#95600 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 11:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] There Was A Group Called DSG nilovg Dear TG, I had to laugh about it all. I know you are a poetical guy. Perhaps you wrote many peoms we do not know about. Looking forward to other poems, but I hope deeper and more serious. You can do better, I know:-)) Nina. Op 1-feb-2009, om 20:09 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > I'm telling you and this is true > I love you just the same, > Conditions made me send this thing > There's no TG to blame. :-) #95601 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 6:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] There Was A Group Called DSG TGrand458@... Your a sweetheart Nina! In a message dated 2/1/2009 12:27:41 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear TG, I had to laugh about it all. I know you are a poetical guy. Perhaps you wrote many peoms we do not know about. Looking forward to other poems, but I hope deeper and more serious. You can do better, I know:-)) Nina. #95602 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 6:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] There Was A Group Called DSG upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Nina) - In a message dated 2/1/2009 2:28:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Your a sweetheart Nina! ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, indeed she is. I was actually about to reply to your post in a somewhat less laid back and accepting way ;-)), but Nina has saved me from that! ---------------------------------------------- In a message dated 2/1/2009 12:27:41 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear TG, I had to laugh about it all. I know you are a poetical guy. Perhaps you wrote many peoms we do not know about. Looking forward to other poems, but I hope deeper and more serious. You can do better, I know:-)) Nina. ============================ With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #95603 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 1:06 pm Subject: Re: Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dkotschessa" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > <. . .> > Just want to throw in my support for Rob's perspective (I don't know > if that's a good thing or a bad thing for Rob :) ) here. These > threads have been frustrating to read becuase Robert has asked a > very simple question over and over and over, and it has gone > unanswered. > > Robert is still asking: "Why is meditation different than listening > to dhamma talks?" From memory I think he's posed the question in > some form or another about 5 times and nobody has even addressed the > question. Do we conlude that no-one has an answer? ------------ Hi Dave, It's nice of you to support Robert, although I think he has a lot of support here already. :-) Please believe me, we on the non-formal- mediation side have been trying our best to answer his question. I can see the answer as plain as day in all of our replies. Robert has been a member of DSG for many years (although not always an active one) and we have been discussing this same topic for many years. There are other long term members who share Robert's difficulty - they still can't see the answer we have been trying to give them. Or, when they can see it, they forget it very quickly and ask the same question again a week later. So please bear with us, the answer is there in black and white. :-) Ken H #95604 From: sîlânanda Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 4:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hi Everybody! silananda_t Dear Bhikkhu Aggacitto, Try this: http://www.paaukforestmonastery.org/contact.htm May your quest be fruitful. mahakaruna, ~upasaka silananda On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:59 PM, reverendaggacitto < reverendaggacitto@...> wrote: > i am going to be going to India in a few days (Southern) > Does any body have any recommendations for a place where i can study > > and work on my jhanna access? > #95605 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 7:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] jhana1formal meditation rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Robert, > A long time ago I posted some parts of it, it is very good. Food for > thinking. Perhaps you could select small sections and repost them? > People may not be inclined to read a long article and therefore, > small sections at a time may help. > Dear Nina Looking forward to meeting you on Thursday in Bangkok. Another regular, Venerable Dhammavindo, is also very happy to be able to meet you for the first time. I add some points now. One of the things that has puzzled me for many years is why the modern Theravada movement is so interested in formal meditation. A french bhikkhu told me when he gives a talk these days people expect him to teachg meditation so he is pratically obliged to give instructions on Anapanasati (even though he himself thinks it is too difficult as an object ). Is it that people feel pressured by life and want some percived relief or the promise of relief. I don't see why the obejcts that are appearing now at the sense doors are believed to be so unimportant or uninteresting that one must try to foucus on anything EXCEPT what is appearing naturally? And then so many talk about theory as if it were something apart from practice . The Buddhists of this age have really gone astray. Perhaps this sutta can help: How is insight developed and nibbana attained: From the Digha nikaya QUOTE Sangiti sutta "The vimuttayatanam The 5 bases of deliverance: XXV. "Five bases of deliverance; here a. the teacher or a respected fellow disciple teaches a monk Dhamma. And as he receives the teaching, he gains a grasp of both the spirit and the letter of the teaching. At this, joy arises in him, and from this joy, delight; and by this delight his senses are calmed, he feels happiness as a result, and with this happiness his mind is established [he attains nibban]; b. he has not heard it thus, but in the course of the teaching Dhamma to others he has learnt it by heart as he has heard it, or c. as he is chanting the Dhamma... or d. ...when he applies his mind to the Dhamma, thinks and ponders over it and concentrates his attention on it; or e. When he has properly grasped some concentration sign, has well considered it, applied his mind to it, and has well penetrated it with wisdom. At this, joy arises in him; and from this joy, delight, and by this delight his senses are calmed, he feels happiness as a result, and with this happiness his mind is established.""endquote Notice the first 4 ways of liberation, a -d, do not mention gaining mundane jhana. Does anyone think they need a special posture to recite Dhamma or listen to it? Why do they think there cannot arise panna now, or when walking normally (why should it be slow?) Can it arise when having a hot bath? Perhaps these questions never occur if one is convinced that Dhamma is about sitting closed eyes with upright back and walking slowly. Robert #95606 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 8:01 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > What seems good to > me about meditation is that once you are sitting you have a chance to > pay attention to the arising moments without constant shifting > distractions. If you get an itch you can look at the namas and rupas > that attend that itch. dear Robert When you talk about meditation do you mena satipatthana that leads out of samsara or do you mean the way of samatha? The post above looks like you mean satipatthana. I know it has been said several hundred times on dsg but can you confirm that your realise there are only genuine moments of satiptthana when there is refined panna that is dislodging the idea of a self. I ask because what you describe above is almost guaranteeing that one will increase the sense of self who can make sati arise, who can control consciousnes to go here and there. Robert #95607 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 8:17 pm Subject: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions /and Re: Suttas- the time to rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Hi Scott. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > > > Dear Robert E., > > > > R: "...You still haven't said why meditation - that is, sitting and > > following the breath, sensations, emotions, thoughts, mental factors, > > as they arise, is to be shunned and can only be akusala, any more than > > sutta reading or lectures. I can keep repeating this question, or you > > can take a stab at answering it, or tell me that you can't answer it." > > > > Scott: Thank you, Rob, I think I'll pass on following up on this, if > > you don't mind. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Scott. > > > > That is fine, Scott. I just must note in passing that I have never > gotten an answer to this question, not just from you but from anyone. > > Best, > Robert > > +++++ Dear Robert http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/95606 let us start with this post I just made. Robert #95608 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 10:11 pm Subject: Re: Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. epsteinrob Hi Ken. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dkotschessa" > wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > > wrote: > > > > <. . .> > > > Just want to throw in my support for Rob's perspective (I don't > know > > if that's a good thing or a bad thing for Rob :) ) here. These > > threads have been frustrating to read becuase Robert has asked a > > very simple question over and over and over, and it has gone > > unanswered. > > > > Robert is still asking: "Why is meditation different than > listening > > to dhamma talks?" From memory I think he's posed the question in > > some form or another about 5 times and nobody has even addressed > the > > question. Do we conlude that no-one has an answer? > ------------ > > Hi Dave, > > It's nice of you to support Robert, although I think he has a lot of > support here already. :-) Please believe me, we on the non-formal- > mediation side have been trying our best to answer his question. I > can see the answer as plain as day in all of our replies. > > Robert has been a member of DSG for many years (although not always > an active one) and we have been discussing this same topic for many > years. > > There are other long term members who share Robert's difficulty - > they still can't see the answer we have been trying to give them. Or, > when they can see it, they forget it very quickly and ask the same > question again a week later. > > So please bear with us, the answer is there in black and white. :-) > > Ken H > Really? Please repeat it in black and white for me, if I am a bit slow. Put it right here where I can see it, if you don't mind -----> _____________________________________________________________________ If you say "this is the answer to the question" and spell it out [once again, if you think you have already done so] I promise to write it down and address it directly, and acknowledge that you have answered, and what, if anything, I disagree with or agree with in the answer. "Just once more for the road..." Thanks, Robert E. ====================== #95609 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 10:35 pm Subject: Re: "Funny how time can just slip right away" Joe Hinton gazita2002 Hello Colette, sorry to hear that you are in a blue mood. dont know if its appropriate here to say this, but ur friend is already a 'new being' somewhere else. Hopefully in a pleasant realm. did you really walk all that distance? I have just walked around the little town I've recently moved to, in the pouring rain. With a great grin on my face as I love walking and love to walk in the rain. we have just had a cyclone pass over us, or at least nearby, and have had lots of rain dumped on us, so this normally dry little town has rivers flowing everywhere. Walking is good for the 'soul' - or really the liver :-) May all beings be happy, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Group, > > I'm in a blue mood and a blue period since one of the few friends I > had just past away and everybody thought I was his relative. I began > the process, today, of honoring my word to him that I'd take care of > things for him. > > In the process of walking to/from my home to his home, then to the > library, I've had time to contemplate quite a bit. If you don't know > me, then you wouldn't understand how much walking I've always done > since 1980 (in 1982 I walked out of Phoenix Arizona to Gallup N.M., > or, when the Baptist mission I was living in, in the L.A. high > desert, searched my things and found my deck of tarot card [a Waite > Deck], they shipped me back to Santa Monica where all public agencies > told me that I'd have to walk to the Barrio, E.L.A., if I wanted help > from a public service, not in the White Middle Class suburbia of > Santa Monica sonny), and this tremendous amount of walking I've done > has always come in handy to help facilitate my meditation and > contemplations. > ....snip....... > > toodles, > colette > #95610 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 10:37 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. epsteinrob Hi Robert. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > > > What seems good to > > me about meditation is that once you are sitting you have a chance to > > pay attention to the arising moments without constant shifting > > distractions. If you get an itch you can look at the namas and rupas > > that attend that itch. > > dear Robert > When you talk about meditation do you mena satipatthana that leads > out of samsara or do you mean the way of samatha? > > The post above looks like you mean satipatthana. I know it has been > said several hundred times on dsg but can you confirm that your realise > there are only genuine moments of satiptthana when there is refined > panna that is dislodging the idea of a self. > > I ask because what you describe above is almost guaranteeing that one > will increase the sense of self who can make sati arise, who can control > consciousnes to go here and there. > Robert > Hello, other Robert - since neither of us ultimately exists I don't mind sharing the name with you. I guess we just have a disagreement here about what causes self to rise up and take credit for experience. Anyone who reads a sutta or sits in meditation *wants* to get to nibbana, or at least gain insight and be in a more kusala state than we are currently in. That is a given. One starts with this desire or we wouldn't bother to read a sutta in the first place, or try to understand the nature of the four noble truths or the eightfold path. I look at meditation as a practical situation in which one practices sati, and allow it to develop into satipatthana. You say this means that I must be increasing the sense of self being the owner or doer of such a process, and that is where I disagree. I can be pragmatic and put this organism with its perception and mind into a certain situation with an intention to follow the path, and then let it do whatever it does after that. I do not have to have the subtle underlying belief that *I* am controlling this process and am somehow in charge of it. Part of meditation is spotting such akusala moments arising and seeing them for what they are. Those who follow the current Abhidhamma philosophy in this group seem to believe that this is impossible, that the very act of sitting down to practice sati means that the self-concept is being increased and that one feels they can *produce* sati. I feel that it is just that I recognize that this is a situation in which sati can arise and that I am putting myself there, and then I can either have a kusala or akusala approach. It is not pre-ordained just by the decision to practice, anymore than deciding to read a sutta means the self is in charge of understanding the sutta. It is like saying that if I recognize I have an illness and I go to the doctor, I am saying that *I* am in charge of the medical procedure, and I am going to tell the doctor what to do and make my own medical decision. It doesn't make sense. I go to the doctor because I know that I am *not* in charge, and that the doctor will be in charge and tell me what to do. Likewise, if I sit and then allow the moments to do whatever they will without any attempt to control them, then I am surrendering to the meditation situation and letting it take over, not me. The question is whether meditation is a good doctor or not, and I think it is, so I am willing to put myself in that situation and allow it to take its course. Just as I read a sutta because I believe that the Doctor - the Buddha - knew how to diagnose my situation and will help to cure my ailment - delusion - I also follow doctor's orders when he says "meditate and recognize the moments as they arise. The more you practice this, the more you will discern over time, even though you have no control over this process." I am sure - correct me if I am wrong - that you believe that if you are open to the moments that arise naturally in everyday life, as the current version of Abhidhamma teaches, that over time you will get better at it and panna will sometime develop; maybe not now, not immediately, but when the conditions accumulate to allow it, and so you "practice" as well as you can discerning the namas and rupas that arise in the moment. So it is with meditation for me: I believe that over time it will have a kusala impact and so I leave myself available as much as I can *now* to see what arises and recognize it for what it is - mind state, perception, sensation, emotion, whatever, and then go with whatever comes up. Buddha said that if such a process was partaken of for 7 years, 7 months or even 7 days, that the benefit would be great. So I believe the doctor and I do all the good things he advises - I read sutta, I discuss points of confusion regarding the Dhamma, and I sit in meditation and allow sati to arise as it will. I don't see this as promoting the self, but as surrendering the self to a process that I have been advised to do. As for only panna being capable of sati, whatever will develop in sitting, as in any activity, will develop when it will. To say I cannot practice anapanasati unless I already have the results of the process in hand, seems patently absurd. That is like saying you cannot put any money in the bank and collect interest unless you already have a million dollars. Under those rules I will never get anywhere. It is Catch-22. Again, if you believe that somehow everyday namas and rupas, dhamma reading and study, com reading and interpretation and the wise advice of the spiritual friend somehow promotes panna in a way that is impossible in meditation, I would like to know how starting out without panna develops sati in those situations, but cannot in meditation. I am still waiting for this clear distinction that to me has never been given. Perhaps you can explain why the meditation intention is worse than the sutta intention or any other intention which is pointed in the Buddha's direction. Best, Robert E. [the other non-Robert] ----------------------------------------------- #95611 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 10:44 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. epsteinrob Hi Robert. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > I ask because what you describe above is almost guaranteeing that one > will increase the sense of self who can make sati arise, who can control > consciousnes to go here and there. > Robert I am re-answering this segment of your post because you referenced it as an answer to my question about why meditation was a worse activity for the arising of sati than other activities and would lead to an increased sense of self controlling the process. I would like to note that in the above you do indeed assert that "...what you describe above is almost guaranteeing that one will increase the sense of self who can make sati arise, who can control consciousnes to go here and there," but you do not say why you believe this is so, or how it would cause this to take place. In fact what I said seems to me the opposite of what you assert. My example is that if I have an itch I can look at the namas and rupas involved. Isn't that what you would do in an "everyday discernment of the namas and rupas of everyday life?" I am not saying that I can guarantee sati or that I will see what is really there. I am saying that sitting without undue distractions gives me the opportunity to take a look at whatever arises. Like playing the piano, I assume that if I spend time doing this, the muscle for it will be developed. I don't assume it is a random process, even though I am not in control of it. If an itch arises, check out the itch; if a thought arises, check out the nama. What is the problem with that? To me, it seems like a practical way of doing what monks and householders have done since the Buddha's time - sit and practice what he taught. So just to emphasize, I don't think you have answered the question: Why is meditation a worse situation for kusala cittas to arise than any other Dhammic activity? Best, Robert E. ======================== #95612 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 10:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] jhana1formal meditation epsteinrob Hi Robert. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Does anyone think they need a special posture to recite Dhamma or > listen to it? Why do they think there cannot arise panna now, or when > walking normally (why should it be slow?) Can it arise when having a > hot bath? > Perhaps these questions never occur if one is convinced that Dhamma is > about sitting closed eyes with upright back and walking slowly. > Robert > I think there are a few misunderstandings here. Just as one cannot be an Abhidhamma expert without studying Abhidhamma, one cannot be a meditation expert without meditating. I don't think it's possible to understand the fruits of meditation without engaging in it. I know there are some here with a meditation background who have given it up as a result of the Abhidhamma teaching, and that is fine. But in general, I think it is hard to judge a practice from the standpoint of an alternate choice. Secondly, you seem to assume that meditators think they can sit with eyes closed and the entire path will be handed to them on a silver platter by mystical means. Most who practice meditation also read and study dhamma and try to apply the eightfold path to daily life as well. It is a balanced Buddhist approach, not 'either A or B, but not both.' There is no reason for the path to be polarized and have to leave out some portion of the Buddha's teaching. Best, Robert E. ========================================== #95613 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 11:00 pm Subject: intention/meditation rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: >> Again, if you believe that somehow everyday namas and rupas, dhamma > reading and study, com reading and interpretation and the wise advice > of the spiritual friend somehow promotes panna in a way that is > impossible in meditation, I would like to know how starting out > without panna develops sati in those situations, but cannot in > meditation. I am still waiting for this clear distinction that to me > has never been given. Perhaps you can explain why the meditation > intention is worse than the sutta intention or any other intention > which is pointed in the Buddha's direction. > > Dear Robert I sense you have a genuine interest so I wish to go into this in detail. We have to so point by point so I do it is a series of posts. Could you first look at this quote and confirm you agree with the writer about this. If you don't we have a major conflict in interpretation of what the Buddha said, and view is what determines whether the path is right or wrong. The burmese Abhidhamma teacher Thein Nyun in his preface to the DhatuKathu (Pali Text Society) xxvii writes this: QUOTE "Because the functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of continuity, collection and form, the ideas arise: 1)the initial effort that has to be exerted when a deed is about to be performed and 2) the care that has to be taken while the deed is being performed to its completion and this leads to the subsequent ideas 3)"I can perform" and 4) "I can feel". Thus these four imaginary characteristic functions of being have bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. But the elements have not the time or span of duration to carry out such functions" endquote Robert #95614 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 11:12 pm Subject: Re: jhana1formal meditation rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Hi Robert. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > Does anyone think they need a special posture to recite Dhamma or > > listen to it? Why do they think there cannot arise panna now, or when > > walking normally (why should it be slow?) Can it arise when having a > > hot bath? > > Perhaps these questions never occur if one is convinced that Dhamma is > > about sitting closed eyes with upright back and walking slowly. > > Robert > > > > I think there are a few misunderstandings here. Just as one cannot be > an Abhidhamma expert without studying Abhidhamma, one cannot be a > meditation expert without meditating. I don't think it's possible to > understand the fruits of meditation without engaging in it. I know > there are some here with a meditation background who have given it up > as a result of the Abhidhamma teaching, and that is fine. But in > general, I think it is hard to judge a practice from the standpoint of > an alternate choice. > > Secondly, you seem to assume that meditators think they can sit with > eyes closed and the entire path will be handed to them on a silver > platter by mystical means. Most who practice meditation also read and > study dhamma and try to apply the eightfold path to daily life as > well. It is a balanced Buddhist approach, not 'either A or B, but not > both.' There is no reason for the path to be polarized and have to > leave out some portion of the Buddha's teaching. > > Best, > Robert E. > > ========================================== Dear Robert I mention an experience I had. In the late eighties I was staying at a vipassana center in Thailand, several months. One day I had to go into the town to renew my visa or something. I went into a shop and someone said my complexion was so clear. And then in another shop a girl asked me why I looked so bright and glowing.@I told her I was staying at a the center (which she knew) and she went and got her father (or uncle or someone). He came out and asked me about Dhamma and meditation and so on. All based on this glowing skin. Actually I found out (eventually), that what it was, was a purified type of lobha was conditioning this phenomena. But I was proud of it and thought it a good thing. Delusion - but taken as the right way. This type of subtle lobha is pleasant, and if it can be maintained you feel calmer than normal daily life with its constant interupitions and distractions. And it takes much effort to maintain it- but it is still only lobha. I am not suggesting this is related to you but I mention it to show how it is possible to go wrong. Thus I find it perfectly right to emphasize the subtlety of the path and why the theory MUST be correct . If the foundation, the theory, is not very stable then one is sitting on a house of cards (no matter how upright and long one may sit). robert #95615 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 11:26 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. nilovg Dear Rob Ep, Op 2-feb-2009, om 7:37 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > Anyone who reads a sutta or sits in meditation *wants* to get to > nibbana, or at least gain insight and be in a more kusala state than > we are currently in. That is a given. One starts with this desire or > we wouldn't bother to read a sutta in the first place, or try to > understand the nature of the four noble truths or the eightfold path. -------- N: Not quite. When lobha does not come in and hinders, the goal is gaining more understanding of the namas and rupas of my life. I know it is a very long practice, many aeons, and I do not expect to reach nibbaana soon. It is good to have more understanding even it is very little at a time, and that means a little less delusion. -------- R:If an itch arises, check out the itch; if a thought arises, check out the nama. What is the problem with that? To me, it seems like a practical way of doing what monks and householders have done since the Buddha's time - sit and practice what he taught. ------ N: If someone is inclined to sit, let him sit, he sits there already because of his accumulated conditions. When you are sitting and sati does not arise, it means that there are not enough conditions for it. That teaches us something: sati cannot be manipulated. If it arises, it does so because of its own conditions, namely, understanding what sati is and what its object is: any reality appearing now. If we think that it can only arise when we are in quiet surroundings we create already an obstacle to sati, we do not 'let it arise' because of its own conditions. You speak about'check out' the reality that arises. But there is more to it. It is not just checking out but understanding. Understanding leads to detachment from the idea of self who can do it all, who can check out realities. ******* Nina. #95616 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 1, 2009 11:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Survey, Ch 36, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, We read in the “Kindred Sayings”( IV, Salåyatana vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Fourth Fifty, Ch III, § 193, Udåyin): Once the venerable Ånanda and the venerable Udåyin were staying at Kosambí in Ghosita Park. Then the venerable Udåyin, rising at eventide from his solitude, went to visit the Venerable Ånanda, and on coming to him... after the exchange of courtesies, sat down at one side. So seated the venerable Udåyin said to the venerable Ånanda: “Is it possible, friend Ånanda, just as this body has in divers ways been defined, explained, set forth by the Exalted One, as being without the self,-- is it possible in the same way to describe the consciousness, to show it, make it plain, set it forth, make it clear, analyze and expound it as being also without the self?” “Just as this body has in divers ways been defined, explained, set forth by the Exalted One, as being without the self, friend Udåyin, so also is it possible to describe this consciousness, to show it, make it plain, set it forth, make it clear, analyze and expound it as being also without the self. Owing to the eye and visible object arises seeing-consciousness, does it not, friend?” “Yes, friend.” “Well, friend, it is by this method that the Exalted One has explained, opened up, and shown that this consciousness also is without the self. “ (The same is said with regard to the other doorways.) If someone does not clearly know the reality which is nåma, doubt has not been eliminated yet. If there is still doubt how can he realize the noble Truths? Through which gate will he enter? The gateways mentioned in the Commentary refer to the moment before lokuttara citta arises and realizes nibbåna. In the process of attaining enlightenment, mahå-kusala kåmåvacara citta (of the sense sphere) arises before lokuttara citta arises, and it depends on conditions which of the four satipatthånas this kåmåvacara citta takes as object. However, this does not mean that someone could enter the city, that is, realizing nibbåna, without clearly knowing the characteristics of rúpakkhandha, vedanåkkhandha, saññåkkhandha, sankhårakkhandha and viññånakkhandha. Before someone can understand that this body is anattå and that evenso this consciousness is anattå, the characteristics of nåma and rúpa appearing at this moment must be “described, showed, made plain, set forth, made clear, analysed and expounded”, as we read in the Sutta. Characteristics of nåma and rúpa appear at this moment, while we see, hear, smell, taste, experience tangible object or think. ********** Nina. #95617 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 12:54 am Subject: Re: intention/meditation rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > >> Again, if you believe that somehow everyday namas and rupas, > dhamma > > reading and study, com reading and interpretation and the wise advice > > of the spiritual friend somehow promotes panna in a way that is > > impossible in meditation, I would like to know how starting out > > without panna develops sati in those situations, but cannot in > > meditation. I am still waiting for this clear distinction that to me > > has never been given. Perhaps you can explain why the meditation > > intention is worse than the sutta intention or any other intention > > which is pointed in the Buddha's direction. > > > Dear Robert We have to know what the conditions are for panna to arise. The reasons are pretty specific: Commentary to samyutta Nikaya (note 313 ) page 809 Bodhi "for when learning declines the practice declines, and when the practice declines achievement declines. But when learning becomes full, persons rich in learning fill up the practice, and those filling up the practice fill up achievement. Thus when learning etc are increasing my Dispensation increases just like the full moon."""" One has to know very accurately just what the Buddha taught, no other way for panna to arise. Robert #95618 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 1:52 am Subject: Re: intention/meditation rjkjp1 > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > > wrote: > > >> Again, if you believe that somehow everyday namas and rupas, > > dhamma > > > reading and study, com reading and interpretation and the wise > advice > > > of the spiritual friend somehow promotes panna in a way that is > > > impossible in meditation, I would like to know how starting out > > > without panna develops sati in those situations, but cannot in > > > meditation. I am still waiting for this clear distinction that to me > > > has never been given. Perhaps you can explain why the meditation > > > intention is worse than the sutta intention or any other intention > > > which is pointed in the Buddha's direction. > > > > Dear Robert One has to understand that insight and understanding are not dependent on posture or on closing ones eyes or being able to sit for one hour without moving. If one thinks that tehse are critical elements of practice I would say that one is missing what the way is. ------- Nina quoted the Visuddhimgga some time back: One of the Recollections mentioned in the Visuddhimagga is Recollection of the Dhamma, Ch VII, 68-89. well § 71: We read in § 88: You see this is Dhammanusati, one of the forty objects of samatha , why are people these days not so keen on this but prefer anapansati, do you know? from Connie http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/73458 QUOTE "Just as a man who has found satisfaction in the choicest of tastes will not yearn for other tastes of an inferior kind, so too, dear sir, one will no longer have a liking for the doctrines of those many other ascetics and brahmins, after one has listened to Master Gotama's Dhamma, be it discourses, mixed prose, expositions or marvellous accounts.' "Just as a man weakened by hunger who comes upon a honey cake, wherever he eats of it he will enjoy a sweet, delicious taste; so too, dear sir, whatever one hears of Master Gotama's Dhamma, be it discourses, mixed prose, expositions or marvellous accounts, one will derive from it satisfaction and confidence in one's heart." Whatever one hears ... one will derive from it happiness and joy ... one's sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair will vanish ... all one's affliction, fatigue and feverish burning are allayed.>>>>> Numerical Discourses. 112, Praising the Buddha. Book of Fives.:: The Vimana vatthu atthakatha: "Chattamanavakavimanavannana" )p365 PTS This relates the story of a man who merely took refuge in the Buddha and the five precepts and was killed that same day. He was reborn in the deva world . As a deva he comes and relates: QUOTE "behold how through few teaching I have gone to the happy destiny and reached happiness..Those who continually hear Dhamma from you, these methinks, touch the deathless (nibbana) the peace." Perhaps that indicates why i think study of Dhamma is very useful. Robert #95619 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 1:58 am Subject: Re: intention/meditation/pariyatti rjkjp1 > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > > > wrote: > > > >> Again, if you believe that somehow everyday namas and rupas, > > > dhamma > > > > reading and study, com reading and interpretation and the wise > > advice > > > > of the spiritual friend somehow promotes panna in a way that is > > > > impossible in meditation, I would like to know how starting out > > > > without panna develops sati in those situations, but cannot in > > > > meditation. I am still waiting for this clear distinction that to me > > > > has never been given. Perhaps you can explain why the meditation > > > > intention is worse than the sutta intention or any other intention > > > > which is pointed in the Buddha's direction. > > > > Dear Robert I think you may still wonder why at dsg there is such emphasis on theory on pariyatti, perhaps this quote from the ancient texts helps to develop faith in the Dhamma. As you see even some ancient monsk went astray until it was properly explained: Pariyatti as the Root of the Sâsanâ (From the Atthakathâ to Anguttara Nikâya, Ekanipâta, Dutiyapamâdâdivagga, 42nd sutta) """"""And in that place [Maṇḍalârâma Monastery in Kallagâma] there arose a discussion among the elders as to whether the root of the Dispensation consisted in practice (paṭipatti) or in study of the Teaching (pariyatti). Those elders who were wearers of rag-robes said, "practice is the root," and those elders who were teachers of Dhamma said, "study is the root." Then some elders said, "we cannot decide between your two opinions merely on the basis of your assertions. Support them by quoting a saying spoken by the Conqueror." "It will be no trouble to quote a saying," replied both sides. Then the elders who were wearers of rag-robes quoted these passages: "Subhadda, if bhikkhus in this very Dispensation were to live rightly, the world would not be empty of arahants." "Your majesty, the Teacher's Dispensation is rooted in practice and has practice as its pith. While practice is maintained, the Dispensation lasts." After listening to these sayings, the elders who were teachers of Dhamma then quoted this saying as proof of their own claim: "For as long the Suttantas endure, for as long as the Vinaya is taught, For just that long will there be light, like that after the sun has risen. But when the Suttantas are no more, and when the Vinaya is forgotten, There will be darkness in the world, like that after the sun has set. While the Suttantas are protected, then is practice protected too; A sage, being grounded in practice, fails not to reach peace from the bonds." When this saying was quoted, the elders who were wearers of rag- robes became silent and the speech of the teachers of Dhamma prevailed. Neither among a hundred bulls, nor among a thousand, will even a single bull ensure the continuance of his line in the absence of a cow. Even so, neither among a hundred bhikkhus intent on insight, nor among a thousand, will even a single bhikkhu penetrate the noble path in the absence of pariyatti. Marks are engraved in rock to show the location of buried treasure; for as long as those marks endure, the treasure is not reckoned as lost. Even so, for as long as pariyatti endures, the Teacher's Dispensation is not reckoned to have disappeared.""""" (Manorathapûraṇî i. 92-3, translation by venerable Dhammanando) Robert #95620 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 2:00 am Subject: Re: intention/meditation rjkjp1 > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > >> Again, if you believe that somehow everyday namas and rupas, > dhamma > > reading and study, com reading and interpretation and the wise advice > > of the spiritual friend somehow promotes panna in a way that is > > impossible in meditation, I would like to know how starting out > > without panna develops sati in those situations, but cannot in > > meditation. I am still waiting for this clear distinction that to me > > has never been given. Perhaps you can explain why the meditation > > intention is worse than the sutta intention or any other intention > > which is pointed in the Buddha's direction. Dear Robert Here is another quote showing why some members think the learning of Dhamma is useful: """""""When, Bhikkhus, a Noble Disciple listens carefully to the Dhamma, alert with keen ears, attending to it as a matter of crucial concern, as something of vital importance, directing his entire mind to it, in that very moment the Five Mental Hindrances are absent in him. On that occasion the Seven Links to Awakening develop towards complete fulfilment...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V: 95-6] section 46: The Links. 38: Unhindered... Robert #95621 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 2:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: intention/meditation/pariyatti nilovg Dear Rob K, I hope you can quote more often from Ven. Dhammanando's translations, they are very useful. Nina. Op 2-feb-2009, om 10:58 heeft rjkjp1 het volgende geschreven: > Marks are engraved in rock to show the location of buried treasure; > for > as long as those marks endure, the treasure is not reckoned as lost. > Even so, for as long as pariyatti endures, the Teacher's > Dispensation is > not reckoned to have disappeared.""""" > (Manorathapûraṇî i. 92-3, translation by venerable Dhammanando) #95622 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 2:30 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > > wrote: > > > > > What seems good to > > > me about meditation is that once you are sitting you have a chance to > > > pay attention to the arising moments without constant shifting > > > distractions. If you get an itch you can look at the namas and rupas > > > that attend that itch. > > > >> > consciousnes to go here and there. >of the four noble truths or the eightfold path. > > I look at meditation as a practical situation in which one practices > sati, and allow it to develop into satipatthana. You say this means > that I must be increasing the sense of self being the owner or doer of > such a process, and that is where I disagree. I can be pragmatic and > put this organism with its perception and mind into a certain > situation with an intention to follow the path, and then let it do > whatever it does after that. I do not have to have the subtle > underlying belief that *I* am controlling this process and am somehow Likewise, if I sit and then allow > the moments to do whatever they will without any attempt to control > them, then I am surrendering to the meditation situation and letting > it take over, not me. The question is whether meditation is a good > doctor or not, and I think it is, so I am willing to put myself in > that situation and allow it to take its course. Just as I read a > sutta because I believe that the Doctor - the Buddha - knew how to > diagnose my situation and will help to cure my ailment - delusion - I > also follow doctor's orders when he says "meditate and recognize the > moments as they arise. The more you practice this, the more you will > discern over time, even though you have no control over this process." > > I am sure - correct me if I am wrong - that you believe that if you > are open to the moments that arise naturally in everyday life, as the > current version of Abhidhamma teaches, that over time you will get > better at it and panna will sometime develop; maybe not now, not > immediately, but when the conditions accumulate to allow it, and so > you "practice" as well as you can discerning the namas and rupas that > arise in the moment. So it is with meditation for me: I believe > that over time it will have a kusala impact and so I leave myself > available as much as I can *now* to see what arises and recognize it > for what it is - mind state, perception, sensation, emotion, whatever, > and then go with whatever comes up. > > Buddha said that if such a process was partaken of for 7 years, 7 > months or even 7 days, that the benefit would be great. +++++++ Dear Robert This last quote from the sutta is often cited by meditators. But then I have met so many who have done months of intense 'meditation' who still have got to be anagami (which is the 'benefit' the sutta gives). And why is that other than the fact that they are not really developing satipatthana but merely learning how to focus on some objects > (the ones who think they have got somewhere are often in an even worse position). See when I meet Nina for example- who I find very helpful and modest - I don't find her claming to have continual mindfulness etc. But the number of meditaors who think they are aware all day while on retreat is legion, it shows they have no idea of the momentary conditioned nature of sati. Here is an extreme example. Most cases are not so obvious of course. http://www.interactivebuddha.com/about.html I am an arahat with mastery of the formed jhanas, formless realms, Nirodha Samapatti, and a few other traditional attainments. I hold an MD, an MSPH in Epidemiology, and a BA in English Literature, all from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I am currently in a medical residency program in Emergency Medicine at the University of Louisville, Kentucky."""endquote Thus we learn from study that sati cannot arise by dint of will. Also your idea about looking at namas and rupas is precisely not (IMHO) satipatthana. BTW your post seems to indicate that you think sati can arise anywhere at any time, so why then do you think it is better to be in a special posture? Robert #95623 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 4:45 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "[The Breaking Down of the Barriers - The Sign] "When his resentment towards that hostile person has been thus allayed, then he can turn his mind with lovingkindness towards that person too, just as towards the one who is dear, the very dear friend, and the neutral person. Then he should break down the barriers by practising lovingkindness over and over again, accomplishing towards the four persons, that is to say, himself, the dear person, the neutral person, and the hostile person." Path of Purity. "Thus, with hatred dispelled, he should direct thoughts of love towards his enemy just as he does towards a dear person, a very dear friend, or a neutral person. Then after exercising love repeatedly and producing an even mind towards the four, namely himself, the loved one, the neutral person, the enemy, he should break down the barriers..." Tasseva.m veriipuggale vuupasantapa.tighassa yathaa piyaatippiyasahaayakamajjhattesu, eva.m tasmimpi mettaavasena citta.m pavattati. Athaanena punappuna.m mettaayantena attani piyapuggale majjhatte veriipuggaleti catuusu janesu samacittata.m sampaadentena siimaasambhedo kaatabbo. Sincerely, Scott. #95624 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 5:21 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, Really, I think we have to thank you for encouraging so many discussions which help us all reflect more deeply about what we say and understand. Picking up on some of your comments to Nina and others here.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > I think your basic point is a good one, that the discernment of namas > and rupas is the bottom line, and that cittas can be kusala or > akusala. I don't think there's much disagreement about that - so you > return us back to the basics and that is good. ... S: Yes, I'm also glad to see agreement on the 'basics'. ... > > But the question that remains is not whether the sitting is the > important thing, but whether it is an okay platform for discernment, > just as reading and talking may be. After all, we do sit down to read > or attend a lecture intentionally, as we sit in meditation > intentionally. .... S: If we think of any activity as a 'platform for discernment', I think we go wrong and forget about those 'basics', the 'bottom line', the understanding of the namas and rupas. .... >What is important, you seem to be saying, is what > comes after that. So it seems like all activities can have moments of > attention, or moments of distraction or delusion. ... S: Yes... .... >What seems good to > me about meditation is that once you are sitting you have a chance to > pay attention to the arising moments without constant shifting > distractions. .... S: This is where our understanding differs and the point of the discussion. When there is an idea of one moment, one situation as being more suitable for the development of satipatthana (such as the quiet one or the one 'without constant shifting distractions'), it indicates, I believe, a lack of detachment or understanding of just that dhamma which appears at that very moment. There is the idea that another time, another situation would be more suitable - not understanding the conditioned nature of dhammas and under-estimating what right understanding can and must know according to whatever circumstances that we find ourselves in during the day: From Soma's transl of the Satipatthana Sutta: " 'And how, o bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating consciousness in consciousness?' "Here, o bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands the consciousness with lust, as with lust; the consciousness without lust......; with hate.....; without hate...; with ignorance.....; the shrunken state of consciousness...; ***the distracted state of consciousness**....." S: And so the list goes on. In other words, any kind of consciousness, any kind of nama or rupa is included as being a 'suitable' object during any kind of activity whatsoever, just depending on what appears now according to conditions. .... >If you get an itch you can look at the namas and rupas > that attend that itch. .... S: You asked me before about 'focussing' in the translations and what was meant. It was a translation of 'sampajanna' or 'sati-sampajanna'. The Pali term used refers to awareness and right understanding, not to any focussing or special attention or looking at anything, as I see it. Body-consciousness experiences a tangible object. If there is an effort to 'look at' the namas and rupas involved, it's not the same as being aware of just what appears. ... matter of kusala and akusala cittas, and not about the activity, that > is fine with me. ... S: I think it's really a matter of kusala, akusala cittas and all kinds of other realities, and not (as you say), about the activity. As you suggest, people can go wrong when pursuing any activity with an idea that the activity, rather than particular kinds of kusala cittas, are the path. Anyway, I'm not saying anything others haven't expressed in more detail and I'd encourage you to pursue the point until you're satisfied with the explanations:-). Metta, Sarah ======== #95625 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 5:33 am Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? scottduncan2 Dear Suan, Regarding: "Suan answers: Making personal effort refers to the phenomenon of self-motivation or internal motivation in contrast to external motivation. This shows that a sasankhaarika mental event can arise either through internal motivation or external motivation or through both types of motivation..." Scott: Can viriya accompany akusala citta? S: "...Whenever a transmitter of the Buddha's pure Theravada teachings uses the terms like person or self, those terms are used only for the linguistic convenience...to facilitate the linguistic smooth flow." Scott: Therefore there is only viriya in certain cases, no 'personal' in 'personal effort'. S: "Suan answers: Only because a person is wise enough to know the efficacy of formal Theravada Buddhist meditation methods such as those the Buddha taught in Mahaa Satipa.t.thaana Suttam, he or she would use either internal motivation or external motivation or both types of motivation to choose and undertake a suitable form of meditation method or a group of methods. Once this formal practice becomes his or her second nature, he or she can undertake formal Theravada meditation at will (asankhaarikam). Thus, the role of pa~n~naa is already there in making personal effort or being motivated by external factors when generating a superior meritorious deed such as undertaking formal Theravada meditation." Scott: Linguistic convenience and the notion of 'formal meditation' aside, only pa~n~naa can distinguish between right or wrong viriya and the strength of viriya present would determine whether or not one could say it is prompted or unprompted - that is, with viriya arising in strength it's concomitants and successors are unprompted, with viraya arising in weakness they are unprompted. Sincerely, Scott. #95626 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 5:39 am Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? scottduncan2 Dear Suan, Sorry, this: " - that is, with viriya arising in strength it's concomitants and successors are unprompted, with viraya arising in weakness they are unprompted." Should be: "- that is, with viriya arising in strength it's concomitants and successors are unprompted, with viraya arising in weakness they are *prompted*." Sincerely, Scott. #95627 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 6:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. jonoabb Hi Robert and DaveK In fact I did touch on this question in a post that included your name, Rob, but it may have escaped your notice because it was in another thread. In message #95011 I said: "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." Activity of any kind undertaken as a form of "practice" would fall into the same category. To my understanding, the factors of hearing and reflecting on the teachings as mentioned in the texts are not to be understood as the activity of reading suttas, attending discussions and the like, although they are sometimes referred to in those terms, perhaps for convenience. No-one can *make* kusala arise by doing any particular activity. The main condition for a particular kind of kusala to arise is the present accumulated tendency for that same kind of kusala. In the case of the kusala that is understanding of the level of satipatthana, there must also be the repeated exposure to the teachings presented in an appropriate manner (i.e., suited to our level of understanding). The references in the suttas to the importance of hearing the teachings are numerous and frequent. Hoping this makes some sense. