify: would not the idea of brain be a concept? Is there a > > difference between an idea and a concept in Abhidhama, and is a > > concept not something different from a nama? ... > You're introducing a lot of terminology here like "idea" > and "concept" and so forth that we'd have to be very careful to > define in an Abhidhammic concept. I don't know how abhidhamma > defines these things strictly speaking. I hope we find out! :-) Of course they're nama - > ideas can't have physical form, but they are likely specifically > defined as a distinct series of cittas and cetasikas. > > I'm not sure how this relates back to the original point though. > What I had said was that the physical brain is rupa. Only if you have direct contact with it, otherwise it is just a presumption - a concept. Any processes > occuring in the brain are also rupa. Only if you observe them directly and make "contact" with them; in which case you will not be experiencing a "process," but specific qualities of the 'object' such as "roundness" or "softness" [for brain lobes for instance] at the time that you see them or touch them. The remaining four aggregates > are nama. They are not simply the result of chemical processes in > the brain - that's the physicalist view. It's also a physicalist view to think that there are "physical processes." That is the false concept of a rupa - a rupa is not a physical process or a physical object. It is a particular quality that we associate with an object through concept. That's my understanding anyway, from the Abdhidhamma perspective. > They aren't unrelated to the brain, because nama and rupa condition > each other. "Brain" is a concept, not a physical reality. It is a nama. But the four non-form aggregates can occur > independently of the physical processes (as in the case of formless > beings, who have no rupa). > > -DaveK Not to quibble, Dave, but I think you were the one who was originally using the "Idea" of brain as an example of a nama, and I wondered if "Idea" and "Concept" were equivalent, and whether they qualify as nama. In any case, I am still wondering about this - basically does a delusory concept or idea qualify as a nama. I guess maybe it would, just an akusala one. As for the idea that the brain's "physical processes" are rupa, which you repeat at the end of your message, I think this is a mistake. There is no such thing in actuality as a "physical process," that is an abstraction; there are only rupas that are directly experienced. A "physical process" would be a complex of a number of rupas, but would not itself be a rupa. So to assume that there any "physical processes" in the brain that one does not experience directly is itself another concept, and is a nama as far as I can tell. Hope I'm making sense! Best, Robert ===================================== #95166 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Sarah! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: I don't have my texts with me, but if you read on in the Kathavatthu, it's made very clear that 'paramattho' or what is known as a 'real and ultimate fact' (saccika.t.thaparamatthenaa) refers to namas and rupas. Just to summarize and simplify, it appears that you are saying that the import or meaning of "paramatho" is that the nama or rupa has any exalted status as a sort of "ultimate" in the sense of being important or great, but that it is "ultimate" merely in the sense that it actually takes place instead of being a mistaken illusion of some kind. That in itself would be easier to accept and would be important. It would mean that at each moment you are "in touch with reality" instead of some mistaken concept. Do you think that does justice to the idea of the "paramatha dhamma?" Or is there more to it than that? I think that if we are basically talking about direct discernment of "what is" at a given moment so that we are on the track of reality instead of delusion, then even if we do not agree on all the specifics of how reality is constituted and perceived, we can all agree that this is the goal of Buddhism and that there is no self perceiving, and also that there is nothing "out there" or "in here" that has any special or exalted status, which would tend to constitute a treasured substitute for "self" and would defeat the purpose of doing away with either an inherent or projected sense of self-existence. In such a case we are all looking as clearly as possible in each moment at "what is there" and using the sutta or Abhidhamma or commentary or whatever as a guide to "clear seeing." So I am very interested in what you might think about that. > > If you have time, please check 'Kathavatthu' and 'paramattha' in 'Useful Posts' in the files. I think I will look at Useful Posts when I am able to take time to read, as there are probably some other good things to see as well. I'd like to see some excerpts from the Abdhidhamma and commentaries as they are hard to come across in English. [I wonder why no one every translated everything and put it on line. Why is that? The suttas are all over the place...] > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s I was just watching the inauguration on a big screen in the hotel lobby with some local Fijian staff. They're pretty excited here! Well I have to admit that I watched the entire spectacle from the comfort of my livingroom on flatscreen tv, :-)))) It wasn't my fault - it's just that my family act as arising conditions in my life that lend me towards sloth and torpor! :-)))) We did have a great time watching it; and it was very exciting all around town. The Washington Mall was completely packed with people n the entire space between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument - probably the first time in history - with probably 2 million people. Although they don't really exist, it was still impressive. :-))) We went out for dinner at our local restaurant after the inauguration and it was jam-packed with people from out of town. A lot of fun, and a great day. Best, Robert =========================== #95167 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:22 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Howard! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > In English, 'feeling' and 'sensation' are often synonymous, but that is > not so with the Pali. A bodily sensation is a rupa, and it may be "tasted" > (i.e., felt) as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. What is translated as > 'feeling' is the word 'vedana' which names the mental operation of affective > "tasting," i.e., the knowing or "feeling" of an object, often a body-door rupa, as > pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Vedana is a mental operation just as are > vi~n~nana and sati and sa~n~na. It is not that which is felt, but in English, > 'feeling' may refer to that. (So, the problem lies in the translation of > 'vedana'. If it didn't sound so pedantic, 'basic affective sensing' would better > capture the meaning of 'vedana'.) Thanks for this explanation, which begins to distinguish these terms. If I am understanding you, the difference between sensation and feeling is the "opinion" or "view" that mentally colors the apprehension of the rupa, so that it is transformed into a mental construct instead of the pure act of perception of the physical moment. Would that be [in my clunky terms] correct? In other words, where "seeing only the seen in the seen" would be the rupa of "sensation," "adding how one feels about the seen as part of the seen" would be "feeling....?" Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = = = = #95168 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:43 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman Hofman wrote: > I do not get the sense from the suttas that the Buddha denies temporal > identity. It is the following that is denied: > > "This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to > the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is > constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay > just as it is for eternity. " MN2 > > What is denied is the eternal soul, not temporal identity. Herman, I think that the full quote from that section of the Sabbava Sutta that you reference above does deny a temporal self, as well as any other view of the self, rooted in the past, present or future. Here is the quote, and I will make some comments along the way: "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'" Although the Buddha is cautioning us not to speculate about the nature of the temporal self, the view of a temporal self seems to lead to wrong views, whereas the absence of a sense of a temporal self does not. You may say that it is attending to the temporal self that causes wrong views of self, but I think this would apply to the idea that the temporal self is taken as real as well. Here is the rest of the passage: "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self..." Notice that included in the list of wrong views is the view that allows not-self to be distinguished from self by means of seeing oneself as a "self" in the ordinary way. This particular one is the view of self that we ordinarily have in everyday life in-the-world: that I have a self and I can distinguish it from those things which are not-self in the world, in other words, basic duality between self and not-self, with the basic view of self leading the way. It seems that this is one of the views to be abandoned. In any case, he is certainly calling on one who is trying to develop right understanding, like ourselves, to abandon the view that the discerning of that which is not-self is based on the true existence of our personal self, and vice versa, which I think is the view you are holding. The sutta continues: "...or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This last one is the one you object to - that would establish the self as a permanent and eternal soul, Atta or Atman. But the sutta does not restrict its criticism to this eternalist view only. In the preceding it clearly seems to criticize the basic immanent view of the ordinary self as well, and the distinguishing of that which is not-self based upon it. This segment concludes: "This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress." It seems that *any* view of self as 'real and established' is seen by the Buddha to be a cause of suffering and stress, and keeps one on the wheel of samsara. He has not given any exceptions. If one is to move out of this delusory state which causes suffering and continued ignorance, one must relinquish *all* views of self, both ordinary and extraordinary. That does not mean that we cannot live in the world with our ordinary self in order to talk to people and go shopping. But it does mean that while doing so we should not be cherishing, attaching or clinging to any view of the self as real on any level or in any way. It is not ordinary functioning that should be relinquished, but the view of self as real and substantive that should be relinquished. Best, Robert ============================== #95169 From: "robmoult" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 6 robmoult Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob M, > > --- On Sun, 18/1/09, robmoult wrote: > --------- --------- --------- ------- > >In my earlier message, when I wrote, "fifteen centuries after the > Buddha's parinibbana" , I was not referring to the idea of a series of > mental states but rather the specific details of the death process. > > The idea of discrete mental states is, of course, from the original > Abhidhamma texts (this is the core of the Dhammasangani) and the idea > of a sequence of mental states involved in perception can be found in > the Vimutimagga, which predates Buddhaghosa. However the specific > sequence of mental states involved in the death process is a much > later development. > .... > S: I think you'll find that all the details found in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (I presume your "fifteen centuries later"), can be found in the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries of the Mahavihara tradition (i.e Theravada - which doesn't include the Vimutimagga.) The A.S. is a concise summary of the ancient texts, as I understand. > > I don't have my texts here, but see these messages of Nina's as an example of details found in the Visuddhimagga and Sammohavinodani: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/64138 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/73027 > ===== I checked the texts and you are absolutely correct. Thank you so much. Metta, Rob M :-) #95170 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:05 pm Subject: For Sarah Procter Abbot/ Re:Why would you ask? reverendagga... Hi Sarah! (i hope you don't mind if i call you Sarah?) The reason why i ask is this:As something of a wandering monk myself, i just thought it would be nice to make sure i had my story straight. Regarding The question regarding tobacco,i have read that else where and was wondering...? It seems to be something some of the Thai monks have said apparently as a justification for smoking. If you don't mind please allow me to ask another question. The prohibition against some one joining the Sangha who does not have all of their limbs ( to be "complete in 32 parts")how did this as well as the other types of prohibitions (not owing debts etc.)actually come about? The reason why i ask is because i have seen this used as a way of implying that Ven. Gotama and the Sangha were/are showing a sort of cold hearted discrimination.(i doubt it ) It would seem to have come about most probably i believe because there were those perhaps many who were perhaps taking advantage of the Sangha as a means to simply be looked after instead of for more altruistic purposes. Would i be correct? In case you are interested,i am now in Malaysia(balik Pulau)and am preparing to go in about two weeks time to India to better study my samadhi. May the Buddhas Deva and Angels bless and protect you. Om Namah Dhamma Gotama! bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto #95171 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:57 pm Subject: Beginner abhidhamma questions ptaus1 Thank you Nina and Sarah for a warm welcome, it's great to be able to ask questions here. At the moment, I'm trying to understand when is a speculative view in fact a wrong view – ditthi. Initially, I thought that any speculation is automatically a wrong view, but now it seems that there are 2 main criteria that have to be present for a speculative view to be classified as wrong view: 1. there has to be lobha involved 2. the view has to be on a specific "topic" of dealing with self, in particular: - three wrong views that consitute akusala kamma patha (natthika, ahetuka and akiriya-ditthi) - eternalistic, semi-eternalistic and annihiliationistic views - 20 kinds of personality-belief (sakkaya-ditthi) Is there any other criteria besides these that I'm missing? So, for example, if someone asks me what's the fastest way to get from A to B, I might give a speculative view "go straight, then turn left", but that would not be ditthi because there was no lobha (even though there might have been moha – speculating in terms of concepts like people, places, etc). But if I was to hold a speculative view like "I have to eat three serves of fruits and vegetables per day if I want to be healthy" – that is ditthi - there is sakkaya-ditthi involved because I'm taking my body as self (regardless of whether fruits and vegetables are actually good for the body or not). Thanks pt #95172 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, 7. nilovg Dear friends, Q. : I have heard that the