#105600 From: Ken O Date: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (3) ashkenn2k Dear Sarah Ok the sutta reference: MH28, The Simile of the Elephant's Footprints (Greater) <<26.??? Friends, just as when?a space is enclosed by timber and creeper, grass, and clay, it comes to be termed "house", so too. when a space is enclosed by bones and sinews, flesh and skin, it comes to be termed "material form">> The sutta describe, earth elements are head hair etc, likewise water element is phelgm etc.?and in your message the sutta said space element in nose and eye?hole.? ? All are use in conceptual term to describe ultimate reality.? Where did it said space is unconditional. Please see a reference below also saying holes are concepts. Also your?reasoning on 1st?arupa ?jhana space is the concept of the unconditioned akasa rupa, is still based on your reasoning that space is unconditioned.? Space is?a concept, a concept of space could be based on conceptual space.? Also?it is not possible for a conditional element exist in unconditional element, then?in the first place the unconditional element should not be unconditon because it need to arise to condition.? Unconditional element?cannot be cause for other elements. If it is a cause or a condition, it is not an unconditional element.? The only thing that is the similar description to Nibbana, it is not a cause or a condition is concepts.? That is how it is being used in Milinda (the spelling is wrong)?Questions which you quoted to support that space is unconditional. Also in STA and Commentary, pg 319 (on concepts) <> Ken O 8. Space x2 The second is the unconditioned space, not a khandha. The kasina of space is the concept of the first conditioned akasa rupa. The object of the first arupa jhana space is the concept of the unconditioned akasa rupa. (Ken O,to me this is a clear reference. Without the realities, there couln't be the concepts about the distinctions between the 2 akasa rupas). What is there out here or there? Dhsg ref to the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana (only mentioned). But read the other texts! Reading one text is not enough! See sutta given in #101591, the Buddha explaining to Pukkusati about elements, the unconditioned space is described. Lots of refs, depending on how read. #105601 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:50 am Subject: Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) jonoabb Hi pt (105581) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > ... > pt: Sorry, I guess I'm not forming my question precisely enough: > > - when jhana/samatha is happening, the citta is kusala, the ekagatta is kusala and panna is kusala. > > - when vipassana is happening, the citta is kusala, the ekagatta is kusala and panna is kusala. > > So they are all kusala. However, panna in samatha is of different kind/grade than panna in vipassana (or at least that's what I've read here many times). So my questions is - is ekaggata also of different kind/grade? Or is it of the same kind, which is why you might say that "the reference to jhana is illustrative of the intensity of the concentration that occurs at magga citta level". > > Still in other words, if ekaggata is kusala (in both samatha and vipassana), is intensity its only other distinguishing factor, or is it also distinguished by something else (like the kind/grade of panna is said to be another distinguishing factor in case of samatha/vipassana)? > =============== J: With panna there is a difference in function (or is it manifestation?), in that the panna arising with path consciousness experiences a characteristic of a dhamma, whereas the panna arising with samatha bhavana understands the conditions for kusala/calmness of consciousness. As far as I know, however, the function/manifestation of the ekaggata cetasika is the same in all cases, namely, it makes the citta one-pointed on its object. Others may be able to amplify (or correct!). Jon #105602 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:47 am Subject: Re: satipatthana and kayagatasati jonoabb Hi Alex (105574) > > J: Well we could discuss the Anapanasati Sutta (separately, perhaps). For now, we are discussing the Satipatthana Sutta. Any indication in that sutta that body must come before the others? > > > > A) It is mentioned first. > =============== J: Hmm, there could be any number of reasons for 'body' being mentioned first. No need to assume that the first-mentioned is a prerequisite for the other 3. Do you also say that the third cannot be developed until the second has, nor the fourth until the third? ;-)) > =============== > b) There is NO awakening even till stream entry without Kayagatasati. > > 574. Bhikkhus, when mindfulness of the body is developed and made much, ignorance fades, knowledge arises, self-conceit fades, latent tendencies get completely destroyed and bonds fade. > > 580-583. Bhikkhus, when mindfulness of the body is developed and made much, it conduces to realizing the fruits of the entry into the stream of the Teaching, fruits of returning once, fruits of not returning, and fruits of worthiness > > 600. Bhikkhus, they that do not partake mindfulness of the body,[1] do not partake deathlessness and they that partake mindfulness of the body, partake deathlessness. > =============== J: None of these passages says what you are saying: that mindfulness of feelings, mind and dhammas cannot be developed until there has been the development (to a stage you have not yet specified) of mindfulness of the body. > See the above. No awakening even to stream entry without kayagatasati. > =============== J: Of course. The attainment of stream-entry requires the development of mindfulness of all 4 Arousings/Foundations. > =============== > "Indeed, Ananda, it is impossible that a monk who delights in company, enjoys company, is committed to delighting in company; who delights in a group, enjoys a group, rejoices in a group, will obtain at will ? without difficulty, without trouble ? the pleasure of renunciation, the pleasure of seclusion, the pleasure of peace, the pleasure of self-awakening. But it is possible that a monk who lives alone, withdrawn from the group, can expect to obtain at will ? without difficulty, without trouble ? the pleasure of renunciation, the pleasure of seclusion, the pleasure of peace, the pleasure of self-awakening. > > "Indeed, Ananda, it is impossible that a monk who delights in company, enjoys company, is committed to delighting in company; who delights in a group, enjoys a group, rejoices in a group, will enter & remain in the awareness-release that is temporary and pleasing, or in the awareness-release that is not-temporary and beyond provocation. But it is possible that a monk who lives alone, withdrawn from the group, can expect to enter & remain in the awareness-release that is temporary and pleasing, or in the awareness-release that is not-temporary and beyond provocation. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.122.than.html > =============== J: The key to this passage is the meaning of the 2 expressions: - "delights in company, enjoys company, is committed to delighting in company ... delights in a group, enjoys a group, rejoices in a group", and - "lives alone, withdrawn from the group". To my understanding, the former refers to the person who lives with attachment, the latter to the person who lives without attachment. > =============== > "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? > [1] "There is the case where a monk ? having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building ? sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html > > The satipatthana starts with physical seclusion! > =============== J: Not so. The Satipatthana Sutta starts with the declaration that the one way to enlightenment is the development of the 4 Arousings/Foundations of mindfulness (the first of which is mindfulness of the body). The section on mindfulness of the body begins with case of a monk who is living a life that is dedicated to the development of samatha and insight. And yes, there is certainly an element of physical seclusion in his daily routine, but he is not necessarily living a forest/hermit lifestyle. There is nothing in the sutta indicating that, as a matter of doctrine, physical solitude is a prerequisite to the development of insight. > =============== > 580-583. Bhikkhus, when mindfulness of the body is developed and made much, it conduces to realizing the fruits of the entry into the stream of the Teaching. AN Kayagatasativaggo. > =============== J: Agreed. The development of mindfulness of the body is conducive to the attainment of stream entry. And the same could be said for each of the other 3 anupassana's. To my understanding, it's not a matter of choosing one anupassana for development in preference to the other 3. Jon #105603 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:52 am Subject: Re: On Accumulations. jonoabb Hi pt (105587) > > J: As I understand it, there is the theoretical possibility of attainment of the early vipassana?nanas without there being the attainment of sotapatti-magga in the same life-time. I'm afraid I'll have to ask someone else to give the details of exactly which stages this refers to (anyone, please?). > > pt: Hm, that would be interesting to hear about, considering Sarah's comments in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/105307 : > =============== J: What I'm saying is that enlightenment need not necessarily be attained within the same lifetime as the attainment of the first vipassana-naana. Sarah's post (see below) implies that enlightenment would have to be attained within the same Buddha-era as the first vipassana-naana. However, that could be in a later lifetime within the same Buddha-era. Hoping I've correctly understood the point you're raising. Jon > =============== > > S: Or, as I'd suggest, *not develop to even the first stage of insight" until > the last life. > > > >The way KS explains it -- and this will be a poor summary -- all the > 'ingredients' have to be ready and in place for such insight to develop and all > defilements to be eradicated by the Samma Sambuddha. > > ... > > Likewise, for other key disciples, such as Sariputta -- he had accumulated great > wisdom and had attained to the highest jhanas in his last life as taught by > other teachers. However, until he heard the verse of the Dhamma, no vipassana > nanas. > > > > Only when he heard the following from Assaji did all the insights up to sotapatti magga arise (as I understand) #105604 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:40 am Subject: Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) jonoabb Hi Dieter (105573) > We may have to agree to disagree on this for now ;-)) > > > D: well that is ok, Jon > =============== J: Then we agree on this much, at least! > =============== > ... a recent exchange with Ken H comes into my mind : > > 'K: I commiserate with you when you try so patiently to show various DSG people the conventional meaning of the Dhamma. It's a bit like flogging a dead horse, isn't it? D: what you call 'conventional ' meaning of the Dhamma I call the 4 Noble Truths , Ken. ' > > no bad feelings .. ;-)) > =============== J: Certainly not! ;-)) Jon #105605 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 jonoabb Hi KenO (105598) > J: Thanks for quoting a specific passage. It makes the discussion so much more meaningful ;-)) > > The reason why I don't consider this to be a method is because, as you point out above, the main ingredient of samatha development, namely the panna, is assumed. So there is nothing here that can be followed, because panna is the prerequisite. On the other hand, the person who has the necessary panna probably doesn't need to be told 'first verbally, then mentally'. > > KO: 'first verbally, then mentally'. - that you have to discuss with the commentators because there are the ones who wrote as it is, not me :-). > =============== J: I have nothing to discuss with the commentators, because I have no disagreement with anything that is said there ;-)). Particularly as I do not read the commentators as purporting to be giving a method ?" now that would indeed be something to question!! > =============== > J: I think what you’re saying is that it's a method for the person of already well-developed panna. But for us, the only relevant question is how the panna of samatha comes to be well-developed. Do you know of any 'method' given in the texts for this? > > KO: You did not answer my questions, > =============== J: Sorry about that. Please feel free to re-state any questions I haven't answered, so that I can attempt an answer. > =============== you are diverting again. Now you are coming back to the original questions, how panna is develop for samantha which I have make my position very clear, it is after that develop panna and not before it. The issue is not before a developed panna but after a developed panna. Samantha bhavana before any developed panna is a very precarious thing, could be full of lobha. > =============== J: Yes, we agree that the Vism passage is addressing the case of the person with already well-developed samatha. You say a method is being prescribed in the Vism for such a person. I am just asking whether you know of any textual reference, in Vism or elsewhere, that sets out a method for the development of samatha at less developed levels (I ask this because I think it's relevant to the question of whether the passage in the Vis is setting out a method)? Not trying to divert the discussion in any way (honest!!). > =============== I have showed you the method by Visud, it is time for you to tell me which part of the text that this is not a method as described by Visud . > =============== J: I think I said in my last post that the passage you quoted was not a method, and the reasons for that view. What more do you want me to say ? ;-)) > =============== > As I told in the mini-bus, I am not interested in Samantha bhavana, it is not useful and full of dangers of wrong development. Stick to right understanding is the better way. I just wish to make it clear on this method issue which I find a very unneccessary discussion which does not help in the understanding of dhamma. > =============== J: Disagree here, too ;-)) All kinds of kusala, including samatha, are to be developed by the person developing insight. It's not as though a choice has to be made between one form of kusala and another. Or do you see it differently? Jon #105606 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (7a) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Cryptic Notes from the Saturday afternoon discussion in Bangkok at the Foundation: 1. Anusayas - #101361 Han, KS stressed anusayas cannot be said to have past, present and future....only when the kilesa arise. #101480 "While unprofitable [kamma] is still unabolished in any given soil [plane], it is called "arisen by having soil [to grow in]". ...."bhuumiladdhuppanna.m"... When the anusaya has not been eradicated, conditions for the the akusala cittas to arise. The anusaya don't arise. "..Those defilements have that soil [plane]. That is why "by having soil [to grow in}" is said. - referring to the cittas with anusayas. #104704 Han & Nina on the negligible (abbohaari) aversion referred to when the skill for jhana declines. So subtle that it cannot be said whether it accumulates or not. When the jhana declines, the slightest unhappy feeling. Nirimisu - not to do with sense desire. That moment is not dosa mula citta with sensuous object, so other patigha anusaya stronger that can condition dosa. So, no need to talk about the subtle one. Cannot say it doesn't accumulate, but like the 4th arupa jhana n'eva-sa~n~naa-naa-sa~n~naa-citta - cannot say whether sa~n~naa or not, because so subtle. 2. pt's qu about why air isn't a condition for hearing #105450. Just isn't! Only for smell! 3. pt's qu (same message) about the bodhisatta's wisdom and why it took so long.... Because all dhammas are anatta. All the other perfections had to be developed along with all the other knowledges needed to attain enlightenment. My comment - satipatthana can be developing too, not just samatha as you referred to, even if not yet the vipassana nanas. 4. Adhipati, predominance - Viriya, panna or saddha can be predominant. When lokuttara, panna must be dominant. 5. (Rt) concentration appears only when panna has developed in samatha or vipassana - In the case of samatha, the concentration has to get stronger and stronger, calmer and calmer with right understanding. No need to think about it, naturally, stronger with panna. At first thinking (vitakka) and so on, cannot appear. Stage by stage, such as at upacara (or even before) the concentration may appear. After jhana, the factors are clear to the reviewing cittas....before that, just thinking about the different factors. In the beginning, nothing appears. When right understanding develops, so does samatha. 6. Upanissiya paccaya - environment, food, people, dwellings. Concepts?- See Alberto's & Lukas's Patthana quotes and comments #101851, #101827 Take the example of 'the good friend' or 'associating with the good friend' - if no paramattha dhammas, it means nothing. Using concepts to refer to paramattha dhammas. "The environment and food/People/Dwellings are also a condition, as strong dependence condition" after listing kusala dhammas, akusala dhammas, abyakata dhammas. When not using paramattha terms, terms of pannatti (concepts) can refer to paramattha too. Pannatti cannot be accumulated, thinking accumulates, not concepts. So only paramattha dhammas can be the conditioning dhammas in pakatu upanissaya paccaya. It all depends on the understanding - the concepts must be referring to paramattha dhammas (as I suggested at the time, I think). Concepts only conditioning factors for arammanupakatupanissaya paccaya, referring to the object. Another example - we are attached to particular children. If no colour or sounds or forms or personality accumulations etc, no pannatti. So the pannatti about the children represent realities. **** Metta Sarah ====== #105607 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (7b) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Cryptic Notes from the Saturday afternoon discussion in Bangkok at the Foundation (contd): 7. Scott's qu #103441 re the distinction between sense-door and mind-door and nama-rupa pariccheda nana. (A great long and detailed beautiful answer - rough notes here only). There must be understanding, but not the ordinary lvel, otherwise not vipassana. Panna which can experience the true nature of realities. No one can have satipatthana at will, othewise atta, not anatta. No self, no one. Understanding of satipatthana - must be reality. When satipatthana arises, no one can select or choose the realities to be known - anatta. Panna which sees the moment with sati naturally, unexpectedly - any reality. If there is no understanding of visible object as an element, only 'we see'. Any detachment from taking for someone, starts from being careful not to neglect visible object which arises all day, even at night. If there is no understanding now, how can the distinction between visible object and seeing be known, because there is no beginning of understanding. Vipassana nana - only one object at a time. Now, not just one at a time - it seems there is seeing and hearing, hardness and sound together. There must be the firm foundation of understanding, sacca nana. Panna develops from theoretical firm knowledge. Detachment grows as visible object and other realities known. Because of different colours, ideas of different people and things. We live in the world of thoughts, like the magician. Visible object is taught first - impossible to develop understanding without becoming detached to v.o. Otherwise, always the idea of "I know", "I experience"...no detachment. There must be the understanding of what is heard now when there are the right condtions - unexpectedly. Otherwise, lobha leading all day, the master of the day. Understanding the characteristic of reality - hardness, touching, no matter what it's called. Khandha - one reality, will never come back. My own comment - when these realities are understood, so is the meaning of different sense and mind doors. Forget the terms which are confusing! 8. Worldly Conditions, kamma-vipaka - Fame - what is the reality? Usually through the mind-door, attached to sense objects, sounds, visible objects. Attached already to sounds, sights etc. Without these, no fame. So the worldly conditions are dangerous on account of the lobha. See Samahita's #105497. Wealth - a result of kusala cittas? Kusala vipaka through the senses (and sometimes tadarammana cittas in the mind door) and rupas conditioned by kamma. Ken O's example about losing a job #105218 or the theft. Just thinking about names, just speculation (if we think of it as vipaka), no understanding of realities. Hearing unpleasant sounds? Only panna can know. That's why we study citta, cetasika and rupa to understand the exact moment, not the entire situation. (Will discuss further with Han on his series - pls be patient, Han!) 9. Space & Ken O's complaint about lack of refs - When it's reality, it's not in the texts. If there weren't 2 pillars, there'd be no space between them. The Buddha taught anyone to understand what is true in one's life, in everyday life. There's no need to create space between 2 pillars. Just understand what's there - not the space between the kalapas, but the space between 2 pillars. 10. Nibbana - If there are conditions for anything to arise, what about when there are no conditions? Nothing will arise. If there isn't the unconditioned, no escape. Just that which is not conditioned to arise. 11. Sacca nana and the 3 rounds - Confidence about lobha as cause of dukkha and the end of suffering (nibbana). Detachment from conditioned objects. No use in *trying* to understand. If the understanding is firm, no idea at all about doing something else, no thinking there is some other way - not even thoughts about "I must listen or read...". Listening and understanding dhamma - no one. Is it firm understanding now? Even by thinking? Does anything arise and fall away now? It begins to be firm when there is the understanding of the arising and falling away of dhammas, (even in theory). Kata nana - vipassana nana, otherwise no enlightenment. 12. Forgetting what one's heard of Dhamma - all anatta, not 'what can do' - all anatta. One knows so very gradually developed. Helps to remember details? Don't wish, don't want. Understanding - the way to eliminate wanting. Don't forget that the development of panna leads to detachment. Panna develops to become detached from ignorance. Trying hard to know is not the way. There can be the beginning of understanding now. That which cannot understand reality now is not panna, it's 'I' who thinks, 'I' who imagines is understanding **** (One last session tomorrow afternoon. Nina's also been attending many Thai sessions, but we haven't. It's been a real joy to spend so much time with K.Sujin, Nina and all our Dhamma friends here) Metta Sarah ====== #105608 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Feb 28, 2010 7:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (7b) scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Regarding: S: "7. Scott's qu #103441 re the distinction between sense-door and mind-door and nama-rupa pariccheda nana...There must be understanding, but not the ordinary level, otherwise not vipassana...Visible object is taught first - impossible to develop understanding without becoming detached to v.o. Otherwise, always the idea of 'I know', 'I experience'...no detachment..." Scott: Thanks. Visuddhimagga XV, 11 (includes reference to 'gocara' - resort/objective fields): "4. As to order: here too, from among 'order of arising,' etc., mentioned above (Ch XIV, 211), only 'order of teaching' is appropriate. For the eye is taught first among the internal bases since it is obvious because it has objective field what is visible with resistance (see last triad, Dhs, p. 2). After that the ear base, etc. Or alternatively, the eye base and ear base are taught first among the internal bases because of their great helpfulness as [respective] causes for the 'incomparable of seeing' and the 'incomparable of hearing' (see D.iii,250). Next, the three has as its resort the objective fields of the [other] five (M.i,111). But among the external bases the visible-data base, etc., [are taught] each one next [to its corresponding internal base] because they are the respective resorts of the eye base, and so on." Dhammasa"nga.ni, p. 2: "States that are visible and reacting; invisible and reacting, neither." Dhammasa"nga.ni, p. 251: "[1050] Which are the states that are both visible and reacting? The sphere of visible shapes. [1051] Which are the states that are invisible, but reacting? The spheres of the five senses and the spheres of sound, odour, taste, and the tangible. [1052] Which are the states that are both visible and non-reacting? The four khandas; that [material] form, moreover, which, being invisible and non-reacting, is yet included in the sphere of [mental] states; also unconditioned element." Sincerely, Scott. #105609 From: Vince Date: Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) cerovzt@... Dear Sarah you wrote: >>>S: She also replied that consciousness(citta) and nama (cetasika) arise together. and rupa?. Please, ask her about rupa: consciousness and *nama & rupa* arising together. > I just found my note: > KS: "Can he know that?....Citta and cetasikas come together" as a mirage without light and without reflections. Then, Where is the reflected?. Paramattha-dhammas are real in dependence of a working mirage. They are empty too. If possible ask her about the co-arising of rupa; it would be interesting :) best wishes, Vince. #105610 From: A T Date: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) truth_aerator Hello Pt1, RobK2, all, >On U.P. and definition of Jhana by Jim Anderson: Are you saying that Jhayatha means "to think"? How does that go with the phrase "Dhamma is inaccessible being the sphere of thought/logic, atakka-vacaro?" "Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html We can see that direct vision through meditation (not logic!) can fit the above teaching to Vacchagota. It is much hard to reconcile that sentence with the idea of "thinking&considering your way to Awakening". In Ud 1.1 As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — his doubts all vanish when he discerns what has a cause. A-ta-pino jha-yato bra-hman.assa; Athassa kan.kha- vapayanti sabba-, Yato paja-na-ti sahetudhamma’’nti. pat.hamam.; http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.01.than.html The above fits with Upanisa sutta which talks about samadhi->seeing as it is. It is true that jhayato can mean "burn, to be on fire". But is this translation appropriate in this context? Since when does a person needs to burn himself to know the phenomena? Burning could also metaphorically mean "Burning of the defilements, burning of ignorance, etc". This is what Jhana does. In DN29 PTS DN 3.131 Jhanas are said to: “...upasama-ya abhiñña-ya sambodha-ya nibba-na-ya sam.vattanti” "...leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Nibbana." So it is not "a useless waste of time in blissful ignorance" that some may appear to say. Neither is there reinforcement of Self View, because that doesn't lead to Nibbana, but Jhanas do. With metta, Alex #105611 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:24 pm Subject: [dsg] Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "...We can see that direct vision through meditation (not logic!)...As phenomena grow clear to the brahman ?" ardent, absorbed ?" his doubts all vanish when he discerns what has a cause...So it is not 'a useless waste of time in blissful ignorance' that some may appear to say. Neither is there reinforcement of Self View, because that doesn't lead to Nibbana, but Jhanas do." Scott: This is one of your classic rants in favour of jhaana, Alex. Inaccurate and feverish. Those who might understand jhaana would not necessarily find favour with what you profess here. No one doubts the validity or reality of jhaana citta, but I've seen few who misunderstand as you do. While jhaana citta focuses on an object there are no defilements - for the duration of jhaana citta being present. When jhaana ceases, defilements return. Jhaana does not eradicate defilements. I doubt you've ever experienced the state and think your ceaseless craving for it is really of little benefit. I wish you'd try to focus your thinking about this a little. Your colleagues may wish so as well, since I don't think you are doing the cause much good. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #105612 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:49 pm Subject: Understanding is the Chief! bhikkhu.sama... Friends Understanding is the 4th Mental Perfection: Understanding penetrates, illuminates and guides right. Concentration is the proximate cause of Understanding. Understanding is the very manifestation of Concentration. Understanding is the proximate cause of Equanimity. Only understanding comprehends the meaning and essence. Understanding purifies all the other mental perfections: Energy acquires right purpose only, when guided by Understanding. Only fortified by Understanding, is determination unshakeable. Only Understanding can patiently tolerate other beings abuse. Only Understanding induces indifference towards gain and loss. Only Understanding can secure both own and other's welfare. The Blessed Buddha said: Just as red sandalwood is reckoned as the best of all scented woods, even and exactly so is the ability to understand reckoned the supreme among all the 7 mental qualities, that are the links to self-awakening, by leading to enlightenment. SN V 48-55 Indriya-samyutta And of what kind, friends, is this evaluating ability of Understanding ? In this, friends, The Noble learner is possessed of direct knowledge about the arising and ceasing of all phenomena, which is a Noble insight, a fully penetrating and ultimate understanding, that gradually realizes and leads to the utter elimination of all Suffering... The learner (sekha ) understands, as it really is: Thus is Suffering. The learner understands, as it really is: Thus is the Cause of Suffering. The learner understands, as it really is: Thus is the End of Suffering. The learner understands, as it really is: Thus is the Way to end Suffering. This, friends, is the discriminating ability of Understanding ... SN V 48-10 Indriya-samyutta Of minor importance, is the loss of family and wealth... Catastrophic among losses is the loss of Understanding. Of minor consequence, is the increase of family and wealth. Supreme among all the gains is the increase of comprehension... Therefore, friends, you must train yourself to win that! AN I 14-5 When the Noble friend avoids ignorant persons, but instead cultivates, frequents and honours persons who comprehend, teach and review the effects of profound knowledge, then is the ability to understand refined in these three aspects... When the Noble friend is thus leaving ignorance all behind, there is development of the ability to Understand. When the Noble friend is developing the ability to understand, then ignorance is left behind. Thus mutual is this enhancement. The Path of Discrimination A learned man, who due to his great understanding, despises those of little learning, is like a blind man walking around with a lamp in his high hand... Theragatha 1026 Happy indeed are those possessing nothing... Those who have won Understanding, clings to nothing. While those attached to family, friends and property, both possessed and obsessed, are as tied to torture... !!! Udana II 6 What sort of person is released by Understanding (Panna-Vimutti) ? Here a person without experiencing all the 8 stages of absorption, anyway eliminates all mental fermentations completely, after having perceived them through insight. Such person is said to be released by Understanding. Designation of Human Types 31 Buddha once said: Just as the great Ocean slopes down gradually, deepens gradually, inclines gradually, and not abruptly like an abyss, even so Paharada, is this teaching and discipline: a gradual training (anupubba-sikkha), a gradual practice (anupubba-kiriya), and a gradual progress (anupubba-patipada); One does not suddenly penetrate to this highest Understanding... Anguttara Nikaya II 47 Asking Questions logically leads to Understanding: As a Bhikkhu walking for alms beg from both low, middle and high folks, if one search and ask both slightly, moderately and highly wise teachers, then the insight of the Buddhas shall come to shine inside the mind! The Basket of Conduct, Cariyapitaka Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! http://What-Buddha-Said.net Understanding is the Chief! #105613 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Feb 28, 2010 6:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) ptaus1 Hi Alex, > A: Are you saying that Jhayatha means "to think"? pt: No, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "contemplate" which is sometimes translated as thinking, but I used it in order to avoid using "meditate" which has even more double meanings... Perhaps better phrase to employ would be "develop understanding of characteristics/object", which would correspond to "develop vipassana/samatha", and so jhaayatha would mean either of those two, or both, depending on the context. That's how I understand it at the moment. > A: Burning could also metaphorically mean "Burning of the defilements, burning of ignorance, etc". This is what Jhana does. pt: My current understanding is that Jhana does suppress defilements while it lasts (and possibly for a short-while after exiting), but soon after the defilements return. So they don't become diminished by jhana, only suppressed for a time. IF jhana isn't followed by insight that is. And there's no reason why insight shouldn't happen after jhana if the person had some exposure to hearing dhamma. > A: In DN29 PTS DN 3.131 Jhanas are said to: > “...upasama-ya abhiñña-ya sambodha-ya nibba-na-ya sam.vattanti” "...leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Nibbana." > > So it is not "a useless waste of time in blissful ignorance" that some may appear to say. Neither is there reinforcement of Self View, because that doesn't lead to Nibbana, but Jhanas do. pt: My current understanding is that jhana can be said to lead to nibbana if jhana factor(s) as dhamma(s) become the object of insight upon exiting jhana. If not, then right view (panna) will not reach the level of insight that's necessary to burn defilements. I.e. the sequence mentioned in D29 - calm (jhana), direct knowledge (insight re jhana factors), self-awakening and nibbana (burning of defilements and path consciousness) - won't happen. So with jhana only, one remains stuck on the first step of calm only, and is not able to progress to the next step of direct knowledge and further. Though, if there was exposure to hearing dhamma, I suspect insight would happen quite naturally upon exiting jhana. Best wishes pt #105614 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Feb 28, 2010 7:25 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) kenhowardau Hi Mike, --------- M: > <. ..> one should distinguish control of ultimate realities and the mundane stuff that we "control". One can obviously exercise mundane "control" in the sense of learning to eat, read, type, ride a bicycle, become calm by following an object like the breath, learn about Dhamma, discuss it on DSG. --------- I think we agree, but I'd like to make it clear: *Conventionally speaking* we can control some things and not others. We can control a bicycle and we can't control the weather. But *ultimately* there is no more control over a bicycle than there is over the weather. It's just that "bicycle" is a concept of a controllable object, while "weather" is a concept of an uncontrollable object. -------------------- Mike: > How best to see though that mundane stuff to see that the ultimate reality behind it is not controllable? -------------------- There is only one way, isn't there? And that is to associate with wise friends, hear the true Dhamma, wisely consider it, and see how it applies here and now. We may have different opinions on that. :-) -------------------------- M: > That's the important question. --------------------------- Yes, I know what you mean. However, at the risk of nitpicking I have to ask, for whom is it important? Right understanding either arises to know the present reality, or it doesn't. In either case no one is affected. What I am trying to say is: when there is right understanding nothing matters - there is dispassion for all phenomena. Even when the object of consciousness is an unpleasant one, if there is right understanding of the way things ultimately are now, nothing matters. Does it? Ken H #105615 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 1:42 am Subject: Re: On Accumulations. ptaus1 Hi Jon (Sarah), > J: What I'm saying is that enlightenment need not necessarily be attained within the same lifetime as the attainment of the first vipassana-naana. > > Sarah's post (see below) implies that enlightenment would have to be attained within the same Buddha-era as the first vipassana-naana. However, that could be in a later lifetime within the same Buddha-era. pt: That's a very interesting interpretation. I mean, the way I understand her posts on this topic is that there can never ever be a vipassana nana until the very last life. Let's see what she has to say on this when she finds time. Best wishes pt > > > S: Or, as I'd suggest, *not develop to even the first stage of insight" until > > the last life. > > > > > >The way KS explains it -- and this will be a poor summary -- all the > > 'ingredients' have to be ready and in place for such insight to develop and all > > defilements to be eradicated by the Samma Sambuddha. > > > ... > > > Likewise, for other key disciples, such as Sariputta -- he had accumulated great > > wisdom and had attained to the highest jhanas in his last life as taught by > > other teachers. However, until he heard the verse of the Dhamma, no vipassana > > nanas. > > > > > > Only when he heard the following from Assaji did all the insights up to sotapatti magga arise (as I understand) > #105616 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 3:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) jonoabb Hi pt and Alex Hope you don't mind me butting in ... (105613) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > A: Are you saying that Jhayatha means "to think"? > > pt: No, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "contemplate" which is sometimes translated as thinking, > > =============== J: I think 'contemplate' is fine, as it is the translation of a Pali term used in the texts to connote panna. > =============== > > A: Burning could also metaphorically mean "Burning of the defilements, burning of ignorance, etc". This is what Jhana does. > > pt: My current understanding is that Jhana does suppress defilements while it lasts (and possibly for a short-while after exiting), but soon after the defilements return. So they don't become diminished by jhana, only suppressed for a time. > =============== J: Yes, pt, that's my understanding also. However (for Alex), ignorance is *not* among the defilements that are burned by jhana, nor for that matter is wrong view. Only attachment and aversion to sense-door objects can be (temporarily) suppressed by jhana. And in terms of release from samsara, not much future there ... ;-)) > =============== IF jhana isn't followed by insight that is. And there's no reason why insight shouldn't happen after jhana if the person had some exposure to hearing dhamma. > =============== J: Yes, always bearing in mind, of course, that insight must have already been well-developed, otherwise it could not arise. The attainment of jhana does not per se make the arising of insight easier/more likely. Note also that the situation of insight with jhana as basis is the subject of special explanation by the Buddha (in particular, in the case where the jhana has breath as object). To my understanding, the explanation is necessary because of the extreme difficulty of that particular attainment. > =============== > pt: My current understanding is that jhana can be said to lead to nibbana if jhana factor(s) as dhamma(s) become the object of insight upon exiting jhana. ... Though, if there was exposure to hearing dhamma, I suspect insight would happen quite naturally upon exiting jhana. > =============== J: As mentioned above, there could only be insight upon exiting jhana if insight has been well-developed before-hand. Alex, you have previously expressed the view that if jhana is attained then dhammas will more easily become the object of insight. I'm not aware for any basis in the texts for this view. If anything, insight with jhana as object seems to be more difficult (certainly rarer) than insight with other dhammas as object. Jon #105617 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 4:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Accumulations. sarahprocter... Dear pt & Jon, --- On Mon, 1/3/10, ptaus1 wrote: > J: What I'm saying is that enlightenment need not necessarily be attained within the same lifetime as the attainment of the first vipassana-naana. ... S: Not speaking about the bodhisatta, this is what I understand. For example, I understand a cula-sotapanna (who has attained the 2nd stage of insight) is destined to become a sotapanna, but it could take a multitude of lifetimes. ... > > Sarah's post (see below) implies that enlightenment would have to be attained within the same Buddha-era as the first vipassana-naana. However, that could be in a later lifetime within the same Buddha-era. ... S: Yes, again not speaking about the bodhisatta. Those lifetimes could, of course, all be in heavenly (or higher) realms. .... >pt: That's a very interesting interpretation. I mean, the way I understand her posts on this topic is that there can never ever be a vipassana nana until the very last life. Let's see what she has to say on this when she finds time. ... S: We were talking about the bodhisatta and sammasambuddha when I suggested this - otherwise he'd have been the savaka of the last Buddha and not "self-enlightened". Also, as we know, the teachings had to have completely died out before there could be a new Sammasambuddha. So, I believe the key disciples and others who became enlightened under the Buddha, all the followers, could only begin to develop insight in that life, even though they may have (had) heard the Teachings from previous Buddhas. There is certainly no mention of anyone ever having already attained any insight before they may the Buddha in that life, and I think there would be if that was so. Just my reasoning only... Metta Sarah ======= #105618 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 4:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, We make our plans, day in, day out, but never know what will happen. This morning we heard that A.Sujin was not very well, so the discussion at the Foundation was cancelled. Instead we had a delightful informal discussion in our hotel lobby lounge with live music and afternoon tea. Rob K (just back from a trip), Sukin, Ivan, David and Pinna joined us. We referred to some of the recent DSG letters. Some of the topics discussed in some detail: **** 1. Kamma, vipaka, wealth and good birth, worldly conditions - correlating circumstances at birth vipaka and other paramattha dhammas. What is the vipaka, what are the rupas conditioned by kamma? Rob told us about a family in Kathmandu living above a foul-smelling toilet. Running the toilet was their livelihood. 