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dkotschessa" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > > > Well that is good, as it acknowledges that one may just as likely > > misunderstand her instructions as they may misunderstand or distort > > the Buddha's instructions on anapanasati. The danger is always > > there, and we must be alert. But that says nothing at all against > > "formal meditation" as opposed to "formal dhamma talks" or "formal > > sutta or com reading." One had better be mindful to spot the > > intention in doing any of those things, rather than distinguishing > one > > as good and the other activity as bad. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > Just want to throw in my support for Rob's perspective (I don't know > if that's a good thing or a bad thing for Rob :) ) here. These > threads have been frustrating to read becuase Robert has asked a > very simple question over and over and over, and it has gone > unanswered. > > Robert is still asking: "Why is meditation different than listening > to dhamma talks?" From memory I think he's posed the question in > some form or another about 5 times and nobody has even addressed the > question. Do we conlude that no-one has an answer? > > -DaveK > #95628 From: "dkotschessa" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 8:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. dkotschessa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert and DaveK > > In fact I did touch on this question in a post that included your > name, Rob, but it may have escaped your notice because it was in > another thread. In message #95011 I said: > > "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." > > Activity of any kind undertaken as a form of "practice" would fall > into the same category. > > To my understanding, the factors of hearing and reflecting on the > teachings as mentioned in the texts are not to be understood as the > activity of reading suttas, attending discussions and the like, > although they are sometimes referred to in those terms, perhaps for > convenience. > > No-one can *make* kusala arise by doing any particular activity. The > main condition for a particular kind of kusala to arise is the > present accumulated tendency for that same kind of kusala. > > In the case of the kusala that is understanding of the level of > satipatthana, there must also be the repeated exposure to the > teachings presented in an appropriate manner (i.e., suited to our > level of understanding). The references in the suttas to the > importance of hearing the teachings are numerous and frequent. > > Hoping this makes some sense. > > Jon Not really, but you'll have to forgive me for being a tad on the stupid side. I think these explanations are just lacking common sense. From what's being said in these posts, meditation is no more skillful then sitting down and watching the superbowl. -DaveK #95629 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 4:29 pm Subject: Re: Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > > <. . .> > > So please bear with us, the answer is there in black and white. :- ) > > > > Ken H > > > > Really? Please repeat it in black and white for me, if I am a bit > slow. Put it right here where I can see it, if you don't mind ---- -> > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > > If you say "this is the answer to the question" and spell it out [once > again, if you think you have already done so] I promise to write it > down and address it directly, and acknowledge that you have answered, > and what, if anything, I disagree with or agree with in the answer. > > "Just once more for the road..." > -------------- Hi Robert Ep, If you don't mind I might wait to see how your other current conversations turn out. But I am definitely willing to go over it again. As you may noticed, maybe too willing. :-) Ken H #95630 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 8:20 pm Subject: Re: intention/meditation epsteinrob Hi Robert! > Could you first look at this quote and confirm you agree with the writer > about this. If you don't we have a major conflict in interpretation of what > the Buddha said, and view is what determines whether the path is right > or wrong. > > The burmese Abhidhamma teacher Thein Nyun in his preface to the > DhatuKathu (Pali Text Society) xxvii writes this: > > > QUOTE > "Because the functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of > continuity, collection and form, the ideas arise: > > 1)the initial effort that has to be exerted when a deed is about to be > performed and > > 2) the care that has to be taken while the deed is being performed to its > completion and this leads to the subsequent ideas > > 3)"I can perform" and > > 4) "I can feel". > > Thus these four imaginary characteristic functions of being have bought > about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. > But the elements have not the time or span of duration to carry out such > functions" endquote > Robert > First of all, Robert, I thank you for taking the time and effort to engage with this discussion. I hope I can keep up! I will try. As for the quote, it is quite rich and complex, though condensed. I cannot honestly take it as a whole and say that I agree or disagree with it, so let me try to clarify it in parts. 1/ I am not familiar enough with the theory of the "elements" and how they cause effects to say I agree or disagree. A brief explanatio of this idea might help. 2/ I do agree with the basic idea that the illusion of a volitional self is created by the interaction of the five kandhas, and that akusala citta wrongly believes that there is a self that has some control over events. 3/ Of the four illusory elements, I agree with (1), that rather than a decision-maker setting things in motion, it is a combination of interacting forces that are not personal. Although I agree with (2), I have some question about the "care that is taken" as events transpire. I do not think there is a "self" involved, but I do think there is a difference between skillful an unskillful action, and this has to do with the quality of awareness, rather than the presence of a self. I understand (3) and that "I can perform" is an illusion. I do not quite understand why (4) I can feel is a major element, except for the "I." Feelings do arise, but there is no "I" to feel them. It would go equally however, for "I can think" and "I can do." As for there being "no time to perform such functions" I am unclear on the real mechanics of this statement. It seems to reference single citta theory, which is not something I agree with so far. If that is the background for that statement, I would not presently fully agree with that particular point in that way. Best, Robert E. ========================= #95631 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 8:29 pm Subject: Re: jhana1formal meditation epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > I am not suggesting this is related to you but I mention it to show how it > is possible to go wrong. > Thus I find it perfectly right to emphasize the subtlety of the path and > why the theory MUST be correct. If the foundation, the theory, is not > very stable then one is sitting on a house of cards (no matter how > upright and long one may sit). > robert One always chooses a path in ignorance, whatever it is. It is impossible to know if a theory is correct until it has been explored and applied at length. Therefore we choose the path that feels correct for us, or that seems to have a grain of truth. It would be very difficult to convince me that meditation is inherently akusala. I can accept that it may be taken the wrong way and can feed the ego, or that one can get enamoured of certain effects and take them the wrong way, but I think that all of that can eventually be overcome. Perhaps that is an area of disagreement. I think it is equally possible to get enamoured of the suttas or commentaries and get high on the suttas and think you are doing great while subtly feeding the idea of a spiritual self that is better than the regular self. I think this happens all the time. So I still don't see why meditation, which sorts out experience by experiencing, rather than by conceptualizing, is somehow more akusala than some other "spiritual" activity. I am still waiting to hear why this should be so. With that said, one should guard against the danger of falling into false view in meditation as in everything else. But I would never start off by saying that the dhamma theory must be correct or that the single citta theory must be correct, since I don't know this to be true. What I accept as my foundation is that there is no central self behind the scenes; that the nature of reality is anatta, anicca and dukkha, and that reality is composed of nama and rupa, ie, the kandhas. But as to the particulars of how this works in detail, it seems more convincing to me that experience takes place in a flow or a wash, rather than a series of discrete isolated moments. Perhaps I will change my mind, but I won't be dishonest about it in the meantime. I wonder if anyone here has experienced a single citta arising and falling or if this is just a matter of faith? You say the theory MUST be correct. But what if you think it is correct and it is wrong? I would rather follow the path in a way that allows for correction, rather than start out being certain that I have found the right way. Best, Robert E. ================================ #95632 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 8:37 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > Op 2-feb-2009, om 7:37 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > > > Anyone who reads a sutta or sits in meditation *wants* to get to > > nibbana, or at least gain insight and be in a more kusala state than > > we are currently in. That is a given. One starts with this desire or > > we wouldn't bother to read a sutta in the first place, or try to > > understand the nature of the four noble truths or the eightfold path. > -------- > N: Not quite. When lobha does not come in and hinders, the goal is > gaining more understanding of the namas and rupas of my life. Why is this different for meditation or sutta? What's the difference in the setting? I know > it is a very long practice, many aeons, and I do not expect to reach > nibbaana soon. It is good to have more understanding even it is very > little at a time, and that means a little less delusion. Same whether it is gotten gradually in reading or meditation. Other than that, I agree. > -------- > > R:If an itch arises, check out the itch; if a thought arises, > check out the nama. What is the problem with that? To me, it seems > like a practical way of doing what monks and householders have done > since the Buddha's time - sit and practice what he taught. > ------ > N: If someone is inclined to sit, let him sit, he sits there already > because of his accumulated conditions. When you are sitting and sati > does not arise, it means that there are not enough conditions for it. > That teaches us something: sati cannot be manipulated. Agreed. > If it arises, it does so because of its own conditions, namely, > understanding what sati is and what its object is: any reality > appearing now. That is fine. If we think that it can only arise when we are in > quiet surroundings we create already an obstacle to sati, we do not > 'let it arise' because of its own conditions. I agree, it should not be restricted to any one setting or activity. > > You speak about'check out' the reality that arises. But there is more > to it. It is not just checking out but understanding. I can't guarantee understanding, but at least if I look I will eventually understand. I am just saying to look at what is there; rather than having a future goal. Understanding > leads to detachment from the idea of self who can do it all, who can > check out realities. I would agree. But there is still citta, even with no self attached. Citta does "check things out," does it not? Best, Robert E. ======================== #95633 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 8:37 pm Subject: Re: intention/meditation rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > >> > The burmese Abhidhamma teacher Thein Nyun in his preface to the > > DhatuKathu (Pali Text Society) xxvii writes this: > > > > > > QUOTE > > "Because the functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of > > continuity, collection and form, the ideas arise: > > > > 1)the initial effort that has to be exerted when a deed is about to be > > performed and > > > > 2) the care that has to be taken while the deed is being performed > to its > > completion and this leads to the subsequent ideas > > > > 3)"I can perform" and > > > > 4) "I can feel". > > > > Thus these four imaginary characteristic functions of being have bought > > about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. > > But the elements have not the time or span of duration to carry out > such > > functions" endquote > > Robert > > > > First of all, Robert, I thank you for taking the time and effort to > engage with this discussion. I hope I can keep up! I will try. > > As for the quote, it is quite rich and complex, though condensed. I > cannot honestly take it as a whole and say that I agree or disagree > with it, so let me try to clarify it in parts. > > 1/ I am not familiar enough with the theory of the "elements" and how > they cause effects to say I agree or disagree. A brief explanatio of > this idea might help. > > 2/ I do agree with the basic idea that the illusion of a volitional > self is created by the interaction of the five kandhas, and that > akusala citta wrongly believes that there is a self that has some > control over events. > > 3/ Of the four illusory elements, I agree with (1), that rather than > a decision-maker setting things in motion, it is a combination of > interacting forces that are not personal. Although I agree with (2), > I have some question about the "care that is taken" as events > transpire. I do not think there is a "self" involved, but I do think > there is a difference between skillful an unskillful action, and this > has to do with the quality of awareness, rather than the presence of a > self. I understand (3) and that "I can perform" is an illusion. I > do not quite understand why (4) I can feel is a major element, except > for the "I." Feelings do arise, but there is no "I" to feel them. > It would go equally however, for "I can think" and "I can do." > > As for there being "no time to perform such functions" I am unclear on > the real mechanics of this statement. It seems to reference single > citta theory, which is not something I agree with so far. If that is > the background for that statement, I would not presently fully agree > with that particular point in that way. > > Best, > Robert E. > > ========================= > Dear Robert Thanks for really considering the merits of the citation, much appreciated. I think your last sentence is what we need to hone in on. Thein Nyun continues in his preface by explaining that the Abhidhamma Commentaries estimate that in a flash of lightning something like a trillion moments of citta have arisen and fallen away, this is indeed how the passage of time can be understood. . Now whether you agree with this or not it is the ancient Theravada view and hence any criticism of this position is not really related to dsg or what Khun Sujin or nina or I or Ken say, but is directed at the ancients. To be brutally frank I feel that people who criticize the Theravada doctrine are so far off track as not to worth engaging, I think they need to understand that the Theravada is the teaching of the Buddha and then make all efforts to understand that teaching. This is not to say I want to stop the discussion but I think we can't go much further until the above point is agreed on. Robert #95634 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 8:44 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > S: I think it's really a matter of kusala, akusala cittas and all > kinds of other realities, and not (as you say), about the activity. > > As you suggest, people can go wrong when pursuing any activity with > an idea that the activity, rather than particular kinds of kusala > cittas, are the path. Well that is fine. I wish folks would stop saying that meditation in particular is inherently akusala. It just seems like a prejudice when someone says it is "almost impossible" to have a kusala citta in meditation. I guess that just bothers me, because it seems not to be neutral. > > Anyway, I'm not saying anything others haven't expressed in more > detail and I'd encourage you to pursue the point until you're > satisfied with the explanations:-). Thanks, you're very patient. :) Best, Robert P.S. Rob has hit me with about 5 heavy posts in a row. I hope I can keep up - I'm doing taxes and have to deal with those namas and rupas whether I "like it" or not. :-) ================================== #95635 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 8:52 pm Subject: Re: intention/meditation epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > To be brutally frank I feel that people who criticize the Theravada > doctrine are so far off track as not to worth engaging, I think they need > to understand that the Theravada is the teaching of the Buddha and > then make all efforts to understand that teaching. This is not to say I > want to stop the discussion but I think we can't go much further until the > above point is agreed on. > Robert In my opinion, as superficial as it may be, there is a big difference between saying that trillions of moments can take place in a second, and that only one independent citta can arise at a time. I agree with the former, which I do think is basic, and do not presently accept the latter. The idea that cittas are independent units is not basic Dhamma and is not accepted as a given in Theravadin circles. It is an Abhidhamma view that is a point of controversy. I don't think those two ideas should be confused with each other. I do believe that panna would discern the exact nature of the moment in the moment and not confuse it with concept, and that there would be a perception of constantly changing reality according to anicca in that understanding. But I don't think that this entails the idea that one can only experience "hardness" in one moment and "movement" in the next and that they cannot exist as part of the same sensory experience. From the little I know, that is a level of isolation and purity that is only established in one commentarial strain of Abhidhamma, and there are a number of Buddhists who believe that to see citta as a series of monads is incorrect. I hope that at least clarifies that I am not out of step with the idea of "the moment" itself and that reality is a fleeting, changing phenomenon. Best, Robert E. ================ #95636 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 8:53 pm Subject: Re: Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. epsteinrob Hi Ken! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > If you don't mind I might wait to see how your other current > conversations turn out. But I am definitely willing to go over it > again. As you may noticed, maybe too willing. :-) No such thing. ;-) As you may notice, I never tire of asking the question! :-) Best, Robert E. ========================== #95637 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 8:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. epsteinrob Hi Dave! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dkotschessa" wrote: > Not really, but you'll have to forgive me for being a tad on the > stupid side. I think these explanations are just lacking common > sense. From what's being said in these posts, meditation is no more > skillful then sitting down and watching the superbowl. > > -DaveK > Thanks, you said that in a concise way that I relate to. I do in fact think that is the idea, that there is skill in understanding dhamma and Abhidhamma, but not in an activity that chooses to practice awareness, as that feeds the sense of self. I disagree with this as well. I think that the development of a skill does not mean that a self is being promoted, and the argument goes round and round.... Best, Robert E. #95638 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 9:03 pm Subject: Houston we have a problem: intention/meditation rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" > > In my opinion, as superficial as it may be, there is a big difference > between saying that trillions of moments can take place in a second, > and that only one independent citta can arise at a time. I agree with > the former, which I do think is basic, and do not presently accept the > latter. The idea that cittas are independent units is not basic Dhamma > and is not accepted as a given in Theravadin circles. It is an > Abhidhamma view that is a point of controversy. I don't think those > two ideas should be confused with each other. I do believe that panna > would discern the exact nature of the moment in the moment and not > confuse it with concept, and that there would be a perception of > constantly changing reality according to anicca in that understanding. > But I don't think that this entails the idea that one can only > experience "hardness" in one moment and "movement" in the next and > that they cannot exist as part of the same sensory experience. From > the little I know, that is a level of isolation and purity that is > only established in one commentarial strain of Abhidhamma, and there > are a number of Buddhists who believe that to see citta as a series of > monads is incorrect. > > I hope that at least clarifies that I am not out of step with the idea > of "the moment" itself and that reality is a fleeting, changing > phenomenon. > ---------- Dear robert I can assure you that the teaching of cittas that arise in a series is so basic to Theravada that anyone who is telling you otherwise is heretic to the nth degree. With this belief, that moments can arise together at the same time, to be brutally frank again, there is no way anyone can comprehend the path as they are pointing in the opposite direction. Whatever effort , concentration etc etc they make will just take them in some direction away from the discernment of reality. Robert > #95639 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 9:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > In the case of the kusala that is understanding of the level of > satipatthana, there must also be the repeated exposure to the > teachings presented in an appropriate manner (i.e., suited to our > level of understanding). The references in the suttas to the > importance of hearing the teachings are numerous and frequent. > > Hoping this makes some sense. > > Jon What doesn't seem to make sense is saying that no planned activity can help, because it is all a matter of conditions, but then saying that repeated exposure to the suttas is necessary. Doesn't that seem contradictory? What if I said that repeated exposure to meditation is necessary. Why would that be any more or less intentional than trying to be exposed to the suttas? If one shouldn't "practice anything" then why should one develop understanding by being exposed to the suttas over and over. That *is* a practice, just as much as developing satipatthana by sitting. Can you explain this seeming contradiction? In the ideal world it seems that the suttas, the Abhidhamma, sitting, and hearing about the four noble truths and eightfold path should all be thrown away because they are all intentional vehicles for realizing the nature of reality according to the Buddha. Why not just watch tv and go to the grocery store then, and forget about the path altogether? Conditions will either arise or not, sati will either develop or not. I think it is contradictory to say you can't do anything about it, and then say but we must have constant exposure to the teachings. Exactly how does that reconcile? I guess what I'm saying is that learning and studying and adopting the theories of the Abhidhamma *is* an intentional practice. It is a way of developing kusala cittas and an attempt to influence conditions to allow the development of panna. It is just as much an intentional practice as meditation. It seems to me that it is a preference for one practice over another, rather than a "non-practice" versus a "formal practice." I think this nature of things is hidden from those who are convinced that their practice is somehow not a practice, and that they have no intention when indeed they do. Best, Robert E. ======================== #95640 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Mon Feb 2, 2009 9:35 pm Subject: Re: Houston we have a problem: intention/meditation epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > With this belief, that moments can arise together at the same time, to > be brutally frank again, there is no way anyone can comprehend the > path as they are pointing in the opposite direction. I am not saying that "moments can arise together at the same time." We are talking about the content and nature of the moment, not whether there is more than one at a time. I understand the nature of reality as a series of moments, but we are talking about what their nature is. The idea that each moment is totally isolated from the other and requires another kind of citta to transmit the accumulations from one to the next is specific to dhamma theory. It is not in basic Theravada. Is there a sutta in which this is proposed or strongly implied? Dhamma theory itself balances the isolation and connectivity of cittas, and this balance can be broken in either direction. To see the cittas as too isolated and independent is just as bad as to see the moments as blended and amorphous. Best, Robert E. #95641 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 12:00 am Subject: Re: Houston we have a problem: intention/meditation rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > I am not saying that "moments can arise together at the same time." > We are talking about the content and nature of the moment, not whether > there is more than one at a time. I understand the nature of reality > as a series of moments, but we are talking about what their nature is. > The idea that each moment is totally isolated from the other and > requires another kind of citta to transmit the accumulations from one > to the next is specific to dhamma theory. It is not in basic > Theravada. Is there a sutta in which this is proposed or strongly > implied? Dhamma theory itself balances the isolation and connectivity > of cittas, and this balance can be broken in either direction. To see > the cittas as too isolated and independent is just as bad as to see > the moments as blended and amorphous. ++++++++ Dear Robert I am relieved that you understand that cittas arise in a series and that two can't be present simultaneously (whew, Houston, the mission can still be saved). There has a been a dsg member or two who really thought that this was the way things were though, hence my egregious presumption when I read your criticism of `Dhamma theory'. To continue though, your comments """The idea that each moment is totally isolated from the other"" is not the Theravada position so I wonder where you got this idea? Each citta is conditioned by the preceding citta, there is no gap between one citta arising and the preceding falling away: hence no way there are 'totally isolated from one another". Heck even cittas that arose 100,000 aeons ago can condition vipaka citta to arise today, not to mention the other paccaya. Do you see why having an accurate understanding of what Theravada really is, i.e. what the Buddha taught is crucial? Now you also write "I don't think that this entails the idea that one can only > experience "hardness" in one moment and "movement" in the next and > that they cannot exist as part of the same sensory experience" . This is not as structurally faulty as the idea of moments occurring simultaneously but is nevertheless wrong according to Theravada. I would say it means that you not being aware of a characterstic of nama and rupa, I say that because I am convinced that elements can only be known one by one . For example in a kalapa there are colour and hardness but how could hardness be experienced at exactly the same moment as color, it just isn't the way it happens – according to my perceptions. The Buddha compared consciousness to fire: the fire that burned dependent on sticks, the one that burned dependent on dried dung, the one that burned dependent on oil,.. Different fires but still having the same characteristic of fire; in the same way he said seeing- consciousness is different from hearing consciosness is different from smelling .....But still all having the same charactersitic of knowing. Guhatthaka-suttaniddeso (Exposition of the Sutta of the Eightfold Mystery) Translated by Andrew Olendzki. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka Spoken by Ayusmat Sariputta. 1. "Life, personhood, pleasure and pain - This is all that's bound together In a single mental event - A moment that quickly takes place. 2. Even for the devas who endure For 84,000 thousand kalpas - Even those do not live the same For any two moments of the mind. 3. What ceases for one who is dead, Or for one who's still standing here, Are all just the same heaps - Gone, never to connect again. 4. The states which are vanishing now, And those which will vanish some day, Have characteristics no different Than those which have vanished before. 5. With no production there's no birth; With "becoming" present, one exists. When grasped with the highest meaning, The world is dead when the mind stops. 6. There's no hoarding what has vanished, No piling up for the future; Those who have been born are standing Like a seed upon a needle. 7. The vanishing of all these states That have become is not welcome, Though dissolving phenomena stand Uncombined through primordial time. 8. From the unseen, things come and go. Glimpsed only as they're passing by; Like lightning flashing in the sky - They arise and then pass away." Robert #95642 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 12:34 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. nilovg Dear Rob Ep, Op 3-feb-2009, om 5:37 heeft Robert Epstein het volgende geschreven: > I can't guarantee understanding, but at least if I look I will > eventually understand. I am just saying to look at what is there; > rather than having a future goal. ------ N: No, we cannot guarantee understanding. But there are different levels of it. We have to know what we are looking for. You say: what is there, but it is not so easy to know what is there. In many suttas the Buddha reminds us of seeing, visible object, eyesense. contact, feeling. Eyecontact is different from ear contact, but since cittas arise and fall away so fast we cannot catch them. When intellectual understanding has sunk in, by listening and considering sati can arise because of its own conditions. But we do not know when, we should not have expectations. ------- > > R: Understanding > > leads to detachment from the idea of self who can do it all, who can > > check out realities. > > I would agree. But there is still citta, even with no self attached. > Citta does "check things out," does it not? ------- N: Citta with lobha or citta with understanding can know what appears. Checking out is a word that may be interpreted in different ways. Nina. #95643 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 3:14 am Subject: Re: Q.[dsg] Beginner abhidhamma questions sarahprocter... Hi Lukas, I always enjoy your questions and discussions. Dave K and Pt have also been asking great Abhi qus. --- On Fri, 30/1/09, szmicio wrote: >> L: I can also realise that is only a > concpet(Pa~n~ nati) which impinges on mind-door. Just citta which > thinks. > Isn't it an external world? > -------- >> N: it is not a citta of another person, thus it is not an external > vi~n~naa.nakkhandha . >L: Yes I know that. And I agree with you. >I have so much benefit from reading those diffrent classification. The same Dhamma explained from diffrent angels. I am so grateful to Buddha that he thought in so many ways. Once he says about nama and rupa. Then about ayatanas or khandhas. >I understand you very well, Nina. But I need to discuss it, more. .... S: I think there may be more behind your questions - I usually find they're pretty deep. Just one point which may relate to what you're asking- the texts may classify dhammas as internal and external (such as in the Satipatthana sutta). This is because we think in this way and have such kinds of concepts. However, in an ultimate sense, there are only dhammas experienced, such as 'hardness', no internal or external. Whether it be the hardness of a leg or the hardness of the table, the characteristic of hardness is just that. Metta, Sarah p.s. Thx for the qus for A.Sujin which Nina showed me. ====================== #95644 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 3:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ruppana.t.thena sarahprocter... Hi Dave K (& Lukas), I liked your explanation about 'molested rupas' below and really appreciate your keen interest and reflection of such detail: --- On Thu, 29/1/09, dkotschessa wrote: >A physical object consists of the four properties, which are in a constant state of flux and subject to decay. Thus it is "Deformed by cold, by heat, by hunger, by thirst, by flies, mosquitoes, wind, sunburn, and creeping things." Clearly he is talking about the physical body here. It's subject to all these things - why would we want it? >The Buddha always wants us to look at things in the conditioned world as being unsatisfactory so we could incline our minds towards the unconditioned. If something is deformed, why would you claim it as "I," "mine," or "myself?" I think that's what's being taught here. ... S: Yes, why indeed do we crave after such 'deformed' rupas? Simply -ignorance about their true nature. I look forward to more of your discussions. Metta, Sarah p.s. Grateful if you'd make it clear at the outset who you're addressing - assume we're all simpletons on DSG:-). ======== #95645 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 3:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Funny how time can just slip right away" Joe Hinton sarahprocter... Hi Colette & Howard, --- On Fri, 30/1/09, colette wrote: >I'm in a blue mood and a blue period since one of the few friends I had just past away and everybody thought I was his relative. I began the process, today, of honoring my word to him that I'd take care of things for him. .... S: I'm also sorry to hear of your loss, Colette. Very best wishes at this time. I do hope all your many reflections on death and passing lifetimes, passing moments, this moment only, have helped. For all, in 'Useful Posts' under death, there are a large number of posts saved from the archives which are full of helpful reminders and quotes from the texts. There is also a section on 'death - mourning', which I recommend to anyone who experiences loss anytime. Please feel free to re-post anything of particular significance anytime for others to share. Howard, I'm just reposting a part of Colette's message after signing off which you may not have seen (#95531). Metta, Sarah >As a matter of fact, I believe upasaka Howard gave a post concerning the potential for this life to be nothing more than a "Hologram" existance where Howard referred to itas being for those "momentarians" among us. Any student of citta and vipissan surely knows the reality here however I am confronted by the pure conceptualization of actual "individuals" since I began to realize that I am clinging to something that will never be again and I am also practicing Bardo Theories which is, also, a form of clinging. With respect to the Doctrine of Shunyata and Citta I find that at this second, I AM IN WAY OVER MY HEAD but have been here before and know my way out >It's a very amazing experience. I was wondering if Howard would be kind enough to give me the message # where I can find the link to the articles he gave as a start for the quantum physics applications? #95646 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 3:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- On Thu, 29/1/09, Herman Hofman wrote: >>H:I wouldn't mind if you could outline your conception of samvega. > > .... > S: I understand it to be referring to right effort arising with right understanding and other 'rights'. Now, is the a 'stirring', the energetic reflection or understanding of dhammas, kusala or akusala? H:>I think that the concepts kusala/akusala have no bearing on the reality of samvega. The concepts kusala/akusala are inseparably intertwined with ongoing existence. They are karmically active, so to speak. >Samvega, as is Buddhism, is not about ongoing existence. .... S: We use concepts 'kusala/akusala' (wholesome/unwholesome), but are there not realities which are kusala or akusala without concepts being applied? is there not a distinction in this regard between attachment and metta, for example? I think that in the texts, samvega always refers to right effort with right understanding. I believe that such states are 'karmically active' and 'intertwined with ongoing existence'. I don't recall samvega being used in connection with arahats, for example. Do you? In the Theri-Theragatha, for example, isn't it always used in reference to the states just prior to enlightenment as I recall. I'm rushing with no time to double-check, so happy for any corrections. Metta, Sarah ======= #95647 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 3:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep, --- On Thu, 29/1/09, Robert Epstein wrote: > S: And the following was the para I particularly liked: > > >Scott: Simply thinking, 'This I will do' is not sufficient > condition for that thing to be done. Other conditions must also be > in place. These are not subject to control. One wouldn't think, for > example, that by willing, one could cause the Path to arise. Since > the dhammas which constitute the Path are subject to the same laws of > conditionality as would be mettaa, one needn't then think that, by > act of will, anyone can cause mettaa to arise. Mettaa, like the > other dhammaa which, with development, constitute the arising of the > Path, requires development. And this development can come about due > only to certain conditions and not others. > .... R:I like some of that too. My question is: How does development occur? It seems this involves some sort of systematic sequence, does it not? ... S: Yes, the 'systematic sequence' of right understanding. For example, understanding more about the characteristic of metta, knowing when it arises (and doesn't arise) when we write or speak to others, for example, understanding more about conditioned dhammas....understanding why kusala is precious and akusala so harmful....being friendly and helpful now...all these are conditions for metta to develop. Metta, Sarah ========= #95648 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 3:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- On Tue, 27/1/09, Herman Hofman wrote: >S: Actually, eye- > consciousness falls away quicker than the visible object (17 times > quicker), but that's a minor quibble. > ... H:>Does it? And why do you use the word actually? .... S: If there were no visible object to be seen, eye-consciousness couldn't arise to experience it. This makes good sense to me, but no problem if it doesn't to you. What's really important is to understand the different characteristics of visible object and eye-consciousness in order to eradicate the idea of Self that sees. Actually, I believe I used the word 'actually' by way of a minor correction. You're welcome to use any alternative:-). Metta, Sarah ======= #95649 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 4:05 am Subject: Re: Sabbe Dhamma anatta. Nibbana NOT INCLUDED! sarahprocter... Hi Alex, I'm not sure that anyone else replied to the following in #94739, so briefly: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > "The Blessed One said, "And which All (sabba) is a phenomenon to be > abandoned? The eye is to be abandoned. [What is the All? Simply the > eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavors, > body and tactile sensations, intellect and ideas.]. > "This is called the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.024.than.html > & Sabba Sutta > > 1st) Nibbana isn't supposed to be Abandoned. ... S: Agreed .... > 2nd) Nibbana ISN'T found in 6 inner or 6 outer bases. ... S: Nibbana is include in the 6th outer base, dhammayatana, depending on the context. See the note B.Bodhi gives after the Sabba Sutta on the different kinds of 'All' used in different contexts. (or see 'Sabba Sutta' in U.P. where it's been quoted). ... > > SN 4.28 "sabbam., bhikkhave, anatta" The ``all', bhikkhus, are not > the Self. > > SN 4.21 "sabbam., bhikkhave, addhabhu'tam" Bhikkhus, the `all'are > afflictions. > [Alex: How can Nibbana be affliction if it is under Sabba?!!! :) ] ... S: Nibbana isn't included in this 'all'. ... > > SN 4.19 "sabbam., bhikkhave, a'dittam." Bhikkhus, the `all'are > ablaze. > [Alex: How can Nibbana be ablaze if it is under Sabba?] ... S: Likewise, not included. ... > > AN 1.32 sabbe te dhamma' anit.t.ha'ya > `The `all' dharmas are unpleasant,not agreeable > [Alex: And how can Nibbana, if it is under sabbe dhamma, be anittha?] .... S: Same answer. ... > > If Sabba/e can be a noun rather then Adjective, then Sabbe Dhamma > anatta can mean that noun "The All" is not-Self. The all being 6 > internal sense bases + 6 external objects. .... S: Yes, sabbe dhamma anatta - all internal and external ayatanas inc. nibbana. (The outer ayatanas are not '6 external objects']. > > > Some food for thought... ... S: Look forward to more such food... Metta, Sarah ====== #95650 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 4:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > Just to summarize and simplify, it appears that you are ***not***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. ... S: I included the 'not' in what you wrote and yes, then I agree in the context of our discussion! ... > > 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? ... S: Getting closer... ... > > 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. ... S: sounds fine! No time to nit-pick, you'll be glad to hear! ... Metta Sarah p.s Glad to hear you enjoyed the inauguration party in Washington! ======= #95651 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 4:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner sarahprocter... Hi Herman, > > Sarah: Even now, metta can only be to those around us, those we meet, those who are living. > >H: This is becoming spooky. Is the suggestion that metta that has not yet > arisen, somehow "knows" whether the intended recipient is dead or > alive, regardless of whether I know it? If my grandmother in Holland > has died, and I have not yet been informed, can I have metta toward > her? ... S: :-) Well, this is what the texts say and what the example given in the Vism was about - why metta didn't develop for the bhikkhu who didn't realise the person was dead. As for your grandmother, if there are wise,kusala reflections, I don't think it matters much whether strictly speaking it's adosa of the metta variety or adosa of the non-metta variety as there can be when the object is not a living being. When I heard about the heat in South Australia, I thought of Jon's elderly godmother and hoped she was well briefly before remembering she'd passed away. Interesting... Maybe one to raise in Bangkok, but I think the answer will be to be aware of the characteristic and not cling to the label. Metta, Sarah ======== #95652 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 4:26 am Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "40. The characteristic of it is this: Suppose this person is sitting in a place with a dear, a neutral, and a hostile person, himself being the fourth, then bandits come to him and say, 'Venerable sir, give us a bhikkhu', and on being asked why, they answer, 'So that we may kill him and use the blood of this throat as an offering'; then if that bhikkhu thinks, 'Let them take this one, or this one', he has not broken down the barriers. And also if he thinks, 'Let them take me but not these three', he has not broken down the barriers either. Why? Because he seeks the harm of him whom he wishes to be taken and seeks the welfare of the others only. But it is when he does not see a single one among the four people to be given to the bandits and he directs his mind impartially towards himself and towards those three people that he has broken down the barriers. Hence the Ancients said: 'When he discriminates between The four, that is himself, the dear The neutral, and the hostile one, Then 'skilled' is not the name he gets, Nor 'having amity at will', But only 'kindly towards beings'. 'Now when a bhikkhu's barriers Have all the four been broken down, He treats with equal amity The whole world and its deities; Far more distinguished then the first Is he who know no barriers'. Path of Purity. "...of which this is the characteristic: Suppose that while this person, together with the other three, the loved one, the neutral person, and the enemy, was seated in a certain place, thieves came and demanded, 'Sir, give us a monk,' and being asked the reason why, they were to say that they meant to kill him, and taking the blood from his throat, make an offering of it. Suppose that of the four persons the monk were to think, 'Let them take seize this one or that one,' the breaking down of the barrier would not be accomplished. Neither would it be accomplished were he also to think, 'Let them seize me, not the other three.' Why? Because he wishes harm to him whose captures he desires, and seeks the welfare of the others. But when he sees none out of the four that he would like to deliver to the thieves, he produces an even mind towards himself and the other three, and breaks down the barriers. Wherefore said the Ancients: - 'Himself, beloved, foe, indifferent one, - When he distinction see among these four, Welfare of living things is in his heart, But not the skill, not his to attain at will: So it is said of him. But when the monk These four dividing lines has blotted out, And fills the world of men and devas too With equal love which knows no boundaries, He is by far the greater of the two.' Tassida.m lakkha.na.m, sace imasmi.m puggale piyamajjhattaveriihi saddhi.m attacatutthe ekasmi.m padese nisinne coraa aagantvaa 'bhante, eka.m bhikkhu.m amhaaka.m dethaa 'ti vatvaa 'ki.m kaara.naa 'ti vutte 'ta.m maaretvaa galalohita.m gahetvaa balikara.natthaayaa 'ti vadeyyu.m, tatra ceso bhikkhu 'asuka.m vaa asuka.m vaa ga.nhantuu 'ti cinteyya, akatova hoti siimaasambhedo. Sacepi 'ma.m ga.nhantu, maa ime tayo 'tipi cinteyya, akatova hoti siimaasambhedo. Kasmaa? Yassa yassa hi gaha.namicchati, tassa tassa ahitesii hoti, itaresa.myeva hitesii hoti. Yadaa pana catunna.m janaanamantare ekampi coraana.m daatabba.m na passati, attani ca tesu ca tiisu janesu samameva citta.m pavatteti, kato hoti siimaasambhedo. Tenaahu poraa.naa â€" 'Attani hitamajjhatte, ahite ca catubbidhe; Yadaa passati naanatta.m, hitacittova paa.nina.m. 'Na nikaamalaabhii mettaaya, kusaliiti pavuccati; Yadaa catasso siimaayo, sambhinnaa honti bhikkhuno. 'Sama.m pharati mettaaya, sabbaloka.m sadevaka.m; Mahaaviseso purimena, yassa siimaa na ~naayatii 'ti. Sincerely, Scott. #95653 From: "szmicio" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 4:29 am Subject: Re: Greetings szmicio Dear Sarah > H:>Does it? And why do you use the word actually? > .... > S: If there were no visible object to be seen, eye-consciousness couldn't arise to experience it. What's really important is to understand the different characteristics of visible object and eye-consciousness in order to eradicate the idea of Self that sees. L: The right understanding cannot arise with seeing consiousnes. It always arises with javana-cittas of sense doors. Can it arise also with javana-cittas of mind-door later on? When javana-cittas arise, the seeing consiousnes has fallen away. How can it be an object for javana-cittas? It's no longer there when javana-cittas arise and experience their object. Best wishes Lukas #95654 From: "szmicio" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 5:01 am Subject: Reminder szmicio Dear Dhamma friends In our daily life there is a lot of concepts involved. We think a long stories about people and things. We're constantly chasing vedanas. We are so blind. so blind. moha is so deep rooted. But there are also moments of understanding which arise so naturally and so rare. There is no need to do anything. no need to sit or develop "Jhana". There is no Self. What we call development acctually last 7 moments of citta. and no one can control it. Just condtitioned dhammas. I know it's hard to even think in such way, but it is the only Truth. Dear Sarah can we disscuss more in this matter? I have so many moments of akusala in my life. and never known what will be next, maybe some moments of satipatthana arise or maybe I kill anyone I dont know. But all can happen, according to contitions Those moments of understandig arise so naturally. No one can induce it, no matter how hard he tries. It's conditioned and we cannot make it arise by "sitting". It's not possible. Not in this world, not in this Dhamma. My Best wishes Lukas P.s I'll be gald if we can talk more in this matter. Because I also have a lot of doubt whether I am going in good direction. doubts are so strong. #95655 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 12:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Funny how time can just slip right away" Joe Hinton upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Colette) - Howard, I'm just reposting a part of Colette's message after signing off which you may not have seen (#95531). ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Thanks for this, Sarah. While 'momentarian' does sound like a term I might use ;-), I don't recall my mentioning anything about a hologram - so I'm afraid I can't be of any help on this. I apologize for that. --------------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah >As a matter of fact, I believe upasaka Howard gave a post concerning the potential for this life to be nothing more than a "Hologram" existance where Howard referred to itas being for those "momentarians" among us. Any student of citta and vipissan surely knows the reality here however I am confronted by the pure conceptualization of actual "individuals" since I began to realize that I am clinging to something that will never be again and I am also practicing Bardo Theories which is, also, a form of clinging. With respect to the Doctrine of Shunyata and Citta I find that at this second, I AM IN WAY OVER MY HEAD but have been here before and know my way out >It's a very amazing experience. I was wondering if Howard would be kind enough to give me the message # where I can find the link to the articles he gave as a start for the quantum physics applications? ============================== With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #95656 From: "szmicio" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 5:25 am Subject: Re: Reminder - Bhante Dhammadhara szmicio Those are Bhikkhu Dhammadhara words, our wonderful friend in Dhamma: "Q: So, it is not proper to direct awareness? Bhikkhu: Absolutely not. When we begin to develop awareness we have so much accumulated wrong understanding that we cannot help trying to direct the show. But we have to begin to understand that the directing is not awareness. If there is any awareness it is not self that is aware and it cannot be directed. It arises, wherever it arises, by conditions at that moment. Not because somebody wanted to have awareness at that point, or “took” his awareness and put it there. Awareness arises because of conditions and then it falls away immediately. Prior to the moment of its arising there is not any awareness one can put somewhere. And now we still have an idea in our minds of “my awareness” but it is gone. We can't help being full of the idea of self. But the more we understand, the more we will see that really awareness too is anatta. Not just the colour, the seeing, the sound and the hearing, but also awareness is anatta." ("Be here now") #95657 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 5:54 am Subject: [dsg] Survey, Ch 36, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, It is not easy to be able to penetrate the meaning of anattå, to understand the true nature of all realities, to realize them as anattå. If Ånanda had not been a sotåpanna, he would not have known thoroughly the realities which are nåma and rúpa. Only paññå of that degree can eradicate wrong view which takes nåma and rúpa for self, being or person. If Ånanda had not been a sotåpanna he could not have said to Udåyin that it is also possible to describe consciousness, to show it, make it plain, set it forth, make it clear, analyze it and expound it as being anattå. Therefore, the characteristics of nåma and rúpa are manifest to the extent that paññå has realized the true nature of dhammas. At this moment realities arise and then fall away very rapidly. If a person has not realized the true nature of realities, they do not appear to him as they are, even if he says that, while there is seeing or hearing, nåma is the element which experiences an object. Whereas, when realities have appeared to him as they are, it is evident that he clearly knows their true characteristics. Ånanda had no doubt about the characteristics of nåma and rúpa, no matter through which doorway they appeared. If someone at the present time thinks that he should only develop mindfulness of one of the four Applications of Mindfulness, such as mindfulness of the body, or that he should only know one type of nåma or rúpa, could he know the true characteristics of nåma and rúpa? If he would understand the truth of realities, why does he not know, while he is seeing, the nåma which experiences an object through the eyes, as the element which sees? Why does he not know, while he is hearing, the nåma which experiences an object through the ears, the element which hears? Why does he not realize, while thinking, that it is only nåma which knows conceps or words? If he would really understand what nåma is, he would be able to understand the true nature of the element which experiences an object. ******* Nina. #95658 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 6:20 am Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? abhidhammika Dear Scott, Howard, colette, Robert Ep, Herman, Robert K, Nina, Alex, Alberto and all How are you? Scott asked: "Can viriya accompany akusala citta?" Suan answers: Yes, Scott. So, what are you getting at while we are discussing formal Theravda meditation capable of producing a mahaggata kusala cittam (a higher meritorious consciousness)? Scott asked: Therefore there is only viriya in certain cases, no 'personal' in 'personal effort'. Suan answers: No, Scott, viriya cannot arise in isolation if it was what you meant by "only viriya". As I explained previously, "personal" is to be understood as internal in contrast to external. According to this explanation, the modifier `personal' is nothing to do with the entity "person" imagined or theorised by holders of non- Theravada views. The modifier `personal' in the context of the Right View signifies an organism taking responsibility for achievement of his or her higher meritorious deeds such as formal Theravada meditation. Organisms with such higher aims are far wiser than those content with lower kusala aims. Scott also wrote: "only pa~n~naa can distinguish between right or wrong viriya and the strength of viriya present would determine whether or not one could say it is prompted or unprompted - that is, with viriya arising in strength it's concomitants and successors are unprompted, with viraya arising in weakness they are prompted." Suan replies: The Buddha taught formal Theravada meditation in such great Suttams as Mahaa Satipa.t.thaana Suttam to inspire his followers to have a go at higher meritorious deeds. The followers thus inspired have superior levels of paññaa than non-believers thus not inspired. Precisely because of direct inspiration from the Buddha and their superior levels of paññaa, the practitioners of formal Theravada meditation have the Right Effort (Sammaa vaayaamo) and can summon it at will. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #95659 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 2:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? upasaka_howard Hi, Suan (and Scott) - In a message dated 2/3/2009 9:21:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, suanluzaw@... writes: As I explained previously, "personal" is to be understood as internal in contrast to external. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Suan, I like that very much. It is clear. There ARE meaningful and "innocent" uses of 'personal', and this is one! :-) -------------------------------------------------- Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw ============================ With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #95660 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 12:16 pm Subject: Re: Houston we have a problem: intention/meditation epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Now you also write "I don't think that this entails the idea that one can > only > > experience "hardness" in one moment and "movement" in the next > and > > that they cannot exist as part of the same sensory experience" . > > This is not as structurally faulty as the idea of moments occurring > simultaneously but is nevertheless wrong according to Theravada. I > would say it means that you not being aware of a characterstic of nama > and rupa, I say that because I am convinced that elements can only be > known one by one . Yes, you are convinced of this. I am not. That's what makes for the lovely variety of views. That is an abhidhamma view, I don't believe it is in sutta. Can you find it in the sutta pitaka? To call Abhidhamma categories "Theravada" is true, but not completely true if it is not shared by the body of sutta. We should be able to go back to what the Buddha said to see what is basic and what is added. The idea that the Abhidhamma was given by the Buddha during his lifetime to advanced disciples is not proven and does not have a definite record. It is in dispute at the very least. I have no objection to your view - I think it is a fair philosophical view, but it is one that you will probably not experience directly in this lifetime or the next. The panna needed to discern individual cittas is just theoretical to *all* of us here. So if you have a principled reasonable view based on Abhidhamma and personal belief, that is fine. However I don't think it's fine if you think your view must be correct and an alternative view wrong, when you have no way of verifying it, and it is not present in the Buddha's own words. Then there is no room for debate, only presumption of rightness. I can actually experience changes that take place when I see more, have a sudden insight, or whatever happens in real life and practice. You may have a real experience of suddenly having insight about a commentary passage and this is direct understanding too. But when we get to theories that are indirectly based on sutta and that are unexperienced and unproveable we should not be so certain and be open to discovering what the truth is, not think we definitely already know it. For example in a kalapa there are colour and > hardness but how could hardness be experienced at exactly the same > moment as color, it just isn't the way it happens – according to my > perceptions. Really? You've never looked at something and heard something at the same time *in your experience.* If you dance to music you don't hear the music and feel your body moving at the same time? Since you have been brutally honest with me, I will tell that experientially this is absolute nonsense. We experience multiple sensory experiences at the same time continuously. The only chance that "single citta" theory is correct is if that expeience is delusional based on glossing quickly moving cittas into conceptual conglomerates, but that is *not* the way sensory life is experienced. You can't think and chew your food competently at the same time? I would say this is a case of philosophy and theory overtaking reality. When you experience these things really happening one citta at a time, please let me know and I will be appropriately awed. > > The Buddha compared consciousness to fire: the fire that burned > dependent on sticks, the one that burned dependent on dried dung, the > one that burned dependent on oil,.. Different fires but still having the > same characteristic of fire; in the same way he said seeing- > consciousness is different from hearing consciosness is different from > smelling .....But still all having the same charactersitic of knowing. And they are all inputs into mind which is constantly handling multiple functions. The idea that consciousness is a pointing arrow rather than a field of experience is one that you can hold, but I don't share it and I don't think it is necessitated by sutta. In kinaesthetic experience which happens quite frequently in real life we get feelings from tasting food, we see colors from hearing music, etc. The senses are not completely separated. And I don't think a healthy view of the kandhas and how they interact depends on such a totally polarized separational view of experiences. Hey, if we can't agree on the basics, so be it! But I won't vote for things that are the opposite of experience rather than deepening it without proof. I appreciate the verse, which I like. However, I still think the single sensory/mental experience idea is just an idea and does not make sense of experience. To be continued....or not.... ;-) > 8. From the unseen, things come and go. > Glimpsed only as they're passing by; > Like lightning flashing in the sky > - They arise and then pass away." Lovely, and I mean that. Best, Robert E. P.S. You really clobbered me with a couple of those posts! I appreciate it! Didn't think I'd get back up and fight again, but you never know where those arising conditions will take you..... ============================== #95661 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 12:56 pm Subject: Re: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner epsteinrob Hi Sarah! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: Yes, the 'systematic sequence' of right understanding. > > For example, understanding more about the characteristic of metta, knowing when it arises (and doesn't arise) when we write or speak to others, for example, understanding more about conditioned dhammas....understanding why kusala is precious and akusala so harmful....being friendly and helpful now...all these are conditions for metta to develop. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========= Thanks, Sarah. And much metta to you too. Understanding what conditions must arise to allow certain things to develop....that is a good description above using metta as an example. Best, Robert E. =================== #95662 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 12:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > S: sounds fine! No time to nit-pick, you'll be glad to hear! > ... > Metta :-) > > Sarah > p.s Glad to hear you enjoyed the inauguration party in Washington! > ======= > Hope I didn't give the impression I was there.... I watched the inauguration on TV but was nice to be nearby...and not in the cold... ;-) Best, Robert E. ======== #95663 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 1:23 pm Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? scottduncan2 Dear Suan, Regarding: Me: "Can viriya accompany akusala citta?" Suan answers: "Yes, Scott. So, what are you getting at while we are discussing formal Theravda meditation capable of producing a mahaggata kusala cittam (a higher meritorious consciousness)?" Scott: We are discussing asa"nkhaarika-citta and asa"nkhaarika citta. I'd be interested in reading your elucidation of the meaning of the terms 'sasa"nkhaara' and 'asa"nkhaara' from a Paa.li entymological perspective. In particular, what is the sense of the word 'sa"nkhaara' as compounded in these terms? Suan answers: "No, Scott, viriya cannot arise in isolation if it was what you meant by 'only viriya'." Scott: "Correct, nothing arises in isolation. Please consider that we agree on this basic aspect of Abhidhamma analysis. My point is related to the impersonal, uncontrollable aspect of viriya in particular, or any dhamma for that matter. In other words, I don't think one can be sure that simply by desiring to produce mahaggata kusala citta.m one can be able to do so. I don't wish to re-enter the debate on 'formal meditation' in so saying. This is simply to clarify my position. I'd be interested in further considering 'prompted' and 'unprompted' from an Abhidhamma and a Paa.li/entymological perspective. In Sammohavinodanii (p. 169): "627...Here ignorance is...twofold as omissions and mistakes; likewise as prompted and unprompted..." ...appa.tipattimichaapat.tipatto duvidhaa tathaa sa"nkhaaraasa"nkhaarato... Scott: In Visuddhimagga, 'omissions and mistakes' is translated by ~Naa.namoli as 'no theory' and 'wrong theory'. Would you have any comments on this particular passage? Sincerely, Scott. #95664 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 1:34 pm Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? scottduncan2 Dear Suan, Regarding: Me: " We are discussing asa"nkhaarika-citta and asa"nkhaarika citta." Scott: Sorry, Suan, this should be 'sasa"nkhaarika-citta and asa"nkhaarika citta.' Sincerely, Scott. #95665 From: "connie" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 7:49 pm Subject: follow up nichiconn Dear Scott, All, hey! turns out there's an awfully similar sutta to the one in AN [i,222 III, 8 $75] at KS V, p318 (2005) after all & this one also spoken to Aananda: Intimate friends(b) (vii) Intimate friends(b) [...] There may be change,^1 monks, in the four great elements of earth, water, heat and air, but there can be no change in the Ariyan disciple blessed with unwavering loyalty to the Buddha; [...] p318 n1: A~n~natthattam, of the elements, 'otherness' of condition or nature, as a result of change of consistency. Cf KS iv 39; cf Ang i 152. well, guess you know where I am in my reading! peace, connie #95666 From: "szmicio" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 9:58 pm Subject: kalyana mitta szmicio I am looking for any passeges from tipitaka dealing with right friendship as a condition for right understanding. Bye Lukas #95667 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 10:29 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Citta with lobha or citta with understanding can know what > appears. Checking out is a word that may be interpreted in different > ways. > Nina. Sorry for such loose talk..... :-) Best, Robert E. ====================== #95668 From: "szmicio" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 12:07 am Subject: Request for comment - Khandhavibhanga, Rupakhandha, Abhidhammabhaajaniiya.m szmicio Dear Sarah and all Dhamma friends I've got some problems with the 1st vibhanga. I've done some modifications. The PTS english translations aren't so good for Dhamma study at all. So I add a few pali terms, next to english words. "2. Analysis according to Abhidhamma. 32. The five aggregates are: The aggregate of material quality, aggregate of feeling, aggregate of perception, aggregate of mental concomitants, aggregate of consiousnes. <32. Pa~ncakkhandhaa – ruupakkhandho, vedanaakkhandho, sa~n~naakkhandho, sa"nkhaarakkhandho, vi~n~naa.nakkhandho.> Therein what is the aggregate of material quality? The aggregate of material quality by way of singlefold division: All material quality is not root(sabba.m ruupa.m na hetu) Is not accompanied by root(ahetuka.m), is not associated with root(hetuvippayutta.m). " Can you explain those 3 instances? I mean those tree ways that sabbe ruppa.m na hetu, ahetuka.m, hetuvippayutta.m. My Best Wishes Lukas #95669 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 2:38 am Subject: Re: Houston we have a problem: intention/meditation rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > elements can only be > > known one by one . ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > That is an abhidhamma view, I don't believe > it is in sutta. Can you find it in the sutta pitaka? To call > Abhidhamma categories "Theravada" is true, but not completely true if > it is not shared by the body of sutta. We should be able to go back > to what the Buddha said to see what is basic and what is added. The > idea that the Abhidhamma was given by the Buddha during his lifetime > to advanced disciples is not proven and does not have a definite > record. It is in dispute at the very least. > ++ Dear RobertE This idea that the Abdhamma was some invention by later monks is so far off base that it makes me think, despite your genuine efforts to have a dialogue, that we might be wasting our time with each other. ________________ > I have no objection to your view - I think it is a fair philosophical > view, but it is one that you will probably not experience directly in > this lifetime or the next. ++++++++ And whatever would make you think that? +++++++++++++++++++++ The panna needed to discern individual > cittas is just theoretical to *all* of us here. So if you have a > principled reasonable view based on Abhidhamma and personal belief, > that is fine. ++++++++ It is not a matter of panna being able to count each individual citta but rather panna can discern that during each sense door process only one object is experienced, it can be known IMHO. ++++++++ However I don't think it's fine if you think your view > must be correct and an alternative view wrong, when you have no way of > verifying it, and it is not present in the Buddha's own words. Then > there is no room for debate, only presumption of rightness. ++++++++++ Yes, it is like if I am discussing with a devotee of Hari Krishna and he says there is an eternal Brahma and I think there is not. We can't move forward. > ================= > RK For example in a kalapa there are colour and > > hardness but how could hardness be experienced at exactly the same > > moment as color, it just isn't the way it happens – according to my > > perceptions. > ________________ >RE Really? You've never looked at something and heard something at the > same time *in your experience.* If you dance to music you don't hear > the music and feel your body moving at the same time? Since you have > been brutally honest with me, I will tell that experientially this is > absolute nonsense. We experience multiple sensory experiences at the > same time continuously. +++++++++++ And yet only yesterday you were convinced that cittas can't arise simultaneoulsy, could I ask how your view changed for the worse overnight? Anyway this fact- that there is NO multiple sensory experience at the same time is self evident to me, it doesn't even need panna to see it. I must be stuck in Abhidhmma mode all day. ----------------------- The only chance that "single citta" theory is > correct is if that expeience is delusional based on glossing quickly > moving cittas into conceptual conglomerates, but that is *not* the way > sensory life is experienced. _____ I have no idea what that means? __________ > In kinaesthetic experience which happens quite frequently in real life > we get feelings from tasting food, we see colors from hearing music, > etc. The senses are not completely separated. _________ This is so opposed to Dhamma that it really shouldn't need commenting on, it sounds close to madness actually. _________________ > > Hey, if we can't agree on the basics, so be it! But I won't vote for > things that are the opposite of experience rather than deepening it > without proof. ++++++++ But you can see that if there is such disagreement on the basics of theory how could we come to the slightest agreement about the much deeper level of understanding at patipatti level (practice). We are going in entirely different directions.. > >++++++++ Anyway I do appreciate your real patience to understand what I said, and best wishes in your future cultivation. kind regards robert #95670 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 4:20 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "43. Thus the sign and access are obtained by this bhikkhu simultaneously with the breaking down of the barriers. But when breaking down the barriers has been effected, he reaches absorption in the way described under the earth kasina without trouble by cultivating, developing, and repeatedly practising that same sign. At this point he has attained the first jhaana, which abandons five factors, possesses five factors, is good in three ways, is endowed with ten characteristics, and is accompanied by lovingkindness. And when that has been obtained, then by cultivating, developing, and repeatedly practising that same sign, he successively reaches the second and third jhaanas in the fourfold system, and the second, third, and fourth jhaanas in the fivefold system." Path of Purity. "The moment when the barriers are thus broken down, the monk attains to the sign and the access. And when, the barriers having been broken down, he practises, develops, repeats the sign (of calm), he gets ecstasy without trouble as has been said with the Earth-device. By so much does he attain to the First Jhaana which is associated with love, which as five factors to be put away, which is endowed with five factors, possesses five factors, possesses the threefold goodness, and is fulfilled with ten characteristics. And when, that having been attained, he practises, develops, repeats it as the sign, he in due course attains to the Second, Third Jhaanas of the fourfold system, and Second, Third, and Fourth Jhaanas of the fivefold system." Eva.m siimaasambhedasamakaalameva ca iminaa bhikkhunaa nimitta~nca upacaara~nca laddha.m hoti. Siimaasambhede pana kate tameva nimitta.m aasevanto bhaavento bahuliikaronto appakasireneva pathaviikasi.ne vuttanayeneva appana.m paapu.naati. Ettaavataanena adhigata.m hoti pa~nca"ngavippahiina.m pa~nca"ngasamannaagata.m tividhakalyaa.na.m dasalakkha.nasampanna.m pa.thamajjhaana.m mettaasahagata.m. Adhigate ca tasmi.m tadeva nimitta.m aasevanto bhaavento bahuliikaronto anupubbena catukkanaye dutiyatatiyajjhaanaani, pa~ncakanaye dutiyatatiyacatutthajjhaanaani ca paapu.naati. Sincerely, Scott. #95671 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 5:03 am Subject: Re: Houston we have a problem: intention/meditation scottduncan2 Dear Roberts, Regarding: R.E.: "...The only chance that 'single citta' theory is correct is if that expeience is delusional based on glossing quickly moving cittas into conceptual conglomerates, but that is *not* the way sensory life is experienced..." R.K.: "I have no idea what that means?" Scott: SN 45 1(1), Bh. Bodhi (trans): "Bhikkhus, ignorance is the forerunner in the entry upon unwholesome states, with shamefulness and fearlessness of wrongdoing following along. For an unwise person immersed in ignorance, wrong view springs up. For one of wrong view, wrong intention springs up. For one of wrong intention, wrong speech springs up. For one of wrong speech, wrong action springs up. For one of wrong action, wrong livelihood springs up. For one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort springs up. For one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness springs up. For one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration springs up." "Avijjaa, bhikkhave, pubba"ngamaa akusalaana.m dhammaana.m samaapattiyaa, anvadeva ahirikaṃ anottappa.m . Avijjaagatassa, bhikkhave, aviddasuno micchaadi.t.thi pahoti; micchaadi.t.thissa micchaasa"nkappo pahoti; micchaasa"nkappassa micchaavaacaa pahoti; micchaavaacassa micchaakammanto pahoti; micchaakammantassa micchaaaajiivo pahoti; micchaaaajiivassa micchaavaayaamo pahoti; micchaavaayaamassa micchaasati pahoti; micchaasatissa micchaasamaadhi pahoti." Note 1: "Spk: Ignorance is the forerunner (pubba"ngama) in two modes, as a conascent condtion (sahajaatavasena, a condtion for simultaneously arisen states) and as a decisive-support condition (upanissayavasena, a strong causal condition for subsequently arisen states). Spk-p.t: It is a forerunner by way of conascence when it makes associated states conform to its own mode of confusion about the object, so that they grasp impermanent phenomena as permanent, etc.; it is a forerunner by way of both conascence and decisive-support when a person overcome by delusion engages in immoral actions. Shamelessness (ahirika) has the characteristic of lack of shame (alajjanaa, or lack of conscience regarding evil); fearlessness of wrongdoing (anottappa), the characteristic of lack of fear (abhaayanaa, regarding evil conduct)." Scott: There is little point in holding to one's deluded experience of sensory life, let alone using it as a basis upon which to judge the Dhamma. Sincerely, Scott. #95672 From: "szmicio" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 6:44 am Subject: Re: Reminder - Nina van Gorkom szmicio Dear Dhamma friends I find this wonderful reminder in Nina's Cetasikas, Section on Cetana: "After the discourse the Buddha explained the four noble Truths and the passionate monk became an angami. He eradicated anger accomulated. though one has strong inclinations to greed and anger, accumulated for many lives, the panna of the eightfold path can eventually eradicate defilements. The greedy monk and the angry monk in the above mentioned Jatakas could attain enlightenment because they had also accumulated sati and panna. Listening to the Buddha was the right condition for them to attain the stage of the anagami. If we understand that our behaviour now is conditioned by accumulated inclinations we had in the past we will be less inclined to take it for hay behaviour'. Each reality which arises is condition. Generosity which arises is conditioned by generosity in the past, it is not 'my generosity'. Anger which arises is conditioned by anger in the past, it is not 'my anger'. There is no self who can force citta to be kusala citta, but conditions can be cultivated so that kusala citta can arise more often. Important conditions for the arising of kusala citta with panna are friendship with a person who has right understanding of the Dhamma and who can explain the Dhamma in the right way, listening to the teachings and studying them, and above all mindfulness of the reality which appears now. we should consider when we want to perform kusala kamma. Is our aim kusala vipaka? Kusala kamma produces kusala vipaka because this is the natural course of things, but if we want to perforrn kusala kamma in order to have a pleasant result, such as a happy rebirth, there is clinging. The aim of the Buddha's teachings is the eradication of defilements. Wholesome deeds will be purer if we perform them because we see the benefit of eliminating defilements. Since human life is very short we should not lose any opportunity for dana, sila or bhavana. If we develop the eightfold path there will eventually be purification of all defilements." #95673 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 6:51 am Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? abhidhammika Dear Scott, Howard, Colette, Robert Ep, Herman, Robert K, Nina, Alex, Alberto and all How are you? Scott wrote: "My point is related to the impersonal, uncontrollable aspect of viriya in particular, or any dhamma for that matter." Suan replies: Scott, you are dealing with a traditinal teacher of Theravada. So, please do not overuse the term "impersonal". Now, what do you mean by "uncontrollable aspect of viriya in particular, or any dhamma for that matter." In the context of Gotama the Buddha's Theravada scheme of things, the modifier "uncontrollable" does not mean much as it would in Jainism, (the descendant of the Niga.n.tha ideology). I hope that, when you explain KS Folks' view of the modifier "uncontrollable", you won't be repeating like a follower of Jainism. Scott wrote: In other words, I don't think one can be sure that simply by desiring to produce mahaggata kusala citta.m one can be able to do so." Suan replies: Did I ever say that one can be able to produce any kusala cittam simply by desiring to do so, let alone a higher meritorious consciousness? I will reply to other parts of your post later. It is very late in Canberra, now. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: Dear Suan, Regarding: Me: "Can viriya accompany akusala citta?" Suan answers: "Yes, Scott. So, what are you getting at while we are discussing formal Theravda meditation capable of producing a mahaggata kusala cittam (a higher meritorious consciousness)?" Scott: We are discussing asa"nkhaarika-citta and asa"nkhaarika citta. I'd be interested in reading your elucidation of the meaning of the terms 'sasa"nkhaara' and 'asa"nkhaara' from a Paa.li entymological perspective. In particular, what is the sense of the word 'sa"nkhaara' as compounded in these terms? <> I don't wish to re-enter the debate on 'formal meditation' in so saying. This is simply to clarify my position. I'd be interested in further considering 'prompted' and 'unprompted' from an Abhidhamma and a Paa.li/entymological perspective. In Sammohavinodanii (p. 169): "627...Here ignorance is...twofold as omissions and mistakes; likewise as prompted and unprompted..." ...appa.tipattimichaapat.tipatto duvidhaa tathaa sa"nkhaaraasa"nkhaarato... Scott: In Visuddhimagga, 'omissions and mistakes' is translated by ~Naa.namoli as 'no theory' and 'wrong theory'. Would you have any comments on this particular passage? Sincerely, Scott. #95674 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 6:54 am Subject: Re: Houston we have a problem: intention/meditation epsteinrob Hi Rob! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" > wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" > wrote: > > > > elements can only be > > > known one by one . > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > That is an abhidhamma view, I don't believe > > it is in sutta. Can you find it in the sutta pitaka? To call > > Abhidhamma categories "Theravada" is true, but not completely true if > > it is not shared by the body of sutta. > > > > We should be able to go back > > to what the Buddha said to see what is basic and what is added. The > > idea that the Abhidhamma was given by the Buddha during his lifetime > > to advanced disciples is not proven and does not have a definite > > record. It is in dispute at the very least. > > ++ > > Dear RobertE > This idea that the Abdhamma was some invention by later monks is so > far off base that it makes me think, despite your genuine efforts to > have a dialogue, that we might be wasting our time with each other. You seem to come up with that idea quite frequently in this conversation. That is up to you. > ________________ > > I have no objection to your view - I think it is a fair philosophical > > view, but it is one that you will probably not experience directly in > > this lifetime or the next. > ++++++++ > And whatever would make you think that? I think it is worth saying whether you are able to experience sequences of single cittas and have experienced individual dhammas for yourself. It is a matter of experience versus philosophy. There is nothing wrong with believing in what you feel is correct, but there is a difference. Most here have said plainly that they don't expect to have the panna necessary for this kind of insight for many lifetimes. > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > The panna needed to discern individual > > cittas is just theoretical to *all* of us here. So if you have a > > principled reasonable view based on Abhidhamma and personal belief, > > that is fine. > > ++++++++ > It is not a matter of panna being able to count each individual citta but > rather panna can discern that during each sense door process only one > object is experienced, it can be known IMHO. I am not talking about counting, but whether individual cittas are experienced, or whether it is a theoretical construct that one believes and accepts but does not actually experience. Whether one can experience the single sense door and then switching to the next. > ++++++++ > However I don't think it's fine if you think your view > > must be correct and an alternative view wrong, when you have no > way of > > verifying it, and it is not present in the Buddha's own words. Then > > there is no room for debate, only presumption of rightness. > > > ++++++++++ > > Yes, it is like if I am discussing with a devotee of Hari Krishna and he > says there is an eternal Brahma and I think there is not. We can't move > forward. That is a straw man. It refers to an obvious mystical unverifiable belief. I am saying that if you believe in single cittas with single qualities and only one sense door at a time, that is a reasonable belief to have - it is possible that this is the way consciousness works. But if you have not experienced it, you do not know personally whether it is true or not. I don't have an unverifiable belief that is in the way of the discussion; I just don't automatically subscribe to yours. To say we would have to start out with the same exact view of reality in order to discuss or debate is a bit pre-emptive. We share belief in anatta, anicca and dukkha, and the the reality that there is no separate self in the human organism apart from experiences that are caused by arising conditions. We both believe that one must develop sati, sattipatthana and panna in order to discern reality directly and perceive unconditioned nibbana. We both believe that suffering is ended by ending ignorance and delusion and that at any moment consciousness can be deluded/akusala or insightful/discerning/kusala. *Those* are Theravada basics; so it is hardly fair to compare one of us to a Hare Krisha! :-) If that is not enough for you, then please, I will forgive you if you bow out of the conversation and consider me a deluded person. Feel free. > > ================= > > > > RK For example in a kalapa there are colour and > > > hardness but how could hardness be experienced at exactly the > same > > > moment as color, it just isn't the way it happens – according to my > > > perceptions. > > ________________ > >RE Really? You've never looked at something and heard something at > the > > same time *in your experience.* If you dance to music you don't hear > > the music and feel your body moving at the same time? Since you > have > > been brutally honest with me, I will tell that experientially this is > > absolute nonsense. We experience multiple sensory experiences at > the > > same time continuously. > > +++++++++++ > And yet only yesterday you were convinced that cittas can't arise > simultaneoulsy, could I ask how your view changed for the worse > overnight? > Anyway this fact- that there is NO multiple sensory experience at the > same time is self evident to me, it doesn't even need panna to see it. I > must be stuck in Abhidhmma mode all day. That is a possibility. Or I may be stuck in some other mode, or in multiple Theravada personality syndrome. Sorry to be light, but the truth is that our sense of the path is different, and if that bothers you, you will have to decide what to do. I may not be worth the effort since we will probably not agree on certain things. > ----------------------- > The only chance that "single citta" theory is > > correct is if that experience is delusional based on glossing quickly > > moving cittas into conceptual conglomerates, but that is *not* the way > > sensory life is experienced. > _____ > > I have no idea what that means? Sorry, let's just skip that one then. > > __________ > > In kinaesthetic experience which happens quite frequently in real life > > we get feelings from tasting food, we see colors from hearing music, > > etc. The senses are not completely separated. > > _________ > This is so opposed to Dhamma that it really shouldn't need commenting > on, it sounds close to madness actually. > _________________ > > > > > Hey, if we can't agree on the basics, so be it! But I won't vote for > > things that are the opposite of experience rather than deepening it > > without proof. > > > ++++++++ > But you can see that if there is such disagreement on the basics of > theory how could we come to the slightest agreement about the much > deeper level of understanding at patipatti level (practice). We are going > in entirely different directions.. > > > >++++++++ > Anyway I do appreciate your real patience to understand what I said, > and best wishes in your future cultivation. > kind regards > robert > Best to you as well. Robert E. ============================ #95675 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 6:59 am Subject: Re: Houston we have a problem: intention/meditation epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Roberts, > > Regarding: > > R.E.: "...The only chance that 'single citta' theory is > correct is if that expeience is delusional based on glossing quickly > moving cittas into conceptual conglomerates, but that is *not* the way > sensory life is experienced..." > > R.K.: "I have no idea what that means?" > > Scott: SN 45 1(1), Bh. Bodhi (trans): > > "Bhikkhus, ignorance is the forerunner in the entry upon unwholesome > states, with shamefulness and fearlessness of wrongdoing following > along. For an unwise person immersed in ignorance, wrong view springs > up. For one of wrong view, wrong intention springs up. For one of > wrong intention, wrong speech springs up. For one of wrong speech, > wrong action springs up. For one of wrong action, wrong livelihood > springs up. For one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort springs up. > For one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness springs up. For one of > wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration springs up." > > "Avijjaa, bhikkhave, pubba"ngamaa akusalaana.m dhammaana.m > samaapattiyaa, anvadeva ahirikaṃ anottappa.m . Avijjaagatassa, > bhikkhave, aviddasuno micchaadi.t.thi pahoti; micchaadi.t.thissa > micchaasa"nkappo pahoti; micchaasa"nkappassa micchaavaacaa pahoti; > micchaavaacassa micchaakammanto pahoti; micchaakammantassa > micchaaaajiivo pahoti; micchaaaajiivassa micchaavaayaamo pahoti; > micchaavaayaamassa micchaasati pahoti; micchaasatissa micchaasamaadhi > pahoti." > > Note 1: "Spk: Ignorance is the forerunner (pubba"ngama) in two modes, > as a conascent condtion (sahajaatavasena, a condtion for > simultaneously arisen states) and as a decisive-support condition > (upanissayavasena, a strong causal condition for subsequently arisen > states). Spk-p.t: It is a forerunner by way of conascence when it > makes associated states conform to its own mode of confusion about the > object, so that they grasp impermanent phenomena as permanent, etc.; > it is a forerunner by way of both conascence and decisive-support > when a person overcome by delusion engages in immoral actions. > Shamelessness (ahirika) has the characteristic of lack of shame > (alajjanaa, or lack of conscience regarding evil); fearlessness of > wrongdoing (anottappa), the characteristic of lack of fear > (abhaayanaa, regarding evil conduct)." > > Scott: There is little point in holding to one's deluded experience of > sensory life, let alone using it as a basis upon which to judge the > Dhamma. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > I am open to seeing what is really there and am not committed to any delusory state. However, I am also not interested in making arbitrary leaps to philosophical ideas that are not borne out by experience. When I say this, I do not mean that I am committed to ordinary experience and that I refuse to give up my views. I mean that my eyes will have to be opened to what is there, not convinced by argument that simply says that "this is right and that is wrong." We each have a practice based on sutta that will either lead to increased understanding or not. I'm sure that each of us will have to follow our path to get to where it leads and not jump onto an idea as a substitute for the unfolding of knowledge. I wish you the best. Best, Robert E. ============================ #95676 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 7:02 am Subject: Re: Houston we have a problem: intention/meditation epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > Note 1: "Spk: Ignorance is the forerunner (pubba"ngama) in two modes, > as a conascent condtion (sahajaatavasena, a condtion for > simultaneously arisen states) Given the current discussion, please clarify: What are "simultaneously arisen states." Thank you, Robert E. ============================ #95677 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 7:48 am Subject: Re: Houston we have a problem: intention/meditation scottduncan2 Dear Robert E., R: "Given the current discussion, please clarify: What are 'simultaneously arisen states.'" Scott: Citta and consascent cetasikas. These arise together, have the same *single* object, and fall away together. Sincerely, Scott. #95678 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 7:55 am Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? scottduncan2 Dear Suan, Regarding: S: "...Now, what do you mean by 'uncontrollable aspect of viriya in particular, or any dhamma for that matter'..." Scott: I mean: "Scott wrote: In other words, I don't think one can be sure that simply by desiring to produce mahaggata kusala citta.m one can be able to do so." Scott: With which you seem to agree: "Suan replies: Did I ever say that one can be able to produce any kusala cittam simply by desiring to do so, let alone a higher meritorious consciousness?" S: "I will reply to other parts of your post later." Scott: I'll look forward to the reply. Sincerely, Scott. #95679 From: "connie" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 8:18 am Subject: kalyana mitta nichiconn Dear Lukas, L: I am looking for any passeges from tipitaka dealing with right friendship as a condition for right understanding. c: As always, it's "not the person, but the dhamma"... so pretty much any sutta might do, but you might check under Kalyana-mitta in the Useful Posts file. Meanwhile: KS I ch.III, 2.$8 Diligence(2) Here Buddha repeats to King Pasenadi: '... He is taught, Aananda, to develop right views based on detachment, based on passionlessness, based on cessation, involving maturity of surrender; to develop in the same way, right plans, right speech, action and livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. It is thus, Aananda, that a bhikkhu who is a friend, an intimate, an associate of that which is righteous, develops and expands the Ariyan eightfold path. ...' peace, connie #95680 From: "connie" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 8:40 am Subject: Request for comment - Khandhavibhanga, Rupakhandha, Abhidhammabhaajaniiya.m nichiconn Dear Lukas, Remember the hetus are the six: greed, hate, ignorance and their opposites. peace, connie Therein what is the aggregate of material quality? The aggregate of material quality by way of singlefold division: All material quality is not root(sabba.m ruupa.m na hetu) Is not accompanied by root(ahetuka.m), is not associated with root(hetuvippayutta.m). " Can you explain those 3 instances? I mean those tree ways that sabbe ruppa.m na hetu, ahetuka.m, hetuvippayutta.m. #95681 From: "szmicio" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 10:30 am Subject: Re: Request for comment - Khandhavibhanga, Rupakhandha, Abhidhammabhaajaniiya.m szmicio Dear Connie Recently I was looking for your old post. It was from your series that you lead few months ago, I think so. It was a wonderful story about two towns(pa~n~na). And also your comments as I remember. Can you point it out to me? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > C: Dear Lukas, > Remember the hetus are the six: greed, hate, ignorance and their opposites. > peace, There are 6 hetus that's true. But I've got some problems with this classification: 1) All rupas are Not hetus. Sure. Pretty clear for my. Blessed One expose rupa as no hetu. That's really important. The only one hetus are 6 cetasikas you've listed above. But here I've got some problems: 2) All rupas are not accompanied by roots. So each rupa is ahetuka. But in which way the rupa is ahetuka? Does rupa has any inherent characteristic which makes it ahetuka(not accompanied by roots)? In fact rupa can arise with roots. Roots can accompany rupa and they can also condition cittaja-rupa. 3) All rupas are not associated with roots. They are seperated from hetus. But what does it really mean? All those classifications are really beneficial. My Best Wishes Lukas #95682 From: "szmicio" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 11:06 am Subject: Re: kalyana mitta szmicio Dear Connie > L: I am looking for any passeges from tipitaka dealing with right > friendship as a condition for right understanding. > > c: As always, it's "not the person, but the dhamma"... L: Sure. Everyone who reminds us about seeing and hearing now is our true friend in Dhamma. My Best Wishes Lukas #95683 From: "szmicio" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 11:22 am Subject: Re: kalyana mitta szmicio > > L: I am looking for any passeges from tipitaka dealing with right > > friendship as a condition for right understanding. > > > > c: As always, it's "not the person, but the dhamma"... > > L: Sure. Everyone who reminds us about seeing and hearing now is our > true friend in Dhamma. L: Generally I want to discuss more about right-friendship. It's the most important condition for right understanding, next to right utterance and yoniso-manasikara. My Best Wishes Lukas #95684 From: "colette" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 11:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Funny how time can just slip right away" Joe Hinton ksheri3 Hi Sarah, Thank you TWICE. I was under the impression that Howard didn't want to bother with that post so I paid it no mind. I'm glad that you weren't focused on the status quo's delusion of DEATH. Sure you saw my references but you also saw the multiple positions I clearly stated that death possesses, THEN WENT TO FURTHER MY INVESTIGATION by opening the door that death is nothing more than life, they are the same and they are Shunya. Yea, our neophyte friends will be asking how it could be possible to be shunya and create karma out of emptiness but that's for another time. My focus was on the identicle characterristics of Death and Life. You went with "lifetimes", "moments", then "moment" -- I ponder, Hmmmm, Past Dharma, Present Dharma, Future Dharma?, hmmmmm -- that's still cool, I can deal with it. Good idea, I'll look into the DSG vaults to see where death lies bleeding. yuck yuck yuck, a play on E.John's "Love Lies Bleeding" just sitting there with nobody to talk to, the info. just bleeds. Or does it "de-compose"? Now that's a fruitful path of meditation to take, no? toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Colette & Howard, > > --- On Fri, 30/1/09, colette wrote: > >I'm in a blue mood and a blue period since one of the few friends I > had just past away and everybody thought I was his relative. I began > the process, today, of honoring my word to him that I'd take care of > things for him. > .... > S: I'm also sorry to hear of your loss, Colette. Very best wishes at this time. I do hope all your many reflections on death and passing lifetimes, passing moments, this moment only, have helped. <.....> #95685 From: "colette" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 11:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Funny how time can just slip right away" Joe Hinton ksheri3 Hi Howard, Pishaw, you at a loss, come now. Okay, sure, the articles you gave us the address for were about the potential for the world we live in to be nothing more than holograms, that's taken from the article I partially read. YOU GAVE US THE LINE THAT YOU KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING ABOUT QUANTUM PHYSICS BUT FOUND THAT OTHERS IN THE DSG MAY FIND THE ARTICLE INTERESTING. Didn't you like how, after getting married the character Brad Pitt played in the movie "Mr. & Mrs. Smith", the young couple went to an amusement park where they played the standard "midway" con game called a shooting gallery, no not a herion addict's place to get high, but a Midway's shooting gallery. Nevertheless, Angelini Jouli, "Mrs. Smith" doesn't do too good on the first go around where the typical stereotyped male played by Brad Pitt, "Mr. Smith", shows Mrs. Smith how it's done, where he wins a small Q.P. doll. This angers Mrs Smith who then proceeds to, in rapid fire succession, she knocks over a target of different values with each shot she has just paid for. THIS ASTOUNDS AND SHOCKS THE MICROPROSSESSOR OF THE STEREOTYPED ROBOT, MALE, CONTENTS OF A TEST TUBE USED IN AN INCUBATOR, ET AL, PLAYED BY BRAD PITT. WE KNOW YOU DON'T USE THE WORD NOR HAVE YOU USED THE WORD HOLOGRAM BUT YOU RECALL THAT "MOMENTARIAN" IS A WORD YOU MIGHT USE AND I CLEARLY PUT IT TO YOU THAT YOU CERTAINLY DID USE THE WORD MOMENTARIAN IN THE SAME POST WITH THE TERM QUANTUM PHYSICS. EVEN SARAH SAW THE MOMENT. MAYBE SARAH ACTUALLY SAW THE MOMENT I WAS RIFFLING THROUGH THE MSG. BOARD AND JUST JUMPED ON YOUR MSG. FOR SOME REASON. Thanx. toodles colette #95686 From: "nichiconn" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 4:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Funny how time can just slip right away" Joe Hinton nichiconn dear colette, on the hologram thing, Howard: #94993 "Quantum Realities"? peace, connie #95687 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 4:26 pm Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? abhidhammika Dear Scott, Howard, Colette, Robert Ep, Herman, Robert K, Nina, Alex, Alberto and all How are you? Scott answered: "I mean: In other words, I don't think one can be sure that simply by desiring to produce mahaggata kusala citta.m one can be able to do so." Scott also asserted: "With which you seem to agree:" Suan replies: Not so fast, Scott. I cannot agree with something without first finding out what it is and how it is understood by you. The correct answer to my question if I ever said that one can be able to produce any kusala cittam simply by desiring to do so, is No. I asked that question because I have not yet introduced the phenomenon of desire, a separate dhamma. It is you who introduced it. So you will have to explain about it, too. You have not explained 'uncontrollable aspect of viriya'. You were merely repeating another separate issue regarding the phenomenon of desire (chando). Here are questions for you to answer honestly. I am a traditional teacher of Theravada, so my kindness and compassion can be trusted. So please answer them fearlessly. 