postures conceal dukkha. Please, could you explain this? S. : All conditioned realities have the characteristic of dukkha. They are impermanent and therefore they cannot be a real refuge, they are unsatisfactory, dukkha. Thus, dukkha is not merely painful feeling. People who believe that dukkha is merely painful feeling think that, when they feel stiffness and assume a new posture in order to avoid stiffness, that the new posture conceals dukkha. However, any posture conceals the characteristic of dukkha if one has not developed paññå. What we take for the whole body or a posture are in reality many different rúpas which arise and fall away. They are impermanent and thus dukkha. However, people do not realize that, no matter they are sitting, lying down, standing or walking, there are rúpas all over the body, arising and falling away, and that these rúpas are dukkha. It has been explained in the “Visuddhimagga” that the postures conceal dukkha. The meaning is that the characteristic of dukkha of the nåma and rúpa which arise together while assuming different postures is concealed, so long as one takes the body for a “whole”, for “mine”. The characteristic of dukkha is concealed so long as one does not know the characteristic of dukkha of one nåma and one rúpa at a time, as they arise and fall away. When one asks people who have just assumed a new posture whether there is dukkha, they will answer that there is not. If they confuse painful feeling with the truth of dukkha, how can they understand that the postures conceal dukkha? There must be dukkha, otherwise it cannot be said that the postures conceal dukkha. If one has not realized the arising and falling away of nåma and rúpa, all postures, no matter they are connected with painful feeling or not, conceal the characteristic of dukkha. If a person does not develop paññå in order to understand nåma and rúpa as they are, he has the wrong understanding of dukkha. He may believe that he knows the truth of dukkha when he ponders over his painful feeling, dukkha vedanå, caused by stiffness, before he changes into a new posture in order to relieve his pain. He cannot know the truth of dukkha so long as he does not discern the characteristic of non-self of nåma and rúpa. This is the case if he does not know the nåma which sees and colour appearing through the eyes, the nåma which hears and sound appearing through the ears, the nåma which smells and odour, the nåma which tastes and flavour, the nåma which experiences tangible object and tangible object, the nåma which thinks, happiness, sorrow and other realities. Also the reality which thinks that it will change posture is not self, it should be realized as a type of nåma which arises and then falls away. If one does not know this one will not be able to understand the characteristic of dukkha. Only if one is naturally aware of nåma and rúpa as they appear one at a time, paññå can develop stage by stage, so that the noble Truth of dukkha can be realized. ***************** Nina. #95173 From: "sprlrt" Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:44 pm Subject: Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sprlrt Hi Robert E., > > Alberto: > > As I see it there is a shift of the meaning of the word sati, which in > > the passage from theory to the practice changes, almost unnoticed, to > > mean concentrating, samadhi, on a specific area of the body, the tip > > of the nose or the upper lip, while breathing. > > > > Alberto > > > > How does this meaning "subtly shift?" Can you describe the reason why > you think this is sneakily taking place? The word sati does not > change does it? Does it have more than one meaning? The Buddha's > passage does not change, he is clearly saying that mindfulness of > breath leads to full awakening and has outlined each step to full > awakening in brief. So how can you deny it with an imagined and > unexplained "subtle shift" in meaning? Wouldn't you rather suspect > that you are creating this "subtle shift" yourself, if you cannot > explain why you think that it is actually there, to suit your own > philosophical predispositions? > I think we've both started going around in samsara-like circles. How about a fresh thread? :-) Alberto #95174 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati. was: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. nilovg Dear Rob Ep, Op 20-jan-2009, om 20:31 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > I appreciate your comments, and to the extent I understand it, I think > that it is important to develop vipassana and not just samatha towards > jhana. To realize the presence of lobha is a danger no matter what > one's form of practice. That is why it is necessary to have a way of > practice that accounts for delusion. Probably a wise teacher and > friend does not hurt either. > > It seems that you do not reject meditation, but just post warning > signs on its possible misuse, which is appreciated, if I understand > you correctly. ------ N: We have to consider whether the citta is kusala citta or not, and so I appreciate any warning signs from whoever he may be. Explaining Dhamma is not a person, and this means, we can hear Dhamma from anybody who speaks the truth. We have to check the truth ourselves. The Dhamma is our teacher. I get Dhamma from you, Howard, Alberto, from many people. Meditation, bhaavanaa includes samatha and vipassanaa, and how could we reject what is kusala? I shall send you off line an attachment with my study on anapana sati. It is rather long, but incorporated are also discussions with you, Jon and Sarah. We can use this for discussion, posting snippets of it. If I post it here in small parts, I am not sure that you have left us before it is finished, since other duties may be calling you. Nina. #95175 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sangiiti Sutta Threes (44-45) and commentary, part 1. nilovg Dear friends, Sutta 44: Olds: [3.44] Three weapons: the weapon of knowledge, the weapon of detachment, the weapon of wisdom. (Tii.naavudhaani : sutaavudha.m, pavivekaavudha.m, pa~n~naavudha.m.) ------------- N: The first weapon is suta, what is heard. The Co. explains: the Tipi.taka, the Buddha’s words. A bhikkhu, depending on this is depending on the weapon of pa~n~naa; as a courageous soldier, unshakable, crosses the great desert, so this bhikkhu who cannot be slain or cast down, crosses the desert of the cycle, sa.msara. Therefore it is said, as to the weapon of what is heard: the ariyan disciple abandons akusala, develops kusala, abandons what is blamable, develop what is blameless, and protects what is pure in himself. The Subco. refers to A. IV, 101( Book of the Sevens, the Citadel), a sutta about the rajah’s citadel that is well provided so that foes cannot take it. It has ‘a great armoury of spear and sword’ and compared to this armoury is the Dhamma that is heard. The Dhammas ‘learned by him, resolved upon, made familiar by speech, pondered over in mind, well penetrated by right view. With learning as an armoury, the ariyan disciple abandons unrighteous ways and makes righteousness become....’ The subco states that as to the abandoning of akusala, this is overcoming it by the opposites (tada”nga). N: For example, personality belief is overcome by determining nama and rupa... the idea of eternity by contemplation of impermanence. The subco: as to the development of kusala: he makes grow and increase samatha and vipassanaa. As to protecting purity: by abandoning akusala and developing kusala there will be purity in himself from the defilements of attachment and so on. --------- N: One has to have great courage and perseverance to develop the Way so that the great desert of sa.msara will be crossed. Dhamma is our protector, our teacher. This is the Tipi.taka, the word of the Buddha that is ‘pondered over in mind, well penetrated by right view’. *********** Nina. #95176 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:32 am Subject: Re:informal/formal What the Buddha said... to whom? rjkjp1 Dear Suan I don't understand what formal or informal meditation means in the Pali texts exactly. Maybe you could explain by means of this passage: Samyutta Nikaya (translated as Kindred Sayings, P.T.S.) Salayatana Vagga """"And how monks is a monk composed?