2. Jhana and methods, jhana and lay-life. Posture and anapanasati, 10 impediments, Vism points, Ken O's points #105543, 'doing', conceding on small points? Silabbataparamasa...."it's only a citta". No interest in jhana, but still needs to be an understanding of anatta. Not anatta for vipassana and atta for jhana. Whatever cittas arise, it's by conditions, never a 'doing'. 3. Monk's life, lay life an impediment? Not to samatha, but to jhana?, Roots of the Tree - why isn't anyone there who encourages it?, Why monks are discouraged from close association with lay people and the risk of the loss of the holy life. Lay people and 5 precepts. 4. Concentration on reading, effort, chandha for the Teachings - samma or not? More or less now that there is less idea of 'doing'? Less wrong view, more kusala? 5. Marriage, children, no impediment for right understanding, all conditioned dhammas. Rob may say more!! 6. Seclusion, viveka. Can there be kaya viveka now? If not, why not? Alex's quote: "Having heard the Dhamma, he achieves a twofold seclusion: seclusion in body &seclusion in mind. This is the third cause, the third requisite condition... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.002.than.html So what exactly is achieved? Doesn't viveka have to refer to mental states? Secluded from akusala at this moment. Jhayatha now! (Btw, pt & all - also see more under "jhana and nibbana" in u.p. if time) Metta Sarah p.s Ken O, I read out your comments to David, Sukin and all. ======== #105619 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 1:46 am Subject: Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) ptaus1 Hi Jon, Thanks for your reply. > J: As far as I know, however, the function/manifestation of the ekaggata cetasika is the same in all cases, namely, it makes the citta one-pointed on its object. pt: So can it be said then that ekaggata in jhana is also samma-samadhi? For that matter, is ekaggata considered samma-samadhi only during path consciousness or at any time when there's a kusala citta? Best wishes pt #105620 From: Ken O Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 7:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 ashkenn2k Dear Jon >> KO: 'first verbally, then mentally'. - that you have to discuss with the commentators because there are the ones who wrote as it is, not me :-). >> ============ === > >J: I have nothing to discuss with the commentators, because I have no disagreement with anything that is said there ;-)). Particularly as I do not read the commentators as purporting to be giving a method â€" now that would indeed be something to question!! > KO: Sorry the commentator does not support your conclusion because it is very clear about recitation verbally and mentally. It is written both in Visud and Dispeller of Delusion. You got to provide textual support of your statements and not on your own reasoning. Everyone could provide our own reasoning. It is due to everyone start doing that, that is why we have the modern comentators, each believe their understanding is correct. We should stick to the commnetary written by the ancients :-). >> ============ === >you are diverting again. Now you are coming back to the original questions, how panna is develop for samantha which I have make my position very clear, it is after that develop panna and not before it. The issue is not before a developed panna but after a developed panna. Samantha bhavana before any developed panna is a very precarious thing, could be full of lobha. >> ============ === > >J: Yes, we agree that the Vism passage is addressing the case of the person with already well-developed samatha. You say a method is being prescribed in the Vism for such a person. > >I am just asking whether you know of any textual reference, in Vism or elsewhere, that sets out a method for the development of samatha at less developed levels (I ask this because I think it's relevant to the question of whether the passage in the Vis is setting out a method)? > >Not trying to divert the discussion in any way (honest!!). KO: Nope, lets not divert until this is resolved :-)). thanks > >> ============ === >I have showed you the method by Visud, it is time for you to tell me which part of the text that this is not a method as described by Visud . >> ============ === > >J: I think I said in my last post that the passage you quoted was not a method, and the reasons for that view. What more do you want me to say ? ;-)) KO: You have to show me the textual support of your statement where it said there is no method :-). > >> ============ === >> As I told in the mini-bus, I am not interested in Samantha bhavana, it is not useful and full of dangers of wrong development. Stick to right understanding is the better way. I just wish to make it clear on this method issue which I find a very unneccessary discussion which does not help in the understanding of dhamma. >> ============ === > >J: Disagree here, too ;-)) > >All kinds of kusala, including samatha, are to be developed by the person developing insight. It's not as though a choice has to be made between one form of kusala and another. Or do you see it differently? KO: if we have to start to talk by paramatha level then there would be no conversation because we cannot use I or we or choice. So are we speaking conventionally or paramatha dhamma level. Or maybe i should have used the word accumulations :-)). Ken O #105621 From: Ken O Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 7:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) ashkenn2k Dear Sarah Lets not?misrepresent my statements. I am not saying doing or not doing.? I am saying whether there is a method.? If you think it is not a method, then show your commentarian support and not by your own understanding.? Everyone could claim their own understanding, then in the end, it is base on our own thinking and not the words of the ancient.? Please do show me the commentarial support of you saying there is no method. thanks for reading my comments to David,?Sukin and all?:-)? cheers Ken O >? >Dear Friends, > >We make our plans, day in, day out, but never know what will happen. This morning we heard that A.Sujin was not very well, so the discussion at the Foundation was cancelled. > >Instead we had a delightful informal discussion in our hotel lobby lounge with live music and afternoon tea. Rob K (just back from a trip), Sukin, Ivan, David and Pinna joined us. We referred to some of the recent DSG letters. Some of the topics discussed in some detail: >**** >1. Kamma, vipaka, wealth and good birth, worldly conditions - correlating circumstances at birth vipaka and other paramattha dhammas. What is the vipaka, what are the rupas conditioned by kamma? Rob told us about a family in Kathmandu living above a foul-smelling toilet. Running the toilet was their livelihood. > >2. Jhana and methods, jhana and lay-life. Posture and anapanasati, 10 impediments, Vism points, Ken O's points #105543, 'doing', conceding on small points? Silabbataparamasa. ..."it's only a citta". No interest in jhana, but still needs to be an understanding of anatta. Not anatta for vipassana and atta for jhana. Whatever cittas arise, it's by conditions, never a 'doing'. > >3. Monk's life, lay life an impediment? Not to samatha, but to jhana?, Roots of the Tree - why isn't anyone there who encourages it?, Why monks are discouraged from close association with lay people and the risk of the loss of the holy life. Lay people and 5 precepts. > >4. Concentration on reading, effort, chandha for the Teachings - samma or not? More or less now that there is less idea of 'doing'? Less wrong view, more kusala? > >5. Marriage, children, no impediment for right understanding, all conditioned dhammas. Rob may say more!! > >6. Seclusion, viveka. Can there be kaya viveka now? If not, why not? >Alex's quote: > >"Having heard the Dhamma, he achieves a twofold seclusion: seclusion in body &seclusion in mind. This is the third cause, the third requisite condition... >http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ an/an08/an08. 002.than. html > >So what exactly is achieved? Doesn't viveka have to refer to mental states? Secluded from akusala at this moment. Jhayatha now! >(Btw, pt & all - also see more under "jhana and nibbana" in u.p. if time) > >Metta > >Sarah >p.s Ken O, I read out your comments to David, Sukin and all. >======== > > #105622 From: Ken O Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 7:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (7b) ashkenn2k Dear Sarah 9. Space & Ken O's complaint about lack of refs - When it's reality, it's not in the texts. If there weren't 2 pillars, there'd be no space between them. The Buddha taught anyone to understand what is true in one's life, in everyday life. There's no need to create space between 2 pillars. Just understand what's there - not the space between the kalapas, but the space between 2 pillars. KO:? Disagreed with your satements, what I said is written on the texts and what you said you have yet provide textual support except saying due to realities.? I have also provide further support basing on your sutta quote.?? We cannot claim it is reality which is not supported by ancients.? Honestly, eveyone could claim them, so lets stick to textual support on your statements to be valid.? As long as one is not an Arahant, we will make mistakes in our intepretation, so lets stick to ancients comentators. thanks Ken O #105623 From: Ken O Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 7:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: VsM instructions on "things to do" and "places/things to avoid" ashkenn2k Dear Ken H and pt I'd be interested to read it too, because I only came across a similar list for near and far enemies of the 4 brahma viharas. Chapter IX 99, Visud [The Near and Far Enemies] para 98 to 101.? Briefly as desribe in Visud Metta - near enemy - greed, far enemy - ill will. Compassion - near enemy - grief based on home life.? far enemy - cruelty Gladness - near enemy - joy based on home life, far enemy - aversion Equanimty - near emeny - unknowing based on the home life.? far enemy - greed and resentment Ken o #105624 From: Ken O Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 8:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 ashkenn2k Dear Jon this is not the passage I have in mind. I could quote you other passages from Visud on breathing just that there is no point because you cannot show me a commentary quote that it is not a method :-). thanks Ken O > > >Hi Mike (and KenO) > >Thanks for coming in with this passage from the commentary, Mike. > >(105535) >--- In dhammastudygroup@ yahoogroups. com, "Mike" wrote: >> ... >> I'm not sure which mention of jhana you want, but the first mention is in discussing this passage from the synopsis: >> >> Sutta: Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus as follows: "This is the only way, O bhikkhus, for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the destruction of suffering and grief, for reaching the right path, for the attainment of Nibbana, namely, the Four Arousings of Mindfulness. " >> >> Commentary: Cattaro Satipatthana = "The Four Arousings of Mindfulness. " Four in relation to classes of objects of mindfulness. >> ... >> [talks about different types, dull-witted, keen-witted, etc...] >> ... >> Because he does not continue to stay in the coarse: The keen-witted man pursuing the path of quietude lays hold of the gross subject of meditation, but he does not stay in that. He lays hold of feeling, the subtle subject of meditation, by way of the factors of absorption [jhana] after attaining to and emerging from the absorption reached with the material body as subject. >> ============ === > >J: Yes, this may well be the passage KenO had in mind. > >The passage is actually from the sub-commentary, elaborating on the following from the commentary: > ><< << << << >Why did the Buddha teach just Four Arousings of Mindfulness and neither more nor less? > >By way of what was suitable for those capable of being trained. > >In regard to the pair of the dull-witted and the keen-witted minds among tamable persons of the craving type and the theorizing type, pursuing the path of quietude [samatha] or that of insight [vipassana] in the practice of meditation, the following is stated: > >[1] For the dull-witted man of craving type the Arousing of Mindfulness through the contemplation of the gross physical body is the Path to Purity; >[2] for the keen-witted of this type, the subtle subject of meditation on the feeling. >[3] And for the dull-witted man of the theorizing type the Path to Purity is the Arousing of Mindfulness through a subject not too full of distinctions, namely, consciousness [citta]; >[4] for the keen-witted of this type, the subject which teems with distinctions, namely the contemplation on things of the mind — mental objects [dhammanupassana] . >[5] For the dull-witted man, pursuing quietude, the First Arousing of Mindfulness, body-contemplation, is the Path to Purity, by reason of the feasibility of getting at the mental reflex; >[6] for the keen-witted of this type, because he does not continue to stay in the coarse, the second Arousing of Mindfulness, the contemplation on feeling, is the Path to Purity. >[7] And for the dull-witted man pursuing the path of insight, the subject of meditation without many distinctions, the contemplation on consciousness, is the Path to Purity; >[8] and for the keen-witted of this type the contemplation on mental objects which is full of distinctions. >>> >> >> >> > >Does this commentary passage specify steps to be followed? I don't think so. It expands on the first reference in the introductory section of the sutta to the Four Arousings/foundatio ns of Mindfulness, before those Four Arousings are even enumerated. It's language is descriptive in nature (i.e., it is describing the course taken by a certain class of follower), and it is stated in general terms (there is no detail capable of being followed). > >If these were instructions to be followed, it would mean the listener would first have to know to which class of person he belonged, before he could know which 'instruction' to follow. > >To my understanding, there is no method being laid down here, only a description of how different types of person tend attain enlightenment by mindfulness of certain objects more than others. > >Thanks again for giving the passage. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this issue. > >KenO, is there any other passage you had in mind? > >Jon > > > #105625 From: "ashkenn2k" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 8:31 am Subject: Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) ashkenn2k Dear Dieter and Ken H S:N. XXX 145 Transl. T.B. : Monks, I will teach you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak. "Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma. KO: Vipaka cittas, the intellect mean vipaka as in formation in D.O. "And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma. KO kusala and aksuala cittas in the javana process "And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, & mental kamma: This is called the cessation of kamma. KO: This is magga citta "And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action,right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This iscalled the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. KO: this whole suttas follow the 4NT formula. "So, monks, I have taught you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Whatever a teacher should do - seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them - that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings.Practice jhana, monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you." KO: The sutta is clear that there must be development of panna. This is indicated by the statement "I have taught you new and old kamma ...". If there no panna, there is no jhana Ken O #105626 From: "Dieter" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 10:50 am Subject: Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) moellerdieter Dear Ken O , Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ashkenn2k" wrote: > > Dear Dieter and Ken H > > S:N. XXX 145 Transl. T.B. : > Monks, I will teach you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak. "Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... > The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma. > > KO: Vipaka cittas, the intellect mean vipaka as in formation in D.O. D: let's see what Ven Nyanatiloka has to say : vipāka: 'kamma-result', is any kammically (morally) neutral mental phenomenon (e.g. bodily agreeable or painful feeling, sense-consciousness, etc. ), which is the result of wholesome or unwholesome volitional action (kamma, q.v.) through body, speech or mind, done either in this or some previous life. Totally wrong is the belief that, according to Buddhism, everything is the result of previous action. Never, for example, is any kammically wholesome or unwholesome volitional action the result of former action, being in reality itself kamma. On this subject s. titthāyatana, kamma, Tab. I; Fund II. Cf. A. III, 101; Kath. 162 (Guide, p. 80). Kamma-produced (kammaja or kamma-samuṭṭhāna) corporeal things are never called kamma-vipāka, as this term may be applied only to mental phenomena. vipāka-paccaya: 'kamma-result condition' is one of the 24 conditions (paccaya, q.v.). > "And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma. > > KO kusala and aksuala cittas in the javana process D: javana seems to me a special term from Vism (?) I need to look into the Ven.'s definition: javana (fr. javati, to impel): 'impulsion', is the phase of full cognition in the cognitive series, or perceptual process (citta-vīthi; s. vi??āṇa-kicca) occurring at its climax, if the respective object is large or distinct. It is at this phase that kamma is produced, i.e. wholesome or unwholesome volition concerning the perception that was the object of the previous stages of the respective process of consciousness. There are normally 7 impulsive moments. In mundane consciousness (lokiya, q.v.), any of the 17 kammically wholesome classes of consciousness (Tab. I, 1-17) or of the 12 unwholesome ones (Tab. I, 22-23) may arise at the phase of impulsion. For the Arahat, however, impulsion has no longer a karmic, i.e. rebirth-producing character, but is a kammically independent function (kiriya, q.v.; Tab. I, 72-89). There are further 8 supermundane classes of impulsion (Tab. I, 18-21, 66-69). The 4 impulsive moments immediately before entering an absorption (jhāna, q.v.) or one of the supermundane paths (magga; s. ariyapuggala) are: the preparatory (parikamma), approach (upacāra), adaptation (anuloma), and maturity-moment (gotrabhū, q.v.) In connection with entering the earth-kasiṇa absorption (s. kasiṇa), they are explained as follows, in Vis.M. IV: "After the breaking off of the subconscious stream of being (bhavaṅga-sota, q.v.), there arises the 'advertence at the mind-door' (manodvārāvajjana, s. vi??āṇakicca), taking as object the earthkasiṇa (whilst thinking), 'Earth! Earth!' Thereupon, 4 or 5 impulsive moments flash forth, amongst which the last one (maturity-moment) belongs to the fine-material sphere (rūpāvacara), whereas the rest belong to the sense-sphere (kāmāvacara ; s. avacara), though the last one is more powerful in thought conception, discursive thinking, interest (rapture), joy and concentration (cf. jhāna) than the states of consciousness belonging to the sense-sphere. They are called 'preparatory' (parikamma-samādhi), as they are preparing for the attainment-concentration (appanā-samādhi); 'approaching' (upacāra-samādhi), as they are close to the attainment-concentration and are moving in its neighbourhood; 'adaptive' (anuloma), as they adapt themselves to the preceding preparatory states and to the succeeding attainment concentration. The last one of the four is called 'matured' (gotrabhū). In a similar way, the impulsive moments before reaching the divine ear are described in Vis.M. XIII, 1. - Cf. Kamma - (App.). > > > "And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, & mental kamma: This is called the cessation of kamma. > > KO: This is magga citta > > "And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action,right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This iscalled the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. > > KO: this whole suttas follow the 4NT formula. > > "So, monks, I have taught you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Whatever a teacher should do - seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them - that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings.Practice jhana, monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is > our message to you." > > KO: The sutta is clear that there must be development of panna. This is indicated by the statement "I have taught you new and old kamma ...". If there no panna, there is no jhana D: do we have a hen - egg problem again ? ;-) yes there must be a certain level of panna to practise Jhana .. but first an understanding and practise of sila (wholesome kamma)is assumed which provides the support for the samadhi part of the training (6.+7.+8.) and so giving support for the panna training ( 1.+2. of the N.P. ) with Metta Dieter #105627 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 10:57 am Subject: Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) scottduncan2 Dear Ken O, Regarding, for your assistance (good luck): "S:N. XXX 145 Transl. T.B..." Scott: Here is a translation by Bh. Bodhi: "Bhikkhus, I will teach you new and old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the way leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak... "And what, bhikkhus is old kamma? The eye is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt.* The ear is old kamma...the mind is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt. This is called old kamma. "And what, bhikkhus, is new kamma? Whatever action one does now by body, speech, or mind. This is called new kamma. "And what, bhikkhus, is the way leading to the cessation of kamma? It is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. "Thus, bhikkhus, I have taught old kamma, I have taught new kamma, I have taught the cessation of kamma, I have taught the way leading to the cessation of kamma. Whatever should be done, bhikkhus, by a compassionate teacher out of compassion for his disciples, desiring for their welfare, that I have done for you. These are the feet of trees, bhikkhus, these are empty huts. Meditate (Jhaayatha) bhikkhus, do not be negligent, lest you regret it later. This is our instruction to you." Scott: And the Paa.li: Kammanirodhasutta.m Navapuraa.naani , bhikkhave, kammaani desessaami kammanirodha.m kammanirodhagaamini~ca pa.tipada.m. Ta.m su.naatha, saadhuka.m manasi karotha; bhaasissaamiiti. Katama~nca, bhikkhave, puraa.nakamma.m? Cakkhu, bhikkhave, puraa.nakamma.m abhisa.nkhata.m abhisa~ncetayita.m vedaniya.m da.t.thabba.m...jivhaa puraa.nakammaa abhisa"nkhataa abhisa~ncetayitaa vedaniyaa da.t.thabbaa...mano puraan.akammo abhisa"nkhato abhisa~ncetayito vedaniyo da.t.thabbo. Ida.m vuccati, bhikkhave, puraa.nakammam.. Katama~nca, bhikkhave, navakamma.m? Ya.m kho, bhikkhave, etarahi kamma.m karoti kaayena vaacaaya manasaa, ida.m vuccati, bhikkhave, navakamma.m. Katamo ca, bhikkhave, kammanirodho? Yo kho, bhikkhave, kaayakammavaciikammamanokammassa nirodhaa vimutti.m phusati, aya.m vuccati, bhikkhave, kammanirodho. Katamaa ca, bhikkhave, kammanirodhagaaminii pa.tipadaa? Ayameva ariyo a.t.tha"ngiko maggo, seyyathida.m ?" sammaadi.t.thi, sammaasa"nkappo, sammaavaacaa, sammaakammanto, sammaaaajaavo, sammaavaayaamo, sammaasati, sammaasamaadhi ?" aya.m vuccati, bhikkhave, kammanirodhagaaminaa pa.tipadaa. Iti kho, bhikkhave, desita.m mayaa puraa"nakamma.m, desita.m navakamma.m, desito kammanirodho, desitaa kammanirodhagaaminii pa.tipadaa. Ya.m kho, bhikkhave, satthaaraa kara.niiya.m saavakaana.m hitesinaa anukampakena anukampa.m upaadaaya, kata.m vo ta.m mayaa. Etaani, bhikkhave, rukkhamuulaani, etaani su~n~naagaaraani. Jhaayatha, bhikkhave, maa pamaadattha; maa pacchaavippa.tisaarino ahuvattha. Aya.m vo amhaaka.m anusaasanii' ti. Pa.thama.m. Scott: And the Commentary: *"...Spk here offers essentially the same explanation included in 11, n 111, adding that in this sutta the preliminary stage of insight (pubbabhaavavipassanaa) is discussed." Scott: Thanissaro Bhikkhu ignores the commentary and decides the sutta is about the pursuit of jhaana. Bh. Bodhi uses the more neutral and ambiguous 'meditate' over 'practice jhaana' for 'jhaayatha.' Sincerely, Scott. #105628 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 11:28 am Subject: Method in VsM truth_aerator Hello Jon, KenO, KenH, Pt, all In VsM on kayagatasati it does say that: 1. This meditation subject consists in giving attention to repulsiveness. Even if one is master of the Tipitaka, the verbal recitation should still be done at the time of first giving it attention. For the meditation subject only becomes evident to some through recitation, as it did to the two elders who learned the meditation subject from the Elder Maha-Deva of the Hill Country (Malaya). On being asked for the meditation subject, it seems, the elder [242] gave the text of the thirty-two aspects, saying 'Do only this recitation for four months'. Although they were familiar respectively with two and three Pitakas, it was only at the end of four months of recitation of the meditation subject that they became stream-enterers, with right apprehension [of the text]. So the teacher who expounds the meditation subject should tell the pupil to do the recitation verbally first. "- VsM VIII, 49 Note the: "Although they were familiar respectively with two and three Pitakas, it was only at the end of four months of recitation of the meditation subject that they became stream-enterers, with right apprehension [of the text]. " Also: "56. The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times. For it is through verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar, and the mind being thus prevented from running here and there, the parts become evident and seem like [the fingers of] a pair of clasped hands, like a row of fence posts. 57. The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally. For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]. " - VsM VIII, 56,57 It is totally incorrect to say that commentator didn't intend this part of kayagatasati to be recited *verbally* "even a hundred thousand times" - VsMVIII, 56 With metta, Alex #105629 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 12:32 pm Subject: Re: Method in VsM scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "...It is totally incorrect to say that commentator didn't intend this part of kayagatasati to be recited *verbally* 'even a hundred thousand times' - VsMVIII, 56" Scott: It is clear that you think that all one has to do is to repeat by rote some essentially meaningless words in order to progress on your much desired path. Your Dhamma is based on mimicry. In effect, it is based on a belief that you need only appear to be formally - and by this I mean to imagine yourself to be recreating a form of behaviour - copying what you imagine to be instructions given anciently. You are too concerned with progress and steps and getting ahead. The whole western buddhist thing is about appearances and the emperor has no clothes. This is magical thinking. It will avail nothing. It is a total negation of what anatta means. Filling your thoughts with words may allow you to feel you are winning the battle against kilesas, but these are much deeper and much more intangible than you can possibly imagine. You only appease your own sense of a Self that is practicing incredibly hard and diligently (no matter what you say to refute this) when you go off on these flights of ascetic fancy. You are entirely missing the point. Buddhagosa was the same one who, throughout the Visuddhimagga, made clear that anatta was the basis for all considerations. Please consider this and try to stop your constant attempts to advertise for a pop-buddhism that goes nowhere. Sincerely, Scott. #105630 From: "Mike" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 1:12 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) mikenz66 Hi KenH, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > -------------------- > Mike: > How best to see though that mundane stuff to see that the ultimate reality behind it is not controllable? > -------------------- > > KenH: There is only one way, isn't there? And that is to associate > with wise friends, hear the true Dhamma, wisely consider it, and see > how it applies here and now. > > We may have different opinions on that. :-) Clearly not on the principle, only on which wise friends to pay attention to... Metta Mike #105631 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 2:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: VsM instructions on "things to do" and "places/things to avoid" kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Ken H and pt > > I'd be interested to read it too, because I only came across a similar list for near and far enemies of the 4 brahma viharas. > Hi Ken O and pt, All I know is there was such a list; I am not imagining it. Why there is no trace of it in the files, I don't know. Maybe it turned out to be a Mahayana text and was deleted accordingly. (?) There has been no response to my call for help, but there still could be when DSG gets back to normal. If not we'll rattle the dinosaurs cage a little louder. :-) Ken H #105632 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 3:02 pm Subject: Re: Method in VsM truth_aerator Hello Scott, all, >"scottduncan2" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > A: "...It is totally incorrect to say that commentator didn't intend this part of kayagatasati to be recited *verbally* 'even a hundred thousand times' - VsMVIII, 56" > > Scott: It is clear that you think that all one has to do is to >repeat by rote some essentially meaningless words in order to >progress on your much desired path. Say that to Ven. Buddhaghosa, whom as I understand you consider authoritative. >Your Dhamma is based on mimicry. Following the Buddha and his instructions Again, please re-read. The quote explains the purpose: "56. The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times. For it is through verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar, and the mind being thus prevented from running here and there, the parts become evident and seem like [the fingers of] a pair of clasped hands, like a row of fence posts. 57. The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally. For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]. " - VsM VIII, 56,57 What is so hard to understand in "For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]"? With metta, Alex #105633 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 4:39 pm Subject: Re: Method in VsM scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "...what is so hard to understand in 'For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]'?" Scott: Nothing, except that you think that it is an instruction for *you* to follow. I contend that you have no clue what this section actually means at all. I think that you actually imagine that you could literally achieve something just by reciting this over one hundred thousand times. Sincerely, Scott. #105635 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 4:55 pm Subject: Re: Method in VsM truth_aerator Hello Scott, KenH, Jon, KenO, all, >Scott: Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > A: "...what is so hard to understand in 'For the verbal recitation >is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation >is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of >foulness]'?" > > Scott: Nothing, except that you think that it is an instruction for >*you* to follow. It is not a Self doing anything. Just a process. >I contend that you have no clue what this section actually means at >all. So far I have seen groundless and false accusations with no refutation. Please enlighten me on what the passages mean. 1. This meditation subject consists in giving attention to repulsiveness. Even if one is master of the Tipitaka, the verbal recitation should still be done at the time of first giving it attention. For the meditation subject only becomes evident to some through recitation, as it did to the two elders who learned the meditation subject from the Elder Maha-Deva of the Hill Country (Malaya). On being asked for the meditation subject, it seems, the elder [242] gave the text of the thirty-two aspects, saying 'Do only this recitation for four months'. Although they were familiar respectively with two and three Pitakas, it was only at the end of four months of recitation of the meditation subject that they became stream-enterers, with right apprehension [of the text]. So the teacher who expounds the meditation subject should tell the pupil to do the recitation verbally first. "- VsM VIII, 49 Note the: "Although they were familiar respectively with two and three Pitakas, it was only at the end of four months of recitation of the meditation subject that they became stream-enterers, with right apprehension [of the text]. " Also: "Now when he does the recitation, he should divide it up into the 'skin pentad', etc., and do it forwards and backwards. After saying 'Head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin', he should repeat it backwards, 'Skin, teeth, nails, body hairs, head hairs" VsM VIII,50 Also: "56. The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times. For it is through verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar, and the mind being thus prevented from running here and there, the parts become evident and seem like [the fingers of] a pair of clasped hands, like a row of fence posts. 57. The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally. For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]. " - VsM VIII, 56,57 It is totally incorrect to say that commentator didn't intend this part of kayagatasati to be recited *verbally* "even a hundred thousand times" - VsMVIII, 56 "[Starting the Practice] 80. If it is convenient for him to live in the same monastery as the teacher, then he need not get it explained in detail thus [to begin with], but as he applies himself to the meditation subject after he has made quite sure about it he can have each successive stage explained as he reaches each distinction. One who wants to live elsewhere, however, must get it explained to him in detail in the way already given, and he must turn it over and over, getting all the difficulties solved. He should leave an abode of an unsuitable kind as described in the Description of the Earth Kasina, and go to live in a suitable one. Then he should sever the minor impediments (Ch. IV, ?20) and set about the preliminary work for giving attention to repulsiveness." - VsMVIII, 80 As to unsuitable monastery VsM - IV,2 : "Herein, one that is unfavourable has any one of eighteen faults. These are: largeness, newness, dilapidatedness, a nearby road, a pond, [edible] leaves, flowers, fruits, famousness, a nearby city, nearby timber trees, nearby arable fields, presence of incompatible persons, a nearby port of entry, nearness to the border countries, nearness to the frontier of a kingdom, unsuitability, lack of good friends. [119] One with any of these faults is not favourable. He should not live there. " Ten Impediments: VsM III, 29 A dwelling, family, and gain, A class, and building too as fifth, And travel, kin, affliction, books, And supernormal powers: ten." ======== The instructions are clear. If you disagree, please be kind to refute what Ven. Buddhaghosa has written. With metta, Alex #105636 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 3:09 pm Subject: Advantageous Anti-Actions! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: What are the 10 Advantageous Anti-Actions? 1: No killing or harming is Advantageous. 2: No stealing or cheating is Advantageous. 3: No adultery or abuse is Advantageous. 4: No false speech is Advantageous. 5: No divisive speech is Advantageous. 6: No angry speech is Advantageous. 7: No empty gossip is Advantageous. 8: No jealousy or envy is Advantageous. 9: No angry ill will is Advantageous. 10: No wrong view is Advantageous! Comments: Resisting and abstaining from, and avoiding doing something wrong, is actually actively doing something very good! Such good action is quite advantageous, since it results in the sweet fruit of a pleasant future! <...