1. Is viiriyam controllable? If controllable, how is it controllable and in what sense? 2. Is viiriyam uncontrollable? If uncontrollable, why is it uncontrollable and in what sense? 3. Is desire controllable? If controllable, how is it controllable and in what sense? 4. Is desire uncontrollable? If uncontrollable, why is it uncontrollable and in what sense? Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #95688 From: "connie" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 4:53 pm Subject: Re: Request for comment - Khandhavibhanga, Rupakhandha, Abhidhammabhaajaniiya.m nichiconn Dear Lukas, L: Recently I was looking for <...> a wonderful story about two towns(pa~n~na). c: Sorry, I don't remember now. > Remember the hetus are the six: greed, hate, ignorance and their > opposites. L: There are 6 hetus that's true. But I've got some problems with this classification: <...> But in which way the rupa is ahetuka? Does rupa has any inherent characteristic which makes it ahetuka c: I think these, as listed, are inherent characteristics of rupa. If nama and rupa were not separate and distinct realities, there would be no need of contact, which is not 'association', but 'impingement'. Vippayutta, not harnessed or yoked - that kind of association - with roots; they don't "work together" ... How would rupa be kusala or akusala? This relates to this conversation between pt and Nina: > "3. Can akusala cittas and kusala cittas and arise in a sense-door > > process?" > > What's the question you were actually asking? ----- N: Exactly that. There are javanacittas also in sense-door processes, even on account of just colour, sound, etc. This shows us the danger of akusala cittas that can arise immediately after a brief moment of seeing or hearing, when it is not known yet whether the object was pleasant or unpleasant. peace, connie ps. Maybe you would find something useful in the Abhi.Sang. ch. on Analysis of Matter http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_6.htm #95689 From: "connie" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 5:17 pm Subject: kalyana mitta nichiconn Dear Lukas, > L: I am looking for any passeges from tipitaka dealing with right > friendship as a condition for right understanding. > > c: As always, it's "not the person, but the dhamma"... Here are some other friendships for you: Kindred Sayings V, BkI (IV Sun rep) I. (Based on Seclusion ...) (i) Friendship with the lovely Just as, monks, the dawn is the forerunner, the harbinger, of the arising of the sun, so friendship with the lovely is the forerunner, the harbinger, of the arising of the Ariyan eightfold way. Of a monk who is a friend of the lovely, monks, it may be expected that he will cultivate the Ariyan eightfold way, that he will make much of the Ariyan eightfold way. And how, monks, does a monk who is a friend of the lovely cultivate and make much of the Ariyan eightfold way? Herein a monk cultivates right view, that is based on seclusion, that is based on dispassion, on cessation, that ends in self-surrender, and so on. ... He cultivates right concentration which is so based. ... Even so does a monk who is a friend of the lovely cultivate and make much of the Ariyan eightfold way. <> ... the next (ii-vii) are variations on (i): (ii) [...] even so possession of virtue is the forerunner [...] (iii)[...] even so possession of desire is the forerunner [...] (iv)[...] even so self-possession is the forerunner [...] (v) [...] even so insight is the forerunner [...] (vi)[...] even so possession of earnestness is the forerunner [...] (vii)[...] even so possession of systematic thought is the forerunner [...] <> L: Everyone who reminds us about seeing and hearing now is our true friend in Dhamma. c: Yes, also true... whether we think of that in terms of people or the cittas that are prompted. peace, connie #95690 From: "Sukinder" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 5:59 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 1 sukinderpal Hi Rob Ep, I will probably end up only repeating the same ideas. So I'll leave it to you to decide whether we should continue with this discussion. Besides I'm sounding more like trying to justify than clarify. :-/ I'll be dividing my response into parts due to length. ============= > > I believe Ken has given quite a few explanations about all this here > > on DSG. Also we know that there have been many posts by others on > > this topic, including the one by Kom which Nina posted. Now I thought > > that Kom's post would have caused you and others to question your > > ideas about Jhana, but apparently it didn't have the kind of effect. > > So I guess that this and all those other posts actually failed to > > qualify as `explanation' simply because of the very different > > understanding, would you think? > Rob Ep: I would need to see quotes of what you were referring to, in order to > be clear about this one way or the other. What makes you think that > no one has changed their idea about jhana, etc. Do you have any > quotes that made you think this? Sukin: My understanding of Jhana is that it is an extremely high level of kusala. Someone with the right accumulations for it would unlikely even talk about it, let alone discuss it in the way usually done on internet discussion lists. For us, its place must right remain at the level of considering / intellectual understanding only; including appreciating how exalted and different this is from kaamavacara cittas. But since there is a direct relationship between Jhana and kaamavacara kusala cittas in that the former is the result of the development of the latter, if we do understand correctly what Jhana is in principle, our interest would be drawn to the more humble states which do sometimes arise and need to develop further. In other words, an interest in Jhana is an interest in kusala and not some exalted state which invariably becomes an object of attachment and wrong view. More importantly, since Jhana according to my understanding has nothing whatsoever to do with the development of Right View, to continue making the association is sign of continued misunderstanding of both the development of Samatha as well as Vipassana. Given the above, do you now see the kind of `idea change' I would expect to see? And do I still need to give a quote? ;-) ================= > > When asked, I think you will agree that at any given moment, in > > reality, there is only consciousness with its concomitant mental > > factors arisen to experience an object and performing other > > functions, and falling away immediately. Much of the time however, > > one of these mental factors is ignorance and the object is a > > `concept'. At such times these concepts are taken seriously by virtue > > of other akusala mental factors including tanha, mana and ditthi. > > > > But the question is how far we really agree about all this? Rob Ep:> Who knows? I am exploring and questioning, but I do have a reaction > to things that seem dogmatic or false. Sukin: That's the perception. There is no arguing with the fact of Satipatthana being the One Path to enlightenment is there? What you perhaps need to determine is if what some of us say contradicts this fact. It may be that yours is mushiness akin to that which suggests that "there are many paths all leading to the same goal"? Or is there some misunderstanding both of us have about the other's position? ============ Rob Ep:> As for the cetasikas, what > does ignorance look like as a mental factor? Can there be ignorance > in the abstract, as an absolute? What does that mean? Have you ever > seen "ignorance" walking down the street? Does it have a color or > texture? It seems that many of these purported mental factors are > abstract ideas. Have the been described as realities? How does that > work? See, I am full of questions about this philosophy. Sukin: I am surprised at the line of questioning? Are you taking `ignorance' to mean not so much a presence of some mental factor but rather the absence of some other, perhaps `wisdom'? What do you understand by the proposition; ignorance, attachment and aversion are the three unwholesome roots? Do you take this to be just another theory of no particular significance hence not to be given any consideration to? You ask how ignorance works. I quote Nina from her "Cetasikas": << There are many degrees of moha. Moha does not know the true nature of the object which is experienced and therefore its essence is, as stated by the Atthasalini non-penetration and its function "covering up" the intrinsic nature of the object. Moha does not know nama and rupa as impermanent, dukkha and non-self, anatta. Moha is the root of all that is unwholesome. Every akusala citta is rooted in moha; not only the two types of moha-mula-citta, but also the types of lobha- mula-citta and dosa-mula-citta have moha as root.>> Metta, Sukin =end of Part One= #95691 From: "connie" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 5:59 pm Subject: Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner nichiconn Dear Scott, All, 43. Thus the sign and access are obtained by this bhikkhu simultaneously with the breaking down of the barriers. <...> At this point he has attained the first jhaana, <...> c: Is this "beautiful"? ...and apologies for the longishness, but it addresses some earlier questions in this thread, I think, on what this "metta-tation" is about: KS V (2005 p98) [V, 115 ii VI iv] Goodwill {cf Bud Psy 104; VM i 293, 308 (to which Comy here refers)} [...] 'Monks, when the Wanderers of other views say this they should be answered thus: "But, friends, how is the heart's release by goodwill cultivated? What is its goal, wherein is its excellence? What is its fruit and its ending? Likewise how is the heart's release by compassion cultivated ... How is the heart's release by sympathy cultivated ... by equanimity? What is its fruit and what its ending?" [...] And how monks, does one cultivate the heart's release by goodwill? What is its goal, wherein its excellence, what is its fruit and its ending? {Cf KS ii 176} Herein, monks, a monk cultivates the limb of wisdom that is mindfulness, accompanied by goodwill ... and the other limbs of mindfulness in like manner. He cultivates the limb of wisdom that is equanimity, accompanied by goodwill, which is based on seclusion, on dispassion, on cessation, which ends in self-surrender. If he desires: Let me abide conscious of repugnance in what is not repugnant; he so abides. ... If he desires: Avoiding both the repugnant and the non-repugnant, let me abide indifferent, mindful and self-possessed; he so abides indifferent, mindful and self-possessed. Or, attaining the release called "beautiful" he abides therein. Monks, the heart's release by good will has the beautiful for its excellence, I declare. Herein comes insight for the monk who has not penetrated to a still higher release. {VM i 324. It is still lokiya <>} peace, connie #95692 From: "Sukinder" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 6:00 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 2 sukinderpal Hi Rob Ep, Part Two: ============ > > The development of understanding therefore involves increasingly > > being drawn to the present moment / paramattha dhammas, and away from > > ideas about another time, place, posture, object etc. / concept. > Rob Ep:> No problem about that. All Buddhist philosophies aim towards the > present moment, now, and discerning the reality of what exists. There > may be disagreement however, on what that is. Sukin: Not only Buddhists, but also certain other religions and philosophies see sense in staying with the present moment. None of these however talk about the present moment being conditioned and this includes the understanding of this itself. The need to hear about what in fact constitutes the present moment experience is hence most important. What is in fact true can be directly understood, what is not can't give rise to wisdom. Obviously we need to hear about this first and the understanding must necessarily be `intellectual'. For me the Abhidhamma description has conditioned this level of understanding, that which I have come to recognize as pariyatti. It is aimed at the present moment. Other descriptions have not had the effect, in fact all of them rather than encouraging a bending of mind to the present moment, have conditioned ideas about "self" in terms of past and the future, even if this be to `note' / `be mindful' of the present. So apparently your agreement and what you say about "all Buddhist philosophies", I take this as being not in terms of "understanding / pariyatti", but of philosophical position only, and this means little to me. We can talk all we like about the need to be mindful etc., but if the understanding at the intellectual level is wrong, and there is wrong understanding of what constitutes the present moment and the fact of it being anatta, anicca etc. we wont get any closer to understanding nama and rupa. ============= Rob Ep:>So, again, why the prejudice against sitting and following the breath, > in order to look into the four foundations of mindfulness and develop > sati? Why is that any different from sitting down to read a > commentary with the intention to understand realities better? Why is > meditation shunned and com reading encouraged? An answer to this > simple question would be welcomed. Sukin: I'll try to say more later. In the meantime I would like you to consider the difference between the outlook which sees the Buddha's Teachings as being essentially "descriptive" (of characteristic, functions and cause of paramattha dhammas) vs. the one that sees it as being "prescriptive" (conventional activities to follow). The former is where Ken, Jon, I and others come from; the latter is what you seem to constantly insist on when referring to Anapanasati and the contents of the Satipatthana Sutta. Metta, Sukin =end of Part Two= #95693 From: "Sukinder" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 6:01 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 3 sukinderpal Hi Rob Ep, Part Three: ============ > When watching TV or surfing, > > craving may be the only big problem, however when it comes to > > "meditation", this must involve some kind of `view' and it can't be > > Right View! > Rob Ep:> Why is that? Sukin: The absence of Right View does not imply the presence of Wrong View. Listening to and discussing the Dhamma can be done with wrong view, but not necessary. On seeing the value of listening to and discussing the Dhamma and each time that such an understanding arises, this accumulates as sankhara. The result is being drawn to listen, study and discuss etc. This is simple cause and effect and is based on the understanding of dhammas (here sati and panna) being conditioned and beyond control. In other words, one thinks about the activity and decides to study without necessarily being motivated by wrong view. Indeed one acknowledges that panna arises very rarely during such activities and that most of the time it is ignorance and other akusala dhammas. In other words in terms of the conventional activity, one does not presume to be doing the right thing. Can the same be said about meditation? There is `practice', which is satipatthana / patipatti, and yes, one sees this as being of greater value than pariyatti. This understanding of patipatti however includes the fact of it being a particular reality, conditioned and beyond control. I see it as a failure of this particular understanding, at pariyatti, about patipatti which gives rise to the wrong idea about `practice' / `meditation'. It is taking along then, an uninstructed worldling's perception and misunderstanding into an activity which has its own illusion of results. But satipatthana is a reality which arises not related to any intention to "do" but like for example aversion, it is conditioned by many factors, including past accumulations. You'll admit that this is not the understanding that you go by with your `meditation', do you? Why is there a need to anchor on the breath for example? If it is hardness or heat that is the object of sati and panna, what is the difference between this and the hardness when your finger touches the keyboard or the heat felt when the hand holds the coffee mug? Are there not always realities to be known, including distraction and all those others that arise and fall away during the time that you are involved in noting sound and thinking to go back to the breath? Besides, when satipatthana arises naturally, it knows the moment to be conditioned, beyond control and *fallen away*. Is this your understanding during meditation? I don't think so, else why would you entertain the idea of noting and going back to the breath? These after all imply states lasting long enough to be conceptualized about and deciding to `let go' of and to then move on to an object (breath) with an expectation of it being always there to be known with insight. This is wrong understanding and encouraging more of the same. But alas, associated with this as is with any wrong practice, is the illusion of result, and this is what Buddhists everywhere fall prey to. =========== Rob Ep:> Personally, I would rather meditate, which has little distraction from > the present moment, since that is its purpose, than fill my head with > distracting concepts from the commentaries on the commentaries. That > seems to be out of the present moment to me. Not to you? Sukin: See?!! You have ideas about certain conventional situations being better than others. This conditions a need to control and here not only with regard to concepts, but also realities. You think some objects are easier to discern and one can make a choice as to what object to be aware of, and you clearly diminish the value of the commentaries, so why would you want to listen to them? Yet, I find the commentaries very helpful and nowhere in there, is there any suggestion that there can't be direct understanding of nama and rupa while listening to and discussing *anything*. Metta, Sukin =end of Part Three= #95694 From: "Sukinder" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 6:02 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 4 sukinderpal Hi Rob Ep, Part Four: =========== > And this is true for all moments, so why follow ideas about someone > > who needs to sit, note, pay attention, focus etc.? > Rob Ep:> Why follow ideas about someone who needs to read, discuss, > consider, think, etc.? Very formal!!! Not natural!!! Bad!!! Sukin: Pariyatti is good! Patipatti is better!! These are however conditioned and beyond control. This is the understanding when being `natural' is suggested. You seem to admit here that this is not the case with `meditation'. So what is meditation, Good or Bad?!!! :-) =========== > The imperative would be to understand what > > appears "now" more than anything wouldn't it? > Rob Ep:> Yes, one can do that more easily sitting and breathing than reading > and talking. You've got it reversed I think. Sukin: You mean wrong view leads to right view? Pipe dream it is. I do not say that it is easier to have sati while reading and talking, but that no situation is better than another in terms of developing wisdom. I say that any resistance to a particular activity and situation as being unsuitable to the development of right view, is to continue miss understanding the present moment, that whatever this is, it is conditioned!! Wrong view can't lead to right view, but can be an object for it. ========= > > Besides, before hearing the Dhamma, all we knew were concepts, and > > this includes ideas about a `self' who needs to do something in order > > to gain results. We identified with our thoughts / intentions with > > complete ignorance, including those times when we did `good'. What we > > call introspection / noting and later the concept of `meditation', we > > invested so much `self' into these that we now are unwilling to > > question. Hearing the Dhamma including about Satipatthana and what > > the panna of this level knows, we are in fact given the chance to > > look at and question all this. But this doesn't seem to happen with > > most. > Rob Ep:> I think that most who read the suttas and commentaries are lost in > concepts too; concepts about the Dhamma and about the nature of > dhammas. Sukin: I don't know about others, but I sure am forever lost in concepts, even while reading and discussing the Dhamma. I was however referring to `wrong view' which I believe I begin to know a little better now, thanks to all those rare moments of right understanding while reading and discussing the Dhamma. ;-) ============= Rob Ep:> Tell me, when exactly do they stop reading and thinking and > look directly at namas and rupas? It takes some discipline to do > this. I doubt it happens by itself most of the time, even if you > understand dhammas on paper. Sukin: Pariyatti, the level of understanding you seem to downplay is just what you need to give up such ideas as you express here. ============ > > So while some agree at one level that there are only dhammas, however > > when it comes to `meditation', I see so much resistance which I take > > to be due to attachment and wrong view. > Rob Ep:> What about the attachment to the coms and teachngs and teachers > and discussions. Don't you think this is an impediment too? Sukin: Attachment is attachment, it is never good. =========== Rob Ep:> By the way, where do you see all this attachment and wrong view in > meditation? When and where have you observed this? Can you give a > concrete example of wrong view connected to meditation? Or is this > something that arises within your own mind? Sukin: Of course there is only that one citta at any given moment. ;-) =========== > This following of the idea is > > `ritualistic' because it involves an idea of `self' who needs to do > > something in particular in order that wisdom may arise, > RoB Ep:> like read a sutta Sukin: Any activity. Metta, Sukin =end of Part Four= #95695 From: "Sukinder" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 6:03 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 5 sukinderpal Hi Rob Ep, Part Five: =========== > > What I had hoped Kom's post would do in considering Jhana, was bring > > you and others to seeing the importance of understanding nama and > > rupa in daily life. > > Well you may possibly be attached to daily life. You might want to > consider this. Sukin: What do I mean when referring to daily life? The understanding that there are only dhammas and at any given moment what ever arises during any activity, there can be the understanding of it being conditioned and fallen away already. This conditions the need to be natural; otherwise it hinders sati and panna of the kind from arising and developing. ============== > It may be true that you and others rightly > > appreciate that Jhana is a very high level of kusala which the Buddha > > praised. However it seems that you go wrong everywhere else around > > the particular concept. > Rob Ep:> Really? Can you cite examples? Where do we go wrong? Be specific. Sukin: I've said something at the beginning of this response, I hope it helped. ============ > Beginning with seeing the relationship > > between Jhana and the more humble levels of kusala in daily life, > > which you'll admit to arising so infrequently compared to akusala, > > you don't seem to want to see this. > Rob Ep:> How does this "seeming" come about. How do we "seem" this way > to you? Is there something specific you are discerning that evidences this > inability to acknowledge the akusala moments? How is this taking place? Sukin: There is this about proponents of Jhana. They are ever so happy to encourage others to `meditate' without ever trying to determine whether the other person has any ability to differentiate between kusala from akusala. Worse, they often go on to encourage the activity in spite of the fact that those same people express confusion and have so much doubts about certain states of mind, for example what attachment is and what metta. =========== > But Jhana is the culmination of > > the development of kusala of levels we clearly are nowhere near. > Rob Ep:> That is a concept in your mind. Sukin: But would you like to discuss this…..? Metta, Sukin =end of Part Five= #95696 From: "Sukinder" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 6:04 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 6 sukinderpal Hi Rob Ep, Part Six: ============ > > Kom's post captured this point so well. > > > > I believe that people have allowed themselves to be so carried away > > by concepts such as Jhana and others, that not only these blind them > > to the reality of where they really are at, but they go on to even > > use the ideas to argue against the importance of keeping on listening > > and develop understanding patiently at more humble levels. > > I have never said that. Please quote me. I think you are making an > awful lot of this up in your own mind, and that you are very involved > in akusala concepts about others' practice and understanding in this > post. It does not seem accurate to me. You must give some evidence to > back up your stream of aversion here. Sukin: In this post that I am responding to, you have expressed this: Rob Ep: > Personally, I would rather meditate, which has little distraction from > the present moment, since that is its purpose, than fill my head with > distracting concepts from the commentaries on the commentaries. That > seems to be out of the present moment to me. ============ > > There is so much more to be developed at the level, > > not only of cintamaya panna, but also suttamaya panna. > Rob Ep:> Those are concepts to you, unless you are experiencing them at this > moment. See, we all work with concepts to interpret reality. YOu are > not discerning cintamaya panna in this moment, you are relying on the > concept of cintamaya panna. I think that you have disguised your > dependence on concepts behind the concept of discerning dhammas, but > where is the dhamma here? It is all concept, and aversion to others' > concepts that are not to your taste. It's all concepts all the way > through as far as I can see. Sukin: But it's not the matter of using concepts, but any wrong view involved. Do I express wrong view about cintamaya panna? And why would it matter whether my understanding of this concept is direct or merely intellectual? When passing judgement about `meditation' would I do this only out of aversion? Why what others do should affect me in that way? ============ > Seeing how little we know is seeing > > the importance of Dhamma and an inclination hence, to lending ear, > > discussing and considering more. > Rob Ep:> That is your preferred path. You are saying "You should do this, not > that. This is the way, not that." All of that is giving > instructions, assuming a being, assuming a teaching. None of that is > discerning with panna in the moment. Back to the drawing board. > Start from scratch. Sukin: Or it may be a description about cause and effect, the particular relationship between suttamaya panna, cintamaya panna and bhavanamaya panna or between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. ============ > Knowledge and understanding of the > > 4NT starts with the level of listening, > Rob Ep:> Please quote dhamma that this is the start and that other activities > come later. Sukin: First let us be clear, I am not talking about `activity' as in study leading to meditation. Nor am I saying that bhavanamaya panna can't arise at anytime even when obviously there is still great need to develop the understanding at the levels of suttamaya and cintamaya panna. It is not a linear thing. But yes, if there has been very little understanding at the level of pariyatti, in this life and in past ones, it can't be expected that patipatti will arise. Though deciding to `meditate' is easy and anyone can do it, after all here there is no inclination to find out whether the understanding at the intellectual level is correct or not….. Metta, Sukin =end of Part Six= #95698 From: "Scott" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 6:31 pm Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? scottduncan2 Dear Suan, Regarding: S: "Not so fast, Scott..." Scott: I think I'll pass on this, Suan, thank you. Sincerely, Scott. #95699 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 10:39 pm Subject: Re: Houston we have a problem: intention/meditation epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Robert E., > > R: "Given the current discussion, please clarify: What are > 'simultaneously arisen states.'" > > Scott: Citta and consascent cetasikas. These arise together, have the > same *single* object, and fall away together. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > I think I see; the object is single, but the conditions that influence the citta's view of it are multiple. Best, Robert E. ================================== #95700 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 10:58 pm Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? ptaus1 Hi all, Even though Scott declined to answer the following questions by Suan, I'd appreciate it if someone could answer them. Suan: > 1. Is viiriyam controllable? > > If controllable, how is it controllable and in what sense? > > 2. Is viiriyam uncontrollable? > > If uncontrollable, why is it uncontrollable and in what sense? > > 3. Is desire controllable? > > If controllable, how is it controllable and in what sense? > > 4. Is desire uncontrollable? > > If uncontrollable, why is it uncontrollable and in what sense? pt: I'm inerested in this as It seems these questions are closely related to a paradox I've encountered here on DSG as well as in Nina's books - two completely opposing advices given at the same time: 1) there's no control, no one can make sati, panna, etc, arise. 2) we should cultivate development of sati, panna, etc. As a beginner, I can see how the above two advices can be useful in certain situations to avoid extremes, but in my current understanding, they completely oppose each other, so i have no idea how to reconcile them so that they are practically useful all the time. The only thing I could think of so far is to take chanda and cetana as the "free agent". In other words, chanda sets a goal (nibanna, viapssana, etc) and cetana executes it, the rest of the cetasikas help out. Of course, chanda sets the goal conditioned by panna which sees that nibanna, viapssana, etc, is the best undertaking, and panna itself is conditioned by hearing a dhamma talk about nibanna, etc. This kind of avoids the pitfalls of personality or a sentient being as the free agent, but of course, I'm pretty sure there are holes in my unerstanding, so I'd apprecite it if senior members can elaborate on how they understand the above paradox. Thanks pt #95701 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 11:03 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 1 epsteinrob -Hi Sukin. -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Hi Rob Ep, > > I will probably end up only repeating the same ideas. So I'll leave > it to you to decide whether we should continue with this discussion. > Besides I'm sounding more like trying to justify than clarify. :-/ > > I'll be dividing my response into parts due to length. > > ============= > > > > I believe Ken has given quite a few explanations about all this > here > > > on DSG. Also we know that there have been many posts by others on > > > this topic, including the one by Kom which Nina posted. Now I > thought > > > that Kom's post would have caused you and others to question your > > > ideas about Jhana, but apparently it didn't have the kind of > effect. > > > So I guess that this and all those other posts actually failed to > > > qualify as `explanation' simply because of the very different > > > understanding, would you think? > > > Rob Ep: I would need to see quotes of what you were referring to, in > order to > > be clear about this one way or the other. What makes you think that > > no one has changed their idea about jhana, etc. Do you have any > > quotes that made you think this? > > Sukin: My understanding of Jhana is that it is an extremely high > level of kusala. Someone with the right accumulations for it would > unlikely even talk about it, let alone discuss it in the way usually > done on internet discussion lists. For us, its place must right > remain at the level of considering / intellectual understanding only; > including appreciating how exalted and different this is from > kaamavacara cittas. But since there is a direct relationship between > Jhana and kaamavacara kusala cittas in that the former is the result > of the development of the latter, if we do understand correctly what > Jhana is in principle, our interest would be drawn to the more humble > states which do sometimes arise and need to develop further. In other > words, an interest in Jhana is an interest in kusala and not some > exalted state which invariably becomes an object of attachment and > wrong view. I would agree with that, and said something similar about my own interest in jhana, which was sparked by conditions unexpectedly and stays as a sort of background thing that gives energy to my interest in the path. > > More importantly, since Jhana according to my understanding has > nothing whatsoever to do with the development of Right View, to > continue making the association is sign of continued misunderstanding > of both the development of Samatha as well as Vipassana. There's been quite a bit of discussion and controversy about this point, not just here but for many years. I don't think that is settled. > > Given the above, do you now see the kind of `idea change' I would > expect to see? And do I still need to give a quote? ;-) > > ================= > > > > When asked, I think you will agree that at any given moment, in > > > reality, there is only consciousness with its concomitant mental > > > factors arisen to experience an object and performing other > > > functions, and falling away immediately. Much of the time > however, > > > one of these mental factors is ignorance and the object is a > > > `concept'. At such times these concepts are taken seriously by > virtue > > > of other akusala mental factors including tanha, mana and ditthi. > > > > > > But the question is how far we really agree about all this? > > Rob Ep:> Who knows? I am exploring and questioning, but I do have a > reaction > > to things that seem dogmatic or false. > > Sukin: That's the perception. There is no arguing with the fact of > Satipatthana being the One Path to enlightenment is there? What you > perhaps need to determine is if what some of us say contradicts this > fact. It may be that yours is mushiness akin to that which suggests > that "there are many paths all leading to the same goal"? Mushiness? I think there is more than one interpretation of how the path works - certainly not all Theravadins share the sucession of the path being a sudden arising of the factors in order rather than a gradual working with the eight limbs of the path. I don't doubt you think the sudden arising of the path when kusala conditions allow is the only version of the path that is true, but it is not what most Buddhists practice. So I'd say there is one path that leads to enlightenment but the way that path is worked and how the factors are practiced or worked with may be quite different depending on circumstances, the temperament and the version of Dhamma one encounters. Or is there > some misunderstanding both of us have about the other's position? > > ============ > > Rob Ep:> As for the cetasikas, what > > does ignorance look like as a mental factor? Can there be ignorance > > in the abstract, as an absolute? What does that mean? Have you > ever > > seen "ignorance" walking down the street? Does it have a color or > > texture? It seems that many of these purported mental factors are > > abstract ideas. Have the been described as realities? How does > that > > work? See, I am full of questions about this philosophy. > > > Sukin: I am surprised at the line of questioning? Are you taking > `ignorance' to mean not so much a presence of some mental factor but > rather the absence of some other, perhaps `wisdom'? What do you > understand by the proposition; ignorance, attachment and aversion are > the three unwholesome roots? Do you take this to be just another > theory of no particular significance hence not to be given any > consideration to? I think you are misinterpreting my statement. I didn't say ignorance is not a factor or is not important. I am talking about characterizing it as a specific when it is not a concrete term. If this doesn't make sense to you, I may not be able to do a better job at explaining myself. > > You ask how ignorance works. I quote Nina from her "Cetasikas": > > << There are many degrees of moha. Moha does not know the true nature > of the object which is experienced and therefore its essence is, as > stated by the Atthasalini non-penetration and its function "covering > up" the intrinsic nature of the object. Moha does not know nama and > rupa as impermanent, dukkha and non-self, anatta. Moha is the root of > all that is unwholesome. Every akusala citta is rooted in moha; not > only the two types of moha-mula-citta, but also the types of lobha- > mula-citta and dosa-mula-citta have moha as root.>> > > Metta, > > Sukin I think it is indeed going to be difficult to communicate. Your idea that we should form a correct intellectual idea of jhana and have that as the goal is different than my approach - not that clarity isn't important, it is. The statements that are made about moha do describe its characteristics, but it leaves the impression that moha is a "thing" that projects a certain kind of view, rather than a quality that causes a mistaken notion to arise. When you use language like "moha does not know...", etc., there is a danger that this can be interpreted as saying that moha has a substantial existence, almost a kind of personality. Anyway, I appreciate your efforts to communicate with me, although I honestly will have a hard time going through all your segments of posts - not only do I have limited time, but I also have some trouble understanding some of your terms and statements without taking more time to think about them. Well, we will see, and I'll do what I can.... Once again, thanks for the effort. I'll try to get to the other posts as I can - you and Rob have been giving me quite a reading challenge...... Don't know if I can keep up..... Best, Robert E. ============================ #95702 From: "szmicio" Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 11:51 pm Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? szmicio Dear Pt(and all Dhamma friends) > pt: > I'm inerested in this as It seems these questions are closely related to a paradox I've > encountered here on DSG as well as in Nina's books - two completely opposing advices > given at the same time: > 1) there's no control, no one can make sati, panna, etc, arise. > 2) we should cultivate development of sati, panna, etc. L: Actually, that's not Pradox. Middle way is so subtle. Sometimes I find those 2 points very hard to understand, but in such moments it's good to know that's just thinking. > As a beginner, I can see how the above two advices can be useful in > certain situations to > avoid extremes, but in > my current understanding, they completely oppose each other, so i >have no idea how to > reconcile them so that they are practically useful all the time. L: Only pa~n~na can recouncil it. When moments of understanding arises(on conditions) there is no Self, no control of anything. That's the only reality. No one can develop anything at all. But when there are proper conditions viriya can arise, which is the right effort, There can be dana and all kinds of kusala, but only when there are a proper conditions for their arising. We cannot support it because there is no Self. All realities arise on it's own conditions. But we should not forget that Buddha wants us to be reminded all the time about not forgeting what's kusala and to develop more kusala. That's why he give us so many wonderful reminders about "development". Reading about development and also being remined about development of kusala is a condition for right understanding to arise. That's why Buddha exposed us Sutta Pitaka, truly wonderful reminder. There is also a wonderful book of Ajahn Sujin "Perfections Leading to Enlightenment". It's a great reminder. All realities can arise as ti-hetuka, those are accompanied by 3 hetus, alobha , adosa, and pa~n~na. And can arise as dvi-hetuka, those are only accompanied by 2 hetus of alobha and adosa. When citta is ti-hetka it's the development of 8-fold path. But still that's not "WE" who develop something but only ti-hetuka kusala citta which arises on its own conditions. Reading , considering and studying Dhamma is the condition for the right understanding. We sholud develop kusala along with right understanding, the first factor of Ariya Magga. My Best Wishes Lukas #95703 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 3:56 am Subject: Re: kalyana mitta szmicio Dear Connie > Here are some other friendships for you: > > Kindred Sayings V, BkI (IV Sun rep) I. (Based on Seclusion ...) > (i) Friendship with the lovely > Just as, monks, the dawn is the forerunner, the harbinger, of the arising of > the sun, so friendship with the lovely is the forerunner, the harbinger, of > the arising of the Ariyan eightfold way. L: It's so wonderful quote. >c: Yes, also true... whether we think of that in terms of people or >the cittas that are prompted. Yeah. Those dhammas which we call 'right friendship' has to arise first to condition Right Path. They are all conditioned. Thanks Connie. I found it on Dhammapada: "It's good to see Noble Ones. Happy their company — always. Through not seeing fools constantly, constantly one would be happy. For, living with a fool, one grieves a long time. Painful is communion with fools, as with an enemy — always. Happy is communion with the enlightened, as with a gathering of kin. So: the enlightened man — discerning, learned, enduring, dutiful, noble, intelligent, a man of integrity: follow him — one of this sort — as the moon, the path of the zodiac stars. P.s Dear Connie I think I need more reminders.Do you know any Abh texts which describes "right friendship" by way of 'just dhammas'? It would be very useful for me. My Best Wises Lukas #95704 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 4:08 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "[Texts and Commentary] "44. Now it is by means of one of these jhaanas beginning with the first that he 'Dwells pervading (intent upon) one direction with his heart endued with lovingkindness, likewise the second direction, likewise the third direction, likewise the fourth direction, and so above, below, and around; everywhere and equally he dwells pervading the entire world with his heart endued with lovingkindness, abundant, exalted, measureless, free from enmity, and free from affliction' (Vbh. 272; D.i,250). For this versatility comes about only in one whose consciousness has reached absorption in the first jhaana and the rest." Path of Purity. "For he by means of one or other of these Jhaanas, 'abides suffusing one quarter of the globe with a heart full of love. And so the second quarter, and so the third, and so the fourth. And thus he abides suffusing wholeheartedly the whole wide world, above, below, around, and everywhere with heart full of love, far-reaching, grown great, and beyond measure, without enmity, without ill-will' (Diigha ii, 186). Such a change of heart is accomplished by him who has reached ecstasy by the Jhaanas." So hi pa.thamajjhaanaadiina.m a~n~nataravasena mettaasahagatena cetasaa eka.m disa.m pharitvaa viharati. Tathaa dutiya.m, tathaa tatiya.m, tathaa catuttha.m. Iti uddhamadho tiriya.m sabbadhi sabbattataaya sabbaavanta.m loka.m mettaasahagatena cetasaa vipulena mahaggatena appamaa.nena averena abyaapajjena pharitvaa viharati (vibha. 642; dii. ni. 1.556). Pa.thamajjhaanaadivasena appanaappattacittasseva hi aya.m vikubbanaa sampajjati. Sincerely, Scott. #95705 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 4, 2009 11:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Funny how time can just slip right away" Joe Hinton upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and Colette) - In a message dated 2/4/2009 7:17:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: dear colette, on the hologram thing, Howard: #94993 "Quantum Realities"? peace, connie ============================== Ah, thank you, Connie. Actually, I wasn't much "into" that matter, and it just slipped my mind. As I recall, I had noticed a couple minor things in the article that may support a discrete, "momentarist" perspective, and I thought it only fair to point that out to the group even though it isn't a perspective I share. With metta, Howard (From the Diamond Sutra) #95706 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 4:55 am Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? scottduncan2 Dear pt (beautiful song for colette - ended too soon!), Regarding: pt: "Even though Scott declined to answer the following questions by Suan..." Scott: Sorry about that. Here's why (cryptically): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-PvCKnaW1E&feature=related Scott: I think you'll get some good answers. I was reading in the new copies of the Gradual Sayings I was savouring since the post-mistress delivered them last night (!) and enjoyed the following (to read while you wait for those more adept to reply): A"guttara Nikaaya, The Book of Twos, Disputes, (Adhikara.navaggo, 2, 10): "Monks, these two things conduce to the confusion and disappearance of true Dhamma. What two? "The wrong expression of the letter (of the text) and wrong interpretation of the meaning of it. For if the letter be wrongly expressed, the interpretation of the meaning is also wrong. These two things conduce to the confusion and disappearance of true Dhamma. "Monks, these two things conduce to the establishment, the non-confusion, to the non-disappearance of true Dhamma. What two? "The right expression of the letter and the right interpretation of the meaning. For if the letter be rightly expressed, the interpretation of the meaning is also right. These two things conduce to the establishment, the non-confusion, to the non-disappearance of true Dhamma." 20. 'Dveme, bhikkhave, dhammaa saddhammassa sammosaaya antaradhaanaaya sa.mvattanti. Katame dve? Dunnikkhitta~nca padabya~njana.m attho ca dunniito. Dunnikkhittassa , bhikkhave, padabya~njanassa atthopi dunnayo hoti. Ime kho, bhikkhave, dve dhammaa saddhammassa sammosaaya antaradhaanaaya sa.mvattantii 'ti. 21. 'Dveme, bhikkhave, dhammaa saddhammassa .thitiyaa asammosaaya anantaradhaanaaya sa.mvattanti. Katame dve? Sunikkhitta~nca padabya~njana.m attho ca suniito. Sunikkhittassa, bhikkhave, padabya~njanassa atthopi sunayo hoti. Ime kho, bhikkhave, dve dhammaa saddhammassa .thitiyaa asammosaaya anantaradhaanaaya sa.mvattantii 'ti. Sincerely, Scott. #95707 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 1:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Funny how time can just slip right away" Joe Hinton upasaka_howard Hi, Colette - In a message dated 2/5/2009 8:48:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ksheri3@... writes: Hi Howard, Pishaw, you at a loss, come now. ------------------------------------------ And your implication is exactly what, Colette? ----------------------------------------- Okay, sure, the articles you gave us the address for were about the potential for the world we live in to be nothing more than holograms, that's taken from the article I partially read. YOU GAVE US THE LINE THAT YOU KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING ABOUT QUANTUM PHYSICS BUT FOUND THAT OTHERS IN THE DSG MAY FIND THE ARTICLE INTERESTING. ------------------------------------------ I said just why I thought that might be so. That was my only reason. ------------------------------------------- Didn't you like how, after getting married the character Brad Pitt played in the movie "Mr. & Mrs. Smith", the young couple went to an amusement park where they played the standard "midway" con game called a shooting gallery, no not a herion addict's place to get high, but a Midway's shooting gallery. Nevertheless, Angelini Jouli, "Mrs. Smith" doesn't do too good on the first go around where the typical stereotyped male played by Brad Pitt, "Mr. Smith", shows Mrs. Smith how it's done, where he wins a small Q.P. doll. This angers Mrs Smith who then proceeds to, in rapid fire succession, she knocks over a target of different values with each shot she has just paid for. THIS ASTOUNDS AND SHOCKS THE MICROPROSSESSOR OF THE STEREOTYPED ROBOT, MALE, CONTENTS OF A TEST TUBE USED IN AN INCUBATOR, ET AL, PLAYED BY BRAD PITT. ------------------------------------------ Didn't see the film, Colette. ---------------------------------------- WE KNOW YOU DON'T USE THE WORD NOR HAVE YOU USED THE WORD HOLOGRAM BUT YOU RECALL THAT "MOMENTARIAN" IS A WORD YOU MIGHT USE AND I CLEARLY PUT IT TO YOU THAT YOU CERTAINLY DID USE THE WORD MOMENTARIAN IN THE SAME POST WITH THE TERM QUANTUM PHYSICS. ------------------------------------------ Actually, I think the word I used was 'momentarist'. I used it to describe what I understand to be the sequence-of-cittas view, the khanavada view, taken by many on DSG. ------------------------------------------ EVEN SARAH SAW THE MOMENT. MAYBE SARAH ACTUALLY SAW THE MOMENT I WAS RIFFLING THROUGH THE MSG. BOARD AND JUST JUMPED ON YOUR MSG. FOR SOME REASON. ----------------------------------------- Whatever. ;-) --------------------------------------- Thanx. toodles colette ============================= With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #95708 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 10:16 am Subject: Re: Request for comment - Khandhavibhanga, Rupakhandha, Abhidhammabhaajaniiya.m szmicio Dear Connie Then it goes on: "Is with cause(sappaccaya.m), Is conditioned(sa"nkhata.m), Is material(ruupa.m). Is mundane(lokiya.m). Is the object of the defilements(saasava.m). Is the object of the fetters(sa.myojaniya.m). Is the object of the ties(ganthaniya.m). Is the object of the floods(oghaniya.m)" All material quality: 1)Is with cause(sappaccaya.m) "with paccaya" - what deoes it mean? 2)Is conditioned(sa"nkhata.m) what is a diffrence between sa"nkhata.m and sappaccaya.m? 3)Is material(ruupa.m) so being ruupa.m is an inherent characteristic of each rupa? 4)Is mundane(lokiya.m) when rupa arises with lokuttara citta is it still lokiya? 6)Is the object of the defilements(saasava.m) Is it inherent characteristic of rupa that it's an object of defilments? 7)Is the object of the fetters(sa.myojaniya.m) Do all rupas are the object of fetters? 8)Is the object of the ties(ganthaniya.m) 9)Is the object of the floods(oghaniya.m) What is a diffrence between defilments, fetters, ties and floods? Can you give any comments, for each instance.? Thanks a lot Lukas #95709 From: "connie" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 11:05 am Subject: Re: kalyana mitta nichiconn Dear Lukas, L: I think I need more reminders.Do you know any Abh texts which describes "right friendship" by way of 'just dhammas'? c: In the suttas is this phrase about the original good friend or collection of good qualities: << in this very life a Tathaagata is not to be regarded as existing in truth, in reality >>. So, when we start to read Puggala Pa~n~natti, we see two different types of 'notion' or 'concept', where the first five are "just dhammas" or "existing in truth, in reality" and the 6th is just "shorthand" or different ways of thinking/talking about the other five: << 1. Cha pa~n~nattiyo- khandhapa~n~natti, aayatanapa~n~natti, dhaatupa~n~natti, saccapa~n~natti, indriyapa~n~natti, puggalapa~n~nattiiti. The Six Designations - viz.: (1) The notion of the groups. (2) The notion of sense-organs and their objects. (3) The notion of the elements of cognition. (4) The notion of truth. (5) The notion of sense-organs. (6) The notion of human types. >> end quote. So, we could read this part on 'friendship' with understanding based on any of the 6 classes and see that it is all "just dhammas": Katamo ca puggalo kalyaa.namitto? Tattha katamaa kalyaa.namittataa? Ye te puggalaa saddhaa siilavanto bahussutaa caagavanto pa~n~navanto, yaa tesa.m sevanaa nisevanaa sa.msevanaa bhajanaa sambhajanaa bhatti sambhatti sampava"nkataa- aya.m vuccati kalyaa.namittataa. Imaaya kalyaa.namittataaya samannaagato puggalo <>. What sort of person is the associate of the good? What then is association with the good? Serving, respecting, revering, honouring, love, reverence, friendship for those people who are faithful, virtuous, learned, possessed of devotion and candour - this is said to be meant by association with the good. A person who has such an association with the good is said to be an associate of the good. Hope that helps, connie #95710 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 12:11 pm Subject: Re: intention/meditation truth_aerator >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dhamma is useful: > """""""When, Bhikkhus, a Noble Disciple listens carefully to the >Dhamma, > alert with keen ears, > attending to it as a matter of crucial concern, as something of >vital > importance, directing > his entire mind to it, in that very moment the Five Mental >Hindrances > are absent in him. > On that occasion the Seven Links to Awakening develop towards > complete fulfilment...> > Source (edited extract): > The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. > Book [V: 95-6] section 46: The Links. 38: Unhindered... > Robert Dear RobertK, all, And who has achieved holy paths, and who has become an Arahant here from just listening? And also, listening to what and whom? In one of the posts you have said about the importance of understanding. I agree 100% that Right understanding, Right views is a must. However does this mean that we must study every single commentary by every single commentator? What if the commentator makes mistakes and one through faith toward that commentator holds that mistaken view? For example, one really quoted expert, who wrote an entire encyclopedia detailing the "path" toward "purification" himself has admitted that he a) Hasn't achieved Jhana, b) hasn't become awakened c) his path doesn't work so he hopes that the merit achieved will make him meet the next Buddha Metteya and achieve awakening from the next Buddha. What is wrong with that picture? I don't know if to laugh, cry or vomit. Buddha was the Best! With best wishes, Alex #95711 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 1:17 pm Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > > 1) there's no control, no one can make sati, panna, etc, arise. > 2) we should cultivate development of sati, panna, etc. > > As a beginner, I can see how the above two advices can be useful in certain situations to > avoid extremes, but in > my current understanding, they completely oppose each other, so i have no idea how to > reconcile them so that they are practically useful all the time. > -------- Hi PT, Thanks for the excellent questions. We agree that those two advices are useful in a practical way. But only when properly understood. People who hear the Dhamma rarely get it right immediately. At first, they react as if it was an ordinary teaching (or set of instructions) and they try to find ways of carrying out those instructions. But they see their error when they are reminded that there is no self who can 'carry out' anything. Then they are susceptible to another kind of wrong view. They think, "If there are only dhammas - no self that can be helped or hurt - then what's the problem? There is no problem; all is well with the world; I don't need to do anything!" Again, they eventually come to their senses by considering the question 'Who is this self that doesn't need to do anything?' That is not the end of it, as the Brahamajala Sutta explains, there are many forms of self view. Very often the beginner thinks the middle answer must be, "I need to do *both* something and nothing," or, "I need to do *neither* something nor nothing." And then that helpful question occurs to him again, "Where is this self that needs to do, and/or not do, these things?" The development of right theoretical understanding can be a great source of pleasure. It is wonderful to see how the mind follows wrong paths time and time again until it eventually remembers. "There is no self, there are only dhammas: not just in the books, right here and now there are only dhammas!" Ken H #95712 From: "connie" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 1:20 pm Subject: Khandhavibhanga, Rupakhandha, Abhidhammabhaajaniiya.m nichiconn Dear Lukas, you force me to study! books... external matter. not of the self. materialzed now thru my mother's kindness. her gift of dhamma to fetch them up from downstairs for us... but those are her dhammas. i didn't actually see her put them in the room for us, but lo and behold, it appears we are granted wishes. L: Then it goes on: c: it = Vbh? Abidhamma book two, analysis of: Aggregates, Bases, Elements, Truth, Controlling Faculties, Dependent Origination, Foundation of Mindfulness, Right Striving, Basis of Accomplishment, Enlightenment Factors, Path Constituents, Jhaana, Illimitables, Precepts, Analytic Insight, Knowledge, Small Items, Heart of the Teaching. allow me this quote from the preface: << whatever he [buddha] said should be done was always based on the careful analysis of mind and matter into their absolute components or on the systems of Causal Relationships and Dependent Origination. Only in the Abhidhamma books are these explained fully. >> U Thittila. i like to think of the heart base. do you read visuddhimagga? Nina recently posted: "In the Satipatthana Sutta itself, the 'eligible' mind-objects are described in different ways. One of these ways is as the 5 khandhas (Aggregates), and these 5 khandhas encompass all dhammas (other than Nibbana). I have pasted below the passage from The Way of Mindfulness: Section on Mental Objects 2. The Aggregates "And, further, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating mental objects in the mental objects of the five aggregates of clinging. "end quote. the same as suttas: those for who you have fellow-feeling, those who may deem you worth listening to, your friends and colleagues, your relatives, your blood relations, - they ought to be roused for, admonished and established in, the cultivation of the four stations of mindfulness. [...] (KS) and i have to laugh because this is also like: some things never change. The Establishment. of virtue. assurance. ... peace, connie #95713 From: "connie" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 1:40 pm Subject: Vibhanga & other comments nichiconn Dear Lukas, "Is with cause(sappaccaya.m), Is conditioned(sa"nkhata.m), Is material(ruupa.m). Is mundane(lokiya.m). Is the object of the defilements(saasava.m). Is the object of the fetters(sa.myojaniya.m). Is the object of the ties(ganthaniya.m). Is the object of the floods(oghaniya.m)" L: All material quality: 1)Is with cause(sappaccaya.m) "with paccaya" - what deoes it mean? c: Concerning the ruupas of beings: kamma, citta, utu and aahaara. Vism: [599] Another man sees the cause of "name" twofold: as being held in common, and not held in common; the cause of form fourfold by way of karma and so on. For twofold is the cause of "name": held in common and not held in common. Of these, the six doors, such as the eye, and the six objects, such as visible form, are causes of name held in common, since from them all aspects of name arise, as moral and so on. Attention and so on are causes not held in common. For wise attention, hearing the Good Law and so on, are the cause of morality [600]; the opposites are the cause of immorality; karma and so on are the cause of the result; life-continuum {bhava"nga.m} and so on are the cause of the inoperative. ** The causes of form are four, namely karma, consciousness, the caloric order, sustenance. ** Of these, karma is the past cause of form produced by itself; consciousness is the present cause of form produced by itself; the caloric order and sustenance are causes of form produced by themselves at the static moment. {Viz. the middle of the three instants of every happening; genesis, stasis, ceasing.} Thus a man makes a grasp of the cause of name-and-form. Having seen thus the proceeding of name-and-form causally, he discerns that, as it now proceeds, so also in the past it proceeded causally, and in the future it will proceed causally. As he discerns thus, doubt in the three times is put away in the way described. peace, connie #95714 From: "Scott" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 1:57 pm Subject: Re: kalyana mitta scottduncan2 Dear connie and Lukas, Regarding: c: "In the suttas is this phrase about the original good friend or collection of good qualities: << in this very life a Tathaagata is not to be regarded as existing in truth, in reality >>. So, when we start to read Puggala Pa~n~natti, we see two different types of 'notion' or 'concept', where the first five are "just dhammas" or "existing in truth, in reality" and the 6th is just "shorthand" or different ways of thinking/talking about the other five..." Scott: From Gradual Sayings, The Book of Ones, 8, Friendship with the lovely (Kaliyaa.namittaavaggo): "Monks, I know not of any other single thing of such power to cause the arising of good states if not yet arisen, or the waning of evil states already arisen, as friendship with the lovely. In one who is a friend of what is lovely good states not arisen do arise and evil states already arisen wane." Naaha.m, bhikkhave, a~n~na.m ekadhammampi samanuppasaami yena anupannaa vaa kusala dhammaa uppajjanti upannaa vaa akusala dhammaa parihaayanti yathayida.m, bhikkhave, kaliyaa.namittataa. Kaliyaa.namittassa, bhikkhave, anupannaa ceva kusala dhammaa upajjanti uppannaa akusala dhammaa ca akusala dhammaa parihaayanti 'ti. Scott: I like the sense given by the translation 'friendship with the lovely' or 'friend of what is lovely'. This preserves the sense that 'the lovely' are those dhammaa which are condition for either the further arising of kusala or the non-arising of akusala. This preserves the sense that the 'friend' does not refer to a person. I consider the Dhamma to be the teacher, and find the word 'Dhamma' to be one of the loveliest terms given its many nuances and given that it is encapsulates the Buddha's teaching in one very heavy word. Sincerely, Scott. #95715 From: "paththree" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 12:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a chariot paththree Dear Sarah, Regarding Anatta: I assume you were never really able to read Ven. Nanavira. Try again. But you have to read all Notes on Dhamma, and not just a passage and making quick conclusions. If you do so, then you are just denning your own delusion. And originally he didn't claim his attainments in public. He wrote a letter to the abbot of IH, who then showed it around. Metta. Path3 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > --- Alex wrote: > <...> > >and to say of an > > individual 'In the highest sense there is no individual; for it is a > > mere asemblage of khandhá' is to be unintelligible. > ... > S: In short, Nanavira didn't understand it. There really are only > paramattha dhammas, Alex. The rest is in the imagination only. > > He thought he was a sotapanna, in spite of missing the 'basics' on anatta. > No wonder he felt a need to suggest a sotapanna doesn't really keep the > precepts perfectly and so on (you've quoted on all this at length as I > recall). > > Alex, this is one very good reason why speaking about attainments, > especially in public, is unwise. Mistakes are often made and we end up > clinging to some nonsense we have said or written to justify it all. Lots > of madness through delusion. > > Another point is that, as in the good sutta Tep quoted on needing > integrity to understand another's integrity and so on, without developed > wisdom, we will never be able to appreciate wisdom when we hear/read it. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > #95716 From: "colette" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 9:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Funny how time can just slip right away" Joe Hinton ksheri3 Dear Howard, That may all be fine and well, BUT YOU FAILED TO ANSWER THE ORIGNINAL QUESTION CONCERNING THE MSG. # OF THIS POST YOU PUT INTO CIRCULATION AND WHERE I FOUND YOUR GENEROUS GIFT OF AN EQUALITY BETWEEN MOMENTARISTS AND THE WILD AND WONDERFUL WORLD OF QUANTUM PHYSICS. I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH READING ONE OF THE TWO ARTICLES THAT I STARTED TO READ. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Colette - > > In a message dated 2/5/2009 8:48:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > ksheri3@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Pishaw, you at a loss, come now. > ------------------------------------------ > And your implication is exactly what, Colette? > ----------------------------------------- > > Okay, sure, the articles you gave us > the address for were about the potential for the world we live in to > be nothing more than holograms, that's taken from the article I > partially read. YOU GAVE US THE LINE THAT YOU KNOW NEXT TO NOTHING > ABOUT QUANTUM PHYSICS BUT FOUND THAT OTHERS IN THE DSG MAY FIND THE > ARTICLE INTERESTING. > ------------------------------------------ > I said just why I thought that might be so. That was my only reason. > ------------------------------------------- <....> #95717 From: "paththree" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 6:34 am Subject: Nanavira Thera Study paththree Greetings Everybody, Thank you for the forum. Here I would like to suggest a good Buddhist website: www.nanavira.org. There is written description: The aim of this web site is to make more widely available the writings of the late Ven. Ñānavīra Thera which, though of extraordinary quality and depth, do not -- for different reasons -- attract any of the established Budddhist publishers. It is presented as a dhammadāna (gift of Dhamma) and with a deep sense of gratitude by individuals whose lives were significantly affected by an encounter with these writings, in the hope that others, too, might appreciate the right-view guidance which is offered therein. It cannot be expected that this material, which poses a clear challenge to the mainstream version of Buddhism, will gain any great popularity among the majority of Buddhists -- Eastern or Western -- but at least it can suggest an alternative approach to the Buddha's original Teaching, and perhaps serve as a useful eye-opener for those seeking an understanding of its more fundamental principles. It can also communicate the attitude of earnestness towards Dhamma practice, which is regarded not merely as a matter of choice but rather an existential necessity. For without this basic attitude, the practice of Buddhist meditation will remain in the worldly sphere and will never be able to bear the fruits of noble insight leading to liberation from the 'world'. You might like to visit it. Take care, Path3 #95718 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 2:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. jonoabb Hi Howard Just getting around to replying to some posts received during the final part of my stay in Fiji ;-)) > To my understanding, the gist of the Kalama Sutta is that statements > are to be judged against the teachings as given by the Buddha. > =========================== > Wow! I think you might consider rereading that! And please be sure to > include in your reading the following part: Thanks for quoting the passage from the Kalama Sutta (below). I had in mind a different passage, obviously from another sutta, more like the one from AN 8's quoted by Connie recently. I think it may be from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. However, I'm happy to discuss the Kalama Sutta ;-)). _____________________ > Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, > by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through > pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our > teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; > these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these > qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' â€" then > you should enter & remain in them. > -------------------------------------- > > Please especially note not to go by scripture ... I take this to mean not to accept statements of doctrine (for example, "There is but one God") at face value. > ...nor by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher'. I take this to mean accepting something as true on the strength of the standing of the person by whom it is stated. > Please note his saying "When you know for > yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; > these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & > carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' â€" then you should enter & remain in > them," ... I take this to refer to kusala dhammas of the different levels, that is to say, dhammas that are: - skillful - blameless - praised by the wise - leading to welfare and happiness > ... with particular attention to the initial phrase "When you know for > yourselves." I take this to refer to the fact that the Dhamma is to be experienced (i.e. realised) each for him/her self; this can only occur when panna has been developed to the appropriate level. > To interpret the gist of this material as you do is surprising to say > the least. Always, the "gist" is the main point or part. It seems to me that > you are substituting what you wish the Buddha had said in this sutta for what > he did say. As explained above, I had in mind a different passage. However, I see nothing in the Kalama Sutta that would contradict what I said was the "gist" of the passage I had in mind. The reference to knowing for oneself is not a charter to do one's own thing ;-)) Getting back to our thread about speech as conditioning mental states in the mind of the speaker. My point was that if something cannot be shown to be supported in some manner by the teachings as we have them, then it cannot be considered as of relevance to the development of the path. Is it your view the that passage from the Kalama Sutta says otherwise? Jon #95719 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 2:54 pm Subject: Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? jonoabb Hi Suan Nice to see you posting lately. > Thanks, Jon, and Glad to hear from you. > > So, now, it becomes obvious that it was Alberto who first equated > satipa.t.thaana with informal daily life practice while equating > samatha with formal sitting meditation - in his original post. Well that is how you summarised what Alberto had said; but it may not be what he meant ;-)) In particular, the comment "equating samatha with formal sitting meditation" sounds more like your own position; or have I misunderstood? Jon #95720 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 2:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. jonoabb Hi DaveK > > Hoping this makes some sense. > > > > Jon > > Not really, but you'll have to forgive me for being a tad on the > stupid side. I think these explanations are just lacking common > sense. From what's being said in these posts, meditation is no more > skillful then sitting down and watching the superbowl. An interesting (and topical) comparison, which I'll pass on for the time being, except to say that, as I understand the teachings, there's no reason why there couldn't be kusala (including awareness) arising while watching the superbowl. I do not see the suttas as telling us either to be in or to avoid any particular conventional situation. Rather I see them as encouraging the development of kusala (of all kinds) whatever the present situation may be. When it comes to kusala of the level of awareness/insight in particular, it seems to me that ideas about the likelihood of awareness arising based on the nature of the (conventional) situation, whether as being more conducive or as being less conducive to awareness, are likely to be a hindrance to the arising of awareness in the present moment whatever that may be in terms of its conventional situation. Hoping I'm doing better on making sense this time ;-)) Jon #95721 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 3:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. jonoabb Hi Robert Thanks for this detailed analysis of what you understand me (and others) to be saying about the "Abhidhamma" approach. Rather than commenting on that analysis, I'd like to state in as simple terms as I can what I understand the teachings to be saying as regards the development of the path, and see if we can proceed from there. I'd put it something like this: If a person has an interest in the development of understanding of dhammas, then the 'factors' of hearing the teachings appropriately explained, reflecting on what has been heard and relating what has been understood to the present moment can be a condition for the arising of awareness/insight. It needs to be added that: - none of these factors (for want of a better word), are "things to be done": the hearing is resultant and the reflecting, etc., may be reflexive ("subconscious" even); - there is no necessary temporal connection between any 2 factors; for example, the reflecting on what has been heard may occur long after the hearing. Note that this is not a specifically "Abhidhamma" perspective, in fact it is squarely based on the suttas. To my understanding, when the suttas talk about "practice" the reference is to actual moments of awareness or understanding, not to doing something in order to generate the arising of understanding. Happy to discuss further. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > > Hoping this makes some sense. > > > > Jon > > What doesn't seem to make sense is saying that no planned activity can > help, because it is all a matter of conditions, but then saying that > repeated exposure to the suttas is necessary. Doesn't that seem > contradictory? > ... > I guess what I'm saying is that learning and studying and adopting the > theories of the Abhidhamma *is* an intentional practice. ... #95722 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 10:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/5/2009 5:52:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard Just getting around to replying to some posts received during the final part of my stay in Fiji ;-)) > To my understanding, the gist of the Kalama Sutta is that statements > are to be judged against the teachings as given by the Buddha. > =========================== > Wow! I think you might consider rereading that! And please be sure to > include in your reading the following part: Thanks for quoting the passage from the Kalama Sutta (below). I had in mind a different passage, obviously from another sutta, more like the one from AN 8's quoted by Connie recently. I think it may be from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. However, I'm happy to discuss the Kalama Sutta ;-)). -------------------------------------------- I don't follow you, Jon. You had written "To my understanding, the gist of the Kalama Sutta is that statements are to be judged against the teachings as given by the Buddha." Isn't that abou the Kalama Sutta? -------------------------------------- _____________________ > Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, > by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through > pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our > teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; > these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these > qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' â€" then > you should enter & remain in them. > -------------------------------------- > > Please especially note not to go by scripture ... I take this to mean not to accept statements of doctrine (for example, "There is but one God") at face value. --------------------------------------------- Why would you take it so? Scripture means scripture. I suppose one could take anything to mean anything if one is so inclined. ;-) ------------------------------------------------ > ...nor by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher'. I take this to mean accepting something as true on the strength of the standing of the person by whom it is stated. ----------------------------------------------- Yes, for example being the Buddha. --------------------------------------------- > Please note his saying "When you know for > yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; > these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & > carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' â€" then you should enter & remain in > them," ... I take this to refer to kusala dhammas of the different levels, that is to say, dhammas that are: - skillful - blameless - praised by the wise - leading to welfare and happiness > ... with particular attention to the initial phrase "When you know for > yourselves." I take this to refer to the fact that the Dhamma is to be experienced (i.e. realised) each for him/her self; this can only occur when panna has been developed to the appropriate level. -------------------------------------------- Finally, something that I take the same way! ;-)) ------------------------------------------- > To interpret the gist of this material as you do is surprising to say > the least. Always, the "gist" is the main point or part. It seems to me that > you are substituting what you wish the Buddha had said in this sutta for what > he did say. As explained above, I had in mind a different passage. ------------------------------------------- I don't get it. You SAID "Kalama Sutta". ---------------------------------------------- However, I see nothing in the Kalama Sutta that would contradict what I said was the "gist" of the passage I had in mind. The reference to knowing for oneself is not a charter to do one's own thing ;-)) ------------------------------------------- Mmmm, that's what I recommend - right, Jon? ------------------------------------------ Getting back to our thread about speech as conditioning mental states in the mind of the speaker. My point was that if something cannot be shown to be supported in some manner by the teachings as we have them, then it cannot be considered as of relevance to the development of the path. Is it your view the that passage from the Kalama Sutta says otherwise? ------------------------------------------ I can't bring myself to reply to this, Jon. ---------------------------------------- Jon ========================= With metta, Howard (Anonymous) #95723 From: "connie" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 5:38 pm Subject: Re: Request for comment - etc. nichiconn Dear Lukas, L: what is a diffrence between sa"nkhata.m and sappaccaya.m? c: good question... anyone?? sa"nkhata: (pp) conditioned; prepared; produced by a cause. sapaccyaya: (adj) having a cause; conditioned; causally related. L: What is a diffrence between defilments, fetters, ties and floods? c: lol. i should've asked for different books! please see Nina's #92215 for fetters and aasavas. peace, connie #95724 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 9:16 pm Subject: Re: kalyana mitta szmicio Dear Connie L: Oh wonderful. That is what i was exactly looking for. Those passages give me a lot of support. thanks > c: In the suttas is this phrase about the original good friend or collection of good qualities: > > << in this very life a Tathaagata is not to be regarded as existing in truth, in reality >>. > So, when we start to read Puggala Pa~n~natti, we see two different >types of 'notion' or 'concept', where the first five are "just >dhammas" or "existing in truth, in reality" and the 6th is just >"shorthand" or different ways of thinking/talking about the other >five: > > << > 1. Cha pa~n~nattiyo- khandhapa~n~natti, aayatanapa~n~natti, dhaatupa~n~natti, saccapa~n~natti, indriyapa~n~natti, puggalapa~n~nattiiti. L: Oh, this point is so significant. It's really nice to hear it. My best wishes Lukas #95725 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 9:29 pm Subject: Re: Khandhavibhanga, Rupakhandha, Abhidhammabhaajaniiya.m szmicio Dear Connie > > L: Then it goes on: > c: it = Vbh? > Abidhamma book two, analysis of: Aggregates, Bases, Elements, Truth, Controlling Faculties, Dependent Origination, Foundation of Mindfulness, Right Striving, Basis of Accomplishment, Enlightenment Factors, Path Constituents, Jhaana, Illimitables, Precepts, Analytic Insight, Knowledge, Small Items, Heart of the Teaching. L: I mean: Khandhavibhanga, Rupakhandha, Abhidhammabhaajaniiya.m. > allow me this quote from the preface: << whatever he [buddha] said >should be done was always based on the careful analysis of mind and >matter into their absolute components or on the systems of Causal >Relationships and Dependent Origination. Only in the Abhidhamma books >are these explained fully. >> U Thittila. > > i like to think of the heart base. > do you read visuddhimagga? L: Yes, i do. My best wishes Lukas #95726 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 10:12 pm Subject: Re: Request for comment - etc. szmicio Dear Connie your comments are very useful for me. I am thinking about Buddha now, he known everything from his own experience. but we cannot understand Dhamma on our own, we need to hear more and more to understand. Even Sariputta had to listen at least one speach to attain sotapatti- magga. Thanks for your support on this Path. > L: what is a diffrence between sa"nkhata.m and sappaccaya.m? > > c: good question... anyone?? > > sa"nkhata: (pp) conditioned; prepared; produced by a cause. > > sapaccyaya: (adj) having a cause; conditioned; causally related. L: Bur If something is sankhata, it's always also sapaccaya. However Buddha did those distinction. Can we discuss it more? My best wishes Lukas #95727 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 10:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert > > Thanks for this detailed analysis of what you understand me (and > others) to be saying about the "Abhidhamma" approach. > > Rather than commenting on that analysis, I'd like to state in as > simple terms as I can what I understand the teachings to be saying as > regards the development of the path, and see if we can proceed from > there. > > I'd put it something like this: If a person has an interest in the > development of understanding of dhammas, then the 'factors' of > hearing the teachings appropriately explained, reflecting on what has > been heard and relating what has been understood to the present > moment can be a condition for the arising of awareness/insight. > > It needs to be added that: > - none of these factors (for want of a better word), are "things to > be done": the hearing is resultant and the reflecting, etc., may be > reflexive ("subconscious" even); > - there is no necessary temporal connection between any 2 factors; > for example, the reflecting on what has been heard may occur long > after the hearing. > > Note that this is not a specifically "Abhidhamma" perspective, in > fact it is squarely based on the suttas. > > To my understanding, when the suttas talk about "practice" the > reference is to actual moments of awareness or understanding, not to > doing something in order to generate the arising of understanding. > > Happy to discuss further. > > Jon I do think that is a useful description and makes sense. However, in a day-to-day context, we are all in the habit of doing certain things for certain reasons. I can understand having a principled practice of doing certain things, and not expecting or controlling the results. That would make sense. If one tries to say more radically that there is no practice of hearing and reflecting on the dhamma with the intention of developing moments of sati and panna as a result, it would be hard to imagine that any human being has the restraint to have *no* volition with regard to immediate or future results. But I understand the philosophy, and agree to a good extent, that there is no direct control over how the sequence of such things occur, or when exactly they yield positive results. As one teacher put it, you have no control over what you do now, but the intentions you have now will create actions and results in the future. It is not that you control the future either, but that this principle just takes place when it does. Best, Robert E. ================================= #95728 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 10:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. epsteinrob Hi Jon! Sorry about leaving out the attribution before. A comment below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > I'd put it something like this: If a person has an interest in the > development of understanding of dhammas, then the 'factors' of > hearing the teachings appropriately explained, reflecting on what has > been heard and relating what has been understood to the present > moment can be a condition for the arising of awareness/insight. This makes sense. Certainly it even makes common sense. If you have an interest in the dhamma, then reading or hearing the teachings and reflecting on them and relating them to the present moment can create vipassana leading to panna. I think that's a good summary. But to say this all happens by itself, in an arbitrary order, without any intentional practice, I think is harder to accept. I keep trying to say that even if one pracices, and uses intention to apply such a process to create results, there is still only action in the present moment, and there is still no self in control. I think it might be more fruitful to include practice and volition in those things that arise naturally due to conditions, than to exclude them as being akusala promotions of self. One can practice without regarding it as the action of a self, just as you seem to read and hear explanations of the teachings without allowing it to be credited to a self. Isn't there some discipline in your refusing to adopt the concept of self in that "practice," and shouldn't that discipline be among the items that can arise naturally? I think there's room for practice in the selfless and uncontrolled scheme of things. Best, Robert E. ============================ #95729 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 11:31 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 2 epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Hi Rob Ep, > > Part Two: > ============ > > > > The development of understanding therefore involves increasingly > > > being drawn to the present moment / paramattha dhammas, and away > from > > > ideas about another time, place, posture, object etc. / concept. > > > Rob Ep:> No problem about that. All Buddhist philosophies aim > towards the > > present moment, now, and discerning the reality of what exists. > There > > may be disagreement however, on what that is. > > Sukin: Not only Buddhists, but also certain other religions and > philosophies see sense in staying with the present moment. None of > these however talk about the present moment being conditioned and > this includes the understanding of this itself. The need to hear > about what in fact constitutes the present moment experience is hence > most important. What is in fact true can be directly understood, What do you mean by understood, rather than seen or perceived or directly experienced? I am checking to see whether "understanding" is something that takes place within the intellectual nama, rather than one that has direct knowledge through direct perception. I am afraid that sometimes what is meant by "understood" is a kind of logic, rather than knowing directly. One can become convinced by argument that something is so, and then apply that to what is perceived. That is quite different than actually experiencing it in what is seen by a truly elevated perceptual mode. what > is not can't give rise to wisdom. Obviously we need to hear about > this first and the understanding must necessarily be `intellectual'. That is one way of looking at it. I think it makes an enormous difference however how content you are with this intellectual understanding, and how long you expect to dwell in an intellectual process before experiencing something directly. If you believe it will take lifetimes of intellectual clarification before you can directly perceive that is what is being spoken of and understood, then this may become a kind of excuse for being content with what is merely a matter of intellectual understanding and thus belief. If the philosophy itself suggests that this is appropriate it may take away the imperative to go to a more direct level, rather than leading to it as you would wish. I understand from discussions of the Patthana as I recall, that in Abhidhamma itself meditation is discussed and all the understandings of dhammas is meant to be experienced within meditation, not at all in the "dry" way that is being advocated now through intellectual understanding, waiting for lifetimes to experience the "real thing," the direct view of dhammas as they are. The current idea that this is all that modern folk are capable of and thus we should not be misled into akusala citta by trying to take on meditation objects has no basis in Abhidhamma as far as I can tell. It is a modern understanding. If I am off course, I'm sure that someone will give me a good quote from the Abhidhamma which I cannot access directly to set me straight. But I do not accept modern ideas that have become taken-for-granted knowledge by those who think they make sense, over the whole picture of the original teachings. Both sutta and abhidhamma acknowledge the role of meditation in discerning realities, and I think you all have made a mistake by banning it out of the picture. What is the basis? What I pray? > For me the Abhidhamma description has conditioned this level of > understanding, that which I have come to recognize as pariyatti. It > is aimed at the present moment. Other descriptions have not had the > effect, in fact all of them rather than encouraging a bending of mind > to the present moment, have conditioned ideas about "self" in terms > of past and the future, even if this be to `note' / `be mindful' of > the present. Sure, I am glad this is so for you, and have no objection to your path. Even in Hindu philosophy, which acknowledges the many different temperaments, there is jnana yoga - a very powerful intellectual way of discerning reality - for the intellectual type of person, and bhakti yoga for the devotional type, etc. I say this not to promote Hinduism, so I hope I will not scare anyone by mentioning this, only that it has given a kind of breakdown of different techniques for different types of people. Likewise, the Abhidhamma has its major segment that goes into personality types, and while I am unfamiliar with the particulars, I would guess that it also goes into the appropriate practices for realization of different personality configurations. So it is possible that one person will seek jhana - naturally - and another vipassana - naturally; and one will be attracted to breath as object [as I believe even Nina has noted to me recently in her very fair-minded way,] and another will be naturally attracted and maybe even develop bliss through sutta study and commentary explanations. I have a philosophy background myself, and I am no stranger to the joys of intellectual insights when they come. It is not a small thing, but a real joy to gain understanding through reading and explanation and pariyatti, intellectual insight. So that is fine. All I ask is that we not break down into exclusion of Buddha's own instruments of practice, and that we do not make decisions about what is kusala and akusala baseis on intellectual judgment and belief. And that seems to go on around here a bit. Why don't we challenge and investigate those assumptions, instead of just adopting them? Why not take the whole Abdhidhamma and sutta body, which speak of applying the teachings not just through pariyatti, but through sitting meditation, and allow all devices to have their day? Whatever the pull of modern teachers and teachings may be, the Patthana speaks of insight of Abhidhamma through meditation, and there is a reason for that which shouldn't be ignored or dismissed based on a modern explanation. I hear the same ideas repeated without explanation: "It is almost impossible to have a kusala citta in sitting meditation, because the intention to practice promotes the idea of a self doing something." I say "not necessarily. Show me why this has to be so." I hear: "Breathing is too hard an object" and then I hear that "no chosen object can be successful because it gives the illusion of a self making the choice." Those two statements do not reconcile with each other. I hear: "These days it is impossible to achieve jhana," or "a householder can never achieve jhana, one has to live completely as a monk," statements that were never made in sutta or Abhidhamma as far as I know. So these are all ideas that discourage real practice and that *only* promote daily insight and dry pariyatti realizations. It is a philosophy, not in itself a set of given truths. In my opinion, we should be more open to the full range of practice and allow those who naturally with to do so to explore outside of the pariyatti box without pronouncing it is automatically akusala based on just an idea that this is so. There is no reason why study and pariyatti cannot develop while allowing other things as well. > So apparently your agreement and what you say about "all Buddhist > philosophies", I take this as being not in terms of "understanding / > pariyatti", but of philosophical position only, and this means little > to me. We can talk all we like about the need to be mindful etc., but > if the understanding at the intellectual level is wrong, and there is > wrong understanding of what constitutes the present moment and the > fact of it being anatta, anicca etc. we wont get any closer to > understanding nama and rupa. I agree that wrong understanding is wrong understanding, but I disagree with your assumption that all understanding has to be intellectually correct first, and then maybe in the future we can practice in other ways, when the pariyatti is perfectly perfected. I think this is a reason given to eschew all direct practice other than intellectual, and that I think is a big mistake. Insight and correct seeing can come from other quarters than correct intellectual understanding. Often in intellectual understanding, while the ideas may make sense, it is like trying to eat the menu - you don't know how the food actually tastes until you have direct contact with the object. I think that kind of replacement of experience with intellect could go on for a very long time without ever experiencing directly. It can become a substitute and that is just as dangerous as going off into direct seeing without correct intellectual understanding. Buddha never said in any way, "do not practice unless you have the entire understanding intellectually first," did he? > > ============= > > Rob Ep:>So, again, why the prejudice against sitting and following > the breath, > > in order to look into the four foundations of mindfulness and > develop > > sati? Why is that any different from sitting down to read a > > commentary with the intention to understand realities better? Why > is > > meditation shunned and com reading encouraged? An answer to this > > simple question would be welcomed. > > Sukin: I'll try to say more later. In the meantime I would like you > to consider the difference between the outlook which sees the > Buddha's Teachings as being essentially "descriptive" (of > characteristic, functions and cause of paramattha dhammas) vs. the > one that sees it as being "prescriptive" (conventional activities to > follow). The former is where Ken, Jon, I and others come from; the > latter is what you seem to constantly insist on when referring to > Anapanasati and the contents of the Satipatthana Sutta. This is also a recurrent argument, because I see a *lot* of prescription inherent in the pronouncements that meditation is akusala, that breathing is too hard an object, that one can't meditation without promoting the self - all opposite of the Buddha's *descriptions,* or whatever you want to call them. The point is that you are prescribing pariyatti, whether you say so or not, and you are shunning anapanasati, whether you say so or not. It is not a matter of prescription vs. description, but of one description vs. another, or one prescription vs. another, and you don't seem to want to acknowledge that you believe in a specific path and that is the path of pariyatti, with plenty of warnings not to attempt anything else. I would love to hear you just acknowledge this point if that is possible. Best, Robert E. ========================= #95730 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Thu Feb 5, 2009 11:41 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 3 epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Hi Rob Ep, > > Part Three: > ============ > > When watching TV or surfing, > > > craving may be the only big problem, however when it comes to > > > "meditation", this must involve some kind of `view' and it can't > be > > > Right View! > > > Rob Ep:> Why is that? > > Sukin: The absence of Right View does not imply the presence of Wrong > View. Listening to and discussing the Dhamma can be done with wrong > view, but not necessary. On seeing the value of listening to and > discussing the Dhamma and each time that such an understanding > arises, this accumulates as sankhara. The result is being drawn to > listen, study and discuss etc. This is simple cause and effect and is > based on the understanding of dhammas (here sati and panna) being > conditioned and beyond control. In other words, one thinks about the > activity and decides to study without necessarily being motivated by > wrong view. Indeed one acknowledges that panna arises very rarely > during such activities and that most of the time it is ignorance and > other akusala dhammas. In other words in terms of the conventional > activity, one does not presume to be doing the right thing. > > Can the same be said about meditation? > There is `practice', which is satipatthana / patipatti, and yes, one > sees this as being of greater value than pariyatti. This > understanding of patipatti however includes the fact of it being a > particular reality, conditioned and beyond control. I see it as a > failure of this particular understanding, at pariyatti, about > patipatti which gives rise to the wrong idea about `practice' / > `meditation'. It is taking along then, an uninstructed worldling's > perception and misunderstanding into an activity which has its own > illusion of results. > > But satipatthana is a reality which arises not related to any > intention to "do" but like for example aversion, it is conditioned by > many factors, including past accumulations. You'll admit that this is > not the understanding that you go by with your `meditation', do you? > > Why is there a need to anchor on the breath for example? If it is > hardness or heat that is the object of sati and panna, what is the > difference between this and the hardness when your finger touches the > keyboard or the heat felt when the hand holds the coffee mug? Are > there not always realities to be known, including distraction and all > those others that arise and fall away during the time that you are > involved in noting sound and thinking to go back to the breath? > > Besides, when satipatthana arises naturally, it knows the moment to > be conditioned, beyond control and *fallen away*. Is this your > understanding during meditation? I don't think so, else why would you > entertain the idea of noting and going back to the breath? These > after all imply states lasting long enough to be conceptualized about > and deciding to `let go' of and to then move on to an object (breath) > with an expectation of it being always there to be known with > insight. This is wrong understanding and encouraging more of the > same. But alas, associated with this as is with any wrong practice, > is the illusion of result, and this is what Buddhists everywhere fall > prey to. Then what is your explanation of why the Buddha paid so much attention to this practice, and why so many Buddhists think it is right practice, eg most of them? Do you think they are all wrong, that most Buddhists are off the path? I will just ask this question for tonight. I've already said enough, but I'd love to hear your answer to the two questions above. You do give good details about why anapanasati should not be practiced with control. I understand why you think that self must be invoked to "note and return to the breath" but I have of course a different view of it, because I am not against a training activity. Just as we train in many activities, we can train in this too, without an idea of self being the motivation. And what irks me a bit is that Buddha seemed to think it was a good idea too. You can try to avoid this by saying "it was only description" but it is clear that it is what Buddha practiced and that he paid attention to it because it had a strong kusala component. Then if that is begrudged one says "well it is too advanced for us" just like is said about jhana. One cannot stand to admit that anapanasati can be a proper component of the path, even if it is right there in black and white and was accepted by all the councils and is accepted by most major Buddhist leaders of almost every tradition. Did Buddha reach full enlightenment by sitting under the Bodhi tree and *vowing not to move until he did* as a pure coincidence? Instead of acknowledging the image of the Buddha under the tree, none dismisses it or even says it is akusala. Why would you not want to practice as the Buddha did? Isn't this Buddhism? Why did Buddha refuse to move so as to complete his task. Why did he not just walk around the town seeing clearly the various dhammas that arose without control? Can anyone reconcile that with the current pariyatti philosophy? Best, Robert E. =============== #95731 From: "connie" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 1:33 am Subject: Re: Request for comment - etc. nichiconn Dear Lukas, "Is with cause(sappaccaya.m), Is conditioned(sa"nkhata.m), Is material(ruupa.m). Is mundane(lokiya.m). Is the object of the defilements(saasava.m). Is the object of the fetters(sa.myojaniya.m). Is the object of the ties(ganthaniya.m). Is the object of the floods(oghaniya.m)" L: If something is sankhata, it's always also sapaccaya. c: I think so, too. I guess there is a difference in approach, where sapaccaya would refer more to whichever of the 24 conditions applied whereas sankhata could be more general, broad or vague - ?? Here is another phrase: "this is conditioned, has its cause, its constituent parts, its reasons" - sanimitam, sanidaanam, sasaankhaaram, sappaccayam. Or we might see words like support, nutriment and kaara.na. It's pretty much the way the aasavas, oghas, ganthas and samyojanas are all very similar and overlapping... the way synonymous are... also the lists would vary some in different contexts - the way personality belief is listed as a fetter in some places but not in others. Or sometimes when one particular item is mentioned, we can understand that the same is meant of other, similar things as well. I think it's not so much the nature of materiality that makes it the object of the defilements, ties, etc, as our, or desire and ignorance's nature that make them so... misunderstanding and clinging to "the lure", "the noose" etc... not appreciating their impermanence and unsatisfactoriness, etc.; we might read about ayoniso manasikaara or ungaurded senses. Well, you know, all those years there was teaching just dukkha and the ending of dukkha but how many words ... or, as Scott said, just the one word: Dhamma. peace, connie #95732 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 3:56 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "And here endued with lovingkindness means possessing lovingkindness. With his heart (cetasa): with his mind (cittena). One direction: this refers to any one direction in which a being is first discerned and means pervasion of the beings included in that one direction. Pervading: touching, making his object. He dwells (viharati): he causes the occurence of an abiding (vihaara - dwelling or continuation) in postures that is devoted to the divine abidings...Likewise the second: just as he dwells pervading any one direction among those beginning with the eastern one, so he does with the next one, and the third and the fourth, is the meaning." Path of Purity. "And here 'full of love' means possessed of love. 