* Herein, monks, in his going forth and in his returning a monk acts composedly. In looking in front and looking behind, he acts composedly. In wearing his robe and bearing outer robe and bowl, in eating, drinking, chewing, and tasting he acts composedly. In easing himself, in going, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, in speaking and keeping silence he acts composedly. Thus, monks, is a monk composed. """" * Composed: in Pali, sati sampajanna- mindfulness and understanding Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > > > Dear Alberto, Nina, Sarah, Ken H and other like-minded persons > > How are you? > > Alberto claimed that satipatthana was informal daily life practice. > > Do you agree with Alberto? > > Do you know where that assertion came from? > > Alberto failed to answer my previous question who told him that > satipatthana was informal daily life practice. > > Alberto, if you honestly believed that satipatthana was informal > daily life practice, you ought to answer my question. If that > assertion was your own personal opinion (attanomati), you could also > say so. On the other hand, if you were merely repeating someone > else's personal opinion, who was that person? > > I do hope that you were not hiding the identity of the person > holding that view. That would amount to being dishonest on your part. > > Thanking you in advance. > > Best wishes, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > www.bodhiology.org > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sprlrt" wrote: > > Hi Suan, > > > > > Who told you that satipatthana is informal daily life practice? > > > > Not you for sure :-) > > Alberto > #95177 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:48 am Subject: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions /and Re: Suttas- the time to rjkjp1 Dear Robert E Hi you might remember me from a few years back. Perhaps I can suggest a different way of looking at it. When understanding arises - that is, genuine understanding i.e. a moment of citta associated with panna cetaskia - then, no matter how fleeting or weak, there is for that moment genuine bhavana (meditation if you prefer). This (genuine) Bhavana is not dependent on what position you happen to be in, or where you are. It is a nama , mentality - it is not about feeling good or bad, or straining and trying or relaxing, sitting still, walking slowly etc. Once that is known, that bhavana really is a pure mental phenomenon, that arises briefly based on subtle conditions, we can understand why vipassana is not a special technique that one learns and applies. Like the Western teacher Chistopher titmus (who I usually find rather unispring) said: http://www.insightmeditation.org/index.php/welcome/eng/dharmanews """The word Vipassana has become too closely identified with certain methods and techniques, and is thus far removed from its original meaning, namely insight – bearing no connection whatsoever for the Buddha with a meditation technique. . """" robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Hi Ken. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > > > Please, let us see any quotes from the Tipitaka that you regard as > > meditation instructions. > > > > I think we will find they are actually descriptions of conditioned > > dhammas and explanations as to how they arose, performed their > > functions and fell away. > > Well, if that is the case, why would you resist doing the same as > those who are described in such suttas? Why would those who believe > this to be the case make it a decision - most likely based on the ego > - that they will avoid such meditation and not the work the way that > the Buddha described as bringing success? > #95178 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. nilovg Dear Rob Ep (and Howard), Op 20-jan-2009, om 21:03 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > If one were to contemplate the nature of the body in a more > intellectual way, that would be getting more involved with concept, > but to just to contemplate the body in the body seems to me to just > contemplate the body as an "is," the sensation of bodilyness that > arises without any attachment or aversion, which leads to sati with > relation to the presence of the body. > > My interpretation may be wrong, but that is my experiential sense > of it. > > I think all of the contemplations of the four foundations and the > breath are attempts to match the Buddha's statement that "in the seen > will be only the seen," etc., in other words to develop sati without > any added interpretation that would lead one back into delusory > concepts. ------- N: Seeing the body in the body, actually in Pali: rupa in rupa. Not contemplating the body as a whole, seeing no self in the body. Seeing as just seeing: no self in seeing. The Buddha's teaching of anatta is central. -------- R: It occurs to me that the sensation of the breath may be a rupa, not a nama? Because "feeling" is in the nama list, I get a bit mixed up on sensation. -------------------------------------------- Howard: In English, 'feeling' and 'sensation' are often synonymous, but that is not so with the Pali. A bodily sensation is a rupa, and it may be "tasted" (i.e., felt) as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. What is translated as 'feeling' is the word 'vedana' ------- N: The word sensation may be a stumbling bloc. It sounds like nama, but Howard uses it as the object of experience through the bodysense, as rupa. I rather avoid this word. Hardness is a rupa, experienced through the bodysense by body- consciousness that is accompanied by either pleasant bodily feeling or painful bodily feeling. Body-consciousness is vipaakacitta and it is accompanied by bodily feeling that is also vipaaka. Bodily feeling is never indifferent feeling. The following javanaciuttas in that process may be akusala cittas with lobha, and accompanied by pleasant mental feeling or indifferent feeling, or by akusala cittas rooted in dosa, accompanied by unhappy feeling. The different cittas in a process arise so closely one after the other that it is difficult to distinguish between them. Nina. #95179 From: Herman Hofman Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner egberdina Hi Scott, 2009/1/21 Scott : > Dear Herman, > > Regarding: > > H: "When you heat a pan full of water it boils. The notion of control > is irrelevant." > > Scott: There is no controlling dhammas. No matter how often you say it, it remains totally irrelevant, Scott. Could I ask you to translate the following and share that labour with the rest of us? I am sure that any translation I have is useless, but I am also sure that any half decent translation will clarify things. Atha kho aññataro brÄhmaṇo yena bhagavÄ tenupasaá¹…kami; upasaá¹…kamitvÄ bhagavatÄ saddhiṃ sammodi. SammodanÄ«yaṃ kathaṃ sÄraṇīyaṃ vÄ«tisÄretvÄ ekamantaṃ nisÄ«di. Ekamantaṃ nisinno kho so brÄhmaṇo bhagavantaṃ etadavoca – ''ahañhi, bho gotama, evaṃvÄdÄ« evaṃdiá¹­á¹­hi – 'natthi attakÄro, natthi parakÄro'''ti. ''MÄhaṃ, brÄhmaṇa, evaṃvÄdiṃ evaṃdiá¹­á¹­hiṃ addasaṃ vÄ assosiṃ vÄ. Kathañhi nÄma sayaṃ abhikkamanto, sayaṃ paá¹­ikkamanto evaṃ vakkhati – 'natthi attakÄro, natthi parakÄro'''ti! ''Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, brÄhmaṇa, atthi ÄrabbhadhÄtÅ«''ti? ''Evaṃ, bho''. ''Ä€rabbhadhÄtuyÄ sati Ärabbhavanto sattÄ paññÄyantÄ«''ti? ''Evaṃ, bho''. ''Yaṃ kho, brÄhmaṇa, ÄrabbhadhÄtuyÄ sati Ärabbhavanto sattÄ paññÄyanti, ayaṃ sattÄnaṃ attakÄro ayaṃ parakÄro''. ''Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, brÄhmaṇa, atthi nikkamadhÄtu…pe… atthi parakkamadhÄtu… atthi thÄmadhÄtu… atthi á¹­hitidhÄtu… atthi upakkamadhÄtÅ«''ti? ''Evaṃ, bho''. ''UpakkamadhÄtuyÄ sati upakkamavanto sattÄ paññÄyantÄ«''ti? ''Evaṃ, bho''. ''Yaṃ kho, brÄhmaṇa, upakkamadhÄtuyÄ sati upakkamavanto sattÄ paññÄyanti, ayaṃ sattÄnaṃ attakÄro ayaṃ parakÄro''. ''MÄhaṃ, brÄhmaṇa [taṃ kiṃ maññasi brÄhmaṇa mÄhaṃ (ka.)], evaṃvÄdiṃ evaṃdiá¹­á¹­hiṃ addasaṃ vÄ assosiṃ vÄ. Kathañhi nÄma sayaṃ abhikkamanto sayaṃ paá¹­ikkamanto evaṃ vakkhati – 'natthi attakÄro natthi parakÄro'''ti. ''Abhikkantaṃ, bho gotama…pe… ajjatagge pÄṇupetaṃ saraṇaṃ gata''nti! Aá¹­á¹­hamaṃ. Cheers Herman #95180 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Beginner abhidhamma questions nilovg Dear pt, Op 21-jan-2009, om 5:57 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > At the moment, I'm trying to understand when is a > speculative view in fact a wrong view – ditthi. > > Initially, I thought that any speculation is automatically a wrong > view, but now it seems that there are 2 main criteria that have to be > present for a speculative view to be classified as wrong view: > > 1. there has to be lobha involved ------- N: Right, wrong view arises with lobha, it is a kind fo clinging. -------- > Tp: 2. the view has to be on a specific "topic" of dealing with > self, in > particular: > - three wrong views that consitute akusala kamma patha (natthika, > ahetuka and akiriya-ditthi) > - eternalistic, semi-eternalistic and annihiliationistic views > - 20 kinds of personality-belief (sakkaya-ditthi) > > Is there any other criteria besides these that I'm missing? -------- N: The Brahmajala sutta enumerates all kinds of wrong view. There are many more as you shall see. Personality view is actually the foundation for all other kinds. -------- > > Tp:So, for example, if someone asks me what's the fastest way to > get from > A to B, I might give a speculative view "go straight, then turn left", > but that would not be ditthi because there was no lobha (even though > there might have been moha – speculating in terms of concepts like > people, places, etc). > > But if I was to hold a speculative view like "I have to eat three > serves of fruits and vegetables per day if I want to be healthy" – > that is ditthi - there is sakkaya-ditthi involved because I'm taking > my body as self (regardless of whether fruits and vegetables are > actually good for the body or not). ------- N: It is more intricate. We may cling to self with lobha that is not accompanied by wrong view or with lobha accompanied by wrong view, or with conceit that is never accompanied by wrong view. How to find out? Only by developing right understanding and reaching stages of insight. So long as the different characteristics of nama and rupa are not distinguished (the first stage of tender insight) there cannot be a precise understanding of what wrong view is. But we can begin to know that there is a notion of self, clinging to self with most of our actions and speech. We should not try to catch when there is exactly ditthi. Also included in ditthi is wrong practice: hoping to obtain a fast result by doing specific things. Nina. #95181 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. jonoabb Hi Nina and Ann > > A. the above sutta speaks of: ... the eye and visible forms, visual > > consciousness and things cognizable by visual consciousness; ..." > > > > I am wondering why 4 things are listed. > ------ > N: You observed this very well. I compared PTS, B.B. and Thai > translations, which are similar. The Co does not explain anything > here. Then I took the Pali, the Samiddhisutta: atthi (there is) > cakkhum (eye) atthi ruupa (visible object) atthi cakkhuvi~n~na.na.m > (seeing) atthi cakkhuvi~n~naatabbaa dhammaa > (dhammas to be known by seeing). > The words atthi are one after the other, and I am inclined to read it > this way: the last one is a repetition with emphasis. I could > elaborate: we have to remember to attend to the dhammas cognizable by > seeing, no matter they are a pleasant or an unpleasant object. But > this is my personal view. > ----- Another possible explanation occurs to me, namely that in each case the complementary part of a pair is being described. So that in the case of the ear-door, for example, the corresponding 4 items would be: - ear and sound (sound being the reality that impinges on the earsense); - hearing consciousness and audible object/dhammas (audible object being that which is experienced by hearing consciousness). At the precise moment that sound impinges on the ear-sense, it cannot really be described as audible object, even though both are the same dhamma. Just my personal view, too ;-)) Jon #95182 From: Herman Hofman Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:12 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. egberdina Hi RobE, 2009/1/21 Robert Epstein : > Hi Herman. > > Herman, > I think that the full quote from that section of the Sabbava Sutta > that you reference above does deny a temporal self, as well as any > other view of the self, rooted in the past, present or future. Here > is the quote, and I will make some comments along the way: > > "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not > in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having > been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I > not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in > the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else > he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? > What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'" > If we broaden what we are quoting even further, then I think it will become obvious that denying a temporal identity is absurd. From the same sutta: "And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by using? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, uses the robe simply to counteract cold, to counteract heat, to counteract the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; simply for the purpose of covering the parts of the body that cause shame." Which body do you suppose the monk should cover? ""Reflecting appropriately, he uses almsfood, not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification; but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, thinking, 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.'" I will maintain myself. Hmmmm, very difficult to do when not identified with anything :-) Cheers Herman #95183 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 1/20/2009 9:22:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Thanks for this explanation, which begins to distinguish these terms. If I am understanding you, the difference between sensation and feeling is the "opinion" or "view" that mentally colors the apprehension of the rupa, so that it is transformed into a mental construct instead of the pure act of perception of the physical moment. Would that be [in my clunky terms] correct? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I wouldn't call it "opinion" or "view," because that is cognitive, whereas vedana is an affective operation. Vedana is the feeling of something, usually a bodily sensation (rupa), as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral. When we feel a pleasant warmth, the feeling of the warmth as pleasant is vedana in action. The warmth sensation itself is just rupa. When feeling a strong, dull sensation in the upper cheeks close to the nose, the feeling of it as unpleasant is vedana in action, and it leads to our thinking "Mmmm, bad sinus pain!" The sensation itself is rupa. The mere feeling of it as unpleasant is vedana. Thinking isn't involved with either, but may quickly follow the vedana. From the Honeyball Sutta, there is "With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about." ------------------------------------------------ In other words, where "seeing only the seen in the seen" would be the rupa of "sensation," "adding how one feels about the seen as part of the seen" would be "feeling....?" ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Noting a bodily sensation alone and "as such," would be "knowing the body in the body," and noting the activity of feeling it as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral alone and "as such" would be "knowing feeling in feeling." Inasmuch as knowing the rupa and affectively tasting it occur at the same time (or at a typically indiscernible distance in time), to engage in such vipassana obviously requires enormous clarity of mind and precise attention. ------------------------------------------------ Best, Robert ============================ With metta, Howard (From the Avarana Sutta) #95184 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:09 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "28. 'And in the Khantivaadin Birth Story he was asked by the stupid king of Kaasi (Benares), 'What do you preach, monk?', and he replied, 'I am a preacher of patience'; and when the king had him flogged with scourges of thorns and had his hands and feet cut off, he felt not the slightest anger (see Jaa.iii,39).'" Path of Purity. "In the Khantivaadi Jaataka (Jaataka iii,39) the monk, on being questioned by the foolish king of Kaasi as to the doctrine he was preaching, said, 'The doctrine of forbearance,' and showed no anger even when he was beaten with whips of thorns, and his hands and feet were cut off..." Khantivaadiijaatake dummedhena kaasira~n~naa 'ki.mvaadii tva.m sama.naa 'ti pu.t.tho 'khantivaadii naamaaha 'nti vutte saka.n.takaahi kasaahi taa.letvaa hatthapaadesu chijjamaanesu kopamattampi naakaasi. Sincerely, Scott. #95185 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:21 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear Rob E., Regarding: R: "Also true for the words of the suttas, also true for the words of the Abdhidhamma and commentaries. True for all language. So? What is the difference? These concepts clearly can lead to right understanding if understood and practiced correctly." Scott: I believe it was Alberto you meant to address in these comments, since it was he you were quoting. Perhaps he could reply were he to feel so inclined. Sincerely, Scott. #95186 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:33 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear Rob E, Regarding: R: "Well we should check out a few translators and see what the real meaning of those words are. It's hard to imagine those sentences making any sense without the imperatives that are clearly there...I am willing to accept the idea that the Abhidhamma, like the suttas themselves, used conventional ideas in order to communicate, while still understanding them in a more non-conventional way..." Scott: I'd recommend that you *do* consider a few translations, should you find that effort arises to do so. I find it helpful to struggle with the Paa.li - which I am very inept at considering - and enjoy the very, very slow way of considering things this allows. I trust little in the opinions of others, including modern translators, my own opinions all the less. This may not be everyone's cup of tea, however. In this day and age and period of the Buddha's dispensation the Dhamma is the teacher in all cases and - given this student at any rate - is very, very slow and very, very patient (I say metaphorically). The reason that 'instructions' cannot be meant in the same way as, say, instructions on how to make a model airplane from a box of parts, is due to the characteristic of anatta - a function of impermanence. No dhamma can be controlled. That dhammas exist having as characteristic 'energy' or 'choice' or what have you, obviates the need to worry that 'nothing will get done' - the all too ready and erroneous argument against these deeper and harder to grasp aspects of the Dhamma. You know, or can know, from your daily life that things happen and that 'energy' or 'anger' or 'concentration' or whatever else have you exist. The bhikkhuni Selaa said to Maara (SN 5, 9): "This puppet is not made by itself, Nor is this misery made by another, It has come to be depending of a cause; With the cause's breakup it will cease. "As when a seed is sown in a field It grows depending on a pair of factors; It requires both soil's nutrients And a steady supply of moisture. "Just so the aggregates and elements, And these six bases of sensory contact, Have come to be depending on a cause; With the cause's breakup they will cease." Nayida.m attakata.m bimba.m, nayida.m parakata.m agha.m; Hetu.m pa.ticca sambhuuta.m, hetubha"ngaa nirujjhati. Yathaa a~n~natara.m biija.m, khette vutta.m viruuhati; Pathaviirasa~ncaagamma, sineha~nca taduubhaya.m. Eva.m khandhaa ca dhaatuyo, cha ca aayatanaa ime; Hetu.m pa.ticca sambhuutaa, hetubha"ngaa nirujjhare 'ti. Scott: Buddhaghosa was well aware of these deeper implications of the characteristic of anatta in relation to the dynamics of dhammas and, in particular, in relation to the notion of control. For example, consider what he writes, from the Commentary to the Minor Readings of the Kkhuddaka.thata in the Kkhuddakanikaaya (Paramatthajotikaa, commentary to The Boys's Questions; in particular the first question - One is what? (Eka naama ki.m?) All creatures subsist by nutriment. (Sabbe satta aahaara.t.thikaa): "What ideas are accompanied by conditions? The five categories, namely, the form category, the feeling category, the perception category, the determinations category, and the consciousness category (Dhs. 1083) subsistence by conditions is appropriate only to the categories, and this passage would be inappropriate to creatures. - It should not be regarded this way. - Why not? - Because of the establishment, in the case of creatures, that they are [only] a metaphor (upacaara) for the categories; for it is established in the case of creatures that this [term 'creatures'] is a metaphor for the categories. - Why? - Because they must be described derivatively upon the categories (khande upaadaaya pa~n~napetabbato). - How? - In the same way as 'village' is a metaphor for houses...so too, this metaphor, namely 'creatures subsist by nutriment' is established with respect to the categories, which subsist by nutriment in the sense of conditions [without which they cannot arise]. And in the ultimate sense too it can be understood that the usage 'creatures subsist by nutriment' is established with respect to the categories, which is shown by the Blessed One's saying 'While the categories are born and age from moment to moment, you, bhikkhu, are being born and ageing and dying.'...