> Have a nice, noble and advantageous day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #105637 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 5:52 pm Subject: Re: Method in VsM scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "It is not a Self doing anything. Just a process." Scott: I meant *you* as in the ordinary guy named Alex - what makes you think this 'instruction' was for *you*? And as for your litany 'not a Self - just a process,' this is so much empty talk, since I'll bet you actually believe that *you* can sit down and recite something one hundred thousand times and achieve an end result. A: "So far I have seen groundless and false accusations with no refutation..." Scott: Um, you're supposed to provide the refutations, Alex, not me. I'm disagreeing with you. And you're just posting the same quotes again, with no explanation. Since when are you into Buddhagosa anyway? He's the commentator with whom you so often disagree. Tell me, who is this set of instructions meant to be for? What are the conditions the recitation is supposed to set up? Sincerely, Scott. #105638 From: "connie" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 6:19 pm Subject: Re: VsM instructions on "things to do" and "places/things to avoid" nichiconn dear Kens and pt, re: "counterfeit" or "near & far enemy" dhammas - you might want to take a look at "Cheating (va~ncaka) Dhammas" in UP or the the translation "38 Misleading Realities" at http://www.dhammastudy.com/vancaka.html peace, connie #105639 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 6:25 pm Subject: Re: Method in VsM truth_aerator Dear Scott, KenH, all, > Dear Alex, > > Regarding: > > A: "It is not a Self doing anything. Just a process." > > Scott: I meant *you* as in the ordinary guy named Alex - what makes >you think this 'instruction' was for *you*? And as for your litany >'not a Self - just a process,' this is so much empty talk, since >I'll bet you actually believe that *you* can sit down and recite >something one hundred thousand times and achieve an end result. > >Tell me, who is this set of instructions meant to be for? What are >the conditions the recitation is supposed to set up? Please enlighten me. What do you think is meant when it says: VsM VIII,145. "'Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, gone to the forest or to the root of a tree or to an empty place, sits down; having folded his legs crosswise, set his body erect, established mindfulness in front of him, VIII,153. Gone to the forest ...or to an empty place: this signifies that he has found an abode favourable to the development of concentration through mindfulness of breathing. VIII,158. Herein, gone to the forest is gone to any kind of forest possessing the bliss of seclusion among the kinds of forests characterized thus: 'Having gone out beyond the boundary post, all that is forest' (Ps.i,176; Vbh. 251), and 'A forest abode is five hundred bow lengths distant' (Vin.iv,183). To the root of a tree: gone to the vicinity of a tree. To an empty place: gone to an empty, secluded space. And here he can be said to have gone to an 'empty place' if he has gone to any of the remaining seven kinds of abode (resting place).42 [271] VIII,159. Having thus indicated an abode that is suitable to the three seasons, suitable to humour and temperament,43 and favourable to the development of mindfulness of breathing, he then said sits down, etc., indicating a posture that is peaceful and tends neither to idleness nor to agitation. Then he said having folded his legs crosswise, etc., to show firmness in the sitting position, easy occurrence of the in-breaths and out-breaths, and the means for discerning the object. VIII,160. Herein, crosswise is the sitting position with the thighs fully locked. Folded: having locked. Set his body erect: having placed the upper part of the body erect with the eighteen backbones resting end to end. For when he is seated like this, his skin, flesh and sinews are not twisted, and so the feelings that would arise moment by moment if they were twisted do not arise. That being so, his mind becomes unified, and the meditation subject, instead of collapsing, attains to growth and increase. =========== As to unfavourable monastery VsM - IV,2 : "Herein, one that is unfavourable has any one of eighteen faults. These are: largeness, newness, dilapidatedness, a nearby road, a pond, [edible] leaves, flowers, fruits, famousness, a nearby city, nearby timber trees, nearby arable fields, presence of incompatible persons, a nearby port of entry, nearness to the border countries, nearness to the frontier of a kingdom, unsuitability, lack of good friends. [119] One with any of these faults is not favourable. He should not live there. " Ten Impediments: VsM III, 29 A dwelling, family, and gain, A class, and building too as fifth, And travel, kin, affliction, books, And supernormal powers: ten." ==== 1. This meditation subject consists in giving attention to repulsiveness. Even if one is master of the Tipitaka, the verbal recitation should still be done at the time of first giving it attention. For the meditation subject only becomes evident to some through recitation, as it did to the two elders who learned the meditation subject from the Elder Maha-Deva of the Hill Country (Malaya). On being asked for the meditation subject, it seems, the elder [242] gave the text of the thirty-two aspects, saying 'Do only this recitation for four months'. Although they were familiar respectively with two and three Pitakas, it was only at the end of four months of recitation of the meditation subject that they became stream-enterers, with right apprehension [of the text]. So the teacher who expounds the meditation subject should tell the pupil to do the recitation verbally first. "- VsM VIII, 49 Note the: "Although they were familiar respectively with two and three Pitakas, it was only at the end of four months of recitation of the meditation subject that they became stream-enterers, with right apprehension [of the text]. " Also: "Now when he does the recitation, he should divide it up into the 'skin pentad', etc., and do it forwards and backwards. After saying 'Head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin', he should repeat it backwards, 'Skin, teeth, nails, body hairs, head hairs" VsM VIII,50 And: "56. The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times. For it is through verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar, and the mind being thus prevented from running here and there, the parts become evident and seem like [the fingers of] a pair of clasped hands, like a row of fence posts. 57. The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally. For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]. " - VsM VIII, 56,57 It is totally incorrect to say that commentator didn't intend this part of kayagatasati to be recited *verbally* "even a hundred thousand times" - VsMVIII, 56 "[Starting the Practice] 80. If it is convenient for him to live in the same monastery as the teacher, then he need not get it explained in detail thus [to begin with], but as he applies himself to the meditation subject after he has made quite sure about it he can have each successive stage explained as he reaches each distinction. One who wants to live elsewhere, however, must get it explained to him in detail in the way already given, and he must turn it over and over, getting all the difficulties solved. He should leave an abode of an unsuitable kind as described in the Description of the Earth Kasina, and go to live in a suitable one. Then he should sever the minor impediments (Ch. IV, ?20) and set about the preliminary work for giving attention to repulsiveness." - VsMVIII, 80 ======= Please explain to me what the above instructions say. With metta, Alex #105640 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 7:51 pm Subject: Re: VsM instructions on "things to do" and "places/things to avoid" kenhowardau Thanks Connie, that's exactly what I had in mind. I hope it's what Ken O and pt were looking for. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear Kens and pt, > re: "counterfeit" or "near & far enemy" dhammas - you might want to take a look at "Cheating (va~ncaka) Dhammas" in UP or the the translation "38 Misleading Realities" at http://www.dhammastudy.com/vancaka.html > #105641 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 7:58 pm Subject: Re: VsM instructions on "things to do" and "places/things to avoid" ptaus1 Dear connie, Thanks very much for the links. Best wishes pt > re: "counterfeit" or "near & far enemy" dhammas - you might want to take a look at "Cheating (va~ncaka) Dhammas" in UP or the the translation "38 Misleading Realities" at http://www.dhammastudy.com/vancaka.html #105642 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 8:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) ptaus1 Dear Sarah, When you return home, if you find some free time, please say a bit more about this as I also find it difficult to reconcile kamma/vipaka on conventional and paramattha levels. Thanks. Best wishes pt > 1. Kamma, vipaka, wealth and good birth, worldly conditions - correlating circumstances at birth vipaka and other paramattha dhammas. What is the vipaka, what are the rupas conditioned by kamma? Rob told us about a family in Kathmandu living above a foul-smelling toilet. Running the toilet was their livelihood. #105643 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 8:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On Accumulations. ptaus1 Dear Sarah and Jon, Thanks for your explanations. I realise now that you have mentioned this distinction between savaka and sammasambuddha before, but it just failed to register with me for some reason. Sorry for the confusion. Best wishes pt > > J: What I'm saying is that enlightenment need not necessarily be attained within the same lifetime as the attainment of the first vipassana-naana. > ... > S: Not speaking about the bodhisatta, this is what I understand. For example, I understand a cula-sotapanna (who has attained the 2nd stage of insight) is destined to become a sotapanna, but it could take a multitude of lifetimes. > ... > > > > Sarah's post (see below) implies that enlightenment would have to be attained within the same Buddha-era as the first vipassana-naana. However, that could be in a later lifetime within the same Buddha-era. > ... > S: Yes, again not speaking about the bodhisatta. Those lifetimes could, of course, all be in heavenly (or higher) realms. #105644 From: Lukas Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 9:33 pm Subject: Method in VsM szmicio Dear Alex If this is not problem could you please make another thread, this one have almost 500 answers in it. This is very hard to answer, if I need to look for your last post among those 500. using web interface. If you start a new thread this is better cause I can easily answer. First of all, you should notice you're saying the meditiation subject was given , and you're not saying the meditation to do. And I think meditation subject are mostly for samtha development, cause vipassana is done everywhere/anytime. The recitation is possible, that is how you should consider the meaning. Meditation subject is the reality that is possible to happen and when done is very benficial. But of course not by Self. Self doesnt need to be introduce for applying 40 objects. recitation is also included, but that does not mean that a group of people meet twice a weak going to a secluded room and siting and starting to recitate. Best wishes Lukas Alex wrote: >In VsM on kayagatasati it does say that: 1. This meditation subject consists in giving attention to repulsiveness. Even if one is master of the Tipitaka, the verbal recitation should still be done at the time of first giving it attention. For the meditation subject only becomes evident to some through recitation, as it did to the two elders who learned the meditation subject from the Elder Maha-Deva of the Hill Country (Malaya). On being asked for the meditation subject, it seems, the elder [242] gave the text of the thirty-two aspects, saying 'Do only this recitation for four months'. Although they were familiar respectively with two and three Pitakas, it was only at the end of four months of recitation of the meditation subject that they became stream-enterers, with right apprehension [of the text]. So the teacher who expounds the meditation subject should tell the pupil to do the recitation verbally first. "- VsM VIII, 49 Note the: "Although they were familiar respectively with two and three Pitakas, it was only at the end of four months of recitation of the meditation subject that they became stream-enterers, with right apprehension [of the text]. " Also: "56. The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times. For it is through verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar, and the mind being thus prevented from running here and there, the parts become evident and seem like [the fingers of] a pair of clasped hands, like a row of fence posts. 57. The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally. For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]. " - VsM VIII, 56,57 It is totally incorrect to say that commentator didn't intend this part of kayagatasati to be recited *verbally* "even a hundred thousand times" - VsMVIII, 56 #105645 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 9:39 pm Subject: Re: Method in VsM szmicio Dear Scott, Alex > A: "...what is so hard to understand in 'For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]'?" > > Scott: Nothing, except that you think that it is an instruction for *you* to follow. I contend that you have no clue what this section actually means at all. I think that you actually imagine that you could literally achieve something just by reciting this over one hundred thousand times. L: Perfect understanding of objects needs a lot of right understanding first. This is not easy. And also object applied sometimes cannot grow. Best wishes Lukas #105646 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 9:48 pm Subject: Re: Method in VsM szmicio Dear Scott, Alex > A: "It is not a Self doing anything. Just a process." > > Scott: I meant *you* as in the ordinary guy named Alex - what makes you think this 'instruction' was for *you*? And as for your litany 'not a Self - just a process,' this is so much empty talk, since I'll bet you actually believe that *you* can sit down and recite something one hundred thousand times and achieve an end result. L: We have to learn my mother now just a process. my father just a process. Me now just a process. No one anywhere just a process. Then this is not merely speach. > A: "So far I have seen groundless and false accusations with no refutation..." > > Scott: Um, you're supposed to provide the refutations, Alex, not me. I'm disagreeing with you. And you're just posting the same quotes again, with no explanation. Since when are you into Buddhagosa anyway? He's the commentator with whom you so often disagree. L: Scott, you are very not accurate now. Since I also have lot of problems with visudhimagga. WIth it's understanding. I cannot say this is Buddhagasa only and say this only a commentator. This is obussive. Visudhimagga is a holy Text of Buddhism and was with compassion made by Thera. It's perfect, even we cannot get the deep meaning of it. Best wishes Lukas #105647 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 9:55 pm Subject: Re: VsM instructions on "things to do" and "places/things to avoid" szmicio Dear Connie, pt, KenH I think I could not understand number 2. 2. pa.tikkuulasa~n~naapatiruupataaya byaapaado va~ncetiiti yujjati. Byaapaado (dosa) could be mistaken for pa.tikkuulasa~n~naa (ugly or disgusting) Usually dosa IS disgusting and bad. What's the meaning? Best wishes Lukas > re: "counterfeit" or "near & far enemy" dhammas - you might want to take a look at "Cheating (va~ncaka) Dhammas" in UP or the the translation "38 Misleading Realities" at http://www.dhammastudy.com/vancaka.html > peace, > connie > > > #105648 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 10:03 pm Subject: Re: Method in VsM szmicio Hi Scott, Let me to agree with you ;> >Buddhagosa was the same one who, throughout the Visuddhimagga, made >clear that anatta was the basis for all considerations. Please consider this and try to stop your constant attempts to advertise for a pop-buddhism that goes nowhere. L: Yes, this really leads nowhere. And I thik especially bhikkhus shall stop to projecting a new ideas of buddhism. It does not help anyone. This makes us entangled in concepts of buddhism. Best wishes Lukas #105649 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 10:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: VsM instructions on "things to do" and "places/things to avoid" sarahprocter... Dear Ken H, Yes, I was just about to say - go to 'U.P.' "Cheating dhammas", but I see Connie kindly stepped in. Apologies to all for delays...I got rather behind with my reading. Metta Sarah >--- On Tue, 2/3/10, kenhowardau wrote: Thanks Connie, that's exactly what I had in mind. I hope it's what Ken O and pt were looking for. #105650 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 11:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Musings13 - Prior Attainments of the Bodhisatta sarahprocter... Dear pt, #105308 > SN 25.1 (transl. by Thanissaro Bhikkhu): > http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ sn/sn25/sn25. 001.than. html > At Savatthi. "Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable. > > "One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry. > > "One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry. > > "One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening. " > ===== > > pt: So here dhamma-follower and faith-follower seem pretty much the same as cula-sotapanna. .... [S: Or sotapanna?] KS: Can't say (without checking more carefully with the Pali and commentary). Understand reality now. What is predominant or not now? Faith is stronger than before when based on panna. Metta Sarah ===== #105651 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 11:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Musings13 - Prior Attainments of the Bodhisatta sarahprocter... Dear pt, I just came across a couple of my jottings from when I read out the following to KS: > >pt: So, to me it seems that bodhisatta's wisdom would already have to be highly developed if he's to keep developing based on aspirations in kusala direction, otherwise, he'd be developing in akusala direction as there would be no discerning between a/kusala aspirations, i.e. he'd be just "wishing for some kind of result" as you say. ..... KS: Who can know the other's accumulations? .... > >pt:Finally, there's that condition that before bodhisatta aspiration, he must be capable of becoming an arahant in that very life, what to me would mean that he's already a cula-sotapanna of sorts, if not higher - i.e. he's already assured of becoming an arahant, not just sotapanna, which would again mean that his wisdom is already very highly developed. .... KS: Nobody can know another's accumulations! Metta Sarah ======== #105652 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 11:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Musings13 - Prior Attainments of the Bodhisatta sarahprocter... Dear Ken O (& pt), #105315 Thanks for helpfing with the great quotes. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > KO:? No he is not a cula-sotapanna.? If he is, he cannot make an inspiration to?be a Buddha.? He needs to have very strong kusala?citta though. > > Pse see Treatise of Paramis at www.abhidhamma.org?(vi) What is their condition? > (6) The achievement of noble qualities (gunasampatti): the achievement of such noble qualities as the direct knowledges (abhinna), etc.? For the aspiration only succeeds when made by one Who has gone forth and gained the eight meditative attainments (samapatti) and the five mundane types of direct knowledge;8it does not succeed for one devoid of these qualities. Why? Because one devoid of them is incapable of investigating the paramis. It is because he possesses the necessary supporting conditions and the direct knowledges that the Great Man, after he has made the aspiration, is able to investigate the paramis by himself. ***** > KO:? Yes he would have become enlighted by hearing the Buddha teachings if not for the aspiration he made.? Pse see Treatise of Paramis at www.abhidhamma.org? at the paragraph,(xiv) how much time is required to accomplished them? > > ???<< Bodhisattvas also become threefold at the moment they form the aspiration, according to their division into those who comprehend through a condensed teaching (ugghatitannu), those who comprehend through an elaborated teaching (vipancitannu), and those who are capable of training (neyya).32 Among these, one who comprehends through a condensed teaching has such supporting conditions that, if he were disposed towards the enlightenment of a disciple, he could attain arahatship together with the four discriminations (patisambhida) and the six direct knowledges while listening to a four-line stanza from the lips of a perfectly enlightened Buddha, even while the third line. is as yet unconcluded. The second has such supporting conditions that, if he were disposed towards the enlightenment of a disciple, he could attain arahatship together with the six direct knowledges while listening to a four-line stanza from the lips of the Exalted One, even while > the fourth line is as yet unconcluded. And the third has the supporting conditions to attain arahatship together with the six direct knowledges when the four-line stanza he hears from the Exalted One is concluded. >> =========== #105653 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 11:29 pm Subject: Re: Musings13 - Prior Attainments of the Bodhisatta sarahprocter... Dear pt (Scott & all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > S: 1. The quote you gave about the dhammanusarin and saddhanusarin seemed to be referring to sotapannas, not cula sotapannas to me. > > pt: Hm, not sure, to me it seems that in the quote I gave the second-last paragraph that describes a person with a "modicum of discernment" .... S: Can you or Scott or someone check the Pali for this....SN 25:1 ... >is exactly equal to cula-sotapanna as he is assured not to be reborn in lower realms and of attaining stream-entry in that life. ... S: The sotapanna (also) is assured not to be reborn in the lower realms. Usually this is said in connection with the sotapanna. "He is incapable of passing away until he has realized *the fruit* of stream-entry" - i.e. referring to magga citta of the sotapanna. Impossible for death to occur before the sotapatti phala cittas which follow immediately. ..... >The last paragraph that describes the one who "knows and sees" is actually called stream-enterer there, so there is a clear difference between the two. ... S: Yes, the sotapanna - I think you'll find this is a summary about the sotapanna, regardless of the individual accumulations. ..... > pt: Ok, but in that case I still don't understand what exactly is the bodhisatta developing in all his numerous lives as a bodhisatta when it comes to the parami of wisdom? I mean, he already perfected panna of the level of samatha that's responsible for jhanas and abhinnas, but in your opinion he cannot go from there into developing vipassana level of panna. So then what else is there for him to develop in terms of wisdom? At the moment it seems that the parami of wisdom is simply not being developed by a bodhisatta at all. .... S: As discussed. Still,all the foundations have to be laid, like for the king's banquet as compared to the pauper's rice meal. Let me know if still unsatisfactory and perhaps Ken O will come in with more helpful texts if necessary!! Metta Sarah ======== #105654 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Mar 1, 2010 11:48 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sarahprocter... Dear pt (Han & all), #105452, #105453 Thanks for your interesting responses to the 20 statements on anatta I gave. You did pretty well - just a little wavering:-) > > S: 1. There is no soul, no Almighty God > > pt: Seems a bit like a view, maybe it'd be easier to say that concepts of soul and an almighty creator god are just concepts, so not real. Not sure. ... S: Yes, concepts only! .... > > > S: 18. If there's any effort to try and be aware at this moment, in order to understand the presently appearing object, or any trying to develop more kusala, such as more metta, then it's the wrong path again. > > pt: A bit tricky to understand. The way I read "effort to try and be aware at this moment..." would stand for kusala viriya and kusala chanda, so it'd be ok. But it can also be interpreted as akusala viriya, etc. Not sure to which the question refers to. .... S: I think that whenever there's a trying, an effort to be aware etc, it's Atta, Self. So definitely, the wrong path.... Han gave a great answer when he said (in the following message to yours) that he knew by not agreeing with this point he was contradicting all the other agreements on anatta in the other points and this dilemma leads to self-conflicts. Thx Han, much appreciated!! .... > > S: 19. If the development of understanding is for any purpose other than just the understanding of dhammas, it's wrong again. > > pt: Again tricky. ... S: But not tricky for all who responded! .... >In ultimate terms yes, .... S: That's it - the only purpose of developing understanding. Otherwise it's a mis-understanding or Atta again! .... >but perhaps it's a bit, erm, elitist? ... S: Was the Buddha "an elitist" because so few understand about the world of paramattha dhammas? ... >As a total beginner, it took me several years before I could actually understand what's meant by dhamma (both Dhamma and just dhammas), so maybe now I'm starting to understand it a bit, .... S: Yes, again you're praising the Buddha's wisdom by indicating it's very subtle. ... >but initially, it was all about trying find out how to be a better person and lead a better life. .... S: Yes, all for oneself because of the strong belief in Atta and strong attachment to Atta. .... >Without trying to find those answers, I would have never actually got to a point where I could start to appreciate that it's all about just the understanding of dhammas. ... S: As others have been trying to suggest (Ken H, Sukin & co), any right understanding develops in spite of all those Atta beliefs and attachments - not because of them. Being able to follow the path in the jungle is not because of all the creepers, snakes, fallen trees and other obstacles. It's because in spite of all those obstacles, there's sufficient knowledge accumulated/accumulating to follow the path and not be totally overwhelmed and led astray by the wrong paths or tangles of wrong view. Metta Sarah ========== #105655 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 12:00 am Subject: Re: VsM instructions on "things to do" and "places/things to avoid" kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Connie, pt, KenH > > I think I could not understand number 2. > > 2. pa.tikkuulasa~n~naapatiruupataaya byaapaado va~ncetiiti yujjati. > Byaapaado (dosa) could be mistaken for pa.tikkuulasa~n~naa (ugly or disgusting) > > Usually dosa IS disgusting and bad. What's the meaning? > > Hi Lukas, Just guessing, but I think the meaning might be that dosa could be mistaken for wise perception of akusala. That is, dosa could be mistaken for seeing akusala dhammas as ugly or disgusting. As you know, some suttas talk about ariyans having aversion (of the wholesome kind) for *all* conditioned dhammas even beautiful (kusala) ones. That would be because all conditioned dhammas are dukkha. Even so, I don't think dosa could be mistaken for seeing the beautiful ones, just the ugly. Ken H #105656 From: han tun Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 12:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) hantun1 Dear Sarah, Sarah wrote: Dear pt (Han & all), <----------> Han gave a great answer when he said (in the following message to yours) that he knew by not agreeing with this point he was contradicting all the other agreements on anatta in the other points and this dilemma leads to self-conflicts. Thx Han, much appreciated! ! -------------------- Han: Thank you very much for your appreciation. I had also written to you why I now agreed No. 16. 16. When there is an idea of the tangible object or visible object being a computer, a thing, a substance or whole, it is attanu di.t.thi, also an idea of atta, but not sakkaaya di.t.thi. If you missed my message due to your very heavy work load, please click on the following link. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/105521 Respectfully, Han #105657 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 1:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 jonoabb Hi KenO (105620) > >J: I think I said in my last post that the passage you quoted was not a method, and the reasons for that view. What more do you want me to say ? ;-)) > > KO: You have to show me the textual support of your statement where it said there is no method :-). > =============== J: I see it as a matter of interpretation, given that there is no explicit statement one way or the other as to whether what is being described is a method (unless you know of one). However, I think I've said all I want to on the subject, so perhaps we can agree to disagree on the point ;-)) > =============== > >> As I told in the mini-bus, I am not interested in Samantha bhavana, it is not useful and full of dangers of wrong development. Stick to right understanding is the better way. I just wish to make it clear on this method issue which I find a very unneccessary discussion which does not help in the understanding of dhamma. > >> ============ === > > > >J: Disagree here, too ;-)) > > > >All kinds of kusala, including samatha, are to be developed by the person developing insight. It's not as though a choice has to be made between one form of kusala and another. Or do you see it differently? > > KO: if we have to start to talk by paramatha level then there would be no conversation because we cannot use I or we or choice. So are we speaking conventionally or paramatha dhamma level. Or maybe i should have used the word accumulations :-)). > =============== J: As I see it, what you refer to as the danger of wrong development would apply in the case of a person who thought there was a prescribed method to be followed. It does not apply as regards the development of samatha as and when samatha occurs in daily life. Jon #105658 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 1:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 jonoabb Hi KenO (105624) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > ... > this is not the passage I have in mind. I could quote you other passages from Visud on breathing just that there is no point because you cannot show me a commentary quote that it is not a method :-). > =============== J: Hmm, new rules seem to be made as we go along ;-)) I'm happy to leave it at that, unless there's anything further you'd like to discuss. Jon #105659 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 1:20 am Subject: Re: Method in VsM jonoabb Hi Alex (105628) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > ... > In VsM on kayagatasati it does say that: > =============== J: Thanks for the extract from Vism. First, on a 'technical' point, recitation is clearly not necessary for all. Note the passage: "For the meditation subject only becomes evident to *some* through recitation, ..." (see text at end of this message). Secondly, since it is the development of panna that is being discussed, it could not be a matter of *recitation* as such. So this is not a programme to be followed by aspiring jhana attainers ;-)). To undertake such a recitation in that belief would be wrong practice, leading to the accumulation of more wrong view. Note the opening sentence: "This meditation subject consists in giving attention to repulsiveness." This 'giving attention' is a reference to the kusala quality of wise attention. Again, the citta cannot be kusala merely by virtue of trying to 'see' the body as repulsive. There must have been a certain amount of that kind of panna already developed. > =============== > ... > It is totally incorrect to say that commentator didn't intend this part of kayagatasati to be recited *verbally* "even a hundred thousand times" - VsMVIII, 56 > =============== J: The commentators do not presume to tell followers how to 'practice'. They are consolidating and reporting the received wisdom of the elders. Jon > =============== > 1. This meditation subject consists in giving attention to repulsiveness. Even if one is master of the Tipitaka, the verbal recitation should still be done at the time of first giving it attention. For the meditation subject only becomes evident to some through recitation, as it did to the two elders who learned the meditation subject from the Elder Maha-Deva of the Hill Country (Malaya). On being asked for the meditation subject, it seems, the elder [242] gave the text of the thirty-two aspects, saying 'Do only this recitation for four months'. Although they were familiar > respectively with two and three Pitakas, it was only at the end of > four months of recitation of the meditation subject that they became > stream-enterers, with right apprehension [of the text]. So the teacher > who expounds the meditation subject should tell the pupil to do the > recitation verbally first. "- VsM VIII, 49 > > Note the: > "Although they were familiar respectively with two and three Pitakas, it was only at the end of four months of recitation of the meditation subject that they became stream-enterers, with right apprehension [of the text]. " > > Also: > > "56. The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times. For it is through verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar, and the mind being thus prevented from running here and there, the parts become evident and seem like [the fingers of] a pair of clasped hands, like a row of fence posts. > > 57. The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally. > For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]. " - VsM VIII, 56,57 #105660 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 1:12 am Subject: Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) jonoabb Hi pt (105619) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > ... > pt: So can it be said then that ekaggata in jhana is also samma-samadhi? > > For that matter, is ekaggata considered samma-samadhi only during path consciousness or at any time when there's a kusala citta? > =============== J: Yes, samma-samadhi is the mental factor ekaggata that arises with a moment of path consciousness (mundane or supramundane). As far as I know, the ekaggata cetasika arising with kusala citta of levels other than insight is not normally referred to as samma-samadhi. Jon #105661 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 5:03 am Subject: Re: Musings13 - Prior Attainments of the Bodhisatta scottduncan2 Dear Sarah (pt), Regarding: pt: "Hm, not sure, to me it seems that in the quote I gave the second-last paragraph that describes a person with a 'modicum of discernment'" S: Can you or Scott or someone check the Pali for this....SN 25:1 pt: "...is exactly equal to cula-sotapanna as he is assured not to be reborn in lower realms and of attaining stream-entry in that life." Scott: Bh Bodhi gives: "...One for whom these teachings are accepted thus after being pondered to a sufficient degree with wisdom (ime dhammaa eva.m pa~n~naaya mattaso nijjhaana.m khamanti, aya.m vuccati) is called a Dhamma-follower (dhammaanusaarii), one who has entered the fixed course of rightness, entered the plane of superior persons, transcended the plane of worldlings...One who knows and sees these teachings thus (ime dhamme eva.m pajaanaati eva.m passati, aya.m vuccati) is called a stream-enterer (sotaapanno), no longer bound to the nether world, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as his destination." 1. Cakkhusutta.m 302. Saavatthinidaana.m . Cakkhu.m, bhikkhave, anicca.m vipari.naami a~n~nathaabhaavi; sota.m anicca.m vipari.naami a~n~nathaabhaavi; ghaana.m anicca.m vipari.naami a~n~nathaabhaavi; jivhaa aniccaa vipari.naamii a~n~nathaabhaavii; kaayo anicco vipari.naamii a~n~nathaabhaavii; mano anicco vipari.naamii a~n~nathaabhaavaa. Yo, bhikkhave, ime dhamme eva.m saddahati adhimuccati ?" aya.m vuccati saddhaanusaarii, okkanto sammattaniyaama.m, sappurisabhuumi.m okkanto, viitivatto puthujjanabhuumi.m; abhabbo ta.m kamma.m kaatu.m, ya.m kamma.m katvaa niraya.m vaa tiracchaanayoni.m vaa pettivisaya.m vaa upapajjeyya; abhabbo ca taava kaala.m kaatu.m yaava na sotaapattiphala.m sacchikaroti. Yassa kho, bhikkhave, ime dhammaa eva.m pa~n~naaya mattaso nijjhaana.m khamanti, aya.m vuccati ?" 'dhammaanusaarii, okkanto sammattaniyaama.m, sappurisabhuumi.m okkanto, viitivatto puthujjanabhuumi.m; abhabbo ta.m kamma.m kaatu.m, ya.m kamma.m katvaa niraya.m vaa tiracchaanayoni.m vaa pettivisaya.m vaa upapajjeyya; abhabbo ca taava kaala.m kaatu.m yaava na sotaapattiphala.m sacchikaroti'. Yo, bhikkhave, ime dhamme eva.m pajaanaati eva.m passati, aya.m vuccati ?" 'sotaapanno avinipaatadhammo niyato sambodhiparaayano' ti. Pa.thama.m. The 'faith-follower' is the 'saddhaanusaarii.' There are commentarial bits as well, if anyone is interested. Sincerely, Scott. #105662 From: "charlest" Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 5:29 am Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) dhammasaro Good friend ptaus1, Have the Bangkok discussions ended? Please advise. Sincere warm thanks. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > When you return home, if you find some free time, please say a bit more about this as I also find it difficult to reconcile kamma/vipaka on conventional and paramattha levels. Thanks. > > Best wishes > pt > > > 1. Kamma, vipaka, wealth and good birth, worldly conditions - correlating circumstances at birth vipaka and other paramattha dhammas. What is the vipaka, what are the rupas conditioned by kamma? Rob told us about a family in Kathmandu living above a foul-smelling toilet. Running the toilet was their livelihood. > #105663 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 6:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) sarahprocter... Dear Ken O, --- On Mon, 1/3/10, Ken O wrote: >Lets not?misrepresent my statements. ... S: I don't believe I've "misrepresented your statements". In fact, I've been very careful to read out your exact comments or show your letters, amongst many other letters, as I did the other day. ... >I am not saying doing or not doing.? I am saying whether there is a method.? If you think it is not a method, then show your commentarian support and not by your own understanding.? Everyone could claim their own understanding, then in the end, it is base on our own thinking and not the words of the ancient.? Please do show me the commentarial support of you saying there is no method. ... S: "Sabbe dhamma anatta". I read all comments in any of the texts as being a description of cittas, cetasikas and rupas arising and falling away by conditions. Anytime it seems there is a method or practice to be followed, I think we need to consider very carefully. As KS asked you many times (when you argued with her at length on this point), what is calm? Is there calm now? How is calm developed now? Whether we're talking about samatha or satipatthana, it comes back to the understanding of the present reality, the present citta now. It's not a matter of showing each other different texts, but understanding whatever we read in terms of paramattha dhammas and anatta. I think you've been raising many excellent points with Ken H, Jon, K.Sujin and myself, but none of us have been convinced about the 'method' in the development of samatha. Perhaps, as Jon suggests, it's time to agree to differ on this point. Btw, did you read and fully agree with the set of 20 statements I gave on anatta before? If so, I may add some more special ones for you:-) I expect you're glad to be back with your TV and family. We return to HK tomorrow (for a few days only). Nina and Lodewijk are flying back tonight. Metta Sarah ======= #105664 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 6:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (7b) sarahprocter... Dear Ken O, --- On Mon, 1/3/10, Ken O wrote: >>9. Space & Ken O's complaint about lack of refs - When it's reality, it's not in the texts. If there weren't 2 pillars, there'd be no space between them. The Buddha taught anyone to understand what is true in one's life, in everyday life. There's no need to create space between 2 pillars. Just understand what's there - not the space between the kalapas, but the space between 2 pillars. >KO:? Disagreed with your satements, what I said is written on the texts and what you said you have yet provide textual support except saying due to realities.? I have also provide further support basing on your sutta quote.?? ... S: We have both provided many textual refs and exhausted the sources. In brief, we interpret them differently. Again, we can just let this rest. I haven't read your other message and refs yet, will do so later. Much appreciated. It's like the attanuditthi discussion. As Han said, he disagreed before, but he's considered it carefully, read what other texts/Sayadaws say and now it's clear. You may find the same on that issue and this one too in due course:-). We all find these points difficult. .... >We cannot claim it is reality which is not supported by ancients.? Honestly, eveyone could claim them, so lets stick to textual support on your statements to be valid.? As long as one is not an Arahant, we will make mistakes in our intepretation, so lets stick to ancients comentators. ... S: and let's continue to consider very carefully indeed what is meant. Like the Kvu ref, we have to consider whether it's referring to the concept of space or the reality. A concept is a concept. Again, at this moment, what is real? What is there (or isn't there) in front of the computer screen which makes it possible to reach out and touch the screen? If you're getting frustrated by discussing these issues with me/us, no need to respond. If KS couldn't convince you, I'm sure I won't. Metta Sarah ====== #105665 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 6:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Musings13 - Prior Attainments of the Bodhisatta sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& pt), Greatly appreciating your help again with this and other refs. (Perhaps now you can provide all the refs that Ken O is waiting for, lol! j/k). --- On Tue, 2/3/10, scottduncan2 wrote: >Scott: Bh Bodhi gives: "...One for whom these teachings are accepted thus after being pondered to a sufficient degree with wisdom (ime dhammaa eva.m pa~n~naaya mattaso nijjhaana.m khamanti, aya.m vuccati) is called a Dhamma-follower (dhammaanusaarii) , one who has entered the fixed course of rightness, entered the plane of superior persons, transcended the plane of worldlings.. .One who knows and sees these teachings thus (ime dhamme eva.m pajaanaati eva.m passati, aya.m vuccati) is called a stream-enterer (sotaapanno) , no longer bound to the nether world, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as his destination. " ... S: Thx, yes a good description of a sotapanna (or sotapatti magga). Much appreciated. Metta Sarah p.s Thought of you and other Canadian friends as we watched some highlights of the ice hockey victory:-) Were any of your guys in the team? ========== #105666 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 6:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sarahprocter... Dear Han (& Ken O), --- On Tue, 2/3/10, han tun wrote: >Han: Thank you very much for your appreciation. I had also written to you why I now agreed No. 16. 