'With heart' means with mind. 'One quarter of the globe' - this is said by way of referring to one sentient being first grasped in one quarter and suffusing the sentient beings included in that quarter. 'Suffusing' means (mentally), touching and making an object of. 'Abides' means, maintaining the posture set up by the divine state. 'And so the second quarter' - just as he abides suffusing any one quarter from among the four: East, and so on; so immediately after that, he suffuses the second, the third, and the fourth, is the meaning." Ettha ca mettaasahagatenaati mettaaya samannaagatena. Cetasaati cittena. Eka.m disanti ekamekissaa disaaya pa.thamapariggahita.m satta.m upaadaaya ekadisaapariyaapannasattaphara.navasena vutta.m. Pharitvaati phusitvaa aaramma.na.m katvaa. Viharatiiti brahmavihaaraadhi.t.thita.m iriyaapathavihaara.m pavatteti. Tathaa dutiyanti yathaa puratthimaadiisu disaasu ya.mki~nci eka.m disa.m pharitvaa viharati, tatheva tadanantara.m dutiya.m tatiya.m catuttha~ncaati attho. Sincerely, Scott. #95733 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 6:24 am Subject: A"nguttara Nikaaya , Book of Twos, Two Companies scottduncan2 Dear All, "Monks, there are these two companies. What two? The company trained in bluster, not in discussion by inquiry, and the company trained in discussion by inquiry, not in bluster. "And what, monks, is the company trained in bluster, not inquiry? "Herein, monks, in whatsoever company the monks listen not to the discourses uttered by the Tathaagata, discourses deep and deep in meaning, transcendental, dealing with the Void (suttantaa tathaagatabhaasitaa gambhiiraa gambhiiratthaa lokuttaraa su~n~nataapa.tisa.myuttaa), when they are recited: where they lend not a ready ear to them, apply not a mind bent on understanding, consider not that those teachings are something to be learned by heart and mastered: but when those discourses made by poets, tricked out with fair-sounding phrases, discourses external to Dhamma uttered by their followers, - when such are recited they listen thereto, lend a ready ear to them, apply to them a mind bent on understanding and consider that those teachings are something to be learned by heart and mastered, - and when they have mastered that teaching they do not question each other about it, do not open up a discussion thus: 'What is this? What is the meaning of this?' - when they neither open up the unrevealed nor explain the unexplained, nor dispel doubts on divers doubtful points of doctrine, - such a company, monks, is called 'trained in bluster, not inquiry.' "And what, monks, is the company trained in inquiry, not trained in bluster? "Herein, monks, in whatever company the monks listen not to those discourses made by poets ... but to those uttered by the Tathaagata ... and having mastered that teaching question each other about it, open up discussion thus: 'What is this? What is the meaning of this?' - when such open up the unrevealed, explain the unexplained and dispel doubts on divers and doubtful points of doctrine, - such a company is called 'trained in inquiry, not in bluster.' "These are the two companies, and of these two the latter has pre-eminence." 'Dvemaa, bhikkhave, parisaa. Katamaa dve? Okkaacitaviniitaa parisaa nopa.tipucchaaviniitaa, pa.tipucchaaviniitaa parisaa nookkaacitaviniitaa. Katamaa ca, bhikkhave, okkaacitaviniitaa parisaa nopa.tipucchaaviniitaa? Idha, bhikkhave, yassa.m parisaaya.m bhikkhuu ye te suttantaa tathaagatabhaasitaa gambhiiraa gambhiiratthaa lokuttaraa su~n~nataapa.tisa.myuttaa tesu bha~n~namaanesu na sussuusanti na sota.m odahanti na a~n~naa citta.m upa.t.thapenti na ca te dhamme uggahetabba.m pariyaapuṇitabba.m ma~n~nanti. Ye pana te suttantaa kavitaa [kavikataa (sabbattha) .tiikaa oloketabbaa] kaaveyyaa cittakkharaa cittabya~njanaa baahirakaa saavakabhaasitaa tesu bha~n~namaanesu sussuusanti sota.m odahanti a~n~naa citta.m upa.t.thapenti, te dhamme uggahetabba.m pariyaapu.nitabba.m ma~n~nanti, te ca ta.m dhamma.m pariyaapu.nitvaa na ceva a~n~nama~n~na.m pa.tipucchanti na ca pa.tivicaranti - 'ida.m katha.m, imassa ko attho 'ti? Te aviva.ta~nceva na vivaranti, anuttaaniikata~nca na uttaaniikaronti, anekavihitesu ca ka"nkhaa.thaaniyesu dhammesu ka"nkha.m na pa.tivinodenti. Aya.m vuccati, bhikkhave, okkaacitaviniitaa parisaa no pa.tipucchaaviniitaa. "Katamaa ca, bhikkhave, pa.tipucchaaviniitaa parisaa nookkaacitaviniitaa? Idha, bhikkhave, yassa.m parisaaya.m bhikkhuu ye te suttantaa kavitaa kaaveyyaa cittakkharaa cittabya~njanaa baahirakaa saavakabhaasitaa tesu bha~n~namaanesu na sussuusanti na sota.m odahanti na a~n~naa citta.m upa.t.thapenti, na ca te dhamme uggahetabba.m pariyaapu.nitabba.m ma~n~nanti. Ye pana te suttantaa tathaagatabhaasitaa gambhiiraa gambhiiratthaa lokuttaraa su~n~nataapa.tisa.myuttaa tesu bha~n~namaanesu sussuusanti sota.m odahanti a~n~naa citta.m upa.t.thapenti, te ca dhamme uggahetabba.m pariyaapu.nitabba.m ma~n~nanti. Te ta.m dhamma.m pariyaapu.nitvaa a~n~nama~n~na.m pa.tipucchanti pa.tivicaranti - 'ida.m katha.m, imassa ko attho 'ti? Te aviva.ta~nceva vivaranti, anuttaaniikata~nca uttaaniikaronti, anekavihitesu ca ka"nkhaa.thaaniyesu dhammesu ka"nkha.m pa.tivinodenti. Aya.m vuccati, bhikkhave, pa.tipucchaaviniitaa parisaa nookkaacitaviniitaa. Imaa kho, bhikkhave, dve parisaa. Etadagga.m, bhikkhave, imaasa.m dvinna.m parisaana.m yadida.m pa.tipucchaaviniitaa parisaa nookkaacitaviniitaa 'ti. Sincerely, Scott. #95734 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 6:27 am Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? abhidhammika Dear Ken H, Pt, Jon, Sarah, Nina, Robert K and KS Folks How are you? Please read PT's request below _____________________________________________________ PT wrote: Hi all, Even though Scott declined to answer the following questions by Suan, I'd appreciate it if someone could answer them. Suan: 1. Is viiriyam controllable? If controllable, how is it controllable and in what sense? 2. Is viiriyam uncontrollable? If uncontrollable, why is it uncontrollable and in what sense? 3. Is desire controllable? If controllable, how is it controllable and in what sense? 4. Is desire uncontrollable? If uncontrollable, why is it uncontrollable and in what sense? pt: I'm inerested in this as It seems these questions are closely related to a paradox I've encountered here on DSG as well as in Nina's books - two completely opposing advices given at the same time: 1) there's no control, no one can make sati, panna, etc, arise. 2) we should cultivate development of sati, panna, etc. ________________________________________________________ Suan continues: I did see Ken's reply to PT's post, but Ken failed to answer my simple questions. Ken, please stop beating about the bush. Please stop writing misleading platitudes. By answering my simple questions, you will clearly see where you stand, if there was any stand at all? True, they will force you to undertake soul-searching at first. But, after trying to answer my questions, you should be able to find out if you really understand them whenever you utter the words "No control", "uncontrollable such and such". You, KS Folk, utter those words as excuses for not undertaking formal Theravada meditation, and for criticizing Theravadii formal meditators, I observe. Scott seemed to find out that he no longer understood them, and gave up. Those KS folk who are seeing K Sujin should download my questions and request her to answer them, too. You, KS Folk, have misled and perplexed the readers like PT for too long. Now, it is a good chance for you to rectify your past wrong speech, and begin a new life of clear mind and clear speech – by stopping misleading and confusing yourselves and others. So, what are you waiting for? Please take a stand and answer my questions honestly as best you can. Stand up and be counted! Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #95735 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 6:40 am Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? scottduncan2 Dear Suan, Regarding: S: "...Scott seemed to find out that he no longer understood them, and gave up..." Scott: I sought a peaceful discussion on what I hoped would be a neutral territory where we both found interest: the Paa.li. I don't seek to engage in the gunfight at the OK corral. I think the time for sectarian debate is over. Should you desire a peaceful consideration of the Paa.li with me, please do so - I am a beginner in this area and you are not. Sincerely, Scott. #95736 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 8:35 am Subject: Re: A"nguttara Nikaaya , Book of Twos, Two Companies szmicio Dear Scotty Thank you for this Sutta. And also for your quotes and comments on kalyana mitta. >I don't >seek to engage in the gunfight at the OK corral. I think the time for >sectarian debate is over. L: There is even Titha Sutta about quarreling on account of Dhamma. Very wise reminder. My best wishes Lukas #95737 From: "connie" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 8:39 am Subject: Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? nichiconn Dear Suan, Please explain what is meant by "control". thank you, connie #95738 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 5:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Why Are KS Folk Silent? Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? TGrand458@... Hi Suan In a message dated 2/6/2009 7:28:10 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, suanluzaw@... writes: I'm inerested in this as It seems these questions are closely related to a paradox I've encountered here on DSG as well as in Nina's books - two completely opposing advices given at the same time: 1) there's no control, no one can make sati, panna, etc, arise. 2) we should cultivate development of sati, panna, etc. ................................................. TG: I am not a KS person but will take a shot at it. First of all, what you ask is not a simple question, its about as difficult a question as it gets. Strangely enough, because I so often disagree with the KS viewpoint, I actually agree with the above statements...even though they appear very paradoxical. In the highest sense, there is no control...because conditions are just causing changes, appearances, disappearances, based on the natural forces of conditions. (I am not talking "Dhammas," "ultimate realities," or "own characteristics" here.) Part of the outcome of natural forces are systems/human-beings, that have formed a deluded outlook of what they experience. They believe they have a self and are in control. A teaching, such as the Buddha's, must reach in toward this deluded outlook and lead folks out from it. Otherwise they would have no "point of reference" by which to understand the teaching. The teaching actually uses these aspects of delusion as a way in which to "motivate" folks to take this or that course of action. The delusion is a condition, the teaching is a condition, the system/being is a condition. The teaching is a condition that works in conjunction with the "system," to forge the delusion out of the system/being. The delusion of "self" can be "tapped into" and use as a "motivating platform" from which to make progress. Later, when insight strengthens, conditions can be dealt with more directly and the sense-of-self becomes more of a "background factor." But until the sense-of-self is eliminated, it will always have potential as a motivating springboard that can be used to produce conditions such as effort, confidence, mindfulness, concentration, insight, etc. and cultivate the "correct conditional mixture" that can produce freedom from suffering. So when the Buddha says -- "An effort should be made" ... that is a 'condition' that can effect other conditions -- such as understanding, volition, etc. and produce results. In the highest sense, there is no control....there are just conditions interacting in accordance with natural forces. But from a practical point of view, it appears as if there is control. And outcomes, cultivation, development, etc. are able to be generated in conjunction with deluded perspectives...perspective that think "they" are controlling the events. This just goes to prove that DSGer's can't get it wrong all the time. But God help em they sure try. ;-) TG OUT #95739 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 11:14 am Subject: Re: Request for comment - etc. szmicio Dear Connie I quote it from the beginning. Khandhavibhanga, Rupakhandha, Abhidhammabhaajaniiya.m "The five aggregates are: The aggregate of material quality, aggregate of feeling, aggregate of perception, aggregate of mental concomitants, aggregate of consiousnes. 1. The aggregate of material quality Therein what is the aggregate of material quality? The aggregate of material quality by way of singlefold division: All material quality is not root(sabba.m ruupa.m na hetu) Is not accompanied by root(ahetuka.m). Is not associated with root(hetuvippayutta.m). Is with cause(sappaccaya.m). Is conditioned(sa"nkhata.m). Is material(ruupa.m). Is mundane(lokiya.m). Is the object of the defilements(saasava.m). Is the object of the fetters(sa.myojaniya.m). Is the object of the ties(ganthaniya.m). Is the object of the floods(oghaniya.m)" Futher on we read: "Is the object of bonds(yoganiya.m,). Is the object for hindrances(niivara.niya.m). Is the object of perverions(paraama.t.tha.m). Is the object of atachments(upaadaaniya.m). Is the objects of corruptions(sa.mkilesika.m). Is neither-good-nor-bad(abyaakata.m). Has no object(anaaramma.na.m). Is not mental concomitant(acetasika.m). Is not associated with consiousness(cittavippayutta.m). Is neither resultant nor productive of resultant (nevavipaakanavipaakadhammadhamma.m). Is not corrupt, is the object of the corruptions (asa.mkili.t.thasa.mkilesika.m)." L: How many sabhava(characteristics)or lakkhanas rupa has? Can we say that all those instances are diffrent sabhava of rupa? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Vibh: "Is not associated with consiousness(cittavippayutta.m)" L: I'll be gald if you say more about the meaning of it. cittavippayutta.m means that rupa "doesn't work with citta", it's not asocciated with it, right? Vibha: "Is not mental concomitant(acetasika.m). L: But why Buddha didn't called it also 'cetasikavippayutta.m'? I mean that he classified citta as cittavippayutta.m and cetasika as acetasika.m. Why is that? Rupa also "doesn't work with" cetasikas. It's cetasikavippayutta.m. But Buddha didn't say it. why? -------------------------------------------------------------------- >c: I think it's not so much the nature of materiality that makes it the object of the defilements, ties, etc, as our, or desire and >ignorance's nature that make them so... misunderstanding and clinging >to "the lure", "the noose" etc... not appreciating their impermanence >and unsatisfactoriness, etc.; we might read about ayoniso manasikaara >or ungaurded senses. L: Now it's pretty clear: Vibh: "Is the objects of corruptions(sa.mkilesika.m)." Vibh: "Is not corrupt, is the object of the corruptions (asa.mkili.t.thasa.mkilesika.m)." Best wishes Lukas #95740 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 2:45 pm Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? kenhowardau In another thread: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "szmicio" wrote: > > Dear Scotty > <. . .> > > >I don't > >seek to engage in the gunfight at the OK corral. I think the time for > >sectarian debate is over. > > L: There is even Titha Sutta about quarreling on account of Dhamma. > Very wise reminder. > ----------- Hi Lucas, Scott and Suan, While sympathising with those among us who like to avoid debates I think this one is an integral part of Dhamma study. There are even suttas about it (at least as I understand them). It seems in the Buddha's day there were people who insisted on a conventional answer. They said (in effect) "Don't tell me again that there are only dhammas and that all dhammas are without self, just answer my question: Is there, or is there not, a self? Is there, or is there not, control? Despite all the protestations there remains only one answer. There are only dhammas and all dhammas are without self. So, in this ultimate reality taught by the Buddha, there is no self; there is no control.* Some people are telling us there can be a combination of the two. They say we can understand there are only the presently arisen dhammas and yet still, somehow, believe in another reality, in which there are things other than the presently arisen dhammas. And so the debates continue. :-) Ken H *PS: I hope anyone who claims that 'self' and 'control' are two different matters will reply to Connie's question: "Please explain what is meant by "control."" #95741 From: "connie" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 3:06 pm Subject: Re: Request for comment - etc. nichiconn Dear Lukas, L: I quote it from the beginning. Khandhavibhanga, Rupakhandha, Abhidhammabhaajaniiya.m "The five aggregates are: The aggregate of material quality, aggregate of feeling, aggregate of perception, aggregate of mental concomitants, aggregate of consiousnes. 1. The aggregate of material quality Therein what is the aggregate of material quality? c: I forgot to quote this - on "rupa.m" - from Dispeller earlier, from the Suttanta Division: << (b) Materiality Aggregate 7. Now, in order to point out these, namely the materiality aggregate and so on, by classifying them, he said: Tattha katamo ruupakkhando? <1.3> ("Herein which is the materiality aggregate?") and so on. Herein, tattha ("herein) [means] among these five aggregates; katamo ("which") is a question showing desire to speak; ruupakkhandho ("materiality aggregate") is the description of the thing to be asked about. 8. Now, classifying that, he said: Ya.m ki~nci ruupa.m <1.4> ("whatever materiality") and so on. Herein, Ya.m ki~nci ("whatever") is all-inclusive; ruupa.m ("materiality") prevents over-generalisation. Thus the laying hold of materiality without remainder is effected by the two expressions. >> end quote. Then it goes on to talk about "being molested" before it moves onto the "past, future and present" etc. The Abhidhamma section refers us back to this Suttanta section & here we are told "past, future and present materiality should be understood as described by the Abhidhamma description only". ================== Vibh: The aggregate of material quality by way of singlefold division: All material quality is not root(sabba.m ruupa.m na hetu) Is not accompanied by root(ahetuka.m). Is not associated with root(hetuvippayutta.m). Is with cause(sappaccaya.m). Is conditioned(sa"nkhata.m). Is material(ruupa.m). Is mundane(lokiya.m). Is the object of the defilements(saasava.m). Is the object of the fetters(sa.myojaniya.m). Is the object of the ties(ganthaniya.m). Is the object of the floods(oghaniya.m)" Futher on we read: "Is the object of bonds(yoganiya.m,). Is the object for hindrances(niivara.niya.m). Is the object of perverions(paraama.t.tha.m). Is the object of atachments(upaadaaniya.m). Is the objects of corruptions(sa.mkilesika.m). Is neither-good-nor-bad(abyaakata.m). Has no object(anaaramma.na.m). Is not mental concomitant(acetasika.m). Is not associated with consiousness(cittavippayutta.m). Is neither resultant nor productive of resultant (nevavipaakanavipaakadhammadhamma.m). Is not corrupt, is the object of the corruptions (asa.mkili.t.thasa.mkilesika.m)." ===== L: How many sabhava(characteristics)or lakkhanas rupa has? Can we say that all those instances are diffrent sabhava of rupa? c: Sounds good to me; that all those are aspects of rupa's nature - they define or characterize the commonal nature of any and all rupas & so would all be true of any particular rupa even though it would still have it's own peculiar, unique or distinctive feature not shared with anything else. I still confuse the ideas of function, characteristic, manifestation and proximate cause - sometimes it seems to me the first three might just as well be the same thing. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Vibh: "Is not associated with consiousness(cittavippayutta.m)" L: I'll be gald if you say more about the meaning of it. cittavippayutta.m means that rupa "doesn't work with citta", it's not asocciated with it, right? I quote the SPD now - the first paragraph will better explain how i meant 'work together': We should know what the meaning of sampayutta dhamma, associated dhamma, is. There are four kinds of paramattha dhammas: citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana. Citta and cetasika are realities that have to arise together, they cannot be without each other, they cannot be separated from each other. When they have arisen together they also fall away together. They share the same object and they have the same base, place of origin, in the planes where there are five khandhas, that is, nama and rupa. These are the characteristic features of their being associated dhammas, sampayutta dhammas. The characteristics of sampayutta dhammas, citta and cetasikas, have been explained in detail so that it can be clearly known that nama is completely different from rupa. When we listen to the teachings and study them, conditions are gradually being built up (as sankharakkhandha 5) for the arising of sati and pañña. Thus sati of satipatthana will investigate and be aware of the characteristics of nama and rupa, one at a time, until these appear as clearly distinct from each other, as being not associated, sampayutta, although they can arise at the same time. The Atthasalini (I, Book I, Part II, Analysis of Terms, Ch I, 70) states: "...For in rupa-dhammas and arupa-dhammas (nama-dhammas) which are produced together, rupa arises together with arupa (nama), but it is not associated or conjoined with it. Likewise arupa with rupa, and rupa with rupa. But arupa is always accompanied by, coexistent, associated and conjoined with arupa..." Thus, being associated is a characteristic that only pertains to namas, to citta and cetasika that arise and fall away together and experience the same object. Rupa is completely different from nama. Rupa is not a dhamma that experiences an object. Although rupas arise and fall away together they cannot be associated dhammas. ------------------------ Vibha: "Is not mental concomitant(acetasika.m). L: But why Buddha didn't called it also 'cetasikavippayutta.m'? I mean that he classified citta as cittavippayutta.m and cetasika as acetasika.m. Why is that? Rupa also "doesn't work with" cetasikas. It's cetasikavippayutta.m. But Buddha didn't say it. why? c: i imagine it is because by saying rupas "don't associate" (yes, better!) with citta, the non-association with cetasika was already included; the association is why we can say 'citta' but mean both 'citta and the accompanying cetasikas'. So in a way, it is repeating the same thing but at the same time making sure we understand rupa is neither of those namas. peace, connie #95742 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 6:06 pm Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? scottduncan2 Dear Ken H., Regarding (you, I don't mind 'debating' in the least ;-)): K: "While sympathising with those among us who like to avoid debates I think this one is an integral part of Dhamma study. There are even suttas about it (at least as I understand them)...And so the debates continue. :-)" Scott: I find that I engage someone long enough to get a feel for the gist of the view being presented and a good sense of the strength of the view. When I have determined, through 'debate' what it is about a view that feels wrong to me, and when I have determined that the one who is held by that view is well and truly held, I stop. While I agree in general with you - we share, more or less, the same set of views (although differ in focus perhaps) - I don't agree that the view needs to be repeatedly pounded into someone who a) clearly is held by a diverse view and, b) has no other apparent aim than to argue and proseletyse that view. I don't agree at all with doing the same thing! I have satisfied myself that those who seek to interact merely to present a view and, more to the point, oppose the prevalent generally accepted view of the list, will continue with more and more tenacity to debate as long as there is reinforcement via replies. I have satisfied myself that these same interlocutors will stop when there is no opposition offered. I seek a peaceful forum. I abhor proselytism no matter what side is doing it. I think that those of us here, who may feel a vacuum in the absence of opposition, can learn to really deepen and increase our Dhamma discussions with each other - with like-minded students of the Dhamma. I'm sure we can wean ourselves of our dependence on the negative interactions, purge ourselves of our fear that no discussion can ensue unless it is debate-driven. I am sure we can learn to really clarify the points of Dhamma that seem confusing without the climate of pugalism. I'm sure that this forum, cleared of gunslingers, can really flourish, blossoming into a really peaceful space for learning the Dhamma. I'm sure that those who come to fight can be tamed or go in peace given that restraint can arise. If restraint is lacking, then peace goes. I've tested this out and know it to be true. Sincerely, Scott. #95743 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 7:35 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 4 epsteinrob Hi again Sukin!!! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Hi Rob Ep, > > Part Four: > =========== > > And this is true for all moments, so why follow ideas about > someone > > > who needs to sit, note, pay attention, focus etc.? > > > Rob Ep:> Why follow ideas about someone who needs to read, discuss, > > consider, think, etc.? Very formal!!! Not natural!!! Bad!!! > > Sukin: Pariyatti is good! Patipatti is better!! > These are however conditioned and beyond control. This is the > understanding when being `natural' is suggested. You seem to admit > here that this is not the case with `meditation'. So what is > meditation, Good or Bad?!!! :-) Depends completely on how it is approached. Just like any activity. It makes a mockery of how we actually function - even those who have much practice in Abhidhamma - to suggest that one can read a sutta without some intention in doing so. The fact that it arises without a self is a given, but that does not stop intention from being present. So it is with meditation as well. If one is willing to accept the dhammas that arise and see them with whatever clarity is available at the time, there is no more "self" in meditation than there is in sutta reading. But the big bad bogeyman of meditation keeps hanging around here waiting to do evil, as if Buddha's own anapanasati is Mara itself. > > =========== > > > The imperative would be to understand what > > > appears "now" more than anything wouldn't it? > > > Rob Ep:> Yes, one can do that more easily sitting and breathing than > reading > > and talking. You've got it reversed I think. > > Sukin: You mean wrong view leads to right view? Pipe dream it is. > > I do not say that it is easier to have sati while reading and > talking, but that no situation is better than another in terms of > developing wisdom. I say that any resistance to a particular activity > and situation as being unsuitable to the development of right view, > is to continue miss understanding the present moment, that whatever > this is, it is conditioned!! Wrong view can't lead to right view, but > can be an object for it. Well, my view, which I'm sure is at least some unspecified percent wrong view, but may have a tiny seed of right view in it perhaps, is that one should embrace both the development of skill *and* the arising moments of everyday life. Since there is no self in any case, one can engage with anapansati with that understanding and just let it happen as it does, and in addition can continue to practice discernment of whatever arises in the moment in all the other activities of everyday life. Just as one reads sutta every day to continue understanding the Buddha's message, one sits every day to practice the Buddha's practice, and we should do it all, not one or the other. There is no reason to exclude good practice in addition to everyday life. We understand that the desire for practice, just like the desire to read sutta, are caused by certain conditions and are not a product of self or in the control of a self. > > ========= > > > Besides, before hearing the Dhamma, all we knew were concepts, > and > > > this includes ideas about a `self' who needs to do something in > order > > > to gain results. We identified with our thoughts / intentions > with > > > complete ignorance, including those times when we did `good'. > What we > > > call introspection / noting and later the concept of > `meditation', we > > > invested so much `self' into these that we now are unwilling to > > > question. Hearing the Dhamma including about Satipatthana and > what > > > the panna of this level knows, we are in fact given the chance to > > > look at and question all this. But this doesn't seem to happen > with > > > most. > > > Rob Ep:> I think that most who read the suttas and commentaries are > lost in > > concepts too; concepts about the Dhamma and about the nature of > > dhammas. > > Sukin: I don't know about others, but I sure am forever lost in > concepts, even while reading and discussing the Dhamma. I was however > referring to `wrong view' which I believe I begin to know a little > better now, thanks to all those rare moments of right understanding > while reading and discussing the Dhamma. ;-) Since we are all lost in concepts but understand that we cannot control the moment, perhaps we can apply this understanding to both sutta study, discussion, Abhidhamma, com reading and interpretation, concept and anapanasati. It's all in sutta! It's not like I'm proposing that we rob and steal and use that as an object of bhavana. > > ============= > > Rob Ep:> Tell me, when exactly do they stop reading and thinking and > > look directly at namas and rupas? It takes some discipline to do > > this. I doubt it happens by itself most of the time, even if you > > understand dhammas on paper. > > Sukin: Pariyatti, the level of understanding you seem to downplay is > just what you need to give up such ideas as you express here. So you think discernment just pops up arbitrarily whether you have an interest in it or not? Does the average person experience sati without any knowledge or interest in Buddhism? Are you having this conversation with no sense of intention, energy, or desire? I'm just acknowledging what's there, not attributing it to a self or a sense of control. And by the way, if we have a difference of opinion, that is not evidence that my pariyatti is lacking - not that I'm saying it's not. I would never claim any great understanding, just the understanding that I happen to have at the time. > > ============ > > > > So while some agree at one level that there are only dhammas, > however > > > when it comes to `meditation', I see so much resistance which I > take > > > to be due to attachment and wrong view. > > > Rob Ep:> What about the attachment to the coms and teachngs and > teachers > > and discussions. Don't you think this is an impediment too? > > Sukin: Attachment is attachment, it is never good. Well, why do you not look for it there as well? Is there a double standard here? I think that if you see that the playing fields are equal, you will stop picking on poor abused anapanasati. > > =========== > > Rob Ep:> By the way, where do you see all this attachment and wrong > view in > > meditation? When and where have you observed this? Can you give a > > concrete example of wrong view connected to meditation? Or is this > > something that arises within your own mind? > > Sukin: Of course there is only that one citta at any given moment. ;-) So what is a wrong view with regard to meditation? If it is just the idea that somehow meditation *must* entail a goal of future achievement, I don't agree, and furthermore if it is there it can be seen through; it doesn't mean that all meditation moments will be akusala. > > =========== > > This following of the idea is > > > `ritualistic' because it involves an idea of `self' who needs to > do > > > something in particular in order that wisdom may arise, > > > RoB Ep:> like read a sutta > > Sukin: Any activity. Then why pick on meditation? Why not pick on all activities and warn about them equally? > > > Metta, > > Sukin > > =end of Part Four= > And much metta to you, Robert E. ======================== #95744 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 7:41 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 5 epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Hi Rob Ep, > > Part Five: > =========== > > > > What I had hoped Kom's post would do in considering Jhana, was > bring > > > you and others to seeing the importance of understanding nama and > > > rupa in daily life. > > > > Well you may possibly be attached to daily life. You might want to > > consider this. > > Sukin: What do I mean when referring to daily life? The understanding > that there are only dhammas and at any given moment what ever arises > during any activity, there can be the understanding of it being > conditioned and fallen away already. This conditions the need to be > natural; otherwise it hinders sati and panna of the kind from arising > and developing. One is always doing activities, one is always having intentions; any one of them can be the "natural" object of everyday bhavana or bhavana on the floor. > > ============== > > It may be true that you and others rightly > > > appreciate that Jhana is a very high level of kusala which the > Buddha > > > praised. However it seems that you go wrong everywhere else > around > > > the particular concept. > > > Rob Ep:> Really? Can you cite examples? Where do we go wrong? Be > specific. > > Sukin: I've said something at the beginning of this response, I hope > it helped. I'm afraid my continuity memory is not that great. I apologize for that. If I can just work myself through the maze of posts here I will be happy enough! > ============ > > > Beginning with seeing the relationship > > > between Jhana and the more humble levels of kusala in daily life, > > > which you'll admit to arising so infrequently compared to > akusala, > > > you don't seem to want to see this. > > > Rob Ep:> How does this "seeming" come about. How do we "seem" this > way > > to you? Is there something specific you are discerning that > evidences this > > inability to acknowledge the akusala moments? How is this taking > place? > > Sukin: There is this about proponents of Jhana. > They are ever so happy to encourage others to `meditate' without ever > trying to determine whether the other person has any ability to > differentiate between kusala from akusala. Worse, they often go on to > encourage the activity in spite of the fact that those same people > express confusion and have so much doubts about certain states of > mind, for example what attachment is and what metta. I think you are over-generalizing. I am not a meditation expert by any means, but even many years ago when someone asked me "how do you stop thoughts in meditation?" I said "the object of meditation is just to see what's there, not to stop thoughts and not to control them. Just observe and see what is there." So not everyone gives bad advice. I think that most meditation teachers would encourage students to read sutta and understand the path, not just sit and try to achieve Jhana with no understanding. I don't know the ones you are referencing, if you have specific examples please cite. > > =========== > > > But Jhana is the culmination of > > > the development of kusala of levels we clearly are nowhere near. > > > Rob Ep:> That is a concept in your mind. > > Sukin: But would you like to discuss this…..? Sure; what is the level "we are at" and how do you discern that? Best, Robert E. =========================== #95745 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 8:02 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 6 epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Hi Rob Ep, > > Part Six: > ============ > > > > Kom's post captured this point so well. > > > > > > I believe that people have allowed themselves to be so carried > away > > > by concepts such as Jhana and others, that not only these blind > them > > > to the reality of where they really are at, but they go on to > even > > > use the ideas to argue against the importance of keeping on > listening > > > and develop understanding patiently at more humble levels. > > > > I have never said that. Please quote me. I think you are making an > > awful lot of this up in your own mind, and that you are very > involved > > in akusala concepts about others' practice and understanding in this > > post. It does not seem accurate to me. You must give some evidence > to > > back up your stream of aversion here. > > Sukin: In this post that I am responding to, you have expressed this: > > Rob Ep: > > Personally, I would rather meditate, which has little distraction > from > > the present moment, since that is its purpose, than fill my head > with > > distracting concepts from the commentaries on the commentaries. > That > > seems to be out of the present moment to me. I think there is a difference between listening and considering dhamma and abhidhamma, and the real danger of getting lost in a convoluted stream of conceptual thinking when one overconsiders conceptually and does not balance out pariyatti with other types of understanding. We talk about everyday life, but there is a difference between considering dhammas on paper and considering them in the actual moment that one is living. My point - perhaps made a little too stridently - is that it does not make sense to me to criticize a practice of calming down and considering the moments, even if that involves some "formality" at the outset, while one has no concern that the other side of the spectrum may represent equal dangers in losing discernment in conceptualization. I think one ought to consider both and not be prejudiced against one over the other. > > ============ > > > > There is so much more to be developed at the level, > > > not only of cintamaya panna, but also suttamaya panna. > > > Rob Ep:> Those are concepts to you, unless you are experiencing them > at this > > moment. See, we all work with concepts to interpret reality. YOu > are > > not discerning cintamaya panna in this moment, you are relying on > the > > concept of cintamaya panna. I think that you have disguised your > > dependence on concepts behind the concept of discerning dhammas, but > > where is the dhamma here? It is all concept, and aversion to > others' > > concepts that are not to your taste. It's all concepts all the way > > through as far as I can see. > > Sukin: But it's not the matter of using concepts, but any wrong view > involved. Do I express wrong view about cintamaya panna? And why > would it matter whether my understanding of this concept is direct or > merely intellectual? When passing judgement about `meditation' would > I do this only out of aversion? Why what others do should affect me > in that way? Only because you appear to have an intellectual bent against meditation. There are certain concepts that back up your view. What means do you have of checking whether it this is right understanding or not? You seem to have the view that pariyatti is the equal of direct discernment as long as it is not "intellectually wrong." I don't agree with that, I don't think "right concept" is the same as "right understanding." > ============ > > > Seeing how little we know is seeing > > > the importance of Dhamma and an inclination hence, to lending > ear, > > > discussing and considering more. > > > Rob Ep:> That is your preferred path. You are saying "You should do > this, not > > that. This is the way, not that." All of that is giving > > instructions, assuming a being, assuming a teaching. None of that > is > > discerning with panna in the moment. Back to the drawing board. > > Start from scratch. > > Sukin: Or it may be a description about cause and effect, the > particular relationship between suttamaya panna, cintamaya panna and > bhavanamaya panna or between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. It may be, but that also may be so on paper and not represent the reality that is actually taking place. > > ============ > > > Knowledge and understanding of the > > > 4NT starts with the level of listening, > > > Rob Ep:> Please quote dhamma that this is the start and that other > activities > > come later. > > Sukin: First let us be clear, I am not talking about `activity' as in > study leading to meditation. Nor am I saying that bhavanamaya panna > can't arise at anytime even when obviously there is still great need > to develop the understanding at the levels of suttamaya and cintamaya > panna. It is not a linear thing. But yes, if there has been very > little understanding at the level of pariyatti, in this life and in > past ones, it can't be expected that patipatti will arise. Though > deciding to `meditate' is easy and anyone can do it, after all here > there is no inclination to find out whether the understanding at the > intellectual level is correct or not….. I have some doubt as to whether the intellectual level is the place where right understanding has to be developed. When someone hears sutta and "gets it" that is not necessarily intellectual. When someone maps out the ideas of the path on paper and it makes sense that is not necessarily "understanding." I think there is a difference in type between those who start with intellectual clarity and then move on to practical application and those who have a predilection for active understanding through experience. There are even some schools that feel that too much intellectual understanding can block the experience of actual discernment since it leads to an image of how the actuality should appear. But this is not even considered in the pariyatti-first philsophy. Best, Robert E. ========================== #95746 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 8:14 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 7 epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Hi Rob Ep, > > Part Seven (final): > ============ > > > and here one comes to > > > understand better and better the Path. Also here the particular > > > relationship between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha is > > > appreciated. > > > Rob Ep: > All concepts, at least at this moment. > > Sukin: The determining factor is whether there is right view or wrong > view. > > ============ > > > > I believe that it is reflection of the lack of understanding at > the > > > level of pariyatti which makes the wrong association of the Path > with > > > Jhana. > > > Rob Ep: > I believe that you are making this up. You may believe it, > but that > > doesn't mean it is true. I don't experience confusing jhanna with > > something else. I see it as it is described, as a possible reality, > > not as an association with the concept of the Path. > > > Sukin: Ok. But you do see Jhana as being important to pursue in spite > of the fact that the unique Teaching of the Buddha, that which leads > one out of samsara is the N8FP? > > ============ > > Rob Ep: > The Path does not > > exist as such by the way, it is a concept. Have you seen The Path? > > What does it look like? How hard is it? Does it have a color? > > Sukin: The Path is the 4th Noble Truth. So it must be real. It is a guiding principle, a correct concept, but not an actuality except as a guiding concept. You cannot confuse a correct principal with something that exists as a dhamma in the world, can you? > > ============ > > > Not a good position to be in, because in trying to justify > > > Jhana, there is less inclination to correct any understanding > about > > > the 4NT of the beginning level. > > > Rob Ep:> You continue to reflect your own prejudices, and cite ideas > that no > > one has said. Please quote in future, to back up your accusations, > > and do not make unwarranted assumptions about others' views. > > Sukin: Actually, I had other Buddhists in mind as well, not only you. I apologize for the stridency of my tone. Thank you for remaining friendly in light of that. Still, even with regard to other Buddhists, it seems like a generalization. I don't justify jhana, I'm just interested in it; and I'm curious as to why Buddha spent so much time talking about it if it is not a component of the path. Some say it is a synonym for Right Concentration, do they not? From buddhanet: Passage §148 defines concentration as singleness of mind, but not every instance of mental singleness counts as right concentration. Passage §102 identifies right concentration with the four levels of jhana-meditative absorption-and §152 makes the point that jhana can be considered right concentration only if it is devoid of unskillful qualities such as the hindrances. Absorption in sensual passion, for instance, even though it may be very single-minded, does not count as part of the path. Thus the definition for the first level of jhana specifies that it counts as a path factor only when the mind is secluded from sensuality and unskillful mental qualities..." And even Abhdidhamma seems interested in jhana-citta arising as a kusala part of the path, no? > > =========== > > > In other words, one is drawn further and further away from the > > > correct path. [no need to take this as being insulting]. > > > Rob Ep:> It is just inaccurate. It is hard to be insulted by > something that is > > made up and does not come from anything I have said. You seem to be > > in a self-enclosed state of your own concepts about this situation > and > > have much aversion to anyone being interested in jhana. Is that > good > > for you? > > Sukin: No, aversion is never good, but you don't have to assume that. > In any case, do you agree with the suggestion regarding wrong > association of Jhana with the Path? I honestly have not reached a conclusion about this. There are competing views and I have not yet reached a level of understanding to have a personal judgment on this issue. > > =========== > > > > Just one last remark, the mention about the difficulty for Jhana > > > attainments this day and age, is not meant to be accepted as kind > of > > > authority. But it should in fact be seen as an encouragement to > > > develop more humble levels of kusala in daily life, within > reach / > > > which are we all have accumulations for. > > > Rob Ep:> We will each reach whatever we are capable of, no more no > less, and be > > attracted to the practice that conditons allow. It will be fine. > > Sukin: Yes, it is all up to conditions, and reading another person's > views has effect. But I don't think it right to think that all will > be fine. The one Path leading in the right direction is hard to see, > and every other path is more or less a vicious circle. True. Yet as long as there is openness to listening and considering and practicing what appears to be correct, there is an opening for Right View to develop. Eventually. > > =========== > > > More importantly however, it > > > is also showing the important difference between what the Buddha > > > taught, namely about the development of Right View as against the > > > development of other forms of kusala, which do absolutely nothing > in > > > terms of lessening "ignorance". Just curious, what is kusala about states that do not end suffering and do not lend towards liberation? What is wholesome about them? kusala (kusala): Wholesome, skillful, good, meritorious. An action characterized by this moral quality (kusala-kamma) is bound to result (eventually) in happiness and a favorable outcome. Actions characterized by its opposite (akusala-kamma) lead to sorrow. Says here: "bound to result (eventually) in happiness and a faovorable outcome." Doesn't that sound like it is part of the path? And when we next hear about Jhana > > > from other quarters, we are in a better position to discriminate > > > wisely. > > > Rob Ep: > I realize that your intention is to be helpful and that you > have a > > particular way of looking what is right and wrong for the path, but > I > > think you should also consider your own conceptual base and the way > in > > which you are referencing it. It is clear to me that you are not > > seeing me or others you refer to with clarity. > > Sukin: Yes, I realize quite often how I misunderstood what the other > person has been saying. I think this continues to happen and I > remember once entertaining the thought about switching roles where > one side tries to argue for the other side, hoping that in the > process each will better understand where the other is coming from. > But even this has its problems, I think. So cest la vie, I guess. ;-) Well it would be an interesting experiment. Let me know if you want to try it. I may be the world's worst advocate for Abhidhamma but I will give it a try and maybe learn something. :-) > > ============ > Rob Ep: > We are not running > > around trying to attain jhana, we are looking at the path in terms > of > > sutta, discussion, discernment and meditation, all promoted directly > > by the Buddha. It is a balanced view and your magnifying glass is > > making it look distorted. You are trapped in a negative view of > this, > > and do not seem to realize it. Please let it go. > > Sukin: The perception of being "trapped" is just that, a perception. > It does not matter how high you aim with regard to Jhana, the fact > that you don't find it more important to talk instead in terms of the > humble levels of kusala, is reflection of misplaced values. It just happens to be a subject that arose. I can talk about other things too. In fact I would be happy to talk about something closer to home, like the difference between the appearance of calm and real samatha. One may > talk about the need to accumulate the parami, but even here one > should not loose sight of the need to understand the present moment. Agreed. The present moment always leads. > Talk about Jhana as is done by most is worse than just being a > distraction. Well you may be right but that again is a general view and not a specific. Not that there's anything wrong with that.... Best, Robert E. ============================= #95747 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 9:03 pm Subject: thinking thinks, just it. No problem at all. szmicio Kokanuda Sutta To Kokanuda (On Viewpoints) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu On one occasion Ven. Ananda was staying near Rajagaha, at Tapoda monastery. Then, as night was ending, he got up & went to the Tapoda Hot Springs to bathe his limbs. Having bathed his limbs and having gotten out of the springs, he stood wearing only his lower robe, drying his limbs. Kokanuda the wanderer, as night was ending, also got up & went to the Tapoda Hot Springs to bathe his limbs. He saw Ven. Ananda from afar, and on seeing him said to him, "Who are you, my friend?" "I am a monk, my friend." "Which kind of monk?" "A son-of-the-Sakyan contemplative." "I would like to ask you about a certain point, if you would give me leave to pose a question." "Go ahead and ask. Having heard [your question], I'll inform you." "How is it, my friend: 'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.' Is this the sort of view you have?" "No, my friend, I don't have that sort of view." "Very well, then: 'The cosmos is not eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.' Is this the sort of view you have?" "No, my friend, I don't have that sort of view." "Very well, then: 'The cosmos is finite... The cosmos is infinite... The soul & the body are the same... The soul is one thing and the body another... After death a Tathagata exists... After death a Tathagata does not exist... After death a Tathagata both does & does not exist... After death a Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.' Is this the sort of view you have?" "No, my friend, I don't have that sort of view." "Then in that case, do you not know or see?" "No, my friend. It's not the case that I don't know, I don't see. I do know. I do see." "But on being asked, 'How is it, my friend: "The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless." Is this the sort of view you have?' you inform me, 'No, my friend, I don't have that sort of view.' On being asked, 'Very well then: "The cosmos is not eternal... The cosmos is finite... The cosmos is infinite... The soul & the body are the same... The soul is one thing and the body another... After death a Tathagata exists... After death a Tathagata does not exist... After death a Tathagata both does & does not exist... After death a Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless." Is this the sort of view you have?' you inform me, 'No, my friend, I don't have that sort of view.' But on being asked, 'Then in that case, do you not know, I don't see?' you inform me, 'No, my friend. It's not the case that I don't know or see. I do know. I do see.' Now, how is the meaning of this statement to be understood?" "'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless,' is a viewpoint. 