(pp. 80-81). Scott: Buddhaghosa, seeming consistent to me and fully aware of these distinctions, would not then offer imperatives and suggest that the dhammas he seemed only to well aware of could be controlled. I think he refers to the conditions that need to be in place for such-and-such to occur. Finally, ~Naa.namoli, in a footnote to his translation of the above (p. 79, note 6) writes: "'Puggalaadi.t.thhaanaaya desanaaya - of teaching in terms of a person': a technical commentarial term, see M A. 1, 24, whence it is opposed to dhammaadi.t.thaanadesanaa (teaching in terms of impersonal ideas). Scott: It is important not to lose track of this distinction, in my opinion. Sincerely, Scott. #95187 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. jonoabb Hi again Nina and Ann > Another possible explanation occurs to me, namely that in each case > the complementary part of a pair is being described. > > So that in the case of the ear-door, for example, the corresponding 4 > items would be: > - ear and sound (sound being the reality that impinges on the > earsense); > - hearing consciousness and audible object/dhammas (audible object > being that which is experienced by hearing consciousness). This was a bit jumbled. What I meant was: - ear and audible object (i.e., that which impinges on ear-sense) - hearing consciousness and things congnisable by hearing consciousness In other words, the same dhamma but described at different stages of the process. Jon #95188 From: "colette" Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:42 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Survey, Ch 35, no 3. ksheri3 Only a few minutes left, YES, You have captured my meditations/contemplations this morning at 4 a.m.! I was looking at the post card from the Tibetan Assistance Project and was thinking about how cold I was in reference to a pic. of a monk I saw in a Kagyu site and the post card as I moled them together and realized that I could not define "outhere" and "inhere" but then couldn't define "am I outthere or inhere" which led me to that WEstern schtick of "being". Naturally I thought of Jaq.Derrida and Difference. be back soon./ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman Hofman wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > 2009/1/21 Robert Epstein : > > Hi Herman. > > > > Herman, > > I think that the full quote from that section of the Sabbava Sutta > > that you reference above does deny a temporal self, as well as any > > other view of the self, rooted in the past, present or future. Here > > is the quote, and I will make some comments along the way: > > > > "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not > > in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having > > been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I > > not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in > > the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else > > he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? > > What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'" > > > > If we broaden what we are quoting even further, then I think it will > become obvious that denying a temporal identity is absurd. > > From the same sutta: > > "And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by using? There is the > case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, uses the robe simply to > counteract cold, to counteract heat, to counteract the touch of flies, > mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; simply for the purpose of covering > the parts of the body that cause shame." > > > Which body do you suppose the monk should cover? > > > ""Reflecting appropriately, he uses almsfood, not playfully, nor for > intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification; but > simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its > afflictions, for the support of the holy life, thinking, 'Thus will I > destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from > overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in > comfort.'" > > I will maintain myself. Hmmmm, very difficult to do when not > identified with anything :-) > > > Cheers > > > Herman > #95189 From: "connie" Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:17 am Subject: AS time nichiconn Dear Friends, Nyanaponika continues: The fact that the potentialities of a situation cannot be excluded from a dynamic conception of actuality was not only recognized in the commentarial period of Paali literature, as illustrated above in our exposition of the term uppanna, but cognizance of it is impressively documented in what is probably the oldest part of the canonical Abhidhamma - the maatikaa. In the maatikaa, which is elaborated in the Dhammasa'nga.nii and forms also the basis of the Yamaka and Pa.t.thaana, there are no less than nine terms referring to the potentiality of defilements differently classed. We have already mentioned: Things favorable to defilements (sa'nkilesikaa dhammaa) Things favorable to cankers (saasavaa dhammaa) The remaining terms are: Things favorable to fetters (sa'myojaniyaa dhammaa) Things favorable to bonds (ganthaniyaa dhammaa) Things favorable to floods (oghaniyaa dhammaa) Things favorable to yokes (yoganiyaa dhammaa) Things favorable to hindrances (niivara.niyaa dhammaa) Things favorable to clinging (upaadaaniyaa dhammaa). ...to be continued, connie #95190 From: "connie" Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:35 am Subject: cornerstone nichiconn Dear Friends, Karunadasa continues: What the foregoing observations amount to is that while a dhamma is a truly existent thing (sabhavasiddha), a pannatti is a thing merely conceptualized (parikappasiddha).123 The former is an existent verifiable by its own distinctive intrinsic characteristic,124 but the latter, being a product of the mind's synthetic function, exists only by virtue of thought. It is a mental construct superimposed on things and hence possesses no objective counterpart. It is the imposition of oneness on what actually is a complex (samuhekaggahana) that gives rise to pannattis.125 With the dissolution of the appearance of unity (ghana-vinibbhoga),126 the oneness disappears and the complex nature is disclosed: Thus as when the component parts such as axles, wheels, frame, poles, etc., are arranged in a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage "chariot," yet in the ultimate sense, when each part is examined, there is no chariot, and just as when the component parts of a house such as wattles, etc., are placed so that they enclose a space in a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage "house," yet in the ultimate sense there is no house, and just as when trunk, branches, foliage, etc., are placed in a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage "tree," yet in the ultimate sense, when each component is examined, there is no tree, so too, when there are the five aggregates (as objects) of clinging, there comes to be the mere term of common usage "a being," "a person," yet in the ultimate sense, when each component is examined, there is no being as a basis for the assumption "I am" or "I." 127 In a similar way should be understood the imposition of oneness on what is complex. notes: 123. ADSVM 52-53. 124. (VsmM 198). 125. Ibid. 137. 126. DM 123. 127. Nanamoli, Path of Purification, p.458. ...to be continued, connie #95191 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. nilovg Dear Jon, I was thinking about it again. Usually in the suttas details about processes like this are not given. I was thinking of the Pali, hammering in: atthi...atthi...athi...athi.. More as a reminder. But I cannot be sure. Thanks, Nina. Op 21-jan-2009, om 18:20 heeft jonoabb het volgende geschreven: > This was a bit jumbled. What I meant was: > - ear and audible object (i.e., that which impinges on ear-sense) > - hearing consciousness and things congnisable by hearing > consciousness > > In other words, the same dhamma but described at different stages of > the process. #95192 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma. nilovg Hi Herman, Op 20-jan-2009, om 1:39 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > I do not think it is useful to speak about conditions in general. If > we do not know what the conditions are for certain arisings then we > should say so, and if we do know what the conditions are, we can list > them for the benefit of ourselves and others. --------- N: Right, but so often the condiitons for sati have been repeated here (Howard would say: ad nauseam): listening, considering, applying the dhamma one has heard. -------- > > H: Happily, the conditions for the arising of sati are well known and > described. There is a whole section on satipatthana in the SN, section > 47. This section makes it clear that "sati in daily