16. When there is an idea of the tangible object or visible object being a computer, a thing, a substance or whole, it is attanu di.t.thi, also an idea of atta, but not sakkaaya di.t.thi. If you missed my message due to your very heavy work load, please click on the following link. http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/dhammastud ygroup/message/ 105521 ... S: Yes, I did see it, but am very behind with replies. I greatly appreciated your further comments on this point and was interested to read your reasoning. The Ledi Sayadaw comments reminded me of a quote from the Kvu which I've given before. More later perhaps. An early start tomorrow, so time to close down. Ken O, just remembered you did reply to the 20 statements and hedged your bets on no 16. :-) Not sure if you're still on the fence or hedge on this one. Metta Sarah ===== #105667 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 9:23 am Subject: Re: Method in VsM truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Scott, Alex > > > A: "...what is so hard to understand in 'For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]'?" > > > > Scott: Nothing, except that you think that it is an instruction for *you* to follow. I contend that you have no clue what this section actually means at all. I think that you actually imagine that you could literally achieve something just by reciting this over one hundred thousand times. > > L: Perfect understanding of objects needs a lot of right understanding first. This is not easy. And also object applied sometimes cannot grow. > > Best wishes > Lukas > Dear Lukas, all, Let me be clear again. I am all for right understanding. I do not believe that person can achieve anything superhuman without right understanding. The difference is that I believe that right understanding is NOT simply holding a set of right views in mind. If it doesn't lead to right actions, etc - it is not *right* understanding. It is also not an excuse to avoid doing anything, and waiting for "the knight in shining armor riding on a white horse" coming to save you. Belief in inefficiency of action is the view of Ajivikas with sad results. See end of MN71. I've repeatedly stated that all things are conditioned, all things are non-self. Things happen do to causes and conditions and not due to any non-existing Self as a controller. A moral person with right understanding, due to corresponding conditions will do right actions and appropriate effects will follow. To avoid doing good actions such as restraining akusala tendencies (due to "NO CONTROL! NO CONTROL!"), is akusala. With metta, Alex #105674 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 8:33 pm Subject: Re: Method in VsM jonoabb Hi Alex (105668) > > First, on a 'technical' point, recitation is clearly not necessary >for all. Note the passage: "For the meditation subject only >becomes evident to *some* through recitation, ..." (see text at end >of this message). > > So are you, Jon, more gifted than some monks who are masters of Tipitaka and do not need that part of the instruction? > =============== J: I suggest we keep the discussion to the original point, which is whether what is being described in the text is a 'method' for the development of samatha. I was just pointing out that the text does not assert that recitation is required in *all* cases. Any disagreement from you on this point? > =============== > They did. Just see the sutta. How can you totally twist the go and recite vocally, then mentally a hundred->hundred thousand times as not being instruction???!@!! > > Are we using the same VsM books? > It does say > > "The recitation should be done verbally..." > =============== J: Yes, but the question is whether the text is suggesting that (merely) reciting repeatedly constitutes, or will lead to, the development of samatha. I don't think even you would suggest this to be the intended meaning, would you? Recitation does not necessarily imply perception of foulness. > =============== > as in > > "The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, > a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times. For it is through > verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar, and the mind being thus prevented from running here and there, the parts become evident and seem like [the fingers of] a pair of clasped hands,13 like a row of fence posts. > > 57. 2. The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally. For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]." > VsM VIII, 56-57 > =============== J: I do not read this as saying that (mere) recitation is a condition for penetration of the characteristic of foulness. It is assumed that the 'wise attention' previously mentioned is present. And unless and until it can be known when wise attention is or is not present, there can be no recitation of the kind mentioned here. Note that, in any event, the text is saying only that the recitation is *a condition for* the penetration of the characteristic of foulness, implying that other factors are also necessary. Hence, method being described. Jon #105675 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 11:58 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) ptaus1 Hi Chuck, > C: Have the Bangkok discussions ended? I don't really know. I guess they are in the finishing stages since Sarah mentioned recently that yesterday was their last discussion with K.Sujin. Afterwards, I guess it'll take another few days for everyone to get home in their respective countries. One way I can usually tell that things are back to normal here on the list is when Nina and Sarah start posting regularly every day and Jon starts posting irregualarly. Best wishes pt #105676 From: "colette" Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 6:14 pm Subject: Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment ksheri3 Hi Ken H. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! Pardon me, let others be sure to read what you said, what you cognize, before they get to my reply: > Yes it can mislead aspirants, but only if it is misunderstood. Theravada Dhamma teaches that there is no sudden enlightenment, and therefore thousands of lifetimes of study and practice will be necessary before a fool can become an arahant. But, more importantly, it also teaches there is no one who becomes that arahant. There are only conditioned dhammas, none of which lasts for more than a single, fleeting, moment. > > So where's the problem? What's wrong with thousands of lifetimes if there's no one who lives them? > > The only problem is ignorance - ignorance of conditioned dhammas. Ignorance is one of those conditioned dhammas, and its function is to prefer concepts. > > Therefore, instead of understanding fleeting dhammas, we have a concept of a living being who journeys through countless lifetimes suffering all kinds of horrible diseases, injuries and deaths. > > That's why we should stick with Theravada. It teaches us about the dhammas that exist here and now. > > I don't know what Mahayana teaches, but if it says there is Buddha Nature here and now, I would be highly suspicious. Ignorance (Worldling Nature) is a much more likely candidate. :-) > colette: I'm not gonna touch it. It stands! If I were to bother squabbling over triffles then I would take away from the pieces overall beauty. IT STANDS! Maybe we can deal w/ the differences you cognize between the Theravadan and Mahayana schools concerning Buddha Nature, some other time. As for the time being I'm simply gonna abide in this cognition and experience the bliss of knowing that people do think, not all people, but there are apples in the barrel that are not rotten. ;) toodles, colette #105677 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 4:34 pm Subject: Right View... bhikkhu.sama... Friends: What is this crucial Right View? The Noble Eightfold Way, leading to Nibbana, is simply this: Right View <..> But what is Right View? Right View of Ownership of Kamma: All beings are owners of their kamma, inherit their kamma, are born of their kamma, are created by their kamma, are linked to their kamma and any intentional action (=kamma) they do, whether good or bad, the effects of that will be theirs only, following them like a shadow, that never leaves... This is Right View! Right View of the Ten Phenomena: Giving alms has good effects, any self-sacrifice results in pleasure, small gifts are also beneficial. There is resulting fruition thus of any good and any bad behaviour. There is moral efficacy of any relation to mother and father. There is this world and there are other worlds. There are beings who are spontaneously and instantaneously born. There exist good and pure recluses and priests in this world, who having followed the right method of practice, themselves by their own supra-human abilities, have directly experienced the other worlds and who explain them and thereby make them known here... This is Right View! Right View of the Four Noble Truths: Right view of this is Suffering... Right view of Craving is the Cause of Suffering... Right view of No Craving is the End of Suffering... Right view of the Noble 8-fold Way leads to the end of Suffering... This is Right View! <...> Further study: Majjhima Nikaya 9. Samma-ditthi Sutta: The Discourse on Right View: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #105678 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 1:00 am Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) jonoabb Hi pt --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > One way I can usually tell that things are back to normal here on the list is when Nina and Sarah start posting regularly every day and Jon starts posting irregualarly. > =============== ;-)). Just back in HK, so prepare for the regular irregular posting from me. Jon #105679 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 1:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) nilovg Dear pt and friends, just back in Holland, 36 degrees difference and the heating in the building is out of order. You can imagine. What a vipaaka through the body. I heard a lot: this is just a dhamma, just now. Still recovering from the journey. Nina. Op 3-mrt-2010, om 10:00 heeft jonoabb het volgende geschreven: > Just back in HK, so prepare for the regular irregular posting from me. #105680 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 1:49 am Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) ptaus1 Hi Jon, > ;-)). Just back in HK, so prepare for the regular irregular posting from me. :) Yeah, I too prefer when you are in Bangkok. Best wishes #105681 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 1:56 am Subject: Re: VsM instructions on "things to do" and "places/things to avoid" ptaus1 Hi Lukas, > L: I think I could not understand number 2. > > 2. pa.tikkuulasa~n~naapatiruupataaya byaapaado va~ncetiiti yujjati. > Byaapaado (dosa) could be mistaken for pa.tikkuulasa~n~naa (ugly or disgusting) > > Usually dosa IS disgusting and bad. What's the meaning? KenH already gave a good explanation. This point is also discussed in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3543 In fact, all the 38 items in the list are also discussed in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3544 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3545 These are the first three posts from the UP topic connie told us about, it's a very good read. By the way, I've posted a message yesterday about this, but I think at the time I was logged into a different account at work, so I apologise if it went to your private mailbox instead of going to the list. Best wishes pt #105682 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 2:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) ptaus1 Dear Nina, It's good to have you back. I've missed your daily posts. Looking forward to yours and Sarah's reports about the trip, once you acclimatise of course. Best wishes pt > N: just back in Holland, 36 degrees difference and the heating in the > building is out of order. You can imagine. What a vipaaka through the > body. I heard a lot: this is just a dhamma, just now. Still > recovering from the journey. #105683 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 2:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) sarahprocter... Dear Nina, welcome home - do hope you and Lodewijk had a comfortable trip back. We got back an hour or so ago - as usual, surrounded by laundry, bags, papers and so on.... Super humid here - the walls are all damp and the place needs serious dehumidfying. --- On Wed, 3/3/10, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >just back in Holland, 36 degrees difference and the heating in the building is out of order. You can imagine. What a vipaaka through the body. I heard a lot: this is just a dhamma, just now. Still recovering from the journey. ... S: Oh dear! You'll have to follow my mother's example and wear hats and gloves around the home. Hope you can make some hot congee for Lodewijk. I appreciated my brief Dhamma chat with Lodewijk on the phone before you left Bangkok. We discussed how worries, tiredness, unpleasant bodily feeling - any realities at all can be the object of sati now. All anatta, not belonging to any of us. It's so useless to wish the presently arising dhammas to be anything other than they are. Otherwise it's just more lobha bringing more sorrow. Again, as K.Sujin reminded us so often, the only precious thing that doesn't bring grief and sorrow is the right understanding of dhammas, i.e The Triple Gem. We'd greatly appreciated our trip with you and all the other friends. I wrote up some cryptic note summaries after the discussions in Bkk and KK. When you have rested, you may like to go back and find them. They are all under headings like the one above. Very best wishes to Lodewijk. Keep warm with lots of clothes and blankets and perhaps you can borrow an electric heater? Metta Sarah p.s Replies to other mail in a day or two.... ====== #105684 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 2:52 am Subject: Re: Musings13 - Prior Attainments of the Bodhisatta ptaus1 Dear Sarah, Thanks for your comments and for raising this question in Bangkok. > > pt: Ok, but in that case I still don't understand what exactly is the bodhisatta developing in all his numerous lives as a bodhisatta when it comes to the parami of wisdom? > > S: As discussed. Still,all the foundations have to be laid, like for the king's banquet as compared to the pauper's rice meal. > > Let me know if still unsatisfactory and perhaps Ken O will come in with more helpful texts if necessary!! pt: I think I'm ok with this topic for now - you explained it in one of your summaries from Bangkok - bodhisatta can develop satipatthana, but it will not go to the level of vipassana nanas. I kind of equated that "middle level of satipatthana" with what Jon recently explained about patipatti (if I understood him correctly) - it's still direct awareness (knowing a dhamma as a nama or a rupa, knowing individual characteristics of dhammas, and knowing the 3 marks) even though it's not on the level of vipassana nanas (pativeda). So, now I'll dig through the UP a bit first to try to understand exactly what are these 3 things and then will probably come back with more questions. Thanks for your help. Best wishes pt #105685 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 2, 2010 11:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Colette) - In a message dated 3/2/2010 9:01:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: So where's the problem? What's wrong with thousands of lifetimes if there's no one who lives them? =================================== And we can equally legitimately add to that: What's the problem with the gut-wrenching pain of terminal cancer if there's "no one" to have it? of torture in concentration camps and detention camps if there's "no one" being tortured? of slicing and dicing a living human body if there is "no body" to be cut up and "no one" to feel it? of the kidnapping, rape, and murder of children, if there are "no children" to undergo this and no parents to grieve? Well, perhaps you get the point????? In general, what's the problem with any suffering at all if there is, in reality, "no one" to suffer? The clear answer is that suffering is perfectly real for all but arahants of whom there are always zero to few, and the Buddha didn't just say "Hey, there is 'no one', so no problem!" Will you answer " Hey, forget that, for there was 'no buddha' "? All this "no problem" business is nothing more than cutsie talk, Ken. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #105686 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 4:57 am Subject: Re: Method in VsM scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "...Even if a person does things with wrong view, it is still better if the person does kusala deeds rather than akusala deeds." Scott: Is it? And how are these deeds kusala when they are led by wrong view? Miccaa-di.t.thi does not know kusala. Kusala does not arise with miccaa-di.t.thi. Miccaa-dit.t.hi marks the way of the eightfold-wrong-path. This 'person' doing deeds 'with wrong view' is a conventional description of akusala kamma. Thus, in the end, even when miccaa-dit.t.hi is cloaked in pure-sounding rationalizations, it is still miccaa-di.t.thi. Sincerely, Scott. #105687 From: Ken O Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 5:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 ashkenn2k Dear Jon > >J: I see it as a matter of interpretation, given that there is no explicit statement one way or the other as to whether what is being described is a method (unless you know of one). > >However, I think I've said all I want to on the subject, so perhaps we can agree to disagree on the point ;-)) KO:? By reciting verbally and then mentally is already a method.? That is only one example, I could quote you more as Visud is full of them :-).?? >> >> ============ === > >J: As I see it, what you refer to as the danger of wrong development would apply in the case of a person who thought there was a prescribed method to be followed. It does not apply as regards the development of samatha as and when samatha occurs in daily life. > KO:? It does apply if a person think he could develop samantha without understanding panna.??? So I need to speak to you in paramtha,??it?is not about development of samantha, it should be developing panna.? Without panna there is no samantha or vipassana bhavana.?:-)? Ken O #105688 From: Ken O Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 6:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) ashkenn2k Dear Dieter >D: let's see what Ven Nyanatiloka has to say : > >vipāka: 'kamma-result' , is any kammically (morally) neutral mental phenomenon (e.g. bodily agreeable or painful feeling, sense-consciousness , etc. ), which is the result of wholesome or unwholesome volitional action (kamma, q.v.) through body, speech or mind, done either in this or some previous life. Totally wrong is the belief that, according to Buddhism, everything is the result of previous action. Never, for example, is any kammically wholesome or unwholesome volitional action the result of former action, being in reality itself kamma. On this subject s. titthāyatana, kamma, Tab. I; Fund II. Cf. A. III, 101; Kath. 162 (Guide, p. 80). > >Kamma-produced (kammaja or kamma-samu&# 7789;ṭ hāna) corporeal things are never called kamma-vipā ka, as this term may be applied only to mental phenomena. > >vipāka- paccaya: 'kamma-result condition' is one of the 24 conditions (paccaya, q.v.). KO:? eye is a?vipaka citta - an old kamma,?A resultant of a past action and?not a present action.??Your?seeing or hearing etc is the?result of old kamma but your present action is not the result of old kamma.???The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated.??Willed because there is kamma still arise in a resultant vipaka citta, it act to co-ordinate.? Feeling arise in vipaka cittas. What Nyanatiloka is saying that present action is not condition by past action, however in this sutta context?it is not?about present action, it is a about a present result caused by a past action.? That is the difference of meaning here.? So it is good to learn Abhidhamma?without it, I could not have explain it.? Without Abhidhamma, one cannot be precise and clear in the meaning of words in the suttas.? When one learn Abhidhamma and the commentaries, one is full of faith in the Buddha dhamma and understand the meaning of the suttas. >D: javana seems to me a special term from Vism (?) >I need to look into the Ven.'s definition: > >javana (fr. javati, to impel): 'impulsion', is the phase of full cognition in the cognitive series, or perceptual process (citta-vī thi; s. vi??āṇ a-kicca) occurring at its climax, if the respective object is large or distinct. It is at this phase that kamma is produced, i.e. wholesome or unwholesome volition concerning the perception that was the object of the previous stages of the respective process of consciousness. There are normally 7 impulsive moments. In mundane consciousness (lokiya, q.v.), any of the 17 kammically wholesome classes of consciousness (Tab. I, 1-17) or of the 12 unwholesome ones (Tab. I, 22-23) may arise at the phase of impulsion. For the Arahat, however, impulsion has no longer a karmic, i.e. rebirth-producing character, but is a kammically independent function (kiriya, q.v.; Tab. I, 72-89). There are further 8 supermundane classes of impulsion (Tab. I, 18-21, 66-69). > >The 4 impulsive moments immediately before entering an absorption (jhāna, q.v.) or one of the supermundane paths (magga; s. ariyapuggala) are: the preparatory (parikamma), approach (upacāra) , adaptation (anuloma), and maturity-moment (gotrabhū , q.v.) In connection with entering the earth-kasi&# 7751;a absorption (s. kasiṇa) , they are explained as follows, in Vis.M. IV: "After the breaking off of the subconscious stream of being (bhavaṅ ga-sota, q.v.), there arises the 'advertence at the mind-door' (manodvā rāvajjana, s. vi??āṇ akicca), taking as object the earthkasiṇ a (whilst thinking), 'Earth! Earth!' Thereupon, 4 or 5 impulsive moments flash forth, amongst which the last one (maturity-moment) belongs to the fine-material sphere (rūpā vacara), whereas the rest belong to the sense-sphere (kāmā vacara ; s. avacara), though the last one is more powerful in thought conception, discursive thinking, interest (rapture), joy and concentration (cf. jhāna) than the states of consciousness belonging to the sense-sphere. They are called 'preparatory' (parikamma-sam& #257;dhi) , as they are preparing for the attainment-concentr ation (appanā -samā dhi); 'approaching' (upacāra- samā dhi), as they are close to the attainment-concentr ation and are moving in its neighbourhood; 'adaptive' (anuloma), as they adapt themselves to the preceding preparatory states and to the succeeding attainment concentration. The last one of the four is called 'matured' (gotrabhū ). In a similar way, the impulsive moments before reaching the divine ear are described in Vis.M. XIII, 1. - Cf. Kamma - (App.). KO:???New kamma could only be developed?at the?arisen of kusala and akusala cittas.? It is not possible for kamma to be resultant (vipaka)?at the same time to?be the cause (kusala or akusala).? This?would?cause confusion to the law of kamma as which is?the result?and which?is the cause.? ?So it must be two different sets of cittas.?? ? >D: do we have a hen - egg problem again ? ;-) >yes there must be a certain level of panna to practise Jhana .. >but first an understanding and practise of sila (wholesome kamma)is assumed which provides the support for the samadhi part of the training (6.+7.+8.) and so giving support for the panna training >( 1.+2. of the N.P. ) KO:??as what you write 1 and 2 of NP, understanding is always No 1 because it is always the?forerunner.? With understanding, sila and samadhi is kusala.? While on the other hand,?sila and samadhi could be akusala.?? What you have done is the opposite way, that is why?you have the?chicken and egg problem.? When one know developing understanding first, there is no chicken and egg problem.? Ken O #105689 From: Ken O Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 6:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) ashkenn2k Dear Scott thanks, Bh Bodhi translation is so much better especially with the notes. Cheers Ken O > >Dear Ken O, > >Regarding, for your assistance (good luck): > >"S:N. XXX 145 Transl. T.B..." > >Scott: Here is a translation by Bh. Bodhi: > >"Bhikkhus, I will teach you new and old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the way leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak... >"And what, bhikkhus is old kamma? The eye is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt.* The ear is old kamma...the mind is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt. This is called old kamma. >"And what, bhikkhus, is new kamma? Whatever action one does now by body, speech, or mind. This is called new kamma. >"And what, bhikkhus, is the way leading to the cessation of kamma? It is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. >"Thus, bhikkhus, I have taught old kamma, I have taught new kamma, I have taught the cessation of kamma, I have taught the way leading to the cessation of kamma. Whatever should be done, bhikkhus, by a compassionate teacher out of compassion for his disciples, desiring for their welfare, that I have done for you. These are the feet of trees, bhikkhus, these are empty huts. Meditate (Jhaayatha) bhikkhus, do not be negligent, lest you regret it later. This is our instruction to you." > >Scott: And the Paa.li: > >Kammanirodhasutta. m > >Navapuraa.naani , bhikkhave, kammaani desessaami kammanirodha. m kammanirodhagaamini ~ca pa.tipada.m. Ta.m su.naatha, saadhuka.m manasi karotha; bhaasissaamiiti. Katama~nca, bhikkhave, puraa.nakamma. m? Cakkhu, bhikkhave, puraa.nakamma. m abhisa.nkhata. m abhisa~ncetayita. m vedaniya.m da.t.thabba. m...jivhaa puraa.nakammaa abhisa"nkhataa abhisa~ncetayitaa vedaniyaa da.t.thabbaa. ..mano puraaṇakammo abhisa"nkhato abhisa~ncetayito vedaniyo da.t.thabbo. Ida.m vuccati, bhikkhave, puraa.nakammaṃ. Katama~nca, bhikkhave, navakamma.m? Ya.m kho, bhikkhave, etarahi kamma.m karoti kaayena vaacaaya manasaa, ida.m vuccati, bhikkhave, navakamma.m. Katamo ca, bhikkhave, kammanirodho? Yo kho, bhikkhave, kaayakammavaciikamm amanokammassa nirodhaa vimutti.m phusati, aya.m vuccati, bhikkhave, kammanirodho. Katamaa ca, bhikkhave, kammanirodhagaamini i pa.tipadaa? Ayameva ariyo a.t.tha"ngiko maggo, seyyathida.m â€" sammaadi.t.thi, sammaasa"nkappo, sammaavaacaa, sammaakammanto, sammaaaajaavo, sammaavaayaamo, sammaasati, sammaasamaadhi â€" aya.m vuccati, bhikkhave, kammanirodhagaamina a pa.tipadaa. Iti kho, bhikkhave, desita.m mayaa puraa"nakamma. m, desita.m navakamma.m, desito kammanirodho, desitaa kammanirodhagaamini i pa.tipadaa. Ya.m kho, bhikkhave, satthaaraa kara.niiya.m saavakaana.m hitesinaa anukampakena anukampa.m upaadaaya, kata.m vo ta.m mayaa. Etaani, bhikkhave, rukkhamuulaani, etaani su~n~naagaaraani. Jhaayatha, bhikkhave, maa pamaadattha; maa pacchaavippa. tisaarino ahuvattha. Aya.m vo amhaaka.m anusaasanii' ti. Pa.thama.m. > >Scott: And the Commentary: > >*"...Spk here offers essentially the same explanation included in 11, n 111, adding that in this sutta the preliminary stage of insight (pubbabhaavavipassa naa) is discussed." > >Scott: Thanissaro Bhikkhu ignores the commentary and decides the sutta is about the pursuit of jhaana. Bh. Bodhi uses the more neutral and ambiguous 'meditate' over 'practice jhaana' for 'jhaayatha.' > >Sincerely, > >Scott. > > #105690 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 6:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) scottduncan2 Dear Ken O., Regarding: K: "thanks, Bh Bodhi translation is so much better especially with the notes." Scott: You're welcome. I agree. Sincerely, Scott. #105691 From: "sukinderpal" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 6:29 am Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sukinderpal Hi Pt, (Ken H, Mike, Sarah), I'm having difficulty finding time to read the posts, so please expect some delay in my responses. You wrote: It's good to see you posting again. I remember when just starting to lurk here I really used to enjoy your long and well-reasoned posts. S: Kind of you to say this, I don't expect more than a handful of people to like reading my posts. ;-) ----------------------- Pt: Thanks for your comments regarding the dsg position. I'm not sure how exactly to answer your questions constructively since they seem more rhetorical in nature and represent the dsg position quite well, so not much more I can add there. S: Yes I wasn't expecting answers from you. ----------------------- Pt: I wish though that someone would make an attempt to actually try to understand what Mike is saying on his own terms (because to me it seems he tried to understand what dsg folks are saying using dsg terms, so it'd be nice to show the same courtesy), rather than dismissing his position as wrong from the outset. Perhaps you could be the man for the job, perhaps not. S: I won't be trying to understand Mike particularly, but I'd like to explain further my understandings. I've not read many of the posts in this and other related discussions and will simply refer to Mike's post, the one you responded to and work from there. I quote from it: Quote: > >>18. If there's any effort to try and be aware at this moment, in >order to understand the presently appearing object, or any trying to >develop more kusala, such as more metta, then it's the wrong path >again. >> A:> Of course. How can you see anatta, if you believe in Atta that can control things? Mike: I'm still puzzled why any of those points should be considered particularly controversial in Dhamma circles. As far as I can understand, the only important disagreement you have with people such as Alex, or any of the teachers I respect, is in the detailed interpretation of #18. None of those teachers is saying that there is some atta control agent (as Alex nicely puts it above), they simply differ on how best to realise that. Mike: To totally oversimplify, it seems to me that the approach you advocate is to realise anatta by considering it very carefully. The alternative is to attempt to control stuff, and see how it goes. Sooner or later the lack of control becomes painfully obvious... S: The belief in self and control is what we all had before we heard the Dhamma. But the Dhamma points to us that this is due to wrong perception and wrong view. That what we used to take for real, namely concepts, are in fact not, and the idea of `control' associated with this taking for real that which is not is likewise illusory and hence potentially misleading. For most of us however, this is not the understanding we get when we first hear the Dhamma from various quarters. We are encouraged instead, to make a distinction between what is judged as `theory / book knowledge' from so-called `practice / meditation', all this by virtue of reasoning based very much on the idea of `self and control', when in fact the Dhamma should cause us to question our old patterns of thought in this regard and seeing need to continue listening to and discussing the Dhamma. Distinguishing pariyatti from patipatti rather than theory and practice is I believe, the way to go. The former pair has a direct causal connection in reality, whereas the latter on the other hand, is an abstraction thought out by any uninstructed worldling. Indeed pariyatti begins with making the reality / concept distinction, which is done by virtue of knowing that the one has characteristics to be known directly by panna and the other doesn't. Putting aside Nibbana, we learn also that realities are conditioned whereas concepts are not. And talking about characteristics, there is the individual characteristic of each Nama and each Rupa and the general characteristics namely, anicca, dukkha and ANATTA. So it goes together, namely knowing realities as distinct from concepts and understanding at a corresponding level, conditionality and the Tilakkhana. Is this not the reasonable approach? If anyone believes that there should be other approaches instead, perhaps this is because they are not ready for Dhamma and we should then not have any expectations about them. Better this than try to be accommodating, I would think? And this seems to be where the problem is. Those who fail to see the reality of anatta in the present moment and especially in relation to `practices' which they follow continue also to take concepts / conventional situations seriously. In other words being caught up in ideas about someone who needs to do certain things in time and space in order that understanding be developed, this is taking what is not real for real and believing in ideas about cause and effect not in line with the way things are. Their insisting on following what they believe to be the practice which would enable them to one day understand anatta and conditionality while at that moment refusing to acknowledge the truth, is just reflection of attachment and wrong view. And to go on to state that they are encouraged to `let go' etc. in the process, this simply put, is one good way how the `self' feels justified in continuing to do what it does. In conclusion, teachers who approach the Dhamma with ideas about meditation / setting aside time for practice etc. do not understand the important causal relationship between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. If they do accept that it is traditionally taught, it would be reducing pariyatti to being mere theory or book knowledge which then serves to highlight their notion about so called `practice'. Speaking then about gently leading students to understand the deeper implications of anatta, I think this never happens. In fact such ideas on the part of any teacher more likely are the result of his or her own lack of understanding about the matter. But more below?? -------------------------- Pt: Either way, my opinion on the whole argument is that it's all just down to our fascination with semantics, so not sure I can add anything constructive at the moment. E.g. I could say that everything you (or KenH) did prior to encountering dsg was exactly what was needed so that you could understand the dsg position on anatta at the right moment. So, you might call all that you learned before dsg wrong, but I might call it right precisely because it offered a vantage point for appreciating the dsg position... Still just more semantics, so not very helpful in either case... S: As you'd probably see by now, I don't believe that it is a matter of semantics. We all make reference to realities being conditioned, impermanent, suffering and non self, but the understanding as applied to one's moment to moment experiences; this is one place where there is a crucial difference. A. Sujin talks about all realities with emphasis on those that make up our day to day lives. In this it is shown that some realities are unwholesome, some wholesome, and others neither, all however need to be known as and when they arise, implying then, that the most useful of all is the development of 8FP. There is therefore no place in this, for ideas about `things to do' as this would be encouraging of ignorance with regard to what has already arisen by conditions and being lead instead by some projected idea. Before we heard the Dhamma, our lives were as it is, few moments of kusala in between far greater moments of akusala. Looking back we can accept this as being conditioned primarily due to the accumulations from past lives. Why should it be expected then that on hearing the Dhamma and just beginning to understand it, any dramatic change should occur in this regard? It makes sense to me that life basically goes on as it would, only on having a little understanding about nama and rupas, wrong view of self begins to become noticed especially given that hearing about all forms of kusala, attachment and wrong view towards these likely also arises. One can see then that wrong view is the most harmful and misleading of all akusala dhammas. Teachers who teach meditation on the other hand, seem little interested in pointing to the realities of daily life. If they do, it is never in the sense of encouraging the need to understand one's life as it is. Instead kusala is talked about in a way involving things to be done which clearly encourages self view. For example, rather than showing the value of kindness and the harm of aversion, because in a day we do relate to many people, one talks about `metta meditation' and the need to spend time being alone doing this. Is this encouraging of metta and is it understanding oneself? People are lead by ambition for results and end up perverting their perception of life. The Dhamma is supposed to lead us simply to understand our lives *as it is* without distortion. Most teachers today however, appear to lead their students further away from the realities which make up their lives into a world in which the illusory self acts within an illusory world and is trying hard to get something out of it. Clearly very far from the Middle Way. This is too long and I must go to bed soon since I need to get up early and do ;-) certain things and likely won't have any time for the computer all day. Metta, Sukin #105692 From: Ken O Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 6:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Method in VsM ashkenn2k Dear Alex I did not disagree that these are?instructions.? So far, I think I am the only DSGers that did not disagree :-)). If you look carefully in Visud,?there are pre-requsite before one embark on a samantha object.? If you wish to learn these subjects, then you have to?be honest and truthful with yourself, do you have these pre-requsite.? If you have, please go ahead.? If not, then learn more dhamma first.?? It is never a?wasted moment when panna arise.? No matter whether you learn samantha or vipassana bhavana, panna is the forerunner (the 2nd time I use in one day :-)). Without panna, there is no withdrawal of sense objects leading to calm. cheers Ken O >So far I have seen groundless and false accusations with no refutation. Please enlighten me on what the passages mean. > >1. This meditation subject consists in giving attention to repulsiveness. Even if one is master of the Tipitaka, the verbal recitation should still be done at the time of first giving it attention. For the meditation subject only becomes evident to some through recitation, as it did to the two elders who learned the >meditation subject from the Elder Maha-Deva of the Hill Country (Malaya). On being asked for the meditation subject, it seems, the elder [242] gave the text of the thirty-two aspects, saying 'Do only this recitation for four months'. Although they were familiar >respectively with two and three Pitakas, it was only at the end of >four months of recitation of the meditation subject that they became >stream-enterers, with right apprehension [of the text]. So the teacher >who expounds the meditation subject should tell the pupil to do the >recitation verbally first. "- VsM VIII, 49 > >Note the: >"Although they were familiar respectively with two and three Pitakas, it was only at the end of four months of recitation of the meditation subject that they became stream-enterers, with right apprehension [of the text]. " > >Also: > >"Now when he does the recitation, he should divide it up into the >'skin pentad', etc., and do it forwards and backwards. After saying 'Head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin', he should repeat it backwards, 'Skin, teeth, nails, body hairs, head hairs" VsM VIII,50 > >Also: > >"56. The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times. For it is through verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar, and the mind being thus prevented from running here and there, the parts become evident and seem like [the fingers of] a pair of clasped hands, like a row of fence posts. > >57. The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally. >For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]. " - VsM VIII, 56,57 > >It is totally incorrect to say that commentator didn't intend this part of kayagatasati to be recited *verbally* "even a hundred thousand times" - VsMVIII, 56 > >"[Starting the Practice] >80. If it is convenient for him to live in the same monastery as the >teacher, then he need not get it explained in detail thus [to begin with], but as he applies himself to the meditation subject after he has made quite sure about it he can have each successive stage explained as he reaches each distinction. One who wants to live elsewhere, however, must get it explained to him in detail in the way already given, and he must turn it over and over, getting all the difficulties solved. He should leave an abode of an unsuitable >kind as described in the Description of the Earth Kasina, and go to >live in a suitable one. Then he should sever the minor impediments (Ch. IV, ?20) and set about the preliminary work for giving attention to repulsiveness. " - VsMVIII, 80 > >As to unsuitable monastery VsM - IV,2 : >"Herein, one that is unfavourable has any one of eighteen faults. >These are: largeness, newness, dilapidatedness, a nearby road, a pond, >[edible] leaves, flowers, fruits, famousness, a nearby city, nearby timber trees, nearby arable fields, presence of incompatible persons, a nearby port of entry, nearness to the border countries, nearness to the frontier of a kingdom, unsuitability, lack of good friends. [119] One with any of these faults is not favourable. He should not live there. " > >Ten Impediments: VsM III, 29 >A dwelling, family, and gain, A class, and building too as fifth, >And travel, kin, affliction, books, And supernormal powers: ten." >======== > >The instructions are clear. If you disagree, please be kind to refute what Ven. Buddhaghosa has written. > >With metta, > >Alex > > #105693 From: Ken O Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 7:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) ashkenn2k Dear Sarah >... >S: I don't believe I've "misrepresented your statements". In fact, I've been very careful to read out your exact comments or show your letters, amongst many other letters, as I did the other day. >... KO:?? I never connates a method with purposedly do.? Why should a method connates a self, to me, this is because of English language.? To me. method is just a way of development that?suits a person accumulations.? >... >S: "Sabbe dhamma anatta". I read all comments in any of the texts as being a description of cittas, cetasikas and rupas arising and falling away by conditions. Anytime it seems there is a method or practice to be followed, I think we need to consider very carefully. KO:? there is a lot of misunderstanding why a method or practise should have a self, or why a set of instructions given by Visud means there is a self practising.? It is just an instructions for those with the accumulations and panna.??Just like some prefer seating and some prefer studying dhamma like Ven Kassapa and Ven Ananda in Buddhas time.???They fully undestand anatta but Ven Kassapa follow the ascetics practise.? So is there a self in Ven Kassapa just because he likes to do ascetics practise.? Or it is just because of accumulations. >As KS asked you many times (when you argued with her at length on this point), what is calm? Is there calm now? How is calm developed now? Whether we're talking about samatha or satipatthana, it comes back to the understanding of the present reality, the present citta now. KO:? I also reply?many times to her that?without panna there is no calm.? I never claim that one could develop calm without panna.? Impossible to do that because all jhanas have panna cetasikas arise with them and calm only arise with kusala cittas. ?Commentarian notes are without dispute so Visud is very clear, one develop panna before samantha or vipassana.? I never doubt it.? I also never doubt when Visud wrote that there were instructions written on samantha objects.?? >It's not a matter of showing each other different texts, but understanding whatever we read in terms of paramattha dhammas and anatta. > >I think you've been raising many excellent points with Ken H, Jon, K.Sujin and myself, but none of us have been convinced about the 'method' in the development of samatha. Perhaps, as Jon suggests, it's time to agree to differ on this point. KO:? When there is an?understanding issue regarding the text,?I prefer to?stick to the ancient words of the texts.???Honestly,?there?is no?need?for anyone?in the DSG to be convinced that there is?a method or a set of instructions.?? IMHO, to me,?it is about?holding to the ancient words which is of very much importance to me.????Unless there is evidence to the contrary of what is the text, I am most willing to throw out my view just like what I have done for the ditthi issue with lobha.? I am most willing to learn from you or anyone?if you could?show me the textual support of my mistake?in the?reading of?the text.?? Anyway, I dont?practise the 40?samantha?objects. with metta Ken O #105694 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 8:42 am Subject: Re: Method in VsM truth_aerator Hello Jon, all, >J: Hi Alex > > (105668) > > > First, on a 'technical' point, recitation is clearly not necessary >for all. Note the passage: "For the meditation subject only >becomes evident to *some* through recitation, ..." (see text at end >of this message). > > > > So are you, Jon, more gifted than some monks who are masters of Tipitaka and do not need that part of the instruction? > > =============== > > J: I suggest we keep the discussion to the original point, which >is whether what is being described in the text is a 'method' for the >development of samatha. Of course it is a method, being "something to be done" . In this case it involves vocal and mental recitation. > > I was just pointing out that the text does not assert that >recitation is required in *all* cases. Any disagreement from you on >this point? What is the use of that statement to us? If we aren't as gifted as some people, we may have to follow all (no matter how tough) instructions. I hope that you are not implying that you know better than those elders. Even if one skips vocal recitation, there is still mental one. > > =============== > > They did. Just see the sutta. How can you totally twist the go and recite vocally, then mentally a hundred->hundred thousand times as not being instruction???!