'The cosmos is not eternal... The cosmos is finite... The cosmos is infinite... The soul & the body are the same... The soul is one thing and the body another... After death a Tathagata exists... After death a Tathagata does not exist... After death a Tathagata both does & does not exist... After death a Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless,' is a viewpoint. The extent to which there are viewpoints, view-stances, the taking up of views, obsessions of views, the cause of views, & the uprooting of views: that's what I know. That's what I see. Knowing that, I say 'I know.' Seeing that, I say 'I see.' Why should I say 'I don't know, I don't see'? I do know. I do see." "What is your name, my friend? What do your fellows in the chaste life call you?" "My name is Ananda, my friend, and that's what my fellows in the chaste life call me." "What? Have I been talking with the great teacher without realizing that it was Ven. Ananda? Had I recognized that it was Ven. Ananda, I would not have cross-examined him so much. May Ven. Ananda please forgive me." #95748 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 9:14 pm Subject: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 1 sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & All, I haven't had time to reply to posts because when we're not at the discussions with A.Sujin and friends, I'm with my mother who has come from England to be with me and to 'defrost' from the harsh European winter. The day before she flew out, all flights were cancelled from Heathrow due to the snow and ice, but fortunately, she, Nina & Lodewijk all arrrived safely and cheerfully. On Thursday afernoon, the first discussion, Nina raised your questions, Lukas. I'm sure that she'll transcribe from her recordings and give you the full answers later. In the meantime, I just jotted down A.Sujin's first reaction and comment on each before later elaborations. (I may have missed some). L: Can you say more about present moment? I find it the only way to develop more understanding. K. Sujin: So true! Now - seeing, hearing, etc. People think about wanting to have sati, but understanding is much more important. For example, now, if hardness appeara, there can be understanding of just hardness as a reality. Desire hinders progress. 2. L: Why akusala arises so often? KS: Without conditions, nothing can arise at all, but all conditions are not known yet. Begin from the very beginning - know now a characteristic of reality. (Later) Understand the characteristic, not what it's called. Qu 3 L: Can you say more about doubts. What is the characteristic of doubt? KS: At that moment (when it arises), no one can know it better than the one who has that doubt. Whenever there is doubt, there is avijja. One cannont say one knows it already. Qu 4. L: Can panna know concept when it impinges on the mind-door? Do concepts have any characteristic? KS: It's thinking about concepts, about reality. Understanding can be understanding that is theoretical knowledge. Sati arises with it (S: with all kusala). Qu 5. L: I find in my life I have so many moments of mana. Is it good? There is also a lot of thinking on account of mana, and I feel a lot of regrets about it. KS: It's a dhamma. Know the dhamma now. Begin to understand (the reality) as a dhamma instead of the story of dhamma, instead of wanting to understand the story better. Qu 6. L: In Vibhanga, Khandhavibhanga, The Buddha explained all 5 aggrgates by way of internal and external instances. When we lead our daily life, there are paramatha dhammas, but there are also concepts.... KS: (on external dhammas) Can anyone know that? Can anyone know what someone else thinks or feels? (It's) according to the accumulation of panna of each one (what is known), while the Buddha knows better. We cannot know more than that (e.g. just an idea about someone's unhappiness at any given time). Just begin to know the characteristic of reality step by step. (Panna has to understand dhamma. ***** As a side-note, sometimes friends comment that K.Sujin doesn't answer a question. She mentioned that she doesn't just answer a question without helping, because she knows that often someone cannot get the answer, so it's useless to just give the details if it's of no assistance. The Buddha knew what anyone could understand, so he taught accordingly. ***** Our two afternoon discussions have been very lively. Besides Jon, Nina, Lodewijk and myself, also Rob K, Sukin, Ann M (all 'known' here)and other friends were present. Today, Jessica (from Hong Kong who we first 'met' on DSG) and her friend, both on their way back home after attending a retreat in Myanmar, will be coming to our hotel and then to the discussion at the Foundation. I'm sure 'Meditation' and 'Control' will be discussed:-). I hope to write more on some DSG details that have come up tomorrow when I'll have more time. Metta, Sarah ======== #95749 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 9:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Introduction of New Terms and Expressions. jonoabb Hi Howard > I don't follow you, Jon. You had written "To my understanding, the gist > of the Kalama Sutta is that > statements are to be judged against the teachings as given by the Buddha." > Isn't that abou the Kalama > Sutta? Yes, but as I explained, when I made that comment I had in mind a passage that was in fact from a different sutta (you had referred to the Kalama Sutta without at that stage quoting from it). > I take this to mean not to accept statements of doctrine (for > example, "There is but one God") at face value. > --------------------------------------------- > Why would you take it so? Scripture means scripture. I suppose one could > take anything to mean anything if one is so inclined. ;-) So what do you take "scripture" to refer to in this context? From memory the BB translation has some comments on the Pali that this term represents (but I don't have access to my copy at the moment). > I take this to mean accepting something as true on the strength of > the standing of the person by whom it is stated. > ----------------------------------------------- > Yes, for example being the Buddha. Yes, any person at all. However, the observation I made was that your remarks were not supported by the texts (and so could not be considered to be consistent with the teachings). I made no assertion of acceptance. > I take this to refer to the fact that the Dhamma is to be experienced > (i.e. realised) each for him/her self; this can only occur when > panna has been developed to the appropriate level. > -------------------------------------------- > Finally, something that I take the same way! ;-)) > ------------------------------------------- That makes a pleasant change ;-)) > However, I > see nothing in the Kalama Sutta that would contradict what I said was > the "gist" of the passage I had in mind. > > The reference to knowing for oneself is not a charter to do one's own > thing ;-)) > ------------------------------------------- > Mmmm, that's what I recommend - right, Jon? Well I'm not sure, because so far you haven't offered any views of your own, only asked me to take note of certain passages (I'm still waiting to hear what it was about this particular extract that you thought I needed to be reminded about ;-)) > Getting back to our thread about speech as conditioning mental states > in the mind of the speaker. My point was that if something cannot be > shown to be supported in some manner by the teachings as we have > them, then it cannot be considered as of relevance to the development > of the path. Is it your view the that passage from the Kalama Sutta > says otherwise? > ------------------------------------------ > I can't bring myself to reply to this, Jon. A familiar pattern for our exchanges ;-)) Jon #95750 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 9:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. jonoabb Hi Robert > I do think that is a useful description and makes sense. However, in > a day-to-day context, we are all in the habit of doing certain things > for certain reasons. I can understand having a principled practice > of doing certain things, and not expecting or controlling the results. > That would make sense. Having a practice of "doing certain things, and not expecting or controlling the results" strikes me as being a practical impossibility, if not a contradiction in terms ;-)). That is certainly not my understanding of what the Buddha was saying. > If one tries to say more radically that there > is no practice of hearing and reflecting on the dhamma with the > intention of developing moments of sati and panna as a result, it > would be hard to imagine that any human being has the restraint to > have *no* volition with regard to immediate or future results. It is not necessary to say that there should be "*no* volition with regard to immediate or future results", but only that such (inevitable) moments would not be the development of the path as described by the Buddha. > But I > understand the philosophy, and agree to a good extent, that there is > no direct control over how the sequence of such things occur, or when > exactly they yield positive results. > > As one teacher put it, you have no control over what you do now, but > the intentions you have now will create actions and results in the > future. I would put it this way: The volition and other mental factors arising now do so by conditions and are beyond control, but they nevertheless condition moments of consciousness and accompanying mental factors that will arise in the future. > It is not that you control the future either, but that this > principle just takes place when it does. There is just the principle of this/that conditionality. Jon #95751 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 9:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. jonoabb Hi Robert > This makes sense. Certainly it even makes common sense. If you have > an interest in the dhamma, then reading or hearing the teachings and > reflecting on them and relating them to the present moment can create > vipassana leading to panna. I think that's a good summary. > > But to say this all happens by itself, in an arbitrary order, without > any intentional practice, I think is harder to accept. Of course it is harder to accept! That's because we hold strong views to the contrary. But the question first and foremost is whether that is what the Buddha was saying, given a consideration of his teachings as a whole. > I keep trying > to say that even if one pracices, and uses intention to apply such a > process to create results, there is still only action in the present > moment, and there is still no self in control. I think if we are frank with ourselves we would acknowledge that any such "practice" is driven by the desire for results. > I think it might be > more fruitful to include practice and volition in those things that > arise naturally due to conditions, than to exclude them as being > akusala promotions of self. We need to keep in mind that the "things that arise naturally due to conditions" include wrong view and other forms of akusala. So if we allow ourselves to be lead by what arises naturally we are bound to end up being lead by wrong view. > One can practice without regarding it as > the action of a self, just as you seem to read and hear explanations > of the teachings without allowing it to be credited to a self. Isn't > there some discipline in your refusing to adopt the concept of self in > that "practice," and shouldn't that discipline be among the items that > can arise naturally? I'm simply setting out what I understand the Buddha to be saying (not making reference to personal experience). > I think there's room for practice in the > selfless and uncontrolled scheme of things. Yes, there's always room for the self to be squeezed in somehow ;-)) Jon #95752 From: "connie" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 10:04 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 7 nichiconn Dear Rob Ep, > Rob Ep: > The Path does not > > exist as such by the way, it is a concept. Have you seen The Path? > > What does it look like? How hard is it? Does it have a color? > > Sukin: The Path is the 4th Noble Truth. So it must be real. It is a guiding principle, a correct concept, but not an actuality except as a guiding concept. You cannot confuse a correct principal with something that exists as a dhamma in the world, can you? c: Real... people exist, dhammas rise and fall. would that be about right? We can speak of bright and dark paths or subtlety making it hard, I suppose, but technically, you know, colour and hardness are rupas whereas the 8 path factors are cetasikas. You asked something similar before is why I interrupted. peace, connie #95753 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 10:14 pm Subject: Re: Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? abhidhammika Dear connie, TG, Scott, Ken H, Pt, Jon, Sarah, Nina, Robert K and KS Folks How are you? connie wrote: "Please explain what is meant by "control"." Suan replies: I am still waiting for KS Folks to answer my specific questions. As the term 'No control' is introduced by them, they are the right people for you to ask their explanation of what is meant by "control". As I wrote in my post: "KS Folks utter those words ('No control', 'uncontrollable') as excuses and justification for not undertaking formal Theravada meditation, and for criticizing Theravadii formal meditators, I observe." Below, I repost my simple questions. 1. Is viiriyam controllable? If controllable, how is it controllable and in what sense? 2. Is viiriyam uncontrollable? If uncontrollable, why is it uncontrollable and in what sense? 3. Is desire controllable? If controllable, how is it controllable and in what sense? 4. Is desire uncontrollable? If uncontrollable, why is it uncontrollable and in what sense? connie, try answering the above questions. The attempt to answer them will give you unusual satisfaction because it can help you find out what you understand and what you do not. Those questions are designed to help KS folks become sophisticated thinkers and speakers. They are not designed to engage in debate as Scott seemed to perceive and fear. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #95754 From: "connie" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 10:45 pm Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? nichiconn Dear Suan, You have already asked about "no control". I was asking you to explain what is meant by "control". It is ok if you wish to remain silent. peace, connie #95755 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 11:06 pm Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? abhidhammika Dear Scott, Howard, TG, Colette, connie, Robert Ep, Herman, Robert K, Nina, Alex, Alberto and all How are you? Scott wrote: "I don't seek to engage in the gunfight at the OK corral. I think the time for sectarian debate is over." Suan replies: I thought that you were on the side of mainstream Theravada as I am. So how could we have sectarian debate? As we both are on the side of Gotama the Buddha's mainstream teachings, how could we engage in the gunfight? However, if you insisted on being not on the side of Theravada, please tell me which sectarian side you are on. Scott wrote: "I sought a peaceful discussion on what I hoped would be a neutral territory where we both found interest: the Paa.li." Suan replies: As far as I am concerned, I am always on neutral ground whether to discuss dhamma or Paa.li. Scott wrote: "Should you desire a peaceful consideration of the Paa.li with me, please do so - I am a beginner in this area and you are not." Suan replies: What do you mean by `a peaceful consideration'? You sounded slightly paranoidal. Behind the scenes, during the last few days, I have been consulting abhidhamma commentaries before I wrote something on the Pali questions you have asked. I have new insights and information from those readings. Be prepared for them! For now, please stop sounding paranoidal. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #95756 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 6, 2009 11:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] thinking thinks, just it. No problem at all. upasaka_howard Hi, Lukas - In a message dated 2/7/2009 12:03:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, szmicio@... writes: Kokanuda Sutta To Kokanuda (On Viewpoints =============================== I find that sutta of value to me, as it, happily, supports a perspective of mine I consider important. I wonder what you think is the gist of the sutta. For me, the point of the sutta is distinguishing mere view/opinion from knowing, with Ananda responding with regard to each of several topics on which he was questioned as to his holding one or another viewpoint, that he holds no viewpoint but, on the other hand, does know what is what with respect to the matter. Ananda replies to the questioning as follows: ________________________ "No, my friend, I don't have that sort of view." "Then in that case, do you not know or see?" "No, my friend. It's not the case that I don't know, I don't see. I do know. I do see." -------------------------------------------- Our job, among others, it seems to me, is to be careful in distinguishing what we know from what we believe, and to assert only as belief what one doesn't truly know as fact. We easily fall into error in that, and I think it is best to be very cautious in asserting knowledge. In another sutta, MN 95, spoken by the Buddha himself, the following is taught: "If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth." With metta, Howard Reality (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #95757 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Sat Feb 7, 2009 5:22 am Subject: Re: Why Are KS Folk Silent? abhidhammika Dear connie As I explained in my previous post, I did not introduce those concepts "control" and "no control". You are asking the wrong person to explain those concepts, I am afraid. connie, please remember that, if you want to know the meaning of the term "control" in light of KS folks' understanding of it, you need to ask them. Or, if you merely want to know its meaning out of context, a good English dictionary is the way to go. I am not responsible for explaining the meanings of the terms that I did not introduce in my discussion of things regarding dhamma or practice. One of the KS folks should help connie out, please. Good luck! Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #95758 From: "connie" Date: Sat Feb 7, 2009 6:18 am Subject: Re: Why Are KS Folk Silent? nichiconn Dear Suan, Again, I was asking you to share your understanding, but as you've indicated, i've no control over that, so here's a dictionary answer: dameti, sa"myamati, paaleti. peace, connie #95759 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Feb 7, 2009 6:20 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "46. So above: in that same way in the upper direction is what is meant. Below, around: so too the lower direction and the direction all round. Herein, below is underneath, and around is in the intermediate directions. So he sends his heart full of lovingkindness back and forth in all directions like a horse in a circus ground. Up to this point specified pervasion with lovingkindness is shown in the discernment of each direction separately." Path of Purity. "'Above' is said in the same way to mean the direction above. 'Below, around' means, so also the direction below, the direction across. Of these, 'below' means beneath; 'around' in the intermediate points of the compass. Thus he sends the mind full of love in all directions, as it were a horse on a race-course. Thus far has the suffusion of love been shown specifically by limiting it to each of the quarters." Iti uddhanti eteneva nayena uparima.m disanti vutta.m hoti. Adho tiriyanti adhodisampi tiriya.mdisampi evameva. Tattha ca adhoti he.t.thaa. Tiriyanti anudisaasu. Eva.m sabbadisaasu assama.n.dale assamiva mettaasahagata.m citta.m saaretipi paccaasaaretipiiti. Ettaavataa eka.m disa.m pariggahetvaa odhiso mettaaphara.na.m dassita.m. Sincerely, Scott. #95760 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Feb 7, 2009 6:23 am Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? scottduncan2 Dear Suan, Regarding: S: "...I have been consulting abhidhamma commentaries before I wrote something on the Pali questions you have asked. I have new insights and information from those readings. Be prepared for them! Scott: Thank you. I'll be interested to consider these. Sincerely, Scott. #95761 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Feb 7, 2009 8:35 am Subject: Re: Request for comment - etc. szmicio Dear Connie Your comments clear it up to me. Now I see the meaning of cittavipayutta. You wrote: "Thus sati of satipatthana will investigate and be aware of the characteristics of nama and rupa, one at a time, until these appear as clearly distinct from each other, as being not associated, sampayutta, although they can arise at the same time." I think it's a typo in the last sentence. There should be vipayutta, shouldn't it? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Vibh. continues: "Is not 'accompanied by initial application,accompanied by sustain application'(na savitakkasavicaara.m). Is not 'without initial application,sustained application only'(na avitakkavicaaramatta.m). Is without initial application, without sustain application(avitakkaavicaara.m). Is not accompanied by zest(na piitisahagata.m). Is not accompanied by pleasure(na sukhasahagata.m). Is not accompanied by indiffrence(na upekkhaasahagata.m). Is not to be abandoned either by the first path or by the subsequent paths(neva dassanena na bhaavanaaya pahaatabba.m). Has no root to be abandoned either by the first path or by the subsequent paths(neva dassanena na bhaavanaaya pahaatabbahetuka.m). Is neither cumulative nor dispersive (of continuing rebirth of death) (nevaacayagaaminaapacayagaamii). Is neither of the seven sumpramundane stages nor of the final supramundane stage(nevasekkhanaasekkha.m)." ==================================================================== -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Is not 'accompanied by initial application,accompanied by sustain application'(na savitakkasavicaara.m). L: But rupa can be accompanied by vitaka and viccara. The same with hetus. Rupa can be accompanied by hetus. But Vibh states: "Is not accompanied by root(ahetuka. m)" I found it difficult. Why Buddha didn't say that rupa is sahetuka? Insted he said that is ahetuka? I know that rupa isn't associated with hetu but in what sense it's not accompanied by hetu? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Is not 'without initial application,sustained application only'(na avitakkavicaaramatta.m). 3) Is without initial application, without sustain application(avitakkaavicaara.m). L: Can you give me a short explanation? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Is neither cumulative nor dispersive (of continuing rebirth of death) (nevaacayagaaminaapacayagaamii). L: What does it mean? 5) Is neither of the seven sumpramundane stages nor of the final supramundane stage(nevasekkhanaasekkha.m)." L: Deos it mean that it's not lokuttara? My best wishes Lukas #95762 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Feb 7, 2009 10:03 am Subject: Re: thinking thinks, just it. No problem at all. szmicio Dear Howard Nice to hear you. I think this Sutta is the deepest reminder which leads us to direct understanding when we consider thinking as thinking. and also viewpoints as viewpoints. >I find that sutta of value to me, as it, happily, supports a >perspective of mine I consider important. I wonder what you think is >the gist of the sutta. For me, the point of the sutta is >distinguishing mere view/opinion from knowing, with Ananda responding >with regard to each of several topics on which he was questioned as >to his holding one or another viewpoint, that he holds no viewpoint >but, on the other hand, does know what is what with respect to >the matter. L: I am glad that you like it. I think it's not only about viewpoints or 'extreams'. It's also about thinking. >H: Our job, among others, it seems to me, is to be careful in >distinguishing what we know from what we believe, and to assert only >as belief what one doesn't truly know as fact. L: what do you mean by facts? Ananda didn't has any ideas about reality. He known exactly what's going on. He said: "The extent to which there are viewpoints, view-stances, the taking up of views, obsessions of views, the cause of views, & the uprooting of views: that's what I know. That's what I see. Knowing that, I say 'I know.' Seeing that, I say 'I see.' Why should I say 'I don't know, I don't see'? I do know. I do see." L: he didn't know the content of thinking, but he known how it arises and falls away. He known that's just nama which thinks not 'us'. I think it's really important. >H: In another sutta, MN 95, >spoken by the Buddha himself, the following is taught: "If a person >likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something >reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having >pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having >pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the >definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is >worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of >the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this >as the safeguarding of the truth." L: Thank you for this passage, Howard. I think it's about whether citta is kusala ot not. There is also Sutta about realities: SN 35.82 Loka Sutta The World Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu My best wishes Lukas #95763 From: "connie" Date: Sat Feb 7, 2009 10:42 am Subject: Re: Request for comment - etc. nichiconn Dear Lukas, SPD: Thus sati of satipatthana will investigate and be aware of the characteristics of nama and rupa, one at a time, until these appear as clearly distinct from each other, as being not associated, sampayutta, although they can arise at the same time." L: I think it's a typo in the last sentence. There should be vipayutta, shouldn't it? c: Oh! i didn't even notice that, just automatically read it as only referring back to 'associated' instead of 'not associated', which would be vipayutta, yes. We would have to ask Nina how she meant it to be taken. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Vibh. continues: "Is not 'accompanied by initial application,accompanied by sustain application'(na savitakkasavicaara.m). Is not 'without initial application,sustained application only'(na avitakkavicaaramatta.m). Is without initial application, without sustain application(avitakkaavicaara.m). Is not accompanied by zest(na piitisahagata.m). Is not accompanied by pleasure(na sukhasahagata.m). Is not accompanied by indiffrence(na upekkhaasahagata.m). Is not to be abandoned either by the first path or by the subsequent paths(neva dassanena na bhaavanaaya pahaatabba.m). Has no root to be abandoned either by the first path or by the subsequent paths(neva dassanena na bhaavanaaya pahaatabbahetuka.m). Is neither cumulative nor dispersive (of continuing rebirth of death) (nevaacayagaaminaapacayagaamii). Is neither of the seven sumpramundane stages nor of the final supramundane stage(nevasekkhanaasekkha.m)." ==================================================================== -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Is not 'accompanied by initial application,accompanied by sustain application'(na savitakkasavicaara.m). L: But rupa can be accompanied by vitaka and viccara. The same with hetus. Rupa can be accompanied by hetus. But Vibh states: "Is not accompanied by root(ahetuka. m)" I found it difficult. Why Buddha didn't say that rupa is sahetuka? Insted he said that is ahetuka? I know that rupa isn't associated with hetu but in what sense it's not accompanied by hetu? c: I'm not sure why you keep thinking rupa can be accompanied by cetasikas. It is because rupa can be 'born of' / caused by kamma and citta? Because of thinking about desirable and undesirable result consciousness on seeing, hearing, etc? If it's that, remember that the rupa must already have arisen before there can be contact with the sense base and in the initial consciousness arising then, there is no root, either. I also read some more about the distinction between cause and condition this morning, but please don't ask me to explain! -- Netti 452. Herein, what is a cause's characteristic? What is a condition's characteristic? A cause has the characteristic of not being shared in common, while a condition has the characteristic of being shared in common. 453. How might that be? In the same way that for the occurrence of a [seed's] sprout the seed is not shared in common [with the sprout] while earth [79] and water are common to both [seed and sprout]; for while the earth and water are each a condition for the sprout, still individual essence is its cause; or in the same way that milk left in a pot is curd, and yet there is no simultaneous concurrence of milk and curd, so too there is no simulateous concurrence of the cause and the condition. 454. Now this roundabout [of rebirths] has occurrence with cause and with condition; for this is said: I find that sutta of value to me, as it, happily, supports a >perspective of mine I consider important. I wonder what you think is >the gist of the sutta. For me, the point of the sutta is >distinguishing mere view/opinion from knowing, with Ananda responding >with regard to each of several topics on which he was questioned as >to his holding one or another viewpoint, that he holds no viewpoint >but, on the other hand, does know what is what with respect to >the matter. L: I am glad that you like it. I think it's not only about viewpoints or 'extreams'. It's also about thinking. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, it's about holding views, but I do put thinking in somewhat the same category. ---------------------------------------- >H: Our job, among others, it seems to me, is to be careful in >distinguishing what we know from what we believe, and to assert only >as belief what one doesn't truly know as fact. L: what do you mean by facts? Ananda didn't has any ideas about reality. He known exactly what's going on. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: He did, to some extent. He was no arahant then, however. ---------------------------------------------- He said: "The extent to which there are viewpoints, view-stances, the taking up of views, obsessions of views, the cause of views, & the uprooting of views: that's what I know. That's what I see. Knowing that, I say 'I know.' Seeing that, I say 'I see.' Why should I say 'I don't know, I don't see'? I do know. I do see." L: he didn't know the content of thinking, but he known how it arises and falls away. He known that's just nama which thinks not 'us'. I think it's really important. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree with you that there is all the difference in the world between direct knowing of something and knowing *about* something by hearsay or by thinking. Of course, whatever I conclude by valid deduction asfrom what is directly known as it is can also also be considered as known as fact (even though not directly known). -------------------------------------- >H: In another sutta, MN 95, >spoken by the Buddha himself, the following is taught: "If a person >likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something >reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having >pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having >pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the >definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is >worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of >the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this >as the safeguarding of the truth." L: Thank you for this passage, Howard. I think it's about whether citta is kusala ot not. --------------------------------------------- Howard: That is not evident in the sutta. The sutta, as far as I can see, is about safeguarding the truth by speaking of what is believed as only believed and not as fact. --------------------------------------------- There is also Sutta about realities: SN 35.82 Loka Sutta The World Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu -------------------------------------------- Howard: That is another matter. -------------------------------------------- My best wishes Lukas ======================== With metta, Howard (From Mishkan T'filah, the new Reform prayerbook) #95765 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Feb 7, 2009 2:37 pm Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? kenhowardau Hi Scott, While agreeing with everything you wrote I would like to add something that I know you will agree with too. Even when a group of like-minded people get together 'gunslingers' will emerge. It might be just the way someone hogs the conversation a bit too much - or munches his cornflakes too loudly at breakfast- but there will always be some behaviour that we deem inconsiderate. This is because the gunslingers are ultimately in our own minds. They are the akusala cittas and cetasikas, and the only defence against their inconsiderate behaviours is adosa. Compared to them the conventional gunslingers are a pushover. :-) Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > I seek a peaceful forum. I abhor proselytism no matter what side is > doing it. I think that those of us here, who may feel a vacuum in the > absence of opposition, can learn to really deepen and increase our > Dhamma discussions with each other - with like-minded students of the > Dhamma. I'm sure we can wean ourselves of our dependence on the > negative interactions, purge ourselves of our fear that no discussion > can ensue unless it is debate-driven. I am sure we can learn to > really clarify the points of Dhamma that seem confusing without the > climate of pugalism. I'm sure that this forum, cleared of > gunslingers, can really flourish, blossoming into a really peaceful > space for learning the Dhamma. > #95766 From: "colette" Date: Sat Feb 7, 2009 8:23 am Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? ksheri3 Hi Suan, I'm surprised you'd allow yourself to be mislead. maybe it's nothing more than the total and extreme obsorption I'm going through today dealing with the Naro Chosdrug, Guhyasamaja Tantra, "the half word"- "the whole word"-"the true word"etc. > "I don't seek to engage in the gunfight at the OK corral. I think > the time for sectarian debate is over." > > Suan replies: > > I thought that you were on the side of mainstream Theravada as I am. > So how could we have sectarian debate? > colette: I think Scott was being playful and didn't actually think of the many interpretations his word may bring to others outside of the country. ---------------- > As we both are on the side of Gotama the Buddha's mainstream > teachings, how could we engage in the gunfight? > > However, if you insisted on being not on the side of Theravada, > please tell me which sectarian side you are on. > > Scott wrote: > > "I sought a peaceful discussion on what I hoped would be a > neutral territory where we both found interest: the Paa.li." > > Suan replies: > > As far as I am concerned, I am always on neutral ground whether to > discuss dhamma or Paa.li. > colette: EXACTLY THE POINT I WAS LOOKING FOR. You, Suan, see yourself on neutral ground but others do not see that THEREFORE what is INTERNAL to you IS SOMETHING TOTALLY EXTERNAL TO ANOTHER PERSON. Your version of neutral ground may be very hostile territory to others. gotta go. bless you for including me in this discussion. Hopefully I'll get some more time. toodles, colette > Scott wrote: > > "Should you desire a peaceful consideration of the Paa.li with me, > please do so - I am a beginner in this area and you are not." > > Suan replies: > > What do you mean by `a peaceful consideration'? You sounded slightly > paranoidal. <....> #95767 From: "colette" Date: Sat Feb 7, 2009 9:12 am Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? ksheri3 Hi Scott, connie, Suan, et al, You and connie apply a different technique here to this confrontation. I like it, but I ponder it's ability in my hands and for my use. Allow me to diasect the situation: Suan seems VERY CONFIDENT almost OVER CONFIDENT. While this is a good thing in the practice of faith it can lead to delusions and to misinterpretations. I saw Suan's last paragraph as almost a threat. I would have been all over him if he said that to me, but that's his style and his technique. Of course my technique is CONDITIONED by the fact that I am stabbed in the back, betrayed, each and every time I allow my trust and confidence to be extended to another. I, THEREFORE, don't waste time and just pull out the guns immediately so that I can cut to the chase and release the mental patient from his delusions that he is gonna get away with stabbing me in the back where I conveniently slip through the cracks and, as always, end up with nothing and begging for even the most simple of things. <....> lets see how this one plays out. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Suan, > > Regarding: > > S: "...I have been consulting abhidhamma commentaries before I wrote > something on the Pali questions you have asked. I have new insights > and information from those readings. Be prepared for them! > > Scott: Thank you. I'll be interested to consider these. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > #95768 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Feb 7, 2009 5:09 pm Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > <. . .> > I did see Ken's reply to PT's post, but Ken failed to answer my > simple questions. > > Ken, please stop beating about the bush. Please stop writing > misleading platitudes. > ------------- Hi Suan, Sorry you didn't like my reply to PT's questions. Which particular parts of my reply did you find misleading? Returning to your original questions, my answers are as follows: ------------------- > 1. Is viiriyam controllable? ----------------- No, it is dependent of conditions. It arises *only* when the conditions for its arising are present. If viiriyam (or viriya) was controllable it could be made to arise even when the required conditions were not present. It could be made to persist rather than be subject to anicca. It would be a form of self. ----------------------- > If controllable, how is it controllable and in what sense? ----------------------- If dhammas could be said to be controllable then the definition of controllable would have to be "dependent on conditions." (I'd be interested to know if that was your definition of controllable.) ------------------------------- > 2. Is viiriyam uncontrollable? If uncontrollable, why is it uncontrollable and in what sense? -------------------------------- Same answers as before. ------------------- 3. Is desire controllable? If controllable, how is it controllable and in what sense? 4. Is desire uncontrollable? If uncontrollable, why is it uncontrollable and in what sense? ------------------- Here, you are using the English word "desire" rather than the Pali "lobha" so I wonder if you are talking about the conventional idea of desire rather than the conditioned dhamma. Conventionally speaking, desire is controllable to some extent. But then, conventionally speaking, desire is also lasting and pertaining to a self. Ken H How did I go? :-) #95769 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 12:02 am Subject: Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 1 szmicio Dear Sarah Those Ajahn Sujin's answers are very deep. They are very helpful for me. They reminds me about reality, not thinking of it. Please remind me about seeing and hearing, It's so hard to applay it in life. There is much thinking about realities all the day. But still it's not the truth. But I also realized some of this "thinkings" to be kusala. They arise only on conditions and they'll bring more in the future. They lead to understanding, i think so. My Best Wishes Lukas P.s Can you ask Ajahn one more question? "Dear Ajahn. I realised in my life what citta is. There were moments of understanding of citta. It has a characteristic of experience. It experience its object. It is not just word, that's a reality. Those moments of experience characteristic of citta was so natural. It was when I met your teachings for the first time. But now I don't experience it anymore. And I start to think that maybe all those is gone and i won't experience it anymore. I know that's lobha on account of past experience. But I feel bad with it. Akusala arise more often then kusala. And I think that's wrong. I still take it for myself." "In one moment there can be kusala and then there can be akusala. then regrets on account of akusala may arise. But it's so hard to deal with regrets." " There can be also a lot of moments of akusala on account of reading of Dhamma. Should we stop reading Dhamma then? " "Can you remind us more about citta now?" Those are my doubts, I hope you give it to Ajahn. My best wishes Lukas #95770 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 12:36 am Subject: K.Sujin on meditation.... and confrontation. sarahprocter... Dear Friends, I listened to the following discussion between a friend & KS (on KS's 80th birthday) and think that most people will find it interesting and controversial:-) The discussion was about meditation, samma samadhi and the Visuddhimagga passages. KS's last comment was that: "without right understanding, people just want to have it (samma samadhi), so it cannot be calm. It's attachment to having happy feeling or pleasant feeling only." ***** V: Ajahn, I've been listening to you for many years and you've gone out of your way to emphasise this point at the expense of sometimes major confrontations with people in the room to do with meditation, so it's taken a lot of effort on your part, I think, to be very strong on this issue of meditation. What is the main motivation behind that, because the whole Buddhist world goes towards the level of meditation and you've made a lot of effort over many years to try and clarify the issue of meditation. Is it more the way people meditate or just meditation period? KS: The whole teachings will lead to non-attachment little by little until there is no attachment at all. V: And you feel that by meditating, as understood in the Buddhist world today, it's conducive to more attachment? KS: Today, I think there's no understanding about what meditation is, what samatha is and what vipassana is. For example, vipassana is the moment of understanding reality right now at this moment as it is, the penetration of the true nature of reality. So if there is no understanding of reality right now, how can it lead to the penetration of the true nature of reality right now? And that is detachment, not attachment. The whole teachings of the Buddha lead to detachment. V: So is there a meditation that you feel would be helpful with right understanding? KS: I think that when we use any term we'd better understand (it). For example, if someone tells me that meditation is sitting, I don't think so. I think that it's the understanding at the level of seeing that in a day, usually there are akusala cittas, one or the other, like lobha or dosa or even moha. So how can there be kusala after seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching? It needs panna to see the danger of attachment to sensuous objects and to know better when panna is wholesome and when it's (the citta's) not. Not just trying to concentrate without any understanding (of) the difference between kusala citta and akusala citta. For example, at this moment of seeing, who can tell (whether)the citta which follows seeing is lobha or kusala? It needs panna to know. When there is no understanding of the hindrances, the nivarana dhammas, how can they become less? Because there is always attachment to sensuous objects, so it needs panna to understand citta at that very moment, that it is wholesome by what? Understanding the object of samatha, like the virtues of the Buddha. If there is no understanding of the virtues of the Buddha, how can the citta be calm? For example, it's not just reciting the Pali word without any understanding. For example, 'namo tassa', Ok that is to pay respect to the enlightened one, 'itipi so bhagava...', because of this and this he's the enlightened one. Because of what? When there's no understanding of his teachings yet, so it's just reciting without any understanding and the citta at that moment, can it be calm?.....So when anyone just recites the Pali word or anyone just concentrates on an object without any understanding, it's attachment, wanting the citta to not go 'astray', just wanting to concentrate on an object. That's all - thinking that it's good - the mind is like 'rest', it does not go around towards all objects through eyes, ears and so forth. But that is not right understanding. So the heart of the teachings, the core, the purpose of the teachings is to have people who have heard, who have right understanding. V: Many people would disagree with that Ajahn. I think the issue is what aspect the focussing of the mind or the gathering of the mind has within the teachings, within the development of understanding - how focusssing the mind can actually assist. KS If one cannot tell this moment whether it's wholesome or unwholesome, it's impossible to develop calm or samatha. Never! At this very moment, after seeing, (is there) attachment, akusala or kusala? If panna doesn't arise, who knows? So one follows one's own thinking about samatha, one's own thinking about meditation. It's like concentration - and the citta at that moment is so attached to it because there is no right understanding. Only when right understanding arises, there is no attachment. But if right understanding doesn't arise, is there unknowing like now anytime after seeing or hearing? Who will say (whether) it's kusala or calm? So it depends on (whether) one would like to understand reality at that very moment or not. Just follow one's accumulations! ***** Metta, Sarah p.s This discussion is at the very end of the next edited set we will be uploading on www. dhammastudygroup.org in due course. ====== #95771 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 12:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 1 sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- On Sun, 8/2/09, szmicio wrote: >Those Ajahn Sujin's answers are very deep. They are very helpful for me. They reminds me about reality, not thinking of it. ... S: Yes, I find the same. Yesterday, Jessica and her friend, Mei, joined the discussion for the first time. Afterwards Jessica made a similar comment along the lines of how 'direct' KS's answers are. Sometimes others are very enthusiastic about answering, so one doesn't always hear KS's however! I like the reminders you've been giving to others and also your discussions on Abhi with Connie. .... >Please remind me about seeing and hearing, It's so hard to applay it in life. ... S: It's now - nothing to be 'applied'. Just understand whatever appears without any selection or idea of applying. .... >There is much thinking about realities all the day. But still it's not the truth. But I also realized some of this "thinkings" to be kusala. They arise only on conditions and they'll bring more in the future. They lead to understanding, i think so. ... S: I'll have to leave you to say more. While in Bkk, I'll just try to send the occasional e-card. I'll be delighted to print out your questions and either Nina or I will bring them up on Tuesday or Wednesday (our next discussions). Any more are welcome - they are good questions for the group and in due course, you'll hear the full answers. Metta, Sarah ======== #95773 From: "paththree" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 12:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu paththree You are writing: "III. That you think Nanavira can be dangerous, I understand. To me he was a psychiatric patient at the end of his life, that's my conclusion of Stephen Batchelor's essay Existence, Enlightenment and Suicide about him." Mr. Batchelor does not think now like that at all. That understanding is wrong. Path3 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Hallo Sarah, all > > Many thanks for the mass of answers and reactions. One doesn't get so > much attention every days (luckely not) > I try to answer in one message. I number in roman numbers > > I. "Sabhava" What RobK wrote or quoted about it in 55086, is > unreadable for me. I stopped studying this scholasticism. > Better is the conclusion of both Howard and me about it this week: > let's not use any more the term 'sabhava': it only gives > misunderstandings and we don't need this concept. > > > II. S: .. the distinction [ultimate-conventional, J.] is a kind > of 'skillful means' as you say. However, > the words point to > a) realities which can be directly known, realities which arise > and fall away (apart from nibbana) and > b) mere concepts, ideas, conventional usages. > > N: It's only an intellectual and not a soteriological problem but the > combination of these two do not cover everything. Cf the discussion > again this week: do "anicca", "anatta", "dukkha" and > the "accumulations" belong to > a): No, because they don't fall away > b): No, because their character (excusez le mot) is ultimate > > > III. That you think Nanavira can be dangerous, I understand. To me he > was a psychiatric patient at the end of his life, that's my > conclusion of Stephen Batchelor's essay Existence, Enlightenment and > Suicide about him. > But that you also are putting prof. Karunadasa to the group of > heretics, is more difficult to digest for me. I do trust him, also > after you negative words in #64554 <....> #95774 From: "paththree" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 1:20 am Subject: Re: Angry Monks paththree Dear Rob M -- You are writing: > A couple of years back, I mentioned this in a conversation with an > elderly scholar monk who was visiting Malaysia. This monk mentioned > that he was one of Nanavira's teachers and knew him quite well. > Apparently, Nanavira was brilliant and charismatic but he did have > mental problems for which he took medication - at the end, he > committed suicide (the elderly scholar monk was explaining to me > Nanavira's misinterpretation of the Vinaya which Nanavira used to > justify committing suicide - some complex stuff related to Pali > grammar, sorry I cannot remember the details). I would just correct that (i) he was not taking medication because of mental problems but because of physical problems; (ii) attempting suicide in not against Vinaya (check with Vinaya masters!); (iii) Ven. Nanavira was ordained in 1949 and I really wonder how that monk could be Ven. Nanavira's teacher. Then the teacher must be by now very old monk. Also Nanavira didn't have any teacher than Nyanatiloka. In which point was Nanavira angry? I cannot find any passage where I could notice his anger. Hope that clearify. Best, Path3 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi All, > > It really upsets me when I see monks demonstrating anger. To me, > this is the antithesis of Buddhism. > > I have a book in my library, "Satipatthana Vipassana Meditation - > Criticisms and Replies". It is a series of articles published in > Buddhist Journals in the mid 1960s which are basically arguments > between a student of Mahasi Sayadaw (Sayadaw U Nyanuttara) and a > senior Sri Lankan monk (Kheminda Thera). Both venerables put forward > convincing arguments, but it is the anger (couched in academic > discussion) that strikes me. > > When I read the writings of Nanavira or Buddhadassa, they come > across to me as virulent attacks on traditional Theravada positions. > These are brilliant monks and it is possible that their positions > are valid. However, the anger that comes through in their writings > disturbs me. > > A couple of years back, I mentioned this in a conversation with an > elderly scholar monk who was visiting Malaysia. This monk mentioned > that he was one of Nanavira's teachers and knew him quite well. > Apparently, Nanavira was brilliant and charismatic but he did have > mental problems for which he took medication - at the end, he > committed suicide (the elderly scholar monk was explaining to me > Nanavira's misinterpretation of the Vinaya which Nanavira used to > justify committing suicide - some complex stuff related to Pali > grammar, sorry I cannot remember the details). > > I would not want to take as a teacher somebody who is driven by > anger, no matter how smart they are. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > #95775 From: "paththree" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 1:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: choice and suicide paththree Now the link is www.nanavira.org. The book is reprinted. Check on the website. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lucy" wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Newton" > > > Yes,there is,as you say,a great silence,around > > the Ven.Nanaviras death.Here in California,I've > > seen nothing written about this anywhere here, > > nor do many Buddhists here know anything about > > this.I'm glad some members of this group are > > sharing some of their comments,which was just > > what I was hoping for.Even the Ven.Nanaviras > > published work"NOTES ON DHAMMA"is out of > > print.Very few copies available.Wonder if anyone > > knows about this book and whether this book > > ever got republished.YOURS IN DHAMMA,MICHAEL > > Hello Michael > > "Notes on Dhamma" by Ven. Nanavira, as well as his letters, are available > at: > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/ctp-cont.htm#letters > > Best wishes > Lucy > #95776 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 3:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a chariot sarahprocter... Dear Friend, Welcome to DSG! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "paththree" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > Regarding Anatta: I assume you were never really able to read Ven. > Nanavira. ... S: True, I've never been able to get far. ... >Try again. But you have to read all Notes on Dhamma, and not > just a passage and making quick conclusions. If you do so, then you > are just denning your own delusion. > > And originally he didn't claim his attainments in public. He wrote a > letter to the abbot of IH, who then showed it around. ... S: Thank you for your clarification. What is it in particular that appeals to you about Nanavira's teaching? In one of the summaries you gave, it suggested that his teaching goes against traditional Theravada teaching (or something like that). Does anyone know better than the Buddha and his disciples who preserved the teachings? Also, please introduce yourself a little. Metta, Sarah p.s. We also ask everyone here to make it clear at the outset who is being addressed and to sign off with a preferably 'real' name. We understand some people may have particular reasons for not doing the latter, but their messages usually remain moderated. ============= #95777 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 3:57 am Subject: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 2 sarahprocter... Dear Friends (esp. Howard, Scott, Connie & Phil), As I mentioned, Jessica and her friend joined the group yesterday. Being Saturday, there were quite a few people, including Kevin who had disrobed since our first session after announcing this was on the cards. In his absence there had been some discussion of the great difficulty in leading a bhikkhu's life today. Probably most the discussion yesterday revolved around points Jessica raised and the general theme of pariyatti and patipatti. In particular, how there cannot be patipatti without pariyatti and just what these mean. We can say seeing sees visible object now, but is this understood or are we just repeating terms? **** Anyway, I'd just like to briefly refer to some detailed points related to DSG discussions, I've raised, which have been clarified during the last few days. 1. Scott, #91836 "....Here, bhikkhus, the noble disciple is mindful, possessing supreme mindfulness and discretion, one who remembers and recollects what was done and said long ago. (cirakatampi cirabhaasitampi saritaa anussaritaa)...." Here, highly developed sati with panna (as in the case of the Buddha and his key disciples, as I understand). Sati that which recalls, (with sanna). Recalling,reflecting, not remembering (sanna). There can be recalling with kusala or akusala now. 2. Survey, #94295, #92605 Atta- sanna, the remembrance or perception that it is "I" who is seeing, and that what is seen is a being, a person, a self OR a thing. "When someone clings to the concept of self, being, person, or different things and really believes that they exist, there is the wrong view of sakkaya-ditthi (personality belief)." Here, 'things' has to be understood as pertaining to those taken for 'self', such as 'leg'. When there is the wrong idea of 'comnputer', there is atta-sanna, attanuditthi, but not sakkaya ditthi. 3. The meaning of khandha and from the Vibhanga, 'tad ekajjha.m abhisa~n~nuuhitvaa abhisa"nkipitvaa", "taken together collectively and briefly". Each rupa, each vedana etc is khandha. "Collectively" - meaning no rupa, no vedana etc excluded. #91470, #91453, #91551, #91552, #91512 Howard's & Nina's and my comments on khandhas. Classification, group - but referring to each rupa etc. Different classifications for teaching purposes to understand reality. Each one arises and falls away - each khandha is a paramattha dhamma. #90296, Scott's comment re past, present, future. Cannot refer to the arising and ceasing - only to khandha that is past, not yet arisen and arisen now. 4. The cause of rupas outside the body - only temperature. #92716, Howard's comments on gravity and motion conditioning motion. There cannot be motion without temperature, however. Temperature conditions each motion. Interesting examples discussed such as the Buddha's seat (for Connie), the palace in deva realms, the appearance of robes and bowls in 'ehi passiko', twin miracles and so on. Temperature is the condition of what we can see, but this temperature (in these examples) is conditioned by kamma. So kamma conditions utu (temperature) which in turn conditions kamma resulting in the seat etc. 5. What is the difference between listening and reading? When reading, we think in words because of the memory of the sound. 6. Phil's comment on something he'd heard on tape when is sounded to him as if KS suggested everyone was listening for a higher, purer purpose (#92308) as in a) dhamma for oneself, b)dhamma for others, c) dhamma for sake of understanding dhamma. KS: "Who can know the other's citta?" We can only know for ourselves. [She often uses humour and this can be misunderstood when listening to recordings.] 7. Rob K brought up the 'hearing of harsh words'. Can we say there is necessarily akusala vipaka? Cannot pinpoint - all depends on kamma what is experienced. Scott & Nina #92566, Would sati sampajanna know the distinction between pleasant and unpleasant? Just as it is - no thought of pleasant or unpleasant when visible object or sound appears. Wanting to know, judging.....i.e. attachment. 8. Phil & Scott's discussion on the AN sutta re couples of same virtue etc being together in future ife in Deva realms etc #91400 - just like now - depends on accumulations and anusaya, all is anatta. Like now - deva world, couples - actually cittas, cetasikas... 9.Phil's comments about KS urging too deep an understanding, such as emphasising 'the deepest form of mindfulness of death' only and ignoring the relatively simple messages in AN and to Rahula #90940 KS: Everyone knows about the other kinds of death. Does it help? What about root and cause? The simple teachings are of no us. Rahula was ready to become an arahat - not just simply thinking about what done and to be done. What we hear and study will be understood according to diferent levels. The Buddha taught so that those who listened could become enlightened. ***** If there are any points from discussions anyone would like me to bring up, I'm happy to try. Metta, Sarah ======== #95778 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 5:59 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "47. Everywhere, etc., is said for the purpose of showing unspecified pervasion. Herein, everywhere means in all places. Equally (sabbattataaya): to all classed as inferior, medium, superior, friendly, hostile, neutral, etc., just as to oneself (attataa); equally with oneself (atta-samataa) without making distinction 'This is another being', is what is meant. Or alternatively, equally (sabbattataaya) is with the whole state of the mind; not reserving even a little, is what is meant. Entire (sabbavant): possessing all beings (sabbasattavant): associated with all beings is the meaning. World is the world of beings." Path of Purity. "'Everywhere' and the other terms have been said to show the unspecified suffusion. Of these, 'everywhere' means in every place. 'Wholeheartedly' means, on all beings, inferior, middling, noble, friend, foe or neutral, considering them as oneself. It is treating another equal to oneself, without making the distinction that 'he is another.' Or, 'wholeheartedly' has bee said to mean, with all one's heart, not leaving out the smallest bit. 'The whole wide' means, with all creatures; connected with all creatures is the meaning. 'World' means, the sentient world." Sabbadhiitiaadi pana anodhiso dassanattha.m vutta.m. Tattha sabbadhiiti sabbattha. Sabbattataayaati sabbesu hiinamajjhimukka.t.thamittasapattamajjhattaadippabhedesu attataaya . 'Aya.m parasatto 'ti vibhaaga.m akatvaa attasamataayaati vutta.m hoti. Atha vaa sabbattataayaati sabbena cittabhaagena iisakampi bahi avikkhipamaanoti vutta.m hoti. Sabbaavantanti sabbasattavanta.m, sabbasattayuttanti attho. Lokanti sattaloka.m. Sincerely, Scott. #95779 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 6:50 am Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? abhidhammika Dear Ken H, Scott, Howard, colette, connie, Robert Ep, Herman, Robert K, Nina, Alex, Alberto and all How are you? Ken wrote: "Here, you are using the English word "desire" rather than the Pali "lobha" so I wonder if you are talking about the conventional idea of desire rather than the conditioned dhamma. Conventionally speaking, desire is controllable to some extent. But then, conventionally speaking, desire is also lasting and pertaining to a self." The term `desire' was introduced by Scott without giving the Pali equivalent. In my reply post, I did include the Pali word `chando' as the possible counterpart of the word `desire'. The term `chando' itself can combine with the terms `kaamo' and `raago' to make compounds `kaamicchando' and `chandaraago'. When combined like that, it looses its original neutral meaning and takes on a new meaning: lust. By the way, Scott also did not give the Pali equivalent of the modifier `uncontrollable' when he introduced it in his post. Scott, if you could suspend anti-debate paranoia for a few moments, you are very welcome to supply the Pali equivalents of the terms `desire' and `uncontrollable' you introduced. Ken, thank you for answering my questions as best you can. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #95780 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 10:06 am Subject: Re: Request for comment - etc. szmicio Dear Connie, I found some difficulties. > L: But rupa can be accompanied by vitaka and viccara. The same with > hetus. Rupa can be accompanied by hetus. But Vibh states: > "Is not accompanied by root(ahetuka. m)" > I found it difficult. Why Buddha didn't say that rupa is sahetuka? > Insted he said that is ahetuka? > I know that rupa isn't associated with hetu but in what sense it's not accompanied by hetu? > c: I'm not sure why you keep thinking rupa can be accompanied by >cetasikas. It is because rupa can be 'born of' caused by kamma and >citta? Because of thinking about desirable and undesirable result >consciousness on seeing, hearing, etc? L: I am thinking about nama and rupa as namaruupa. Even if there are distinction between them, they always arise as namaruupa. Nina's ADL states: "The 'Visuddhimagga' (XVIII, 34) explains: "Furthermore, nama has no efficient power, it cannot occur by its own efficient power... It does not eat, it does not drink, it does not speak, it does not adopt postures. And rupa is without efficient power; it cannot occur by its own efficient power. For it has no desire to eat, it has no desire to drink, it has no desire to speak, it has no desire to adopt postures. But rather it is when supported by rupa that nama occurs; and it is when supported by nama that rupa occurs. When nama has the desire to eat, the desire to drink, the desire to speak, the desire to adopt a posture, it is rupa that eats, drinks, speaks and adopts a posture...." Furthermore (XVIII, 36) we read: "And just as men depend upon A boat for traversing the sea, So does the mental body need The matter-body for occurrence. And as the boat depends upon The men for traversing the sea, So does the matter-body need The mental body for occurrence. Depending each upon the other The boat and men go on the sea. And so do mind and matter both Depend the one upon the other." L: Nama and rupa both depends on each other. They supports each other. What kind of support is that? According to vibh. they are cittavipayutta, not associated with nama. But there are some "dependecies" as Vism. states above. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >c:If it's that, remember that the rupa must already have arisen before there can be contact with the sense base... L: Yeah but what's with subtle rupas? -------------------------------------------------------------------- >c: and in the initial consciousness arising then, there is no root, >either. Vibh: Is not accompanied by root(ahetuka.m) L: But during javana-cittas of sense-doors, hetus are present. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - >4) Is neither cumulative nor dispersive (of continuing rebirth of >death) (nevaacayagaaminaap acayagaamii) . > >L: What does it mean? > >c: again, these are functions fo naama. think of sankhara. or is the confusion because of "heaping up" and we can think of >the "heap" or khandha? L: Oh now it's pretty clear. My best wishes Lukas #95781 From: "szmicio" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 11:03 am Subject: Re: Request for comment - etc. szmicio Dear Connie Vibhanga continues: " Is low (paritta.m). Is characteristic of plane of desire(kaamaavacara). Is not characteristic of the plane of form(na ruupaavacara.m). Is not characteristic of the formless plane(na aruupaavacara.m). Is included(i.e is mundane) (pariyaapanna.m). Is not 'not included'(i.e not supramundane)(no apariyaapanna.m). Is of no fixed(resultant time) (aniyata.m). Does not tend to release(aniyyaanika.m). Is risen(uppanna.m). Is cognizable by the six types of consiousness(chahi vi~n~naa.nehi vi~n~neyya.m). Is not permanent(anicca.m). Is subject to decay(jaraabhibhuuta.m). Thus is the aggregate of material quality (Eva.m ekavidhena ruupakkhandho)." -------------------------------------------------------------------- ==================================================================== 1)Is low (paritta.m) L: What does Buddha mean by that? paritta means also: insignificant, small, little. Rupa is paritta, what does it mean? In what sense it is "low"? --------------- 2)Is characteristic of plane of desire(kaamaavacara). Why is that? What does 'being kaamaavacara' indicate? --------------- 3)Is not characteristic of the plane of form(na ruupaavacara.m). But in ruupaavacara bhumi, rupa is still present, isn't it? So why rupa isn't characteristic of plane of form? --------------- 4)Is included(i.e is mundane) (pariyaapanna.m). 5)Is not 'not included'(i.e not supramundane)(no apariyaapanna.m). L: What does it mean? --------------- 5)Is of no fixed(resultant time) (aniyata.m). 6)Does not tend to release(aniyyaanika.m). L: Can you explain it? --------------- 7)Is risen(uppanna.m). L: In what sense it's risen? Best wishes Lukas #95782 From: "colette" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 2:10 pm Subject: Why Are KS Folk Silent? Re: What the Buddha said... to whom? ksheri3 Hi Suan, I've been trying to follow this discussion as best I can but lately my buddhist studies have been down and well, consumed by the alaya- vijnana and latent/patent issues. Where did Scott hint at being paranoid? How did Scott hint at being paranoid? Paranoia is a fear but can be an opinion of conditions. This opinion can then influence and reinforce the conditions whether they actually exist or not since it is just an opinion. Paranoia taken from the garden of opinion, then, is a highly delusional and volatile thing to work with. I'd rather say somebody is hallucinating before I'd say they're paranoid. People live their entire lives in hallucinations i.e. American Dream where dreams are hallucinations, nama without substance. by suggesting that another person is hallucinating you leave yourself room to wiggle and detect the actual psychological conditions of the person in question. "In accordance with the projective [cause] (aksepa-[hetu]) the mental stream (santana) increases gradually by the afflictions (klesa) and karma and goes again into the next world... Such is the circle of existence without beginning." My Pali friends will have to help me get the sutta that's from, I haven't reached the "notes" section of this paper by William S.Waldron. ;) good luck. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > > > > Dear Ken H, Scott, Howard, colette, connie, Robert Ep, Herman, > Robert K, Nina, Alex, Alberto and all > > How are you? > > Ken wrote: > > "Here, you are using the English word "desire" rather than the > Pali "lobha" so I wonder if you are talking about the conventional > idea of desire rather than the conditioned dhamma. Conventionally > speaking, desire is controllable to some extent. But then, > conventionally speaking, desire is also lasting and pertaining to a > self." > > The term `desire' was introduced by Scott without giving the Pali > equivalent. In my reply post, I did include the Pali word `chando' > as the possible counterpart of the word `desire'. > > The term `chando' itself can combine with the terms `kaamo' > and `raago' to make compounds `kaamicchando' and `chandaraago'. When > combined like that, it looses its original neutral meaning and takes > on a new meaning: lust. > > By the way, Scott also did not give the Pali equivalent of the > modifier `uncontrollable' when he introduced it in his post. > > Scott, if you could suspend anti-debate paranoia for a few moments, > you are very welcome to supply the Pali equivalents of the > terms `desire' and `uncontrollable' you introduced. > > Ken, thank you for answering my questions as best you can. <....> #95783 From: "robmoult" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 10:19 pm Subject: Re: Angry Monks robmoult Hi Path3, The "elderly scholar monk" was Bhikkhu Professor Dhammavihari. My guess is that he is about 90 years old. I have an original 1963 version of Nanavira Thera's "Notes on Dhamma", typritten on legal size paper. "Anger" is probably too simple of a word to characterize his writings. In 1998, Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote an essay, "A Critical Examination of ~Naa.naviira Thera's "A Note on Pa.ticcasamuppaada" " in which he talks about this book. Here is an extract from Bhikkhu Bodhi: "Ven. ~Naa.naviira's purpose in writing the Notes was, in his own words, "to indicate the proper interpretation of the Suttas," the key to which he believed he had discovered through an experience that he identified as the arising of the Eye of Dhamma (dhammacakkhu), that is, the attainment of stream-entry. His proposition sounds innocuous enough as it stands, until one discovers that the author sees this task as entailing nothing less than a radical revaluation of the entire Theravaada exegetical tradition. Few of the standard interpretative principles upheld by Theravaada orthodoxy are spared the slashing of his pen. The most time-honoured explanatory tools for interpreting the Suttas, along with the venerated books from which they stem, he dismisses as "a mass of dead matter choking the Suttas." The Abhidhamma Pi.taka, the Milindapa~nha, the Visuddhimagga, the Pali Commentaries -- all come in for criticism, and the author says that ignorance of them "may be counted a positive advantage as leaving less to be unlearned." " I got the same impression from reading Nanavira's text and simplified the description as "anger". I will load Bhikkhu Bodhi's essay into the files section of DSG for one week for those who are interested in reading it. I will also upload Bhikkhu Professor Dhammavihari's article "Suicide in Buddhism" which explains how Nanavira (and others) have misinterpreted the Vinaya to justify suicide by monks. As we know, there are four parajika offenses for monks: Incelibacy, Stealing, Killing and Claiming false attainments. These are the most serious offenses for monks. Let us look a the third parajika offense in more detail. It reads, "Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human being of life, or search for an assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die (saying): "My good man, what use is this evil, miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than life," or with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in various ways praise the advantages of death or incite him to die, he also is defeated and no longer in affiliation." In my simplistic way of thinking, if encouraging another to commit suicide is a parajika offense, a monk should not be allowed to commit suicide themselves. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "paththree" wrote: > > Dear Rob M -- > > You are writing: > > > A couple of years back, I mentioned this in a conversation with an > > elderly scholar monk who was visiting Malaysia. This monk mentioned > > that he was one of Nanavira's teachers and knew him quite well. > > Apparently, Nanavira was brilliant and charismatic but he did have > > mental problems for which he took medication - at the end, he > > committed suicide (the elderly scholar monk was explaining to me > > Nanavira's misinterpretation of the Vinaya which Nanavira used to > > justify committing suicide - some complex stuff related to Pali > > grammar, sorry I cannot remember the details). > > I would just correct that (i) he was not taking medication because of > mental problems but because of physical problems; (ii) attempting > suicide in not against Vinaya (check with Vinaya masters!); (iii) Ven. > Nanavira was ordained in 1949 and I really wonder how that monk could > be Ven. Nanavira's teacher. Then the teacher must be by now very old > monk. Also Nanavira didn't have any teacher than Nyanatiloka. > > In which point was Nanavira angry? I cannot find any passage where I > could notice his anger. > > Hope that clearify. > > Best, Path3 > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > It really upsets me when I see monks demonstrating anger. To me, > > this is the antithesis of Buddhism. > > > > I have a book in my library, "Satipatthana Vipassana Meditation - > > Criticisms and Replies". It is a series of articles published in > > Buddhist Journals in the mid 1960s which are basically arguments > > between a student of Mahasi Sayadaw (Sayadaw U Nyanuttara) and a > > senior Sri Lankan monk (Kheminda Thera). Both venerables put forward > > convincing arguments, but it is the anger (couched in academic > > discussion) that strikes me. > > > > When I read the writings of Nanavira or Buddhadassa, they come > > across to me as virulent attacks on traditional Theravada positions. > > These are brilliant monks and it is possible that their positions > > are valid. However, the anger that comes through in their writings > > disturbs me. > > > > A couple of years back, I mentioned this in a conversation with an > > elderly scholar monk who was visiting Malaysia. This monk mentioned > > that he was one of Nanavira's teachers and knew him quite well. > > Apparently, Nanavira was brilliant and charismatic but he did have > > mental problems for which he took medication - at the end, he > > committed suicide (the elderly scholar monk was explaining to me > > Nanavira's misinterpretation of the Vinaya which Nanavira used to > > justify committing suicide - some complex stuff related to Pali > > grammar, sorry I cannot remember the details). > > > > I would not want to take as a teacher somebody who is driven by > > anger, no matter how smart they are. > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) > > > #95784 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 10:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert > > > I do think that is a useful description and makes sense. However, > in > > a day-to-day context, we are all in the habit of doing certain > things > > for certain reasons. I can understand having a principled practice > > of doing certain things, and not expecting or controlling the > results. > > That would make sense. > > Having a practice of "doing certain things, and not expecting or > controlling the results" strikes me as being a practical > impossibility, if not a contradiction in terms ;-)). That is > certainly not my understanding of what the Buddha was saying. > > > If one tries to say more radically that there > > is no practice of hearing and reflecting on the dhamma with the > > intention of developing moments of sati and panna as a result, it > > would be hard to imagine that any human being has the restraint to > > have *no* volition with regard to immediate or future results. > > It is not necessary to say that there should be "*no* volition with > regard to immediate or future results", but only that such > (inevitable) moments would not be the development of the path as > described by the Buddha. Not my point. My point is that such moments are just as inherent and most likely just as frequent as any other intentional activity, including meditation. No one seems to want to tackle this comparison directly and show why the meditation intention would lead to more akusala than the Abhidhamma commentary reading intention. Are they inherently different, or are all intentional activities subject to the same dangers? Best, Robert E. ======================= #95785 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 10:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. epsteinrob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert > > > I do think that is a useful description and makes sense. However, > in > > a day-to-day context, we are all in the habit of doing certain > things > > for certain reasons. I can understand having a principled practice > > of doing certain things, and not expecting or controlling the > results. > > That would make sense. > > Having a practice of "doing certain things, and not expecting or > controlling the results" strikes me as being a practical > impossibility, if not a contradiction in terms ;-)). Not really. I get into my car and intentionally drive, but I don't have the illusion that I control the traffic or the stop-lights. I adapt as I go. Even though I started out to get somewhere, I am dealing with each moment as it arises. Best, Robert E. =========================== #95786 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 11:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. epsteinrob HI Jon. Sorry for no attribution in my last response... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert > > > This makes sense. Certainly it even makes common sense. If you > have > > an interest in the dhamma, then reading or hearing the teachings and > > reflecting on them and relating them to the present moment can > create > > vipassana leading to panna. I think that's a good summary. > > > > But to say this all happens by itself, in an arbitrary order, > without > > any intentional practice, I think is harder to accept. > > Of course it is harder to accept! That's because we hold strong > views to the contrary. But the question first and foremost is > whether that is what the Buddha was saying, given a consideration of > his teachings as a whole. So then the path is arbitrary? > > > I keep trying > > to say that even if one practices, and uses intention to apply such a > > process to create results, there is still only action in the present > > moment, and there is still no self in control. > > I think if we are frank with ourselves we would acknowledge that any > such "practice" is driven by the desire for results. All life is driven by desire for results, including reading Abhidhamma. That is worthy of acknoledgment that there is no "special footing" that is free from this. We work "with it" not "without it." > > I think it might be > > more fruitful to include practice and volition in those things that > > arise naturally due to conditions, than to exclude them as being > > akusala promotions of self. > > We need to keep in mind that the "things that arise naturally due to > conditions" include wrong view and other forms of akusala. So if we > allow ourselves to be lead by what arises naturally we are bound to > end up being lead by wrong view. What do you mean by "allow ourselves to be led...?" Surely there is no one to make such a decision? > > > One can practice without regarding it as > > the action of a self, just as you seem to read and hear explanations > > of the teachings without allowing it to be credited to a self. > Isn't > > there some discipline in your refusing to adopt the concept of self > in > > that "practice," and shouldn't that discipline be among the items > that > > can arise naturally? > > I'm simply setting out what I understand the Buddha to be saying (not > making reference to personal experience). Why not? How can the understanding of what the Buddha is saying be meaningful if you are not applying it to personal experience? Where are the cittas occurring now? Surely you don't think the path occurs in abstraction? Why not talk about what you experience? > > > I think there's room for practice in the > > selfless and uncontrolled scheme of things. > > Yes, there's always room for the self to be squeezed in somehow ;-)) Yes, that is a sly way of interpreting what I said. Obviously I do not think that is slipping in the "self," since I am saying the opposite. But your opinion is duly noted. I think it is better to acknowledge that we do everything we do out of intention and that none of it is arbitrary unless we practice letting go. That may have an intention too, but it is a skill that can be developed. Otherwise, our seemingly selfless activities are just masking the self which lurks in the background and it never gets looked at directly or dealt with, just understood intellectually. Best, Robert E. ================================ #95787 From: "Robert Epstein" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 11:02 pm Subject: Re: thesis on Sujin Boriharnwanaket / To Rob Ep 7 epsteinrob Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Dear Rob Ep, > > > Rob Ep: > The Path does not > > > exist as such by the way, it is a concept. Have you seen The Path? > > > What does it look like? How hard is it? Does it have a color? > > > > Sukin: The Path is the 4th Noble Truth. So it must be real. > > It is a guiding principle, a correct concept, but not an actuality except as a guiding concept. You cannot confuse a correct principal with something that exists as a dhamma in the world, can you? > > c: Real... people exist, dhammas rise and fall. would that be about right? > We can speak of bright and dark paths or subtlety making it hard, I suppose, but technically, you know, colour and hardness are rupas whereas the 8 path factors are cetasikas. You asked something similar before is why I interrupted. > peace, > connie I am just saying that when you say "The Path" it is a concept, not something that you can experience in the moment apart from an abstract thought. Do you disagree with this? The eight path factors may be seen as cetasikas, but when we talk about "The Path" we are not experiencing those factors at that time, are we? It is a concept we are talking about, one that points us in the right direction. Best, Robert E. ================== #95788 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Feb 8, 2009 11:55 pm Subject: Watching a person suffer or die and not attempting to help christine_fo... Hello all, Just a quick simple question - not wishing to take you away from some of the intense discussions I read above. :-) Regarding Kamma ~ is "not trying to save" kammically unwholesome? For example, are there any references in the Suttas to incuring akusala kamma from doing nothing while knowing someone suffers (from starvation) or may die (from drowning) ~ when one could have tried to save them or ease their suffering? metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #95790 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Feb 9, 2009 3:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. jonoabb Hi Robert E > Not my point. My point is that such moments are just as inherent and > most likely just as frequent as any other intentional activity, > including meditation. I'm not sure what the "such moments" of intentional activity you refer to here might be. As I've said, my understanding of the development of the path as taught by the Buddha does not include the undertaking of any intentional activity (as conventionally understood). To repeat my earlier post (#95721), the arising of awareness/insight is conditioned by the 'factors' of hearing the teachings appropriately explained, reflecting on what has been heard and relating what has been understood to the present moment, none of which are "things to be done". > No one seems to want to tackle this comparison > directly and show why the meditation intention would lead to more > akusala than the Abhidhamma commentary reading intention. Are they > inherently different, or are all intentional activities subject to the > same dangers? The comparison has been addressed by a number of posters (!!), including myself. See for example message #95627 where I said: "Activity of any kind undertaken as a form of "practice" would fall into the same category." If this is not clearly enough stated for you, please feel free to press further on it ;-)) Jon #95791 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Feb 9, 2009 3:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. jonoabb Hi Robert E > > Having a practice of "doing certain things, and not expecting or > > controlling the results" strikes me as being a practical > > impossibility, if not a contradiction in terms ;-)). > > Not really. I get into my car and intentionally drive, but I don't > have the illusion that I control the traffic or the stop-lights. I > adapt as I go. Even though I started out to get somewhere, I am > dealing with each moment as it arises. My remarks were about doing something as part of a "practice". They do not apply to doing something for some other reason altogether (like wanting to get from A to B in your car). The distinction is important, I think. When something is done as part of a practice, it is done because (and only because) it is seen as conducive to a certain result. Jon #95792 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Feb 9, 2009 3:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa, Survey Ch 34, no. 12. jonoabb Hi Robert E > > > But to say this all happens by itself, in an arbitrary order, > > without > > > any intentional practice, I think is harder to accept. > > > > Of course it is harder to accept! That's because we hold strong > > views to the contrary. But the question first and foremost is > > whether that is what the Buddha was saying, given a consideration of > > his teachings as a whole. > > So then the path is arbitrary? Not at all (I should perhaps have addressed the "arbitrary" part of your comment as well as the "without intentional practice" part). The development of the path occurs according to conditions, but these conditions are not apparent to/understood by us. So although it is unpredictable (to all but those with very highly developed insight and other knowledges), it is not arbitrary. > > I think if we are frank with ourselves we would acknowledge that any > > such "practice" is driven by the desire for results. > > All life is driven by desire for results, including reading > Abhidhamma. That is worthy of acknoledgment that there is no "special > footing" that is free from this. We work "with it" not "without it." Yes, as a general statement, all life is driven by desire. This of course does not preclude the occasional arising of kusala of different levels, being moments that are not accompanied by or driven by desire. > > > I think it might be > > > more fruitful to include practice and volition in those things that > > > arise naturally due to conditions, than to exclude them as being > > > akusala promotions of self. > > > > We need to keep in mind that the "things that arise naturally due to > > conditions" include wrong view and other forms of akusala. So if we > > allow ourselves to be lead by what arises naturally we are bound to > > end up being lead by wrong view. > > What do you mean by "allow ourselves to be led...?" Surely there is > no one to make such a decision? I understood you to be saying that the intention to meditate arises naturally and as such it should not be excluded but should be followed. My comment on that was that if one follows whatever arises naturally one will end up following wrong view. > > I'm simply setting out what I understand the Buddha to be saying (not > > making reference to personal experience). > > Why not? How can the understanding of what the Buddha is saying be > meaningful if you are not applying it to personal experience? Where > are the cittas occurring now? Surely you don't think the path occurs > in abstraction? Why not talk about what you experience? I see no value in talking about one's personal experience per se. What is of value is the better understanding of the path as taught by the Buddha. Of course, one's understanding of the teachings are bound to be coloured by one's experience to date in the development of the path, but those experiences are not themselves of any value in the discussion. > I think it is better to acknowledge that we do everything we do out of > intention and that none of it is arbitrary unless we practice letting > go. That may have an intention too, but it is a skill that can be > developed. Otherwise, our seemingly selfless activities are just > masking the self which lurks in the background and it never gets > looked at directly or dealt with, just understood intellectually. I agree with you that everything we do (but not of course what we experience) we do out of intention. However, I don't understand what you mean when you say "none of it is arbitrary unless we practice letting go." I wouldn't agree that "letting go" is something that can be "practised". It seems to me that any idea of having a practice of "letting go" is bound to involve an idea of self. Jon #95793 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Feb 9, 2009 4:30 am Subject: Visuddhimagga IX Mettaabhaavanaakathaa Corner scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing: The Path of Purification. "48. Endued with lovingkindness is said again here in order to introduce the synonyms beginning with abundant. Or, alternatively, endued with lovingkindness is repeated because the word likewise or the word so is not repeated here as it was in the case of [preceding] specified pervasion. Or alternatively, it is said as a way of concluding. And abundant should be regarded here as abundance in pervading. But it is exalted in plane [from the sensual-sphere plane to the fine-material-sphere plane], measureless through familiarity and through having measureless beings as its object, free from enmity through abandonment of ill-will and hostility, and free from affliction through abandonment of grief; without suffering, is what is meant. This is the meaning of the versatility described in the way beginning 'With his heart endued with lovingkindness'." Path of Purity. "Because of the mention of 'far-reaching' and the other synonyms, the expression 'full of love' is repeated here. Or, because here neither the words 'and so,' nor the words 'and thus' are mentioned as in the suffusion of love specifically through the different quarters, therefore the expression 'full of love' is repeated. Or, this expression is said by way of conclusion. Here, 'far-reaching' is to be understood far-reaching by way of suffusing. By way of plane is this heart 'grows great.' And by way of acquaintances with, and of making numberless beings the object, is it 'beyond measure.' By removing malevolent hostility is it 'without enmity.' From the removal of dejection is it 'without ill-will.' It is said to be void of ill. This is the meaning of the change of heart expressed in 'with heart full of love' and so forth." Vipulenaatievamaadipariyaayadassanato panettha puna mettaasahagatenaati vutta.m. Yasmaa vaa ettha odhiso phara.ne viya puna tathaasaddo itisaddo vaa na vutto, tasmaa puna mettaasahagatena cetasaati vutta.m. Nigamavasena vaa eta.m vutta.m. Vipulenaati ettha ca phara.navasena vipulataa da.t.thabbaa. Bhuumivasena pana eta.m mahaggata.m pagu.navasena ca appamaa.nasattaaramma.navasena ca appamaa.na.m, byaapaadapaccatthikappahaanena avera.m, domanassappahaanato abyaapajja.m, niddukkhanti vutta.m hoti. Aya.m mettaasahagatena cetasaatiaadinaa nayena vuttaaya vikubbanaaya attho. Sincerely, Scott. #95794 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 9, 2009 4:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Watching a person suffer or die and not attempting to help sarahprocter... Hi Chris, I always appreciate the points you raise: --- On Mon, 9/2/09, Christine Forsyth wrote: >Regarding Kamma ~ is "not trying to save" kammically unwholesome? For example, are there any references in the Suttas to incuring akusala kamma from doing nothing while knowing someone suffers (from starvation) or may die (from drowning) ~ when one could have tried to save them or ease their suffering? ... S: Doesn't it all just depend on the mind and mental states at the time? Isn't this what is meant by mind (citta) as forerunner? Perhaps you could say a little more about what you have in mind on this issue. I'll look forward to other comments as well. Metta, Sarah ========= #95795 From: "charles_a_dacosta" Date: Mon Feb 9, 2009 4:54 am Subject: Re: The "Self", Paramattha sacce, and reductionist fallacy of a chariot charles_a_da... Hello all, I think it would help a lot if members who say "No-self" remember to say "When talking about Ultimate reality." I say this because the idea of "selves/individuals" falls right into the Buddha's definition of existence: impermanent, compounded, and no- essence(that is permanent, and uncompounded). This way you leave room for the other 98% of the Dharma - a way, for beings (individuals/selves), that is leading them to enlightenment. If you deny the existence of "I" when it arises, you deny the reality at the time. My point: Relatively speacking, "self" only defines the individual being, as impermanent, compounded, and without an essence (that is permanent, and uncompounded). CharlesD #95796 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Mon Feb 9, 2009 6:28 am Subject: Re: K.Sujin on meditation.... and confrontation. abhidhammika Dear Sarah, Nina, colette, Robert K, Howard, Robert Ep, Jon, Hermann, and all How are you? While, and after, reading this post, I pitied her. I got the impression that K Sujin has wasted her whole life without realising how genuine Buddhist practitioners of formal meditation can be well- informed and well-prepared. If she had had a chance to participate in the late Mahaasi Sayadaw's meditation retreats and dhamma lectures, she would certainly realise that her characterisation of formal Buddhist meditators exposes her lack of understanding in these matters. Mahaasi Sayadaw's dhamma lectures and instructions for meditation came to form modern scholarly commentaries on such great Suttas as Mahaasatipa.t.thaana Suttam, Maalukyaputta Suttam, Bhaara Suttam and the like. By the way, I do not know how many such works are available. All I know is that there are many. I have only his works on Mahaasatipa.t.thaana Suttam and Maalukyaputta Suttam. He used the same involvement techniques employed by the traditional Pali commentaries. What I mean by involvement technique is a commentary writer's ability and effort to explain a theme in the Suttam under elucidation by means of drawing upon relevant information from other Suttas and Pali commentaries. That is why his works are academic and very informative. So, you can imagine how well-informed and well-educated his disciples and meditation participants would become. When I have spare time, I will offer Vibhajjavaada treatment on K Sujin's position on meditation. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Friends, I listened to the following discussion between a friend & KS (on KS's 80th birthday) and think that most people will find it interesting and controversial:-) > > Metta, Sarah p.s This discussion is at the very end of the next edited set we will be uploading on www. dhammastudygroup.org in due course. #95797 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Feb 9, 2009 9:51 am Subject: Re: E-card from Bangkok - discussions with A.Sujin 2 scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for forwarding this: S: "1. Scott, #91836 '....Here, bhikkhus, the noble disciple is mindful, possessing supreme mindfulness and discretion, one who remembers and recollects what was done and said long ago. (cirakatampi cirabhaasitampi saritaa anussaritaa)....' Here, highly developed sati with panna (as in the case of the Buddha and his key disciples, as I understand). Sati that which recalls, (with sanna). Recalling, reflecting, not remembering (sanna). There can be recalling with kusala or akusala now. Scott: Let's see if I have this: So here is a conventional description ('remembers and recollects') of the combined functions of sati and sa~n~naa with pa~n~naa. The remembering and recollecting charateristics of sa~n~naa and sati are here described as working in tandem in their roles within an arising of consciousness and mental factors, and having certain past 'events' as object. I don't quite follow the last statement, Sarah. Could you clarify? As it stands, I don't see how sati and pa~n~naa could arise in 'akusala recalling' as these are reserved for kusala moments of consciousness. I hope you are enjoying the discussions in Bangkok these days! Sincerely, Scott. #95799 From: "connie" Date: Mon Feb 9, 2009 11:53 am Subject: Re: Request for comment - etc. nichiconn dear Lukas, I can see now why you said certain things, but nama-rupa is more properly, i think, considered under Dependent Origination & here we are dealing with Khandas. Let's go back to the beginning before we get too far ahead. I think we should be clear about the separations and how the defining is the characterizing or talking about the characteristics. Vibh: "Is with cause(sappaccaya.m), Is conditioned(sa"nkhata.m), Is material(ruupa.m). Is mundane(lokiya.m). Is the object of the defilements(saasava.m). Is the object of the fetters(sa.myojaniya.m). Is the object of the ties(ganthaniya.m). Is the object of the floods(oghaniya.m)" L: 3)Is material(ruupa.m) so being ruupa.m is an inherent characteristic of each rupa? c: well, all rupa is only rupa, so yes. i mean, it is never any part of, or is always distinct from, any of the nama groups. Dispeller ch 1. Khandhavibha"nga, A. Suttanta Division (a) Pa~ncakkhandaa 18. Herein, abhisa.myuuhitvaa (in the mass) means having brought together; abhisa"nkhipitvaa (in the gross) means made compact. This is what is said: all this materiality, which has the various aspects aforesaid, is made into a heap by understanding the single state called "the characteristic of being molested"; this is called by the name "materiality aggregate". And this shows all materiality as the materiality aggregate by its being heaped together under the characteristic of being molested. For there is no materiality aggregate other than materiality. And as [in the case of] materiality, so [in the case of] feeling and so on by their being heaped together in the characteristics of being felt and so on. For there is no feeling aggregate and so on other than feeling and so on. Before that, we read: 3. Khandhaa ("aggregates") is the description of things so divided. And here this word: is met with in many instances as a heap (raasi), as a good quality (gu.na), as a designation (pa.n.natti), and as a category (ruu.lhi). It is also permissible to say in the sense of a portion (ko.t.thaasa). thus it is also permissible to say that an aggregate (khandha) has the characteristic of a portion. 4. So here ruupakkhanda <1.1> ("materiality aggregate") [means] materiality heap, materiality portion. Vedanaakkhanda ("feeling aggregate") [means] feeling heap, feeling portion, and in like manner the meaning of the perception aggregate and so on should be understood. also, a little further on that rupa is , which we've already touched upon. Next, we come to some discussion of . That's for another post, though. Please be patient. peace, connie =========== * Howard's signature blocks: == A change in anything is a change in everything (Anonymous) == Entrances to holiness are everywhere. The possibility of ascent is all the time, even at unlikely times and through unlikely places. There is no place without the Presence. (From Mishkan T'filah, the new Reform prayerbook) == He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none - 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) ==