life" is a > fiction. Rather, sati and jhana are inextricably intertwined. ------- N: Any text in particular, in S V? sati and jhana are inextricably intertwined? Did the Buddha preach only to those who were skilled in jhaana? Nina. #95193 From: Herman Hofman Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cornerstone egberdina Hi connie, 2009/1/22 connie : > Dear Friends, > Karunadasa continues: > > > In a similar way should be understood the imposition of oneness on what is complex. > Which is the very reason why it is silly to speak of one citta arising at one time. Cheers Herman #95194 From: Herman Hofman Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding Death and Beyond - Section 7 egberdina Hi RobM, 2009/1/21 robmoult : > Hi All, > > From my paper: > > > Can anybody identify any Suttas to support the idea that mental > states arise sequentially, not in parallel? > No, I can't. But I can find support for the opposite. MN43 "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them." Those who argue for a serial mind are confused between what is there, and what is attended to. I accept that it is the nature of attention to attend serially, but attention is only a minute subset of what is going on in the body/mind. Whatever is attended to is selected from everything that is going on, and that is what is meant by the term adverting (turning the mind to). In a serial mind, advertence is meaningless. Also, a serial mind cannot be anything other than strictly deterministic, for it could never entertain more than one possibility. Such a mind is the mind of an automaton. This may well be what appeals to those who argue for it, because it is rather scary being responsible for everything one does. Thanks for the series. Cheers Herman #95195 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Beginner abhidhamma questions glenjohnann Dear Nina, pt and others --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > N: It is more intricate. We may cling to self with lobha that is not > accompanied by wrong view or with lobha accompanied by wrong view, or > with conceit that is never accompanied by wrong view. > How to find out? Only by developing right understanding and reaching > stages of insight. So long as the different characteristics of nama > and rupa are not distinguished (the first stage of tender insight) > there cannot be a precise understanding of what wrong view is. But we > can begin to know that there is a notion of self, clinging to self > with most of our actions and speech. We should not try to catch when > there is exactly ditthi. > Also included in ditthi is wrong practice: hoping to obtain a fast > result by doing specific things. > Nina. A: Nina, you have said above that conceit is never accompanied by wrong view. I have probably heard this discussed before, however, either I can't remember those discussions or I never really understood, probably the latter. I recall that conceit involves any type of comparison (better than, same as, not as good as etc). I would have thought that this comparison would be based on a view that there is "self" entity. Can you please elaborate on why it is that conceit does not arise with wrong view. Ann #95196 From: "connie" Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:45 pm Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn Dear Herman, K: In a similar way should be understood the imposition of oneness on what is complex. H: Which is the very reason why it is silly to speak of one citta arising at one time. c: No sillier to me than to speak of any one living one life at a time. peace, connie #95197 From: Herman Hofman Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: cornerstone egberdina Hi connie, 2009/1/22 connie : > Dear Herman, > > K: In a similar way should be understood the imposition of oneness on what is complex. > > H: Which is the very reason why it is silly to speak of one citta arising at one time. > > c: No sillier to me than to speak of any one living one life at a time. I agree. Who says that? Cheers Herman #95198 From: "connie" Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:02 pm Subject: re: cornerstone nichiconn Hi Herman, > K: In a similar way should be understood the imposition of oneness on what is complex. > > H: Which is the very reason why it is silly to speak of one citta arising at one time. > > c: No sillier to me than to speak of any one living one life at a time. H: I agree. Who says that? c: lol - says what? "I agree"? Hadn't really thought much about it before, and now that you mention it, I don't really remember anyone saying they're just living this current life now, but it seems - and maybe just to me - that we all kinda think that way. So, must be what I say. peace, connie #95199 From: Herman Hofman Date: Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma. egberdina Hi Nina, 2009/1/22 Nina van Gorkom : > Hi Herman, > Op 20-jan-2009, om 1:39 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > >> I do not think it is useful to speak about conditions in general. If >> we do not know what the conditions are for certain arisings then we >> should say so, and if we do know what the conditions are, we can list >> them for the benefit of ourselves and others. > --------- > N: Right, but so often the condiitons for sati have been repeated > here (Howard would say: ad nauseam): listening, considering, applying > the dhamma one has heard. It raises the question: why have they been repeated so often? Perhaps it is the wrong voices that are being listened to? Perhaps there is no wise attention? Perhaps there is no application? > -------- >> >> H: Happily, the conditions for the arising of sati are well known and >> described. There is a whole section on satipatthana in the SN, section >> 47. This section makes it clear that "sati in daily life" is a >> fiction. Rather, sati and jhana are inextricably intertwined. > ------- > N: Any text in particular, in S V? sati and jhana are inextricably > intertwined? > Did the Buddha preach only to those who were skilled in jhaana? I could quote you texts ad nauseam, Nina. And that has been happening for years already, with no effect. Suffice it to say that nothing will get through a mind that is already firmly made up, not even the beautiful voice of the Buddha. It reminds me of the play by Samuel Beckett, which I will paraphrase here as Waiting for Conditions. It is a tragicomedy, in which two characters wait for the Right Conditions, which never arrive. The pair claim to know what the Right Conditions would be, but when pressed they admit they would not know how to recognise them, and do not know whether any of the incidental characters they have met were the Right Conditions. A recurring theme of the play is the muttered statement "Nothing to be done", the implication being that doing nothing is a possibility while Waiting for Conditions. But sensual craving in the terrible silence being what it is, they instead study the texts, in the vain hope that the Right Conditions wil appear :-) Cheers Herman =========== * 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 - 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) == "Rouse yourself! Sit up! What good is there in sleeping? For those afflicted by disease (suffering), struck by the arrow (craving), what sleep is there? "Rouse yourself! Sit up! Resolutely train yourself to attain peace. Do not let the king of death, seeing you are careless, lead you astray and dominate you. "Go beyond this clinging, to which devas and men are attached, and (the pleasures) they seek. Do not waste your opportunity. When the opportunity has passed they sorrow when consigned to Niraya-hell. "Negligence is a taint, and so is the (greater) negligence growing from it. By earnestness and understanding withdraw the arrow (of sensual passions)." (From the Utthana Sutta) ==