@!! > > > > Are we using the same VsM books? > > It does say > > > > "The recitation should be done verbally..." > > =============== > > J: Yes, but the question is whether the text is suggesting that (merely) reciting repeatedly constitutes, or will lead to, the development of samatha. I don't think even you would suggest this to be the intended meaning, would you? Recitation does not necessarily imply perception of foulness. > > =============== I've stated it somewhere and it says so below in VsM, that vocal & mental recitations are meant to repeatedly pay attention to foulness. This attention is right attention, done through hearing and considering over and over again. Of course there is no magic in mere sounds. The "magic" comes in repeatedly paying attention to where the words are pointing to. > > as in > > > > "The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, > > a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times. For it is through > > verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar, and the mind being thus prevented from running here and there, the parts become evident and seem like [the fingers of] a pair of clasped hands,13 like a row of fence posts. > > > > 57. 2. The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally. For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]." > > VsM VIII, 56-57 > > =============== > > J: I do not read this as saying that (mere) recitation is a >condition for penetration of the characteristic of foulness. It is assumed that the 'wise attention' previously mentioned is >present. And unless and until it can be known when wise attention is or is not present, there can be no recitation of the kind >mentioned here. No disagreement here. See above. > > Note that, in any event, the text is saying only that the recitation is *a condition for* the penetration of the characteristic of foulness, implying that other factors are also necessary. Hence, method being described. > > Jon > Of course. There is no magic in mere words. It is repeated wise attention and panna that counts there. Words are the tools, like pointers, for the mind to pay attention to. With metta, Alex #105695 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 11:57 am Subject: Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment kenhowardau Hi Colette, ------- C: > I'm not gonna touch it. It stands! ------- Thanks, Colette, I'm glad you appreciated my efforts: I appreciate yours too. ---------------- C: > If I were to bother squabbling over triffles then I would take away from the pieces overall beauty. IT STANDS! ---------------- Thanks again, but nothing stands for very long, especially at DSG. :-) So please feel free to criticize the trifles. Ken H #105696 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 2:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment scottduncan2 Dear Howard (and Ken H.), Regarding: H: "And we can equally legitimately add to that: What's the problem with the gut-wrenching pain of terminal cancer if there's 'no one' to have it? of torture in concentration camps and detention camps if there's 'no one' being tortured? of slicing and dicing a living human body if there is 'no body' to be cut up and 'no one' to feel it? of the kidnapping, rape, and murder of children, if there are 'no children' to undergo this and no parents to grieve? Well, perhaps you get the point????? In general, what's the problem with any suffering at all if there is, in reality, 'no one' to suffer? The clear answer is that suffering is perfectly real for all but arahants of whom there are always zero to few, and the Buddha didn't just say 'Hey, there is 'no one', so no problem!' Will you answer 'Hey, forget that, for there was 'no buddha'? All this 'no problem' business is nothing more than cutsie talk, Ken." Scott: Here, Howard, I think you've taken a completely non-Dhamma stance on 'suffering'. Dukkha has nothing to do with the putative emotional states of conceptual beings, no matter how eloquently and dramatically described. Vedanaa is momentary (including pleasurable feeling), and all conditioned realities are unsatifactory. The rest, as I see it, is a bit melodramatic, and is only the content of the thinking that goes on and on and on. Why aren't you up in arms about all the joy and bliss that people also feel in the world? Why aren't you condemning the 'no one' problem from this perspective? Sincerely, Scott. #105697 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 11:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 3/3/2010 5:44:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard (and Ken H.), Regarding: H: "And we can equally legitimately add to that: What's the problem with the gut-wrenching pain of terminal cancer if there's 'no one' to have it? of torture in concentration camps and detention camps if there's 'no one' being tortured? of slicing and dicing a living human body if there is 'no body' to be cut up and 'no one' to feel it? of the kidnapping, rape, and murder of children, if there are 'no children' to undergo this and no parents to grieve? Well, perhaps you get the point????? In general, what's the problem with any suffering at all if there is, in reality, 'no one' to suffer? The clear answer is that suffering is perfectly real for all but arahants of whom there are always zero to few, and the Buddha didn't just say 'Hey, there is 'no one', so no problem!' Will you answer 'Hey, forget that, for there was 'no buddha'? All this 'no problem' business is nothing more than cutsie talk, Ken." Scott: Here, Howard, I think you've taken a completely non-Dhamma stance on 'suffering'. Dukkha has nothing to do with the putative emotional states of conceptual beings, no matter how eloquently and dramatically described. ------------------------------------------------------ You aren't inclined to ever say "in my opinion," are you? As I understand the Dhamma, 'dukhka' as a noun refers to the 2nd dart, and until one is an arahant, that is in effect. The term 'dukkha' as an adjective is another matter. Vedanaa is momentary (including pleasurable feeling), and all conditioned realities are unsatifactory. The rest, as I see it, is a bit melodramatic, and is only the content of the thinking that goes on and on and on. Why aren't you up in arms about all the joy and bliss that people also feel in the world? Why aren't you condemning the 'no one' problem from this perspective? ------------------------------------------------------- Why can't you ever speak in a friendly manner with people you disagree with? ------------------------------------------------------ Sincerely, Scott. ============================= Sincerely, Howard #105698 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 4:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment kenhowardau Hi Howard, ----- KH: > > So where's the problem? What's wrong with thousands of lifetimes if there's no one who lives them? H: > And we can equally legitimately add to that: What's the problem with the gut-wrenching pain of terminal cancer if there's "no one" to have it? ------ Yes, we could add that legitimately. Or, we could twist it into a ridiculous scenario, and say that people with right understanding would have no compassion for cancer patients because "there are no cancer patients." ------------------- H: > of torture in concentration camps and detention camps if there's "no one" being tortured? of slicing and dicing a living human body if there is "no body" to be cut up and "no one" to feel it? ------------------- ! Where is this leading, Howard? Do we agree that, ultimately, there are no realities apart from namas and rupas? Or are you saying that such an understanding would lead to akusala kamma pathas? ------------------------- H: > of the kidnapping, rape, and murder of children, if there are "no children" to undergo this and no parents to grieve? Well, perhaps you get the point????? ------------------------- I hope not. :-) -------------------------------- H: > In general, what's the problem with any suffering at all if there is, in reality, "no one" to suffer? The clear answer is that suffering is perfectly real for all but arahants -------------------------------- Dukkha is a characteristic of *all* conditioned realities. Arahants know that better than anyone. ---------------------- H: > of whom there are always zero to few, and the Buddha didn't just say "Hey, there is 'no one', so no problem!" ---------------------- Not in those words, perhaps, but I think it's a fair appraisal. And I think it's a good thing that there are only dhammas. I don't believe the Buddha would have taught the Dhamma (the way things are) if it was bad news. Right here and now there are only dhammas, no self; that's the way things are! I call that good news, don't you? :-) Ken H #105699 From: "Mike" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 4:08 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) mikenz66 Dear Sukinder, Thank you for your thoughtful comments. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal" wrote: > Sukinder: And this seems to be where the problem is. Those who fail to see the reality of anatta in the present moment and especially in relation to `practices' which they follow continue also to take concepts / conventional situations seriously. Mike: Yes, this seems to be the key issue. > Sukinder: In other words being caught up in ideas about someone who needs to do certain things in time and space in order that understanding be developed, this is taking what is not real for real and believing in ideas about cause and effect not in line with the way things are. Their insisting on following what they believe to be the practice which would enable them to one day understand anatta and conditionality while at that moment refusing to acknowledge the truth, is just reflection of attachment and wrong view. And to go on to state that they are encouraged to `let go' etc. in the process, this simply put, is one good way how the `self' feels justified in continuing to do what it does. > > Sukiner: In conclusion, teachers who approach the Dhamma with ideas about meditation / setting aside time for practice etc. do not understand the important causal relationship between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. Mike: I'm still puzzled by a couple of things: How is it that (according to this view) almost every "modern" (last hundred years or so) teacher doesn't understand the Dhamma? And how can followers of this view be sure that they really understand anatta, and are not just building up more self-concept about being a "wise Dhamma student"? Mike: This isn't supposed to be just an argumentative question. I have had plenty of warnings from my teachers about building up self views. What is the advice on how to avoid building up self views when following the AS approach? Metta Mike #105700 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 11:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 3/3/2010 7:11:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, ----- KH: > > So where's the problem? What's wrong with thousands of lifetimes if there's no one who lives them? H: > And we can equally legitimately add to that: What's the problem with the gut-wrenching pain of terminal cancer if there's "no one" to have it? ------ Yes, we could add that legitimately. Or, we could twist it into a ridiculous scenario, and say that people with right understanding would have no compassion for cancer patients because "there are no cancer patients." ------------------- H: > of torture in concentration camps and detention camps if there's "no one" being tortured? of slicing and dicing a living human body if there is "no body" to be cut up and "no one" to feel it? ------------------- ! Where is this leading, Howard? Do we agree that, ultimately, there are no realities apart from namas and rupas? Or are you saying that such an understanding would lead to akusala kamma pathas? ----------------------------------------------------------- Whatever we believe, suffering isn't imagined, and it isn't altered by mere believing.The Buddha tended to sick monks, trying to ease their pain as well as their minds. He knew well the agonies of illness, starvation, loss, and death. And he was never so trivial as to tell those who were still worldlings that there is no problem because they don't exist. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------- H: > of the kidnapping, rape, and murder of children, if there are "no children" to undergo this and no parents to grieve? Well, perhaps you get the point????? ------------------------- I hope not. :-) -------------------------------- H: > In general, what's the problem with any suffering at all if there is, in reality, "no one" to suffer? The clear answer is that suffering is perfectly real for all but arahants -------------------------------- Dukkha is a characteristic of *all* conditioned realities. ------------------------------------------------------- What of it?? All that means is that nothing conditioned is a lasting source of satisfaction, and all are in fact conditions for suffering if craved, disliked, or clung to, which, of course, non-arahants do. That, Ken, is exactly why there IS a problem. -------------------------------------------------------- Arahants know that better than anyone. ---------------------- H: > of whom there are always zero to few, and the Buddha didn't just say "Hey, there is 'no one', so no problem!" ---------------------- Not in those words, perhaps, but I think it's a fair appraisal. --------------------------------------------- Well, I sure don't. The Buddha was concerned with ending suffering, not with asserting that there is no problem. ----------------------------------------------- And I think it's a good thing that there are only dhammas. I don't believe the Buddha would have taught the Dhamma (the way things are) if it was bad news. Right here and now there are only dhammas, no self; that's the way things are! I call that good news, don't you? :-) ------------------------------------------------- Dhammas are matters of convention as well, not substantial entities, IMO. In any case, the good news is that there is a way to escape from dukkha. It is the 3rd and 4th NT's that are the good news. ------------------------------------------------- Ken H ============================== With metta, Howard P. S. Thank you, Ken, for decent and friendly conversation. Hindrances /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) #105701 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 5:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Why can't you ever speak in a friendly manner with people you disagree with?" Scott: I was feeling friendly, Howard. I just disagreed in a matter of fact way. What about the points I made. I think they are very good. Can't you take disagreement in stride? Do you have to correct everyone on the manner in which they address you? You allowed yourself to be direct with Ken H. Does one have to walk on egg shells with you all the time? Must one always agree with you? ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #105702 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 2:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 3/3/2010 8:18:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Why can't you ever speak in a friendly manner with people you disagree with?" Scott: I was feeling friendly, Howard. I just disagreed in a matter of fact way. What about the points I made. I think they are very good. Can't you take disagreement in stride? ---------------------------------------------------- I have frequent disagreements with Jon, Sarah, Nina, Ken, and others. I take these in stride without a problem. They are consistently respectful and kind, and I consider them friends. ----------------------------------------------------- Do you have to correct everyone on the manner in which they address you? You allowed yourself to be direct with Ken H. Does one have to walk on egg shells with you all the time? Must one always agree with you? ;-) ------------------------------------------------------ No, Scott. I simply don't find any friendliness in you at all. I have seen unbelievable rudeness from you when conversing with several other folks besides me with whom you disagree, a rudeness that I find quite the opposite of endearing.. ------------------------------------------------------ Sincerely, Scott. ============================= Sincerely, Howard #105703 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 8:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "No, Scott. I simply don't find any friendliness in you at all. I have seen unbelievable rudeness from you when conversing with several other folks besides me with whom you disagree, a rudeness that I find quite the opposite of endearing." Scott: Howard, you compare these two messages, yours and mine, and then consider your words. Others can take a look as well. This is a discussion forum and I'll discuss in my way, as will you. Your message to Ken H.: "And we can equally legitimately add to that: What's the problem with the gut-wrenching pain of terminal cancer if there's 'no one' to have it? of torture in concentration camps and detention camps if there's 'no one' being tortured? of slicing and dicing a living human body if there is 'no body' to be cut up and 'no one' to feel it? of the kidnapping, rape, and murder of children, if there are 'no children' to undergo this and no parents to grieve? Well, perhaps you get the point????? In general, what's the problem with any suffering at all if there is, in reality, 'no one' to suffer? The clear answer is that suffering is perfectly real for all but arahants of whom there are always zero to few, and the Buddha didn't just say 'Hey, there is 'no one', so no problem!' Will you answer 'Hey, forget that, for there was 'no buddha'? All this 'no problem' business is nothing more than cutsie talk, Ken." My message to you: "Here, Howard, I think you've taken a completely non-Dhamma stance on 'suffering'. Dukkha has nothing to do with the putative emotional states of conceptual beings, no matter how eloquently and dramatically described. "Vedanaa is momentary (including pleasurable feeling), and all conditioned realities are unsatifactory. The rest, as I see it, is a bit melodramatic, and is only the content of the thinking that goes on and on and on. Why aren't you up in arms about all the joy and bliss that people also feel in the world? Why aren't you condemning the 'no one' problem from this perspective?" Scott: Take a close look, Howard. Our tone is equal; our syntax is equal. You can dish it out but you can't take it. I'll take you to task each time you try to take me to task. If you can speak your mind, so can I. I like fascism as little as you do. Please take this up with the Mods, as I'm sure you will. I'll happily go if they say so, otherwise, just take note. Sincerely, Scott. #105704 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 3:17 pm Subject: Retraction Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment upasaka_howard Hi again, Scott - In a message dated 3/3/2010 10:15:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: No, Scott. I simply don't find any friendliness in you at all. I have seen unbelievable rudeness from you when conversing with several other folks besides me with whom you disagree, a rudeness that I find quite the opposite of endearing.. ========================== I apologize for the anger expressed in the above, Scott, though not for the plain content. There was no basis for my anger in the post of yours to me to which I was reacting. That post just served as trigger. What actually set me off was recent rudeness that I had seen from you directed to 2 other list members on top of the unpleasantness of past conversations between us. It seems that we are rather much oil & water. With metta, Howard #105705 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 3:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - Before seeing this post, I wrote you with an apology for my anger, and an explanation. Please consider that a response to this post also. With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/3/2010 11:15:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "No, Scott. I simply don't find any friendliness in you at all. I have seen unbelievable rudeness from you when conversing with several other folks besides me with whom you disagree, a rudeness that I find quite the opposite of endearing." Scott: Howard, you compare these two messages, yours and mine, and then consider your words. Others can take a look as well. This is a discussion forum and I'll discuss in my way, as will you. Your message to Ken H.: "And we can equally legitimately add to that: What's the problem with the gut-wrenching pain of terminal cancer if there's 'no one' to have it? of torture in concentration camps and detention camps if there's 'no one' being tortured? of slicing and dicing a living human body if there is 'no body' to be cut up and 'no one' to feel it? of the kidnapping, rape, and murder of children, if there are 'no children' to undergo this and no parents to grieve? Well, perhaps you get the point????? In general, what's the problem with any suffering at all if there is, in reality, 'no one' to suffer? The clear answer is that suffering is perfectly real for all but arahants of whom there are always zero to few, and the Buddha didn't just say 'Hey, there is 'no one', so no problem!' Will you answer 'Hey, forget that, for there was 'no buddha'? All this 'no problem' business is nothing more than cutsie talk, Ken." My message to you: "Here, Howard, I think you've taken a completely non-Dhamma stance on 'suffering'. Dukkha has nothing to do with the putative emotional states of conceptual beings, no matter how eloquently and dramatically described. "Vedanaa is momentary (including pleasurable feeling), and all conditioned realities are unsatifactory. The rest, as I see it, is a bit melodramatic, and is only the content of the thinking that goes on and on and on. Why aren't you up in arms about all the joy and bliss that people also feel in the world? Why aren't you condemning the 'no one' problem from this perspective?" Scott: Take a close look, Howard. Our tone is equal; our syntax is equal. You can dish it out but you can't take it. I'll take you to task each time you try to take me to task. If you can speak your mind, so can I. I like fascism as little as you do. Please take this up with the Mods, as I'm sure you will. I'll happily go if they say so, otherwise, just take note. Sincerely, Scott. #105706 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 8:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Musings13 - Prior Attainments of the Bodhisatta ptaus1 Dear Sarah and Scott, Thanks for examining this topic in detail. > "...One for whom these teachings are accepted thus after being pondered to a sufficient degree with wisdom (ime dhammaa eva.m pa~n~naaya mattaso nijjhaana.m khamanti, aya.m vuccati) is called a Dhamma-follower (dhammaanusaarii) , one who has entered the fixed course of rightness, entered the plane of superior persons, transcended the plane of worldlings.. .One who knows and sees these teachings thus (ime dhamme eva.m pajaanaati eva.m passati, aya.m vuccati) is called a stream-enterer (sotaapanno) , no longer bound to the nether world, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as his destination. " pt: So, is there a definition somewhere about what particular vipassana nana a dhammanusarin has reached? I.e. I'm assuming that "pondered to a sufficient degree with wisdom" is not yet equal to stream-entry, though I might be wrong of course. Perhaps on that basis we can establish the difference between a cula-sotpanna and a dhammanusarin. Best wishes pt #105707 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 9:08 pm Subject: Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) ptaus1 Hi Jon, Thanks for your reply. > J: Yes, samma-samadhi is the mental factor ekaggata that arises with a moment of path consciousness (mundane or supramundane). pt: Thanks, this distinction is handy to know, and I'll have to be careful about it in the future. I.e. I thought that "path consciousness" is always supramundane being a translation of magga citta, but now it's evident it can be also called that way when several cetasikas representing the eight factors of the noble eight fold path come together, with right view/wisdom still being of mundane level. > J: As far as I know, the ekaggata cetasika arising with kusala citta of levels other than insight is not normally referred to as samma-samadhi. pt: Okay, but I'm still intrigued though - if intensity is the only distinguishing factor for ekaggata (besides jati), then it would appear that ekaggata involved in insight is of the same kind like ekaggata involved in dana, jhana, and other kusala cittas. At least, I'm not getting a clear objection from you regarding such conclusion? And how about the other path factors - mindfulness, effort and thought? Are their individual distinguishing features from one kusala citta to another also only jati and intensity? Thanks. Best wishes pt #105708 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 9:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) ptaus1 Hi Jon, Thanks for your comments. > J: ignorance is *not* among the defilements that are burned by jhana, nor for that matter is wrong view. Only attachment and aversion to sense-door objects can be (temporarily) suppressed by jhana. pt: Good point. > J: Yes, always bearing in mind, of course, that insight must have already been well-developed, otherwise it could not arise. The attainment of jhana does not per se make the arising of insight easier/more likely. > > Note also that the situation of insight with jhana as basis is the subject of special explanation by the Buddha (in particular, in the case where the jhana has breath as object). To my understanding, the explanation is necessary because of the extreme difficulty of that particular attainment. pt: If it is that difficult, (assuming that insight has been well-developed) could insight also happen while exiting access concentration? Would you consider this as hard as insight after jhana? Thanks. Best wishes pt #105709 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 10:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (7b) ptaus1 Hi Scott, Thank for the quotes. Could you please explain what does "resistance" (in Vsdm) and "reacting" (in Dhs) actually mean? I guess they are synonyms for one and the same thing, but what does that thing actually mean? Thanks. Best wishes pt > Scott: Visuddhimagga XV, 11 (includes reference to 'gocara' - resort/objective fields): > > "4. As to order: here too, from among 'order of arising,' etc., mentioned above (Ch XIV, 211), only 'order of teaching' is appropriate. For the eye is taught first among the internal bases since it is obvious because it has objective field what is visible with resistance (see last triad, Dhs, p. 2). After that the ear base, etc. Or alternatively, the eye base and ear base are taught first among the internal bases because of their great helpfulness as [respective] causes for the 'incomparable of seeing' and the 'incomparable of hearing' (see D.iii,250). Next, the three has as its resort the objective fields of the [other] five (M.i,111). But among the external bases the visible-data base, etc., [are taught] each one next [to its corresponding internal base] because they are the respective resorts of the eye base, and so on." > > Dhammasa"nga.ni, p. 2: > > "States that are visible and reacting; invisible and reacting, neither." > > Dhammasa"nga.ni, p. 251: > > "[1050] Which are the states that are both visible and reacting? > The sphere of visible shapes. > [1051] Which are the states that are invisible, but reacting? > The spheres of the five senses and the spheres of sound, odour, taste, and the tangible. > [1052] Which are the states that are both visible and non-reacting? > The four khandas; that [material] form, moreover, which, being invisible and non-reacting, is yet included in the sphere of [mental] states; also unconditioned element." #105710 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 3:35 pm Subject: Right Motivation! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: What is this vital Right Motivation? <...> Right Motivation is Triple: 1: The Motivation for Withdrawal: Being motivated by a general absence of greed, craving, and desire! Being motivated by generous giving relinquishing all possessiveness. Being motivated by detachment from the five sense-desires of urge for alluring and tempting sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touches... Being motivated by cutting attachment to the 5 clusters of clinging to forms, feelings, perceptions, constructions and consciousness... Such radical renunciation is Right Motivation! 2: The Motivation for Non-Ill-Will = Friendly Goodwill: Being motivated by universal friendliness, infinite goodwill, care, non-anger, hatelessness and a sympathy wishing and working for all sentient being's happiness, content, comfort, benefit and welfare... Such gentle kindness is Right Motivation! 3: The Motivation for Non-Violence = Harmlessness: Being motivated by absolute non-violence, absence of cruelty, and by compassionate pity, thereby offering all sentient beings guaranteed safety and protection from any evil, painful, bad or wrong treatment... Such giving of protective fearlessness to all is Right Motivation! The opposites of these advantageous intentions are Wrong Motivation... More on Right Motivation (Samm <...> Further study: Majjhima Nikaya 117. Maha-cattarisaka Sutta: The Discourse on The Great Forty: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn117.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #105711 From: "charlest" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 11:35 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) dhammasaro Good friend ptaus, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Chuck, > > > C: Have the Bangkok discussions ended? > > I don't really know. I guess they are in the finishing stages since Sarah mentioned recently that yesterday was their last discussion with K.Sujin. Afterwards, I guess it'll take another few days for everyone to get home in their respective countries. > > One way I can usually tell that things are back to normal here on the list is when Nina and Sarah start posting regularly every day and Jon starts posting irregualarly. > > Best wishes > pt > C: Warm thanks for quick reply. I am getting back on-line more frequently as I have returned to my Bangkok area condo. Somehow I missed the dates of the discussions. [bummers] Thanks again. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #105712 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 3:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 jonoabb Hi KenO (105687) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > ... > KO: It does apply if a person think he could develop samantha without understanding panna. So I need to speak to you in paramtha, it is not about development of samantha, it should be developing panna. Without panna there is no samantha or vipassana bhavana. :-) > =============== J: Yes, I agree that it's all about developing panna. A person who already has an understanding of the foulness of the body, and who because of that understanding recites the part of the body, is not following a method; he is following his natural (kusala) inclination. On the other hand, reciting the parts of the body does not help to develop panna. Thus, for anyone else (i.e., without such understanding), to recite the parts of the body in the belief that it was the way to develop samatha would be to follow a wrong practice. Jon #105713 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 3:04 am Subject: Re: Method in VsM jonoabb Hi Alex (105694) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > ... > Of course. There is no magic in mere words. It is repeated wise attention and panna that counts there. > =============== J: I'm glad we agree on this much ;-)) Perhaps you would also agree that if there's wise attention and panna, with the parts of the body as object, then there's samatha bhavana regardless of whether there's also recitation. On the other hand, recitation undertaken without there being wise attention and panna would be akusala and hence wrong practice > =============== Words are the tools, like pointers, for the mind to pay attention to. > =============== J: Agreed. Words are like pointers or, we might say, reminders. Jon #105714 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 3:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) sarahprocter... Dear Chuck, --- On Thu, 4/3/10, charlest wrote: >C: Warm thanks for quick reply. I am getting back on-line more frequently as I have returned to my Bangkok area condo. Somehow I missed the dates of the discussions. [bummers] ... S: If I'd known you were back in Bkk before we left yesterday, we'd have really liked to invite you to go with us to the Foundation or to come to our hotel for an informal discussion. Next time! Meanwhile, there should be an English discussion at the Foundation this Sat 2-4 p.m. (Actually, the Foundation building itself is closed for renovation, so the discussion is being held nearby). If you are free to attend, pls contact Sukin for details. Metta Sarah ====== #105715 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 3:05 am Subject: Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) jonoabb Hi pt (105707) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > ... > pt: Okay, but I'm still intrigued though - if intensity is the only distinguishing factor for ekaggata (besides jati), then it would appear that ekaggata involved in insight is of the same kind like ekaggata involved in dana, jhana, and other kusala cittas. At least, I'm not getting a clear objection from you regarding such conclusion? > > And how about the other path factors - mindfulness, effort and thought? Are their individual distinguishing features from one kusala citta to another also only jati and intensity? Thanks. > =============== J: In general terms, the functions and manifestations of the mental factors do not change with their arising with cittas of the different jatis (the main exceptions being, as already discussed, sati and panna). What is your interest in this matter? Jon #105716 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 3:16 am Subject: SRI LANKA discussions with A.Sujin end March sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Just reminded (by writing to Chuck), that Nina gave me a copy of dates A.Sujin will be in Sri Lanka if anyone there would like to join any of the discussions/talks with her. On Sat 27th March, there will be a discussion at the YMBA, Kandy at 4 p.m. On Tuesday 30th March, there will be a discussion/talk at the All Ceylon Buddhist congress HQ at 3p.m. If anyone would like further details/dates/ph numbers of contact persons in Sri Lanka, pls let me know off-list. Metta Sarah ====== #105717 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 3:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) jonoabb Hi pt (105708) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > ... > pt: If it is that difficult, (assuming that insight has been well-developed) could insight also happen while exiting access concentration? Would you consider this as hard as insight after jhana? Thanks. > =============== J: In general terms, panna can take any conditioned dhamma as object, so that would include a just-fallen-away citta of access concentration. Enlightenment with jhana as basis is mentioned in the texts in such a way as to indicate that it is a special attainment (being the attainment of a Buddha and the chief disciples). There is no similar mention of enlightenment with access concentration as basis. The jhana citta is of a different avacara (realm) to the access concentration citta (which is a kaamaavacara citta). Hoping this answers your question. Jon #105718 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 4:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > I think that Path can be much more natural that we ever thought of. .... S: Yes, I think so too. ... >I always like to think about lotus flower similes, that Buddha had told. He just saw people as not doers, but like flowers that grows naturally. ... S: Yes, just depends on the accumulated panna as to whether the lotus flower opens up or not.... No people, no doers, no method to be followed.... Just cittas, cetasikas and rupas to be understood....very, very naturally! Metta Sarah ========= #105719 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 4:52 am Subject: Suan's comments on Abhidhamma sarahprocter... Dear Nina, You mentioned you'd been trying without success to find some comments Suan wrote ages ago on the Abhidhamma. I've just had a look and wonder if it is either of these messages? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/23331 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/23346 Here's a quote from one which may be what you were thinking of: "Everything the Buddha taught revolves around abhidhamma in the sense of ultimate realities, which are matter, mind, mental associates, and nibbana. The teachings about those four ultimates can be found in various narrative forms in Suttas, Vinayas, and Abidhamma Pi.taka. The four ultimate realities are discussed bits by bits by using designations like Bhikkhu, King, Brahmin, and personal pronouns like I, you, they, in the situational manner in Suttas and Vinayas.. The only thing that, in general, distinguishes Abhidhamma Pi.taka from the other two Pi.takas is that the former describes the ultimate realities without referring to designations and personal pronouns." **** Also more that you might find helpful to consider for your Abhidhamma Beginner Series in "Abhidhamma- beginners >Paramattha Dhammas<" in 'Useful Posts', where I found one of these. Metta Sarah ==== #105720 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 5:03 am Subject: Retraction Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment scottduncan2 Dear Howard (Alex, Dieter), Regarding: H: "I apologize for the anger expressed in the above, Scott, though not for the plain content. There was no basis for my anger in the post of yours to me to which I was reacting. That post just served as trigger. What actually set me off was recent rudeness that I had seen from you directed to 2 other list members on top of the unpleasantness of past conversations between us. It seems that we are rather much oil & water." Scott: Hey, man. These guys can take care of themselves. Remember when Dieter suggested that I am, to paraphrase, full of myself? That was cool, and he's right and, of course, it's the pot calling the kettle black in the case of all of us, you included. He didn't need your help. Alex just keeps on coming like a juggernaut. He could use your help because even you must see where he's got jhaana wrong and could at least try to set him straight (although this would likely be difficult, even for you). ;-) Both these guys are totally impervious, seeming to exist in a sort of oblivion. They are the proverbial duck's back. In addressing them, no matter the style of writing (in recent contact I adopted a certain ironic stance), I'm addressing a way of discussing in which no real discussion actually occurs - and this is sometimes the way with you as well - rather a simple repetition of points is made, as if these views are correct and these writers know so and wish simply to let others know this, hoping by sheer reiteration to force the point home to the naive and ignorant natives. Ah, colonialism. At any rate, the views are like oil and water - touting jhaana and practice in this forum. But you know that. Just views and styles. No need to apologize for anger, by the way - it's not like it's yours or anything. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #105721 From: "charlest" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 5:44 am Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, et al Chuck: Well, I did not return to USA w/ wife as I am slowly having my teeth repaired. My Thai visa allowed me two sixty day visits; hence, I used the second. My wife is returning to Thailand in about ten days. The last few weeks between dental visits to the Bangkok International (nee General) Hospital, I was off-line in various Thai countryside areas (read as no internet plus no cell ((mobile)) phone service from my provider) with friends. In fact, yesterday, I gently refused a trip to Laos today through Sunday. If I can continue to gently refuse invitations, I shall attend the meeting Saturday. Warm thanks for your kind message and the invitation. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya w/ metta (maitri), Chuck #105722 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 2:03 am Subject: Re: Retraction Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment upasaka_howard Dear Scott (and Alex & Dieter) - Thank you, Scott, for the following very kindly post! I appreciate it very much. :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/4/2010 8:17:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard (Alex, Dieter), Regarding: H: "I apologize for the anger expressed in the above, Scott, though not for the plain content. There was no basis for my anger in the post of yours to me to which I was reacting. That post just served as trigger. What actually set me off was recent rudeness that I had seen from you directed to 2 other list members on top of the unpleasantness of past conversations between us. It seems that we are rather much oil & water." Scott: Hey, man. These guys can take care of themselves. Remember when Dieter suggested that I am, to paraphrase, full of myself? That was cool, and he's right and, of course, it's the pot calling the kettle black in the case of all of us, you included. He didn't need your help. Alex just keeps on coming like a juggernaut. He could use your help because even you must see where he's got jhaana wrong and could at least try to set him straight (although this would likely be difficult, even for you). ;-) Both these guys are totally impervious, seeming to exist in a sort of oblivion. They are the proverbial duck's back. In addressing them, no matter the style of writing (in recent contact I adopted a certain ironic stance), I'm addressing a way of discussing in which no real discussion actually occurs - and this is sometimes the way with you as well - rather a simple repetition of points is made, as if these views are correct and these writers know so and wish simply to let others know this, hoping by sheer reiteration to force the point home to the naive and ignorant natives. Ah, colonialism. At any rate, the views are like oil and water - touting jhaana and practice in this forum. But you know that. Just views and styles. No need to apologize for anger, by the way - it's not like it's yours or anything. ;-) Sincerely, Scott #105723 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 7:40 am Subject: Retraction Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Thank you, Scott, for the following very kindly post! I appreciate it very much. :-)" Scott: ;-) #105724 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 9:39 am Subject: Re: Retraction Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment moellerdieter Hi Howard, Scott and Alex, you wrote : Scott: Hey, man. These guys can take care of themselves. Remember when Dieter suggested that I am, to paraphrase, full of myself? That was cool, and he's right and, of course, it's the pot calling the kettle black in the case of all of us, you included. He didn't need your help. Alex just keeps on coming like a juggernaut. He could use your help because even you must see where he's got jhaana wrong and could at least try to set him straight (although this would likely be difficult, even for you). ;-) Both these guys are totally impervious, seeming to exist in a sort of oblivion. They are the proverbial duck's back. In addressing them, no matter the style of writing (in recent contact I adopted a certain ironic stance), ... H:Thank you, Scott, for the following very kindly post! I appreciate it very much. :-) D: well, Howard, we seem to have a d?fferent stand on 'very kindly ' : " Both these guys are totally impervious, seeming to exist in a sort of oblivion. They are the proverbial duck's back." ;-) with Metta Dieter #105725 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 5:53 am Subject: Re: Retraction Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 3/4/2010 12:49:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, Scott and Alex, you wrote : Scott: Hey, man. These guys can take care of themselves. Remember when Dieter suggested that I am, to paraphrase, full of myself? That was cool, and he's right and, of course, it's the pot calling the kettle black in the case of all of us, you included. He didn't need your help. Alex just keeps on coming like a juggernaut. He could use your help because even you must see where he's got jhaana wrong and could at least try to set him straight (although this would likely be difficult, even for you). ;-) Both these guys are totally impervious, seeming to exist in a sort of oblivion. They are the proverbial duck's back. In addressing them, no matter the style of writing (in recent contact I adopted a certain ironic stance), ... H:Thank you, Scott, for the following very kindly post! I appreciate it very much. :-) D: well, Howard, we seem to have a d?fferent stand on 'very kindly ' : " Both these guys are totally impervious, seeming to exist in a sort of oblivion. They are the proverbial duck's back." ;-) with Metta Dieter ================================ Dieter, it was kindly to me. As for you and Alex, I decided to leave it to you two to respond your own. I'm tiring of fighting battles. Now are you angry at me? Maybe I'll just give up all internet use! With metta, Howard #105726 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 10:55 am Subject: Re: Method in VsM truth_aerator Dear Jon, Scott, all, >In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > (105694) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > ... > > Of course. There is no magic in mere words. It is repeated wise >attention and panna that counts there. > > =============== > > J: I'm glad we agree on this much ;-)) > > Perhaps you would also agree that if there's wise attention and >panna, with the parts of the body as object, then there's samatha >bhavana regardless of whether there's also recitation. It depends on what you mean by samatha bhavana. Do you mean Jhana? > On the other hand, recitation undertaken without there being wise >attention and panna would be akusala and hence wrong practice Of course. If you give a caveman a gun and he uses it as a club... Then it won't work as intended, and might even backfire. > > =============== > Words are the tools, like pointers, for the mind to pay attention to. > > =============== > > J: Agreed. Words are like pointers or, we might say, reminders. > > Jon With all of this said, the important thing is that those things are *to be done* with right wisdom. If not vocal, then mental recitation. I hope that you don't try to say that since 5 aggregates are no-self, what deeds can be done by no-self, what no-self can affect? No Self doesn't reject the fact that kusala things are *to be done*, and akusala is *to be* avoided. With metta, Alex #105727 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 11:34 am Subject: Re: Method in VsM scottduncan2 Dear Alex (and Jon), Regarding: A: "...With all of this said, the important thing is that those things are *to be done* with right wisdom. If not vocal, then mental recitation. I hope that you don't try to say that since 5 aggregates are no-self, what deeds can be done by no-self, what no-self can affect? No Self doesn't reject the fact that kusala things are *to be done*, and akusala is *to be* avoided." Scott: 'No-self' is not a noun. Kusala and akusala are kamma. When it's kusala, there is no akusala. Keep trying, Alex. ;-) Sincerely, Scott. #105728 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 5:49 pm Subject: Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) ptaus1 Hi Jon, Thanks for your reply. > J: In general terms, the functions and manifestations of the mental factors do not change with their arising with cittas of the different jatis (the main exceptions being, as already discussed, sati and panna). > > What is your interest in this matter? pt: Just taking your advice: > J: That's why it's helpful to consider more about dhammas, their characteristics and functions. There needs to be a good appreciation at the intellectual level of namas and rupas, the nature of sati, and how moments of sati differ from non-sati moments Best wishes pt #105729 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 5:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re:Monkey simile (was, Re: Nyanatiloka ...) ptaus1 Hi all, Regarding the 4 factors mentioned by the Buddha as factors for the development of the path: > - association with right persons > - hearing the true dhamma > - reflection on what has been heard and understood > - practice in accordance with the teachings. I seem to recall a passage where someone asks the Buddha I think about what questions one should ask that would bring benefit in the future, and the Buddha I think replies that if one asks certain questions, that person's wisdom will then be greater in the next life. Does anyone maybe remember where this passage is from? I've been searching for a couple of days but no luck so far. Thanks. Best wishes pt #105730 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 5:42 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) ptaus1 Hi Sukin, Thanks for your reply. My comments below. > S: The belief in self and control is what we all had before we heard the Dhamma. But the Dhamma points to us that this is due to wrong perception and wrong view. That what we used to take for real, namely concepts, are in fact not, and the idea of `control' associated with this taking for real that which is not is likewise illusory and hence potentially misleading. For most of us however, this is not the understanding we get when we first hear the Dhamma from various quarters. We are encouraged instead, to make a distinction between what is judged as `theory / book knowledge' from so-called `practice / meditation', all this by virtue of reasoning based very much on the idea of `self and control', when in fact the Dhamma should cause us to question our old patterns of thought in this regard and seeing need to continue listening to and discussing the Dhamma. Distinguishing pariyatti from patipatti rather than theory and practice is I believe, the way to go. The former pair has a direct causal connection in reality, whereas the latter on the other hand, is an abstraction thought out by any uninstructed worldling. > > Indeed pariyatti begins with making the reality / concept distinction, which is done by virtue of knowing that the one has characteristics to be known directly by panna and the other doesn't. Putting aside Nibbana, we learn also that realities are conditioned whereas concepts are not. And talking about characteristics, there is the individual characteristic of each Nama and each Rupa and the general characteristics namely, anicca, dukkha and ANATTA. So it goes together, namely knowing realities as distinct from concepts and understanding at a corresponding level, conditionality and the Tilakkhana. Is this not the reasonable approach? -------- pt: Thanks, this was a very good explanation. I would appreciate it if you can continue (when you have time) talking about patipatti and how it differs from pariyatti. -------- > S: As you'd probably see by now, I don't believe that it is a matter of semantics. We all make reference to realities being conditioned, impermanent, suffering and non self, but the understanding as applied to one's moment to moment experiences; this is one place where there is a crucial difference. > > A. Sujin talks about all realities with emphasis on those that make up our day to day lives. In this it is shown that some realities are unwholesome, some wholesome, and others neither, all however need to be known as and when they arise, implying then, that the most useful of all is the development of 8FP. There is therefore no place in this, for ideas about `things to do' as this would be encouraging of ignorance with regard to what has already arisen by conditions and being lead instead by some projected idea. > > Before we heard the Dhamma, our lives were as it is, few moments of kusala in between far greater moments of akusala. Looking back we can accept this as being conditioned primarily due to the accumulations from past lives. Why should it be expected then that on hearing the Dhamma and just beginning to understand it, any dramatic change should occur in this regard? It makes sense to me that life basically goes on as it would, only on having a little understanding about nama and rupas, wrong view of self begins to become noticed especially given that hearing about all forms of kusala, attachment and wrong view towards these likely also arises. One can see then that wrong view is the most harmful and misleading of all akusala dhammas. ------ pt: Thanks, also good explanations. Regarding the rest of your message about other teachers and students, I don't really think I can agree with any of it. I mean, firstly, we really have no way of claiming with utmost certainty "they know this much about anatta", "this is exactly what goes on in their minds", etc. Hence it all turns out to be just speculation, and can easily turn into putting others down just so we can be a little more confident in our own way thanks to the conceit boost. Secondly, I still think that saying "don't do this" (like formal meditation) is very much equal to "do this", i.e. on the same plane of reference. So, while I understand (or at least think I do) what you (and dsg folks) are trying to say by warning against methods, I still don't think it's said in the best possible way because it relies on arguing that everyone else is making a mistake. This of course (aside from being a benchmark approach by all cults) alienates everyone else, rather than introducing them to the dhamma. So, at the moment, I prefer the approach KenO advised, i.e. talking about dhamma rather than different teachers. I understand that sometimes in order to show a correct approach it is necessary to point out what is the wrong approach. But in that case I think it's much more beneficial to keep the example on a personal experience level, like you (and KenH) sometimes do. E.g. saying something like "I used to do X and then realised it's incorrect because..." is much more effective than saying "Teacher W and his students are wrong in doing this because...". I.e. while the first statement really imparts wisdom from one person to another, the second statement is usually perceived as judgmental at best. Anyway, that's how the situation seems to me. Best wishes pt #105731 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 7:10 pm Subject: questions for wisdom truth_aerator > Hi all, > I seem to recall a passage where someone asks the Buddha I think >about what questions one should ask that would bring benefit in the >future, and the Buddha I think replies that if one asks certain >questions, that person's wisdom will then be greater in the next >life. Does anyone maybe remember where this passage is from? I've b>een searching for a couple of days but no luck so far. Thanks. > > Best wishes > pt > Hello Pt, all, MN135 has this: "There is the case where a woman or man when visiting a priest or contemplative, does not ask: 'What is skillful, venerable sir? What is unskillful? What is blameworthy? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What, having been done by me, will be for my long-term harm & suffering? Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?' Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she will be stupid wherever reborn. This is the way leading to stupidity: when visiting a priest or contemplative, not to ask: 'What is skillful?... Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?' "But then there is the case where a woman or man when visiting a priest or contemplative, asks: 'What is skillful, venerable sir? What is unskillful? What is blameworthy? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What, having been done by me, will be for my long-term harm & suffering? Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?' Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is discerning wherever reborn. This is the way leading to discernment: when visiting a priest or contemplative, to ask: 'What is skillful?... Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html So, "What is skillful? What is unskillful? What is blameworthy? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What, having been done by me, will be for my long-term harm & suffering? Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?'" With metta, Alex #105733 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 8:30 pm Subject: Re: questions for wisdom ptaus1 Hi Alex, That's it! Your memory is great. Thanks very much for a quick response. Best wishes pt > MN135 has this: > "But then there is the case where a woman or man when visiting a priest or contemplative, asks: 'What is skillful, venerable sir? What is unskillful? What is blameworthy? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What, having been done by me, will be for my long-term harm & suffering? Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?' Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is discerning wherever reborn. This is the way leading to discernment: when visiting a priest or contemplative, to ask: 'What is skillful?... Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html #105734 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 4:20 pm Subject: Right Action! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: What is this essential Right Action ? <..> The 3-fold Definition of Right Action: 1: Avoiding all killing and harming of any living being... 2: Abstaining from taking and thus stealing what is not given... 3: Stopping all adultery and all abuse of any sense-pleasure... That is Right Action! The Characterization of Right Action. The blessed Buddha said: Friends, it is caused by behaviour in conflict with the Dhamma, by reason of immoral behaviour, that some beings here, right at the breakup of the body, after death, reappear lost in states of pain, in an unhappy destination, in the downfall, even in the hells... It is caused by behaviour in harmony with the Dhamma, by reason of moral behaviour, that some beings here, on the breakup of the body, right after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the divine worlds!!! And which, friends, are the 3 kinds of bodily moral behaviour in harmony with the Dhamma? Here someone, stop all killing of living beings, abstains from injuring living beings; with rod & weapon laid aside, gentle and kind, such one dwells sympathetic towards all living beings. Avoiding the taking of what is not given, one refrains from stealing, what is not freely give. One does not take by way of theft the wealth and property of others, neither in the village nor in the forest. Abandoning abuse of sensual pleasures, such one gives up misuse in sensual pleasures. One does not have intercourse with partners, who are protected by their mother, or father, or mother and father, or brother, or sister, or relatives, who is married, betrothed to another, who are protected by law, in prison, or who are engaged to other side. That is how there are three kinds of bodily moral behaviour in harmony with the Dhamma... Such is Right Action! Explanation: Primary of these is the ending of intentional killing or destroying of other beings either by physical action or by verbal incitement, ranging from killing eggs of lice and bugs, or causing abortion, to any slaughter of living creatures, including human beings. Restraint from taking, what is not given, means abstaining from taking, with intention to steal, living beings or non-living articles, which have an owner. Removing or appropriating them, without owner's consent, either by physical effort or by inciting another to do so. Restraint from wrong behaviour in sensual pleasures means abstention from any kind of sex, which will cause pain and suffering to others. Examples will be adultery, since this causes the disruption of marriage, rape, intercourse with minors protected by parents, and perversion of others. Included here also are abstention from use of booze, drugs and any kinds of intoxicants, which causes carelessness, and gambling with cards, dices, on horses, teams etc. Knowing right and wrong action as right and wrong action, is right view. Awareness of presence of right and wrong action, is right awareness. Exchanging wrong action with right action, is right effort... The factors of the Noble 8-fold way mutually enhance each other! Any intentional action - good as bad - determines whether the future will be pleasant or painful... <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #105735 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 9:24 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) kenhowardau Hi pt, I don't want to interrupt because I am looking forward to Sukin's reply just as much as you are. So I will confine my interruption to your last point. --------------- pt: > . . . I still think that saying "don't do this" (like formal meditation) is very much equal to "do this", i.e. on the same plane of reference. --------------- I am sure you will believe me when I say that no one at DSG has ever told anyone else at DSG "don't practise formal meditation." As you have said, that would be on the same plane as "practise formal meditation," and so not the message of the "no-controllers" here at all. Even so, I must admit that formal meditation is something I would never practise again - even out of idle curiosity or experimentation. I can't help feeling that, coming from me, it would be a gesture of disrespect. Because I believe it is not what the Buddha taught, and not what has been generously passed on to me by so many good friends, I would be making a disrespectful gesture if I were to practise it. People who believe it *is* what the Buddha taught would not have that problem, of course. :-) Ken H #105736 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 1:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions withOUT A.Sujin February 2010 (8) nilovg Dear Sarah, thank you for your letter. The heater was repaired soon, but this morning snow again, had to cancel our walk. I am going through this thread and add something. It will take time to finish my transcriptions of the talks, K.K. and Bgk. Op 3-mrt-2010, om 11:41 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > It's so useless to wish the presently arising dhammas to be > anything other than they are. Otherwise it's just more lobha > bringing more sorrow. ------- N: Very good. We wish only pleasant things to happen. My remarks: Discussions in Bgk. Sarah:(to Ann): "Just thinking", was her short answer. Was it wise intellectual thinking, Nina asked? "Just thinking". Thinking a lot about oneself, taking all the akusala for one's own. Accumulating more of such thinking.... N: She stressed that we are so busy with ourselves when thinking: now I have conceit, now I have lobha. Excellent reminder for all of us. --------- Lukas: Is there any particular way to stop thinking? N:No, because it is anatta. We learn even from our akusala: it is anattaa. Understand it as just a dhamma. A condiitoned dhamma. That will bring relief. ----------- And Ken O: My personal view, you have yet change the way you think of the world. Even when somone understand anatta at conceptual level, they still have to live in paramatha dhamma for this understanding to grow. You are experincing the world as conceptual and not paramatha dhammas. i.e. For eg when you listen to a song, you think of the song, you did not think in terms of paramatha dhammas like hearing. Song (in terms of different music and singing by singers) is concept, hearing at that moment is paramatha dhamma. Even though this hearing is yet the direct hearing, the understanding of the hearing should start at conceptual understanding of paramatha dhamma. The day you do not live in paramatha dhammas and live in the world, you will find yourself in these situations again and again. --------- N: Very good Ken O, very helpful. I was delighted to be together with you in K.K. ----------- And dear Oil and Water: what Ken just said is helpful in your situation, this is thinking long stories about oil and water. What is there just now in reality? We have to consider this again and again. I know it may sometimes be hard to take unpleasant words, but are we not busy with ourselves at such moments? In connection with this, another quote from Ken O which I like: Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 1:45 am Subject: Bangkok's discussions, part 2. nilovg Dear friends, Sarah: Vince's questions on D.O. In order to understand dhammas, it must be one by one. D.O. - understand the characteristic of one dhamma, even if it's intellectual understanding, so that there's no doubt. These are realities right now to be known, otherwise it's just thinking about different words. For example, avijja now - understand it now. Now there is avijja which doesn't penetrate the nature of realities. Both kusala and akusala are conditioned by avijja because it hasn't been eradicated. This is D.O. ------- N: In D.O. vi~n~naa.na in this order stands for vipaakacitta, and at rebirth this arises together with naama and ruupa. Naama are the cetasikas which arise together with vi~n~naa.na and are also vipaaka. Ruupa is the kammajaruupa, ruupa produced by kamma at that moment. But I see from your following posts that you see it differently. I could refer to Visuddhimagga Ch XVII. I made a study fo this with the tiika, the subco, and here you would find all the details. Shall I send it to you as an attachment? But I am not sure the Pali diacriticals come over all right. ------------ Dieter's question about KS's opinion about Ajahn Chah. She said she didn't know him. What about his views? N: Betty said she had read a book by him. It all sounds very good, but one thing is missing: understanding the reality right now, appearing right now. As usual this was stressed very much and I find it most helpful to be reminded of this each time. -------- Nina. #105738 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 1:54 am Subject: Suan's comments on Abhidhamma nilovg Dear Sarah, thank you, it must be this: Everything the Buddha taught revolves around abhidhamma in the sense of ultimate realities, which are matter, mind, mental associates, and nibbana. The teachings about those four ultimates can be found in various narrative forms in Suttas, Vinayas, and Abidhamma Pi.taka. -------- N: Very well said by Suan. NIna. #105739 From: "colette" Date: Thu Mar 4, 2010 9:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment ksheri3 Hi, Howard, yep, I feel good tonight so lets have at this, Such FORCE, such STRENGTH, such OBJECTIVITY, etc. I bet that you say, VERY OFTEN, to yourself, "I hate 'this' or I hate 'that'" when you are doing something and run into a difficulty in the simplistic task. Maybe you say that you hate this or that when you encounter a normal aspect of daily living routine/ritual that bothers you. NEVER THE LESS, I'm saying that when you cognize this difficulty in your life, you cognize the aspect of HATRED that you possess, that is in you. Do you ever notice that you sometimes admit that you are the proud parent of the aspect of HATE that exists in this world? Surely you had to desire, you had to want, to speak of hate, to glorify hate, as the means of chastising Ken O and myself, I guess? Okay, your examples are DEPENDENT on CONDITIONS. Without conditions then it may be possible that the hatred you glorify DOES NOT EXIST. Why is it that I'm picturing Gomez Adams in a dual with his accountant "Tulley" in the movie ADAMS FAMILY VALUES? Or maybe it's Uncle Feter rejoicing after dancing the MAMUSHKA? toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken (and Colette) - > > In a message dated 3/2/2010 9:01:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > So where's the problem? What's wrong with thousands of lifetimes if > there's no one who lives them? > =================================== > And we can equally legitimately add to that: What's the problem with > the gut-wrenching pain of terminal cancer if there's "no one" to have it? of > torture in concentration camps and detention camps if there's "no one" > being tortured? of slicing and dicing a living human body if there is "no > body" to be cut up and "no one" to feel it? of the kidnapping, rape, and murder > of children, if there are "no children" to undergo this and no parents to > grieve? Well, perhaps you get the point????? > In general, what's the problem with any suffering at all if there is, > in reality, "no one" to suffer? The clear answer is that suffering is > perfectly real for all but arahants of whom there are always zero to few, and > the Buddha didn't just say "Hey, there is 'no one', so no problem!" Will you > answer " Hey, forget that, for there was 'no buddha' "? All this "no > problem" business is nothing more than cutsie talk, Ken. <...> #105740 From: Vince Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 3:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok's discussions, part 2. cerovzt@... Dear Nina you wrote: > Sarah: Vince's questions on D.O. In order to understand dhammas, it > must be one by > one. D.O. - understand the characteristic of one dhamma, even if it's > intellectual understanding, so that there's no doubt. These are > realities right > now to be known, otherwise it's just thinking about different words. For > example, avijja now - understand it now. Now there is avijja which > doesn't > penetrate the nature of realities. Both kusala and akusala are > conditioned by > avijja because it hasn't been eradicated. This is D.O. oh, thanks, I will be very glad to read this. From what I have read of the Sujin answer cited by Sarah, truth is that I feel confirmation of what I said. As you says, we cannot penetrate in the nature of reality because akusala factors. However it doesn't mean the lack of penetration was a permanent situation from the beginning. So, a person can have penetrated in the true nature but he is not an arahant due to kammic and akusala factors. So I understand that each one should know if he can remember and know what is the own case. And in consequence the person must be focused according what he has known or not. After the Sujin answer now I understand it must be in that way. hope you have an easy return to home :) best regards, Vince #105741 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 4:42 am Subject: Re: Method in VsM jonoabb Hi Alex (105726) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > ... > With all of this said, the important thing is that those things are *to be done* with right wisdom. If not vocal, then mental recitation. > =============== J: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that wisdom can be summoned up to accompany a particular act (for example, the recitation of the parts of the body). To my understanding, this could not be so, as wisdom arises (if it arises at all) at a time and with an object that is not of a person's choosing. There cannot be a "doing with wisdom" by choice/intention. As I see it, the verbal and/or mental recitation have relevance to those aspiring to jhana, but they are not *things to be done* in the conventional sense. > =============== > I hope that you don't try to say that since 5 aggregates are no-self, what deeds can be done by no-self, what no-self can affect? > > No Self doesn't reject the fact that kusala things are *to be done*, and akusala is *to be* avoided. > =============== J: Yes, akusala is to be avoided and kusala is to be developed. In either case, it is the development of panna that is being encouraged, rather than the doing or avoiding of specific actions, since such chosen/intentional doing or avoiding will inevitably involve some akusala (in addition to any kusala there may be). (Just to clarify, I'm not saying that a person should not 'do kusala' or 'avoid akusala'. I'm saying that when the Buddha spoke about kusala/avoiding akusala, he was referring to actual moments of kusala only and not to the doing of a conventional act that involves both kusala and akusala.) Jon #105742 From: Ken O Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 7:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 ashkenn2k Dear Jon J:? On the other hand, reciting the parts of the body does not help to develop panna. Thus, for anyone else (i.e., without such understanding) , to recite the parts of the body in the belief that it was the way to develop samatha would be to follow a wrong practice. KO:? Visud? and commentaries?are full of?instructions.? You have yet said there is no method in the commentary while I have?shown you.? To make assertations that there is no formal meditation?is not in concord with?Visud and?the commentaries.??On the other hand,?anyone who thinks?that?one could now straightaway do mediation without development of panna, is also not in concord with Visud and the commentaries.? Cheers Ken O #105743 From: "colette" Date: Wed Mar 3, 2010 10:34 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhist scholarly achievment ksheri3 Hi Howard, ARen't we testy today? That's one salty answer you put to Ken! I'd like to consider such a parley w/ you however I am bathing in this thing called TRISVABHAVANIRDESA i.e. "33. Through the non-perception of the elephant, The vanishing of its percept occurs; And so does the perception of the piece of wood. This is how it is in the magic show" VAsubandhu translated by Jay L.Garfield toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken (and Colette) - > > In a message dated 3/2/2010 9:01:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > So where's the problem? What's wrong with thousands of lifetimes if > there's no one who lives them? > =================================== > And we can equally legitimately add to that: What's the problem with > the gut-wrenching pain of terminal cancer if there's "no one" to have it? of > torture in concentration camps and detention camps if there's "no one" > being tortured? of slicing and dicing a living human body if there is "no > body" to be cut up and "no one" to feel it? of the kidnapping, rape, and murder > of children, if there are "no children" to undergo this and no parents to > grieve? Well, perhaps you get the point????? > In general, what's the problem with any suffering at all if there is, > in reality, "no one" to suffer? The clear answer is that suffering is > perfectly real for all but arahants of whom there are always zero to few, and > the Buddha didn't just say "Hey, there is 'no one', so no problem!" Will you > answer " Hey, forget that, for there was 'no buddha' "? All this "no > problem" business is nothing more than cutsie talk, Ken. <...> #105744 From: Ken O Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 7:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (7b) ashkenn2k Dear Sarah >It's like the attanuditthi discussion. As Han said, he disagreed before, but he's considered it carefully, read what other texts/Sayadaws say and now it's clear. You may find the same on that issue and this one too in due course:-). We all find these points difficult. >.... KO:? I also dont agreed with attanuditthi?on the interpretation?of taking impermanent as permanent, that should?be eternity view.? Attanuditthi is just a wrong view of self like sakkayaditthi, a doctrine of self.? The difference is that without a wrong view of self (attanuditthi) there will not be sakkya ditthi.? Likewise without an eternal view, there would not be attanuditthi.?? >S: and let's continue to consider very carefully indeed what is meant. Like the Kvu ref, we have to consider whether it's referring to the concept of space or the reality. A concept is a concept. Again, at this moment, what is real? What is there (or isn't there) in front of the computer screen which makes it possible to reach out and touch the screen? KO:? I am saying for the sake of winning. I just like space subjects to be clear.?? What in the moment is not about discussing dhamma is about understanding dhamma.? Here we are discussing.? Distance is a concept, shape is a concept. What is not paramatha dhamma is a concept,? space which is not a delimiting factor have to be a concept.? Space in the outer space or boundless could only be known as an object of the mind,? this object is not a citta or cetasikas or rupa (less aside Nibbana), if it is not, then it has to be a concept.? That is more consistent with the texts and not space as a unconditional reality. >If you're getting frustrated by discussing these issues with me/us, no need to respond. If KS couldn't convince you, I'm sure I won't. KO:? I?realise frustration is just dosa and I learn this from KS.? But that does not mean? I would not ask questions that I felt is not understood correctly. Cheers Ken O #105745 From: Ken O Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 8:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 ashkenn2k Dear Jon also it is wrong to say that this method does not help to develop panna or wrong practise, that is not in concordance with Dispeller of Delusion. You have the book, it is para 1167 to 1173. Then again 1177 The bikkhu who have reach Arahatship by availing themselves of this "link up of the lesson" are beyond counting. Cheers Ken O > > >Dear Jon > >J: On the other hand, reciting the parts of the body does not help to develop panna. Thus, for anyone else (i.e., without such understanding) , to recite the parts of the body in the belief that it was the way to develop samatha would be to follow a wrong practice. > >KO: Visud and commentaries are full of instructions. You have yet said there is no method in the commentary while I have shown you. To make assertations that there is no formal meditation is not in concord with Visud and the commentaries. On the other hand, anyone who thinks that one could now straightaway do mediation without development of panna, is also not in concord with Visud and the commentaries. > >Cheers >Ken O > > > #105746 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 9:49 am Subject: Re: Method in VsM truth_aerator >dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > (105726) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > ... > > With all of this said, the important thing is that those things are *to be done* with right wisdom. If not vocal, then mental recitation. > > =============== > > J: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that wisdom can >be summoned up to accompany a particular act (for example, the >recitation of the parts of the body). Dear Jon, (and all) I've said this before. One gives attention to something and learns what one was avoiding. The medium through which, and by the means of, one does this - can be vocal or mental. > As I see it, the verbal and/or mental recitation have relevance to >those aspiring to jhana, but they are not *things to be done* in the >conventional sense. You seem to be playing with words. Wisdom *is* to be developed. According to VsM recitation IS to be done for kayagatasati, even if one is master of Tipitaka. > > =============== > > I hope that you don't try to say that since 5 aggregates are no-self, what deeds can be done by no-self, what no-self can affect? > > > > No Self doesn't reject the fact that kusala things are *to be done*, and akusala is *to be* avoided. > > =============== > > J: Yes, akusala is to be avoided and kusala is to be developed. In either case, it is the development of panna that is being encouraged, rather than the doing or avoiding of specific actions, since such chosen/intentional doing or avoiding will inevitably involve some akusala (in addition to any kusala there may be). > > (Just to clarify, I'm not saying that a person should not 'do kusala' or 'avoid akusala'. I'm saying that when the Buddha spoke about kusala/avoiding akusala, he was referring to actual moments of kusala only and not to the doing of a conventional act that involves both kusala and akusala.) > > Jon Interesting thing: The Buddha never used talk about moments (ksanika). Even in canonical Abhidhamma it doesn't speak about moments! It is extra-canonical concept never spoken by the Buddha. Dhammasangani for example uses "yasmim samaye..." "On that occasion..." And puggalapannati is full of references of such and such kind of a person... Word person (puggalo) is mentioned ~818 times. With metta, Alex #105747 From: "connie" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 11:24 am Subject: vsm revisited nichiconn Dear Han, Chew, always good to know about, I think: Visuddhimagga, ch XIV, Larry's index of text posts and Nina's summaries and translations of the commentary #55332 best wishes, connie #105748 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 2:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (7b) scottduncan2 Dear pt, Sorry for the delay. Regarding: pt: "...Could you please explain what does 'resistance' (in Vsdm) and 'reacting' (in Dhs) actually mean? I guess they are synonyms for one and the same thing, but what does that thing actually mean?" Scott: From Atthasaalinii, for 'reacting' (p.61, p.404, p.414): "In the triplet of 'Visible,' states which arise together with opposition called 'impact' (pa.tihanana) are termed 'reacting.' (Pa.tihananabhaavasa"nkaatena saha pa.tighenaati sappa.tigha) Some states are 'both visible and reacting.' Unseen states are termed invisible. Some invisible states react as described..." "'Reacting': - reaction, friction is here produced." "'Reacting' is [literally] co-reaction; the meaning is, producing the friction of of impact." Scott: Still working on the rest... Sincerely, Scott. #105749 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 3:47 pm Subject: Right Livelihood! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: What is this critical Right Livelihood? <...> The 5-fold Definition of Right Livelihood: 1: Earning a living not by trading with Living Beings. 2: Earning a living not by selling Meat, Fish or Flesh. 3: Earning a living not by selling Weapons. 4: Earning a living not by dealing in Alcohol or Drugs . 5: Earning a living not by selling any form of Poison. That is Right Livelihood! The Characterization of Right Livelihood: Any livelihood that neither involves any killing, injuring, harming nor any imprisoning of any living being, nor stealing, taking what is not given, cheating, any bribery or corruption, or lying, or false deceiving, tricks, or use of false measures and weights, neither sensual nor sexual abuse, neither use or selling of alcohol, nor intoxicating illegal drugs, that causes carelessness, neither by oneself, nor by getting other employees to do so, such is Right Livelihood! The Explanation of Right Livelihood for Buddhist Monks and Nuns: Neither living nor receiving food by astrology, soothsaying, prediction of future events, nor by palmistry, geomancy, dream-reading, charms and spells, or fake divination, nor by any rituals, running errands, or messages, flattering, arranging marriages, funerals or divorces, medical praxis, or by producing art or poetry, or by disputation or debate, this is Right Livelihood! Knowing right and wrong Livelihood as right and wrong Livelihood, is Right View. Awareness of presence of right and wrong Livelihood, is Right Awareness. Exchanging wrong Livelihood with right Livelihood, is Right Effort... Further study of Buddhist Right Livelihood (Samma-Ajiva): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-ajivo.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #105750 From: "Sadhu Chew" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 6:25 pm Subject: Re: vsm revisited chewsadhu Dear Connie, Thanks a lot. Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! That's really useful to me. May you be well and happy. With respect, Chew --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Dear Han, Chew, > always good to know about, I think: > Visuddhimagga, ch XIV, Larry's index of text posts and Nina's summaries and translations of the commentary #55332 > best wishes, > connie > #105751 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 9:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sarahprocter... Dear Vince, You didn't agree with my comments on D.O. I think you'll find that I only said the same as we find in the Theravada texts and the same as KS always says as well. Just taking the first comment only of what you wrote before: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Vince wrote: > > S: Here, consciousness, refers to patisandhi citta (the first citta > > of life) and all subsequent vipaka cittas conditioned by past kamma. > > so I don't agree!! :) > I understand D.O. is not limited to the arising of the first citta of > life. I understand D.O. explain the co-arising at any time ... S: I didn't say that "D.O. is limited to the arising of the first citta of life." I said that vi~n~naana (or consciousness) in the context of D.O. refers to the "patisandhi citta and all subsequent vipaka cittas conditioned by past kamma." Without avijja (ignorance), there is no rebirth, no results of past kamma. Furthermore, patisandhi citta and subsequent result cittas are a condition at birth and throughout life for nama-rupa (i.e conascent mental factors and kamma produced rupas) as I wrote before: "Consciousness is a condition for mentality-materiality in many ways." How? Rebirth-linking or any other resultant consciousness is a condition in nine ways - as conascence, mutuality, support, kamma-result, nutriment, faculty, association, presence, and non-disappearance conditions - for resultant mentality, whether at rebirth-linking or in the course of existence, whether it be mixed with materiality or unmixed." (from The Mahaanidaana Sutta and its commentaries, transl by B.Bodhi) Metta Sarah ======= #105752 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 9:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: >> ' Dieter's question about KS's opinion about Ajahn Chah. She said she didn't know him. What about his views? She asked for an example. Someone mentioned sitting still, going to the forest. "No understanding", she replied.' <..> > D: I don't recall to ask for passing this question to K.S. as I expected a similar answer .. > another point of course is K.S. 's response of "sitting still, going to the forest" : "No understanding" , which I understand as she has no understanding about . > You may remember that we discussed before the emphases the Buddha gave on meditation /contemplation in the forest or a otherwise secluded place, to claim otherwise > would show disrespect to plenty of suttas. .... S: I understand your point. If there is wise attention now, right understanding now, detachment from what appears through the senses now, can this be the secluded place? Don't you think it is a "disrespect" of the Buddha's teachings as a whole to not understand that they apply to the very citta, the very moment of consciousness now as we speak? What is "stillness"? What is "calm"? What is "seclusion" in an absolute sense and in the deeper meaning which the Buddha taught? Metta Sarah ======= > > > S: As a side-note and a way of *balance*, I once prepared a Dana, a meal for Ajahn Chah and Ajahn Sumedho in London and also offered some books and other small items. I've never liked cooking and many hours were involved in this preparation. When I met Ajahn Chah and presented the meal, he already knew from A.Sumedho that I studied the Abhidhamma under K.Sujin and did not follow any formal sitting/walking meditation. It was a very pleasant meeting and we all laughed a lot (especially A.Chah). I thought we got on well and had a common appreciation for the value of practice in daily life situations, such as this one. > > However, I heard quite some time later from a friend, that I (and K.Sujin) were described as people who "don't practice!" "They just read Abhidhamma!" > So, the "no understanding", "no practice" comments flow both ways, it seems! > > D: I could imagine to have a pleasant meeting with K.S. students .. as long we are not talking about the training . > In a way A.Ch. expressed in simple terms what outsiders may think about the group . > > > S: In any case, as others have said, I think it's the Dhamma, not the teachers that should be studied. I don't see any point in asking A what they think of B. We can ask for a comment on a view or a quote. > > D: that is right .. no point in asking A what they think of B , it should refer on a stated view or a a special quote. > > > with Metta Dieter #105753 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 10:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, I just saw this other comment: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > D: I could imagine to have a pleasant meeting with K.S. students .. ... S: Yes, it would be very pleasant to have you join us anytime... ... >as long we are not talking about the training . .... S: Oh, what else is there to talk about? ... > In a way A.Ch. expressed in simple terms what outsiders may think about the group . ... S: :-)) "No practice!" For us, the practice always comes back to the citta at the present moment. Who knows the others' cittas at this moment? Metta Sarah ======= #105754 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 10:25 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sarahprocter... Dear Mike, (I think I made a passing response only to this, so a little more...) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > 9. Each nama or rupa arising and falling away now, such as seeing > > or visible object or feeling has the characteristic of anatta. > Mike: Nothing controversial in 1-9. ... S: Great! ... > > 10. That dhamma which has the characteristic of anatta cannot be > > made to arise by anyone's will. Simply, there is not *anyone* to > > have a will. > Here is where the questions start to become loaded. The first phrase is redundant, given that all dhammas are anatta. And of course there in no "anyone" to have a will. ... S: OK, but not everyone would agree with us. ... > > > 11. All conditioned dhammas arise according to various conditions (as included in the 24 paccaya), not according to anything else. > > > > 12. Apart from these paramattha dhammas, anything else, anything > > else at all, is a concept. By definition, it is therefore not a > > reality. > Sure, that's simply the definition of paramattha, so adds no information. ... S: Again, not everyone would agree, I assure you. .... > > > 13. When we think of Mike, Sarah, our house or the computer, there > is just the thinking about concepts. If there is no thinking about > them, there is no Mike, Sarah, a house or a computer. > Unclear what you mean. Do you mean that the nama-rupa cease if there is no-one thinking about them. ... S: I mean that there is only ever a sense world or mind world appearing. At the moment of seeing, there is only visible object appearing. At the moment of thinking, there is only a concept experienced. If there is no idea about "Sarah, house or computer", there is no "Sarah, house or computer", because these are mere concepts. ... > > > 14. What is touched is tangible object, what is seen is visible > > object. That's all. > Yes. > > > 15. When there is the idea of the softness being *my arm* or *my > > hair* and so on (in many complex ways), there is atta-sa~n~naa, > > remembrance of self and wrong view of self, sakkaaya di.t.thi. > Sure. > > > 16. When there is an idea of the tangible object or visible object > being a computer, a thing, a substance or whole, it is attanu > > di.t.thi, also an idea of atta, but not sakkaaya di.t.thi. > Sure. .... S: Excellent - many find these very difficult points. ... > > > 17. The only way that attanu-ditthi and sakkaaya di.t.thi will ever > be eradicated is through the developed understanding of the reality > >appearing at this moment. Through such understanding of the tangible > > object, the feeling, the visible object or whatever appears, the > >characteristic of anatta becomes apparent. > Seems like a long way to say it. I think you mean that you have to see and understand it, which is a no-brainer. ... S: Ok, but we have to be clear what "it" is. It may be a "No-brainer" for you, because you've heard and considered a lot. Most people, even most Buddhists wouldn't agree with us, however. Take Han's grandson, brought up as a Buddhist - he strongly objected to this one as I recall. ... > > > 18. If there's any effort to try and be aware at this moment, in > > order to understand the presently appearing object, or any trying > > to develop more kusala, such as more metta, then it's the wrong > > path again. > Here's the real loaded question, and as far as I can tell this argument applies just as much to the AS approach of developing understanding as any "meditation" approach of developing understanding. ... S: I'm glad you picked up on it. Yes, the "effort to try and be aware at this moment..", "the wrong path" applies whenever there is such an idea or intention, regardless of the circumstances, the teacher, or "the approach". Whenever there's a "trying to do", even if it's during a discussion with AS, then it's wrong, I believe. ... > > I would say it completely trivialises what most Buddhist teachers teach, which is not some clumsy attempt to "develop more kusala". They (and AS) are a bit more subtle than that. ... S: Again, I'm not really interested in "what most Buddhist teachers" teach, but in the understanding of present dhammas now. I think there is a subtle distinction between being aware, understanding realities now, by conditions and between a Self trying to be aware, trying to understand realities, trying to have more metta. Only the sotapanna has completely eradicated sakkaya-ditthi and therefore, silabbataparamasa. I'm glad you appreciate that such "trying" is not the path. ... > > 19. If the development of understanding is for any purpose other > > than just the understanding of dhammas, it's wrong again. > I presume you're talking about Dhamma, rather than learning to add or to read, or something. > > In that case, yes, one is trying to understand dhammas. ... S: Yes and yes. Again, your appreciation of this point is unusual. ... > > > 20. This understanding of the present reality is the Middle Way! > "Middle way" is a much misused expression. I've no idea what you mean by it in this context. .... S: The Middle Way is the Eightfold Path, the path of satipatthana. Anything else is not the Middle Way as I see it. So, if there's any idea of the Path or the Way as being anything other than the right understanding of visible object, sound, thinking or any other presently appearing reality, it's wrong. I think this all started because when I mentioned that Nina had asked KS why people react strongly to anatta (or something similar) and KS had said something like "they don't understand it", you responded by saying everyone agrees with anatta and people don't react strongly to it. I wished to show it's not so simple. ... > As I see it, the significant point of controversy between AS other teachers I respect is 18. As we knew all along. The key issue is: > "How and why does correct understanding arise?" ... S: I thought all the last points would be increasingly controversial. Dieter found many controversial and Howard disagreed in part with all:-) Not only "How and why does correct understanding arise?", but also "What is understood now?" is very important. This is why we have to talk a lot about namas and rupas. ... > > AS has one approach. Others have other approaches. Perhaps they are all correct, perhaps all wrong, perhaps one correct, others wrong. ... S: As far as I'm concerned, the only "right" approach is that of right understanding of realities now. I don't really mind who says what, but what about now, what about the reality at this moment? Again, thank you very much for taking the time to discuss this issue with me. Metta Sarah ====== #105755 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 10:34 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sarahprocter... Dear Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > I don't have any famous teachers. The two teachers who have given me the most guidance are Thailand-ordained monks (our local Wat is a branch of a Bangkok Wat) who originally came from the US and Bangladesh. They teach the Mahasi approach. So if you want any quotes you can read Sayadaw Mahasi, U Pandita, etc. ... S: Thanks for answering my qu. My first teacher in India, Angarika Munindra, taught the "Mahasi approach" and so I'm very familiar with it and his writings from that time (early 70s!). Of course, no one is "famous" at first! You may be famous in due course and then we'll be able to say we used to exchange letters with you:-) Actually, I've never been interested in whether someone is a "famous" teacher or not. .... > I've met a handful of other teachers, in Hong Kong and New Zealand. I've had a couple of short (weekend) retreats with one of Ajahn Chah's students (Ajahn Tiradhammo, who is currently in Wellington, NZ). It's useful to get some different points of view sometimes. > E.G. from DSG. :) ... S: yes, we never know when we'll hear something helpful or have wise reflections - maybe when watching TV, reading the newspaper of sitting on a slow bus....who knows what the conditions will be for the next citta? If you visit Hong Kong again, please be sure to let us know. Metta Sarah ======= #105756 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 10:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "this requires wisdom" isn't a license for unrestrained action and heedlessness. sarahprocter... Dear Ken O (& Alex), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > >BTW, even an Arahant can break minor rules. > > > >"Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu becomes complete, observing the virtues and complete in concentration and wisdom. He transgresses certain minor precepts and eventually emerges from them. What is the reason? Bhikkhus, saying it correctly it would happen. Of the main precepts dealing with the holy life and conducive to the holy life he is fixed and firm. He will destroy desires, release the mind, and released through wisdom here and now realize and abide." > >http://metta. lk/tipitaka/ 2Sutta-Pitaka/ 4Anguttara- Nikaya/Anguttara 1/3-tikanipata/ 009-samanavaggo- e.html > > KO: Arahant cannot break the ten defilement because there are no roots for such defilments to arise. As for this portion of the sutta, we need to see the commentary notes on it and if someone could help to translate this the commentary, I am most appreciative. .... S: We discussed such passages before. No kilesa, but (unknowingly), minor rules can still be broken and the transgression still needs to be admitted once known, as I recall. Probably more detail in U.P. under "Patimokkha" or under "Arahat". Sorry, no time to research more now - going away again on Monday morning! Others may add more. Metta Sarah ===== #105757 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 11:02 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) gazita2002 hallo Sarah and others, sounds like the time in Bkk was quite good, sarah, unfortunate that I was unable to attend. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > .... Mike: > I've met a handful of other teachers, in Hong Kong and New Zealand. I've had a couple of short (weekend) retreats with one of Ajahn Chah's students (Ajahn Tiradhammo, who is currently in Wellington, NZ). It's useful to get some different points of view sometimes. > > E.G. from DSG. :) > ... > Sarah: yes, we never know when we'll hear something helpful or have wise reflections - maybe when watching TV, reading the newspaper of sitting on a slow bus....who knows what the conditions will be for the next citta? If you visit Hong Kong again, please be sure to let us know. azita: I think you have made a really important point here. We never know when thoughts of the dhamma will arise and mayb prompt 'us' to refrain from saying something useless or encourage us to give something useful to another being. Its all so 'anatta' isnt it:) patience, courage and good cheer azita #105758 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 11:12 pm Subject: Re: Understanding is the Chief! sarahprocter... Dear Friends, from the same set of quotes Ven Samahita gave (which I just referred to) #105612, I like the following one because it is exactly the point we were discussing in Bangkok with regard to Right Understanding as being most precious in life - that which doesn't bring sorrow: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > Of minor importance, is the loss of family and wealth... > Catastrophic among losses is the loss of Understanding. > Of minor consequence, is the increase of family and wealth. > Supreme among all the gains is the increase of comprehension... > Therefore, friends, you must train yourself to win that! > AN I 14-5 > <...> S: And on discussion and asking questions... > Asking Questions logically leads to Understanding: > As a Bhikkhu walking for alms beg from both low, middle and high folks, if one search and ask both slightly, moderately and highly wise teachers, then the insight of the Buddhas shall come to shine inside the mind! The Basket of Conduct, Cariyapitaka ... Metta Sarah ====== #105759 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 11:08 pm Subject: Re: On Accumulations. sarahprocter... Dear Jon & Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > =============== > >A: Again, the suttas in 4 Nikayas do NOT mention the very long path of being a Buddhist, studying reality, and acquisition of merit. > > =============== > > J: I think you're wrong here, but I don't have any sutta reference handy. Will keep this point in mind and hopefully come back to you later. (Anyone with a sutta ref on this point?) ... S: Lots in U.P. under "Gradual". Here's a recent quote that Ven Samahita gave #105565: "Buddha once said:Just as the great Ocean slopes down gradually, deepens gradually, inclines gradually, and not abruptly like an abyss, even so Paharada, is this teaching and discipline: a gradual training (anupubba-sikkha), a gradual practice (anupubba-kiriya), and a gradual progress (anupubba-patipada); One does not suddenly penetrate to this highest Understanding... Anguttara Nikaya II 47 Metta Sarah ========= #105760 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Mar 5, 2010 10:46 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.S Feb 2010 - Ajahn Chah sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > S: Yes, a very fair comment. Perhaps the point was that if there is any idea of "sitting still"or "going to the forest" as being any part of the practice, of the Way, then it indicates a wrong understanding. > > > > > > > Ajahn Chah does NOT NOT NOT teach the above. Whoever said that was either too cryptic, or didn't know what Ajah Chah taught. ... S: Fair enough - probably both... ... > Here are some points that I've learned from his translated talks > > 1) Ajahn Chah was against very long sitting. He said something like > "Chickens can sit for many hours and aren't awakened". He didn't like if people spend too much in deep samadhi. Just enough for being aware. ... S: Even this is very controvesial round here as you know.... Thank you for your other comments and the helpful quote. I agree with you that it's useless to bring up other teachers unless one is referring to direct quotes in order to discuss Dhamma, not people. metta Sarah > =The practice of samadhi is for developing wisdom and understanding= > > What do you have sitting here right now? There are body and > mind, that's all, only these two things. All that is contained within this frame sitting here now is called body. The mind is that which is aware and is thinking at this very moment. These two things are also called nama and rupa. Nama refers to that which has no rupa, or form. All thoughts and feelings, or the four mental khandhas of feeling, perception, volition and consciousness, are nama, they are all formless. When the eye sees form, that form is called ruupa, while the awareness is called nama. Together they are called naama and rupa, or simply body and mind. Understand that sitting here in this present moment are only body and mind. But we get these two things confused with each other. If you want peace you must know the truth > of them. The mind in its present state is still untrained; it's dirty, not clear. It is not yet the pure mind. We must further train this mind through the practice of meditation. Some people think that meditation means to sit in some special way, but in actual fact > standing, sitting, walking and reclining are all vehicles for meditation practice. You can practice at all times. Samadhi literally means the firmly established mind. To develop samadhi you don't have to go bottling the mind up. Some people try to get peaceful by > sitting quietly and having nothing disturb them at all, but that's just like being dead. The practice of samadhi is for developing wisdom and understanding." -Pg 175 > > "So whatever we see and encounter, we should contemplate carefully. We delight in sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and ideas. So please contemplate. You all know what these things are: forms the eye sees, for example, such as the forms of men and women. You certainly know what sounds are, as well as smells, tastes, and physical contacts. Then there are the mental impressions and ideas. When we have these contacts through the physical senses, mental activity arises. All things gather here." -Teaching of Ajahn Chah pg 444 #105761 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 6, 2010 12:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 3/6/2010 1:09:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: For us, the practice always comes back to the citta at the present moment. Who knows the others' cittas at this moment? ================================= Here's a question for you, Sarah: What, IYO, does it mean for there *not* to be practice? With metta, Howard Hindrances /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) #105762 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Mar 6, 2010 7:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (7b) ptaus1 Hi Scott, Thanks for your reply. > S: Sorry for the delay. pt: No problems, no rush. > Scott: From Atthasaalinii, for 'reacting' (p.61, p.404, p.414): > > "In the triplet of 'Visible,' states which arise together with opposition called 'impact' (pa.tihanana) are termed 'reacting.' (Pa.tihananabhaavasa"nkaatena saha pa.tighenaati sappa.tigha) Some states are 'both visible and reacting.' Unseen states are termed invisible. Some invisible states react as described..." > > "'Reacting': - reaction, friction is here produced." > > "'Reacting' is [literally] co-reaction; the meaning is, producing the friction of of impact." pt: Hm, can this be in essence "impact" or resistance because one rupa is impinging on another one? I.e. visible rupa is impinging on the eye rupa? Thanks. Best wishes pt #105763 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Mar 6, 2010 9:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Sarah - > > In a message dated 3/6/2010 1:09:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > For us, the practice always comes back to the citta at the present moment. > Who knows the others' cittas at this moment? > ================================= > Here's a question for you, Sarah: What, IYO, does it mean for there > *not* to be practice? > > With metta, > Howard Good question, Howard. I'd like Sarah, Jon, Scott, KenH to answer it as well. With metta, Alex #105764 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 6, 2010 11:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) nilovg Dear Alex, Howard, Op 6-mrt-2010, om 18:02 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Here's a question for you, Sarah: What, IYO, does it mean for there > > *not* to be practice? > > > > Good question, Howard. > > I'd like Sarah, Jon, Scott, KenH to answer it as well. ------- N: Can I be included? Indeed a good question. There is no practice in the case of bhaavanaa if the citta is not accompanied by sati sampaja~n~na which knows the nature of citta at the present moment. In the case of samaadhi it must be known precisely whether the citta is kusala or akusala. In the case of vipassanaa the reality appearing now should be known as merely a dhamma, not a person or thing. Nina. #105765 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 6, 2010 6:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Sarah) - In a message dated 3/6/2010 2:26:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Alex, Howard, Op 6-mrt-2010, om 18:02 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Here's a question for you, Sarah: What, IYO, does it mean for there > > *not* to be practice? > > > > Good question, Howard. > > I'd like Sarah, Jon, Scott, KenH to answer it as well. ------- N: Can I be included? ------------------------------------------- ALWAYS, Nina! :-) ------------------------------------------- Indeed a good question. There is no practice in the case of bhaavanaa if the citta is not accompanied by sati sampaja~n~na which knows the nature of citta at the present moment. In the case of samaadhi it must be known precisely whether the citta is kusala or akusala. In the case of vipassanaa the reality appearing now should be known as merely a dhamma, not a person or thing. ---------------------------------------------- Thank you, Nina! It is good to know that your view of "practice" is not an empty concept, which it would be were practice something that is always in effect. :-) One more question with regard to practice, as you see it: Must there be some degree of viriya present? (By 'viriya', I don't mean self-conscious, intentional effort, but some degree of strength/power/energy accompanying the mindfulness and clarity of consciousness.) -------------------------------------------- Nina. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #105766 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Mar 6, 2010 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) truth_aerator Hello Howard, Nina, all, Thank you Nina for your reply. >H:Must there be some degree of viriya present? (By 'viriya', I don't >mean self-conscious, intentional effort, but some degree of >strength/power/energy accompanying the mindfulness and clarity of >consciousness.) I think the short answer would be: "when there is panna, there is automatically right effort." With metta, Alex #105767 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 12:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) nilovg Hi Howard and Alex, Op 6-mrt-2010, om 20:45 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > One more question with regard to practice, as you see it: > Must there be some degree of viriya present? (By 'viriya', I don't > mean > self-conscious, intentional effort, but some degree of strength/ > power/energy > accompanying the mindfulness and clarity of consciousness.) --------- N: As Alex said: N: As you know viriya accompanies many cittas, though not all. This cetasika is conditioned by the citta and the other cetasikas it accompanies. When it accompanies akusala citta it is quite different from when it accompanies kusala citta. And when it accompanies kusala citta with pa~n~naa that develops satipa.t.thaana it is right effort of the eightfold Path. It has its own function, conditioning the citta to persevere, to have courage going on developing and not giving up. Nina. #105768 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 12:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sukinderpal Hi Mike, Thank you for your response. ================= > Sukinder: In other words being caught up in ideas about someone who needs to do certain things in time and space in order that understanding be developed, this is taking what is not real for real and believing in ideas about cause and effect not in line with the way things are. Their insisting on following what they believe to be the practice which would enable them to one day understand anatta and conditionality while at that moment refusing to acknowledge the truth, is just reflection of attachment and wrong view. And to go on to state that they are encouraged to `let go' etc. in the process, this simply put, is one good way how the `self' feels justified in continuing to do what it does. > > Sukiner: In conclusion, teachers who approach the Dhamma with ideas about meditation / setting aside time for practice etc. do not understand the important causal relationship between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. Mike: I'm still puzzled by a couple of things: How is it that (according to this view) almost every "modern" (last hundred years or so) teacher doesn't understand the Dhamma? Suk: One basic premise is that this moment has arisen and fallen away already. For e.g. when there is the perception of people and things out there, it is understood that seeing has arisen and fallen away followed by thinking (in fact many moments of these interspersed by bhavanga cittas). From this is the understanding that all realities arise and fall away by conditions and beyond control including any sati and panna to know this. From this it can also been seen that the object of the kind of understanding is not concepts [time, place, posture etc.] but realities such as seeing, sound, thinking, feelings, attachment, kindness and so on. These being what ultimately arises and falls away at any given instance, the correct attitude would then be one which does not then think in terms of specific situations in which they can be known. ==================== Mike: And how can followers of this view be sure that they really understand anatta, and are not just building up more self-concept about being a "wise Dhamma student"? Suk: Only at Stream Entrant is the confidence perfected. Meanwhile every time there is any level of right understanding about the present moment, saddha accumulates as sankhara. This results in the kind of understanding not to think about special ?doings?, but rather to the present moment regardless of what that reality is. And so if there is the thought about being a "wise Dhamma student", some level of understanding could arise to know this as only ?thinking? or it could see it as conditioned by attachment, conceit or wrong view. Moreover, besides saddha being conditioned, some detachment also accompanies these moments. In other words when attachment is known there is at that instance, some detachment and increased confidence about this being the Path. ================ Mike: This isn't supposed to be just an argumentative question. I have had plenty of warnings from my teachers about building up self views. What is the advice on how to avoid building up self views when following the AS approach? Suk: The only way that self view is dealt with constructively is when there is awareness and understanding of it. Supporting this is right understanding of the reality / concept distinction including knowing moments when there is mindfulness and when mere thinking is mistaken for mindfulness. If one is not clear about this, it is then easy to go wrong when ?trying? to be aware of self view or any other dhamma. A. Sujin often points out to us this mistake of taking for awareness what is only thinking and the danger of attaching to results. I?m not sure if this response is satisfactory, but I could try again if you want. Right now I have a post by Pt to attend to and do not have too much time. Metta, Sukinder #105769 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 1:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sukinderpal Hi Pt, pt: Thanks, this was a very good explanation. I would appreciate it if you can continue (when you have time) talking about patipatti and how it differs from pariyatti. -------- Suk: I?ll do this later, but first another part of your post. pt: Regarding the rest of your message about other teachers and students, I don't really think I can agree with any of it. I mean, firstly, we really have no way of claiming with utmost certainty "they know this much about anatta", "this is exactly what goes on in their minds", etc. Hence it all turns out to be just speculation, and can easily turn into putting others down just so we can be a little more confident in our own way thanks to the conceit boost. Secondly, I still think that saying "don't do this" (like formal meditation) is very much equal to "do this", i.e. on the same plane of reference. So, while I understand (or at least think I do) what you (and dsg folks) are trying to say by warning against methods, I still don't think it's said in the best possible way because it relies on arguing that everyone else is making a mistake. This of course (aside from being a benchmark approach by all cults) alienates everyone else, rather than introducing them to the dhamma. So, at the moment, I prefer the approach KenO advised, i.e. talking about dhamma rather than different teachers. Suk: I agree that ideally we should be referring to the Dhamma and dhammas rather than teachers and their students. Sometimes I vent my frustration which wouldn?t have been necessary were I indifferent towards Buddhist teachers as I am with regard to teachers of other religions. However you can be sure that in the end I?m interested in the Dhamma and derive little pleasure from criticizing anyone. Mostly I do it hoping to provoke discussion with someone brave enough to see their teacher?s position being tested. It seems then that it requires not only that I be impersonal, but students of those teachers also need to develop the attitude to some extent?. Besides, although it is reasonable to stick with discussing in terms of Dhamma and dhammas, the fact is that wrong view arises anyway. And although I appreciate for example, Ken O?s approach, however this does not always imo lead to certain important points being discussed whereas were someone to respond positively to Ken H?s statements, some progress would more likely be made. Regarding ?speculation?, sticking to the Dhamma is the only way to get to the truth of things. Otherwise speculation happens even when we try not to or when we give the other person the benefit of the doubt. In fact not only when it is about other people, but also in referring to our own experiences, because of ignorance and attachment, we end up invariably speculating. Like I said, in the end it is Dhamma that I?m interested in discussing, and it is from here that I make my judgments. Take for example some teacher recommending ?formal meditation? who then go on to expect the student to be aware of self view, would it be speculating were I to point out what I perceive as contradictory? I think it is in fact addressing the matter quite directly based on Dhamma, and is up to the other person to want to engage in the discussion. There is no real reason in this case for me to be circumspect and avoid reference to teachers, I would think. You said: ?Secondly, I still think that saying "don't do this" (like formal meditation) is very much equal to "do this", i.e. on the same plane of reference.? Suk: I agree, although I?m not sure that we approach this from exactly the same direction. For me it is because ?understanding? is the key and therefore never a matter of refraining from certain kinds of conventional activity. Judging from what you say, it seems you still don?t perceive the very idea of ?formal meditation? as being in fact wrong. I think the idea of formal vipassana meditation is perversion of view and jhana has absolutely no place in the development of the Path. And this is another reason why I right out dismiss all teachers of meditation. ;-) ================ Pt: I understand that sometimes in order to show a correct approach it is necessary to point out what is the wrong approach. But in that case I think it's much more beneficial to keep the example on a personal experience level, like you (and KenH) sometimes do. E.g. saying something like "I used to do X and then realised it's incorrect because..." is much more effective than saying "Teacher W and his students are wrong in doing this because...". I.e. while the first statement really imparts wisdom from one person to another, the second statement is usually perceived as judgmental at best. Anyway, that's how the situation seems to me. Suk: Well, this sounds very much like speculation to me! ;-) I mean, referring to past experiences and placing this against a more recent conclusion arrived at; this seems to be the stuff of perversion of perception and consciousness, if not also of view. Besides, the reason for being concerned about how anything said is taken by others; this may involve a great deal of speculation too. After all, who do we have in mind and how can we know what at any given moment will condition any level of understanding in whom? But of course it comes down to each one of us being aware of our own intentions??:-/ I believe our first step on the Path in any given lifetime happens at the moment when pariyatti understanding arises for the first time. Whether we were Christians, or Hindus or Buddhists prior to that, is immaterial and might as well be forgotten. I think it quite misleading to make a connection even if it sounds quite reasonable to us. Right view arises to understand the present moment and does not need to refer to some past experience to be convinced. How would I be helping someone in pointing to him my mistakes? Given that it would still require Right Understanding to arise to know the present moment, how could ?my story? change anything? Rather it seems, that this would likely encourage more thinking in terms of ?doing? vs. ?not doing? wouldn?t it? Like you said, we need to discuss in terms of Dhamma and dhammas. I understand that you see a deadlock of sort and sincerely wish to straighten things out. I believe the problem is the ignorance, wrong view and attachment and sorting out who is saying what may not help much here. I?ll now write something about pariyatti and patipatti in another post. Metta, Sukinder #105770 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 1:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sukinderpal Hi Pt, You wrote: pt: Thanks, this was a very good explanation. I would appreciate it if you can continue (when you have time) talking about patipatti and how it differs from pariyatti. Suk: I'd like to talk about this but by way of also touching on the topic of teaching / studying the Dhamma. Sometime back I tried to initiate a discussion without success with Htoo, an old member of DSG. The topic was, ?What a beginner needs to hear?. Some people say that A. Sujin unreasonably stresses anatta as she does and should take care not to push beginners away by her approach. I had suggested then, if I remember right, that I consider A. Sujin?s expression of the Dhamma to be most direct and beneficial for anyone today. Before I first read Nina?s books about nine years ago, Bhikkhu Bodhi was my favorite writer. But then I started to see an important difference. I saw that I liked BB?s writings because it was fun to ?think about? the Dhamma. However when I began to appreciate the importance of understanding the present moment, I started preferring Nina?s writings and grew more and more agitated when reading other Buddhist teachers. All those other writings seem to condition proliferation of thought, whereas Nina?s encourages coming back to the present moment. And sure, everyone else also makes reference to Anatta, but the effect of reading some Ajahns? writings on the topic was just being lost in philosophizing. If there is any limitation with regard to her approach, it is the use of Pali terms. But then again this can?t be helped and the student should know not to be discouraged by this, after all the real purpose is always, conventionally speaking, to understand oneself as one is. Indeed the problem is in us as we approach the Dhamma with the accumulated ignorance and attachment such that as beginners instead of having some detachment, the Dhamma itself becomes one more object of attachment. But gradually this changes as there is more understanding about the present moment and rather than remain more or less an abstraction, the Dhamma is seen then to be none other than our lives now. For the same reason the development of understanding must be natural. A. Sujin doesn?t choose her audience and therefore she will refer always to the Abhidhamma and use Pali terms when necessary. However her message at all times to everyone is the same, namely understanding of the present moment and to know when it is only ?thinking? about the Dhamma. In this regard I would say that she encourages patipatti but not at the expense of the need to continue developing pariyatti and certainly not to then decide to ?do? something about it. When it is pointed out that there is seeing now, sound now, thinking now and so on, this is our life as it is. One difficulty is our habit of complication and we end up overlooking the simple message. I know I did this for years. Even if there is no understanding at that very moment, this can be known and would constitute right pariyatti. However, much of the time ignorance and craving rules and leads us always away into doubt and other kinds of akusala. The development of right understanding is not measured by increase in knowledge; in fact one should not look to any outward signs such as having more sila or being more kind etc. The relationship between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha is in that in each of these, the present moment is the object. When we hear about any reality, the attention is drawn to whatever it is that happens to appear in the present moment. In the beginning one won?t know the actual characteristic of the dhamma, but would have an intellectual understanding with regard to some aspect of it. This may result then in an overall idea about the present moment being the only valid object of understanding. It is this that builds up to which at some point, lead to direct understanding. In other words, before there can be direct understanding of dhammas, one grows in confidence (saddha) by way of pariyatti to seeing need to understand the present moment and not to look elsewhere (a method, meditation etc). This is the direct relationship and the deciding one. Hence statements such as those by Ken H reminding us about the present moment is as far as I?m concerned, sign of the Path being understood and those that are involved in concepts of time, place and posture and the need to engage in some kind of ?doing?, points in fact to an altogether different direction. I must stop now. Metta, Sukinder #105771 From: "Mike" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 1:55 am Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) mikenz66 Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > 17. The only way that attanu-ditthi and sakkaaya di.t.thi will ever > be eradicated is through the developed understanding of the reality > > >appearing at this moment. Through such understanding of the tangible > > > object, the feeling, the visible object or whatever appears, the > > >characteristic of anatta becomes apparent. > > Seems like a long way to say it. I think you mean that you have to see and understand it, which is a no-brainer. > ... > S: Ok, but we have to be clear what "it" is. It may be a "No-brainer" for you, because you've heard and considered a lot. Most people, even most Buddhists wouldn't agree with us, however. Take Han's grandson, brought up as a Buddhist - he strongly objected to this one as I recall. Mike: Strange, as I said, all teachers I talk to teach this. But if the AS student keep repeating: ... > S: Again, I'm not really interested in "what most Buddhist teachers" teach, but in the understanding of present dhammas now... ... Mike: then there really isn't much left to discuss. I'll just continue to maintain that there is no difference in understanding, just a difference in approach. You, presumably, will continue to maintain that all other teachers that I've ever heard of have misunderstood the Tipitika since they teach a different method from your teacher. Metta Mike #105772 From: "Mike" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 2:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) mikenz66 Hi Sukinder, Thanks for your response. I've never understood this part of the AS argument: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > Suk: One basic premise is that this moment has arisen and fallen away > already. For e.g. when there is the perception of people and things out > there, it is understood that seeing has arisen and fallen away followed > by thinking (in fact many moments of these interspersed by bhavanga > cittas). From this is the understanding that all realities arise and > fall away by conditions and beyond control including any sati and panna > to know this. Mike: This is a standard argument for ultimate uncontrollability (which is standard Buddhist stuff). However, it doesn't appear to me to be a particularly logical argument against gathering information (though imperfect) from observation. Metta Mike #105773 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 3:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sarahprocter... Dear Mike, I appreciate all the points you raise here. --- On Sun, 7/3/10, Mike wrote: Mike: Strange, as I said, all teachers I talk to teach this. But if the AS student keep repeating: ... >> S: Again, I'm not really interested in "what most Buddhist teachers" teach, but in the understanding of present dhammas now... ... >Mike: then there really isn't much left to discuss. .... S: We could discuss more about the present dhammas! ... >I'll just continue to maintain that there is no difference in understanding, just a difference in approach. You, presumably, will continue to maintain that all other teachers that I've ever heard of have misunderstood the Tipitika since they teach a different method from your teacher. ... S: I think your presumption would be mistaken. When I said that I'm much more interested in discussing dhammas than teachers, I meant that I don't find it in the least helpful to discuss whether different people have understood/misunderstood the Tipitaka, have never made any suggestions about "all other teachers". As for K.Sujin - I consider her more as a very good friend and guide who encourages me to study and carefully consider the Buddha's teachings for myself. The Buddha and Dhamma are our Teachers. We have to check each word for ourselves and only panna, right understanding, can know what is right. For me, anatta means the question of "different methods" is meaningless - just cittas, cetasikas and rupas ever. As Azita and I are discussing, there can be wise consideration, right understanding when picking up the Sunday newspaper. Is this then a method? Metta Sarah ===== #105774 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 4:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Sat, 6/3/10, upasaka@... wrote: >>S: For us, the practice always comes back to the citta at the present moment. Who knows the others' cittas at this moment? ============ ========= ========= === H:>Here's a question for you, Sarah: What, IYO, does it mean for there *not* to be practice? ... S: Simply for there not to be any right understanding of the present realities (even at the pariyatti level) at this moment. In other words, most of the day, no matter what our activities, there is no practice, no pariyatti, let alone patipatti, let alone pativeda. Right practice, patipatti, is a moment of satipatthana, a moment of following the path. What would your answer be, Howard? Metta Sarah p.s All, more travels tomorrow. Apologies for delays in responses, esp. to Han, Ken O, pt and others on the 'meaty' topics....will catch up in a few days in Australia. ======= #105775 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 12:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 3/7/2010 7:07:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, --- On Sat, 6/3/10, upasaka@... wrote: >>S: For us, the practice always comes back to the citta at the present moment. Who knows the others' cittas at this moment? ============ ========= ========= === H:>Here's a question for you, Sarah: What, IYO, does it mean for there *not* to be practice? ... S: Simply for there not to be any right understanding of the present realities (even at the pariyatti level) at this moment. In other words, most of the day, no matter what our activities, there is no practice, no pariyatti, let alone patipatti, let alone pativeda. Right practice, patipatti, is a moment of satipatthana, a moment of following the path. What would your answer be, Howard? --------------------------------------------------------- All that I was looking for was that the answer should not be "Everything is practice." As for what I consider to be practice, it is all of the experience occurring when the actions urged by the Buddha are in effect. These include (macroscopically speaking), at least the following: Contemplating the Dhamma, being mindful of body and mind (introspection), observing sila and engaging in the four right efforts, and calming & clarifying the mind through meditation. --------------------------------------------------------- Metta Sarah p.s All, more travels tomorrow. Apologies for delays in responses, esp. to Han, Ken O, pt and others on the 'meaty' topics....will catch up in a few days in Australia. ===================================== With metta, Howard Hindrances /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) #105776 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 6:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 jonoabb Hi KenO (105742) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > ... > KO: Visud and commentaries are full of instructions. You have yet said there is no method in the commentary while I have shown you. To make assertations that there is no formal meditation is not in concord with Visud and the commentaries. On the other hand, anyone who thinks that one could now straightaway do mediation without development of panna, is also not in concord with Visud and the commentaries. > =============== J: I think what you are saying is this: There is samatha bhavana by way of formal meditation, but it requires developed panna first. I suppose the idea is that once panna has been developed to a certain (unspecified) level, formal practice can be undertaken 'using' that panna. In this way there can be formal practice that is purely kusala. Have I understood you correctly? This interpretation seeks to rationalise the otherwise conflicting ideas of (a) formal practice and (b) dhammas as 'not-self'. It is nonetheless an interpretation, rather than something found stated in so many words in the texts. If panna can be developed at the initial stages without the need for formal practice, there seems no reason why that development should not continue in the same way. There's nothing in the texts that speaks of a sudden change in the way of practice once a certain level of panna has been gained. Jon #105777 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 6:15 am Subject: Re: Method in VsM jonoabb Hi Alex (105746) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > ... > According to VsM recitation IS to be done for kayagatasati, even if one is master of Tipitaka. > =============== J: We have agreed to disagree on this point (I quoted the reference to "some" persons) ;-)) > =============== > Interesting thing: The Buddha never used talk about moments (ksanika). > > Even in canonical Abhidhamma it doesn't speak about moments! It is extra-canonical concept never spoken by the Buddha. > > Dhammasangani for example uses "yasmim samaye..." > > "On that occasion..." > =============== J: My interest is in how the teachings were understood by the Buddha's followers at the time and shortly afterwards, as recorded in the commentaries. Jon #105778 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 6:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 jonoabb Hi KenO (105745) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Jon > > also it is wrong to say that this method does not help to develop panna or wrong practise, that is not in concordance with Dispeller of Delusion. You have the book, it is para 1167 to 1173. > =============== J: Thanks for the reference. Always good to have a specific passage to discuss ;-)) This passage describes the reflection on the body parts as elements, in the case of the person who has contemplated the elements in a previous lifetime (see para 1158). Generally, the circumstances being described in this section of Dispeller (on the 32 Parts) involve a bhikkhu and his teacher. The text does not purport to be giving an instruction capable of being followed by a person wishing to develop reflection on the 32 parts of the body. > =============== Then again 1177 The bhikkhu who have reach Arahatship by availing themselves of this "link up of the lesson" are beyond counting. > =============== J: Yes, but this was by developing the path under a teacher as there described, not from following the instructions contained in the Dispeller. Jon #105779 From: Ken O Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 6:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 ashkenn2k Dear Jon >J: Thanks for the reference. Always good to have a specific passage to discuss ;-)) > >This passage describes the reflection on the body parts as elements, in the case of the person who has contemplated the elements in a previous lifetime (see para 1158). > >Generally, the circumstances being described in this section of Dispeller (on the 32 Parts) involve a bhikkhu and his teacher. The text does not purport to be giving an instruction capable of being followed by a person wishing to develop reflection on the 32 parts of the body. > >J: Yes, but this was by developing the path under a teacher as there described, not from following the instructions contained in the Dispeller. > KO:? The text does not support your conclusion.??There were explicit?instructions by the teacher to the students.??You should read para 1158 and maybe the begining at para 1060.?? Ken O #105780 From: Ken O Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 7:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 ashkenn2k Dear Jon Dear Jon >J: I think what you are saying is this: There is samatha bhavana by way of formal meditation, but it requires developed panna first. > >I suppose the idea is that once panna has been developed to a certain (unspecified) level, formal practice can be undertaken 'using' that panna. In this way there can be formal practice that is purely kusala. Have I understood you correctly? > >This interpretation seeks to rationalise the otherwise conflicting ideas of (a) formal practice and (b) dhammas as 'not-self'. It is nonetheless an interpretation, rather than something found stated in so many words in the texts. KO:? Nope.?This is not my interpretation.? It is based on Visud and the sutta text.? Your assertation that it does not follow the?text is based on your opinion and while I have shown you textual support.?? It is never in conflict because formal practise does not mean a self as it is the samantha vehicle.? It is?we think who thinks?a formal practise must have a self.?? Dhammas are not self, our actions are conditioned by our accumulations.??That is why the samantha objects must suit a person accumulations, and this also accords to the text.? >If panna can be developed at the initial stages without the need for formal practice, there seems no reason why that development should not continue in the same way. There's nothing in the texts that speaks of a sudden change in the way of practice once a certain level of panna has been gained. KO:? that is also wrong and base on your intepretation.??Nobody make the assertation that we must change the way we practise.? it depends on?your method and your accumulations.? Visud make it very clear that?the student must remove the minor impedients, etc and then seek a suitable teacher and take a subject from a teacher.?? So your assertations are not supported by the text.??? You have to show me textual support and not base on your reasoning and say it is nothing to do with the text.? ?Everyone could reason, IMHO and no offence to anyone,?highly respectable Ledi Sayadawi also make the same error, giving his own interpretation of the text.?? That is where people lose faith in the commentaries because many people start having their own ideas.?? Not everyone take on this samantha vehicle method, some took the vipassana method.??This is also in line with the suttas.? Till date you only make your own intepretation. ?I appreciate if you could give textual support of your claims against the samantha vehicle method as describe in the Visud and other texts.? Ken O #105781 From: Ken O Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 7:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Method in VsM ashkenn2k Dear Alex > >That phrase states it clearly. Even if you are a master of Tipitaka, you still should, SHOULD, do the verbal recitation. KO:??Not everyone is suitable to do this, likewise for breathing meditation.? It is not simply just taking an object of meditation.? One should be truthful?to?our own?level of panna and accumulations.? Likewise not everyone take?up a meditation subject, those who are on vipassana method or the dry insighters?dont take up a meditation subject.? >It is funny that it is okay to watch TV, or live a daily life (perhaps, 'in sin', as one person has said) but it is NOT okay to follow the suttas and VsM. KO:? For a lay follower?this is not against the precepts but it will be a dependent (or decisive - forget the word already) support condition for aksuala cittas.? Nobody say that it is not okay to follow the suttas and VsM >Why is it OK to increase Kilesas and such in Daily life, yet not develop more effort in following the Buddha's teaching - something that is hard to do and goes against the grain of defilements. > >Even if a person does things with wrong view, it is still better if the person does kusala deeds rather than akusala deeds. KO:? Wrong view is also aksuala, it does not make a person better.? We should discard wrong view first because it is the greatest obstacle to insight.? As for watching TV, it could be just lobha for sensual objects, that could only be discared at the anagami stage. Cheers Ken O #105782 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 8:04 am Subject: Dry insight Method truth_aerator Dear KenO, all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > > Dear Alex > > > > >A: That phrase states it clearly. Even if you are a master of >Tipitaka, you still should, SHOULD, do the verbal recitation. > > KO:??Not everyone is suitable to do this, likewise for breathing >meditation.? It is not simply just taking an object of meditation.? Of course. When one does proper anapanasati, one fulfills 4 satipatthana. MN118. >Likewise not everyone take?up a meditation subject, those who are on >vipassana method or the dry insighters?dont take up a meditation >subject.? Why isn't satipatthana a vipassana? With metta, Alex #105784 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 8:06 am Subject: Re: Method in VsM truth_aerator Hello Jon, all, > Hi Alex > > (105746) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > ... > > According to VsM recitation IS to be done for kayagatasati, even >if one is master of Tipitaka. > > =============== > >J: We have agreed to disagree on this point (I quoted the reference >to "some" persons) ;-)) Even if one disregards (against VsM advice) Then there is still mental recitation of 32 parts. > > =============== > > Interesting thing: The Buddha never used talk about moments (ksanika). > > > > Even in canonical Abhidhamma it doesn't speak about moments! It is extra-canonical concept never spoken by the Buddha. > > > > Dhammasangani for example uses "yasmim samaye..." > > > > "On that occasion..." > > =============== > > J: My interest is in how the teachings were understood by the Buddha's followers at the time and shortly afterwards, as recorded in the commentaries. > > Jon How do you know that they were correct? After and even during Buddha's time there were monks with diverse opinions. Some were wrong. Even before Mahayana there were like 18-20 schools. Which one do you take to be correct, and why? Even within Theravada, there were different opinions on certain aspects. With metta, Alex #105785 From: "connie" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 8:27 am Subject: Bangkok's discussions, part 2. nichiconn dear Nina, Please consider putting a copy of the Visuddhimagga Ch XVII study in the group's files. If memory serves, Larry's list of study posts is for Ch XIV only. There might be room in the 'description' block to mention pCharter font. peace, connie N: ...Visuddhimagga Ch XVII. I made a study fo this with the tiika, the subco, and here you would find all the details. Shall I send it to you as an attachment? But I am not sure the Pali diacriticals come over all right. ------------ #105786 From: Ken O Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 8:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dry insight Method ashkenn2k Dear Alex > >Of course. When one does proper anapanasati, one fulfills 4 satipatthana. MN118. > KO:? At the moment of breathing as a conceptual object, it is not satipatthana, it is only for samantha bhavana.? Even for samantha bhavana, one must have the pre-requsite?as stated in the Visud.??Do you have it, be truthful to?oneself?as 4NT is base on truth.?? If you do not have, there is no need to worry because the path is not base solely on anapasati.?? So dont think that we must do this meditation in order to be enlighted.? Buddha said it is good method and does not say it is the only method.? The commentary do stress?on?that this method is for who as each object must suit the persons panna and accumulations.??Other disciples in the past learn the foul body cementry or the 32 parts or other 39 objects.? Also many others just practise the vipassana method. > >Why isn't satipatthana a vipassana? > KO:? Satipatthana is vipassana.? However, the objects of satipatthana is paramatha dhamma and not concepts like breathing.? Satipatthana helps to understand the characteristics of dhamma, which leads slowly to vipassana with the first stage as nama and rupa.? When sutta talks about anapasati, it could be samantha or vipassana. Cheers Ken O #105787 From: Ken O Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 8:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok's discussions, part 2. ashkenn2k Dear Connie great idea, cheers Ken O > >? >dear Nina, >Please consider putting a copy of the Visuddhimagga Ch XVII study in the group's files. If memory serves, Larry's list of study posts is for Ch XIV only. There might be room in the 'description' block to mention pCharter font. >peace, >connie > >N: ...Visuddhimagga Ch XVII. I made a study fo this with >the tiika, the subco, and here you would find all the details. Shall >I send it to you as an attachment? But I am not sure the Pali >diacriticals come over all right. >------------ > #105788 From: Ken O Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 8:33 am Subject: A Survey of Paramatttha Dhamma - The Natural Way of Development - No 18 ashkenn2k Dear all Q. : I have heard that the postures conceal dukkha. Please, could you explain this? S. : All conditioned realities have the characteristic of dukkha. They are impermanent and therefore they cannot be a real refuge, they are unsatisfactory, dukkha. Thus, dukkha is not merely painful feeling. People who believe that dukkha is merely painful feeling think that, when they feel stiffness and assume a new posture in order to avoid stiffness, that the new posture conceals dukkha. However, any posture conceals the characteristic of dukkha if one has not developed paññå. What we take for the whole body or a posture are in reality many different rúpas which arise and fall away. They are impermanent and thus dukkha. However, people do not realize that, no matter they are sitting, lying down, standing or walking, there are rúpas all over the body, arising and falling away, and that these rúpas are dukkha. It has been explained in the “Visuddhimagga” that the postures conceal dukkha 7. The meaning is that the characteristic of dukkha of the nåma and rúpa which arise and form together different postures is concealed, so long as one takes the body for a “whole”, for “mine”. The characteristic of dukkha is concealed so long as one does not know the characteristic of dukkha of one nåma and one rúpa at a time, as they arise and fall away. When one asks people who have just assumed a new posture whether there is dukkha, they will answer that there is not. If they confuse painful feeling with the truth of dukkha, how can they understand that the postures conceal dukkha? There must be dukkha, otherwise it cannot be said that the postures conceal dukkha. If one has not realized the arising and falling away of nåma and rúpa, all postures, no matter they are connected with painful feeling or not, conceal the characteristic of dukkha. Also the reality which thinks that it will change posture is not self, it should be realized as a type of nåma which arises and then falls away. If one does not know this one will not be able to understand the characteristic of dukkha. Only if one is naturally aware of nåma and rúpa as they appear one at a time, paññå can develop stage by stage, so that the noble Truth of dukkha can be realized. to be continued Ken OIf a person does not develop paññå in order to understand nåma and rúpa as they are, he has the wrong understanding of dukkha. He may believe that he knows the truth of dukkha when he ponders over his painful feeling, dukkha vedanå, caused by stiffness, before he changes into a new posture in order to relieve his pain. He cannot know the truth of dukkha so long as he does not discern the characteristic of non-self of nåma and rúpa. This is the case if he does not know the nåma which sees and colour appearing through the eyes, the nåma which hears and sound appearing through the ears, the nåma which smells and odour, the nåma which tastes and flavour, the nåma which experiences tangible object and tangible object, the nåma which thinks, happiness, sorrow and other realities. #105789 From: Ken O Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 8:36 am Subject: Realities and Concepts - Part 2 No 9 ashkenn2k Dear all If there were no names it would be most difficult for people to understand one another. Even paramattha dhammas need to be named. The Buddha used concepts to classify dhammas according to their characteristics, such as the following names: ? the five khandhas, the twelve ?yatanas, the eighteen elements, the four Truths,21 the twenty two indriyas,22 the different groups of people (puggala). ? Thus the Dhamma the Buddha taught needs different terms and names in order to be understood. The Atthas?lin? uses different synonyms for n?ma pa??atti, concepts which are names.23It is an interpretation, an expression which renders the meaning of something in language (nirutti). A name is a distinctive sign which shows the meaning of something (vya?cana). ? There are sounds which people utter, letters combined as words which express the meaning of something (abhil?pa). These synonyms just explain the meaning of n?ma pa??atti, a name or term. A term makes the meaning of something known. The idea or notion which is made known can also be called concept. Thus, there are generally speaking two kinds of pa??atti: 1. That which is made known (pa???piyatta) 2. That which makes known (pa???panato). The name or term (sadda pa??atti) which makes known the meaning of things. ? ? to be continued Ken O #105790 From: "Mike" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 10:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) mikenz66 Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Mike: >I'll just continue to maintain that there is no difference in understanding, just a difference in approach. You, presumably, will continue to maintain that all other teachers that I've ever heard of have misunderstood the Tipitika since they teach a different method from your teacher. > ... > S: I think your presumption would be mistaken. When I said that I'm much more interested in discussing dhammas than teachers, I meant that I don't find it in the least helpful to discuss whether different people have understood/misunderstood the Tipitaka, have never made any suggestions about "all other teachers". Mike: Perhaps not, but I certainly have the impression that you disagree with all other teachers I know about on the question of how one should understand the Dhamma for oneself. > > Mike: As for K.Sujin - I consider her more as a very good friend and guide who encourages me to study and carefully consider the Buddha's teachings for myself. The Buddha and Dhamma are our Teachers. We have to check each word for ourselves and only panna, right understanding, can know what is right. Mike: Sure, that's the instruction... > For me, anatta means the question of "different methods" is meaningless - just cittas, cetasikas and rupas ever. As Azita and I are discussing, there can be wise consideration, right understanding when picking up the Sunday newspaper. Is this then a method? Yes. You've made a particular choice of the way you approach understanding the Dhamma. I've not saying it's wrong, I'm saying there are other choices. Metta Mike #105792 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 2:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dry insight Method truth_aerator Dear KenO, all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Alex > > > > >>Of course. When one does proper anapanasati, one fulfills 4 >satipatthana. MN118. > > > > KO:? At the moment of breathing as a conceptual object, it is not >satipatthana, it is only for samantha bhavana. All of anapanasati is being aware of the body, feelings (vedana), citta and dhamma. The instructions are not simply to focus the attention on the breath and thats it. There are 12-14 (out of 16) steps that do not focus on the breath. Is there really that much "conceptual" objects? What are they anyway? Satipatthana does talk about 4 positions of the body, 32 bodyparts, the various cemetery contemplations, awareness in daily activities... There is no word about "conceptual" vs "ultimate". The point of Buddha's teaching is to remove all craving. That is the escape from suffering. "The subduing of desire & passion for X, the abandoning of desire & passion for X: that is the escape (nissara.na.m) from X." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.057.than.html X = 5 aggregates With metta, Alex #105794 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 2:46 pm Subject: Re: The Natural Way of Development - No 18 truth_aerator Dear KenO, all, Thank you for your post. Few things: I (and many others) don't consider dukkha to be *just* the unpleasant feelings. For example Ajahn Brahm does teach that all consciousness, all things are ultimately dukkha. This is also what the Suttas say. It is ignorance to think otherwise. We may think that only painful feelings are bad. But even what we take for pleasant feelings (sukha-vedana) are a certain form of dukkha, if we do not know any higher happiness (such as of Jhana, maggaphala, Nibbana). For some people, who do not know better, ordinary happy feelings are the limit of their current conception of happiness. Compared to Jhana, maggaphala, Nibbana - those wordly happy feelings are dukkha. Again, deep meditation can really expand one's horizons and show that what we took to be "pleasant", isn't really pleasant in comparison with other states. The more one lets go of the craving and external world in deep meditation, the more one experientially (not theoretically) sees the Dhamma. Of course, Dhamma is "un-natural path". The natural path is to follow kilesas and whirl around in samsara, as we've been doing for countless aeons. I've quickly skimmed through some of these Q's and A's. Unfortunately many questions asked are not very deep. In some cases it seems almost like a questioner setting up a straw-man for KS to answer. With metta, Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear all > > Q. : I have heard that the postures conceal dukkha. Please, could you explain this? > > > S. : All conditioned realities have the characteristic of dukkha. They are impermanent and therefore they cannot be a real refuge, they are unsatisfactory, dukkha. Thus, dukkha is not merely painful feeling. People who believe that dukkha is merely painful feeling think that, when they feel stiffness and assume a new posture in order to avoid stiffness, that the new posture conceals dukkha. However, any posture conceals the characteristic of dukkha if one has not developed paññå. What we take for the whole body or a posture are in reality many different rúpas which arise and fall away. They are impermanent and thus dukkha. However, people do not realize that, no matter they are sitting, lying down, standing or walking, there are rúpas all over the body, arising and falling away, and that these rúpas are dukkha. > > > It has been explained in the “Visuddhimagga” that the postures conceal dukkha 7. The meaning is that the characteristic of dukkha of the nåma and rúpa which arise and form together different postures is concealed, so long as one takes the body for a “whole”, for “mine”. The characteristic of dukkha is concealed so long as one does not know the characteristic of dukkha of one nåma and one rúpa at a time, as they arise and fall away. > When one asks people who have just assumed a new posture whether there is dukkha, they will answer that there is not. If they confuse painful feeling with the truth of dukkha, how can they understand that the postures conceal dukkha? There must be dukkha, otherwise it cannot be said that the postures conceal dukkha. If one has not realized the arising and falling away of nåma and rúpa, all postures, no matter they are connected with painful feeling or not, conceal the characteristic of dukkha. > > Also the reality which thinks that it will change posture is not self, it should be realized as a type of nåma which arises and then falls away. If one does not know this one will not be able to understand the characteristic of dukkha. Only if one is naturally aware of nåma and rúpa as they appear one at a time, paññå can develop stage by stage, so that the noble Truth of dukkha can be realized. > > > to be continued > Ken OIf a person does not develop paññå in order to understand nåma and rúpa as they are, he has the wrong understanding of dukkha. He may believe that he knows the truth of dukkha when he ponders over his painful feeling, dukkha vedanå, caused by stiffness, before he changes into a new posture in order to relieve his pain. He cannot know the truth of dukkha so long as he does not discern the characteristic of non-self of nåma and rúpa. This is the case if he does not know the nåma which sees and colour appearing through the eyes, the nåma which hears and sound appearing through the ears, the nåma which smells and odour, the nåma which tastes and flavour, the nåma which experiences tangible object and tangible object, the nåma which thinks, happiness, sorrow and other realities. > > #105795 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 4:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 jonoabb Hi KenO (105779) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > ... > KO: The text does not support your conclusion. There were explicit instructions by the teacher to the students. > =============== J: My point was that the Dispeller is describing the guidance given by teachers to their students; it is not purporting to itself be a guide to persons wishing to develop samatha/insight of the kind described. > =============== You should read para 1158 and maybe the begining at para 1060. > =============== J: I do not have the text available as I write (airport lounge). Would you mind quoting/summarising? Thanks. Jon #105796 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 4:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 jonoabb Hi KenO (105780) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > ... > KO: Nope. This is not my interpretation. It is based on Visud and the sutta text. Your assertation that it does not follow the text is based on your opinion and while I have shown you textual support. It is never in conflict because formal practise does not mean a self as it is the samantha vehicle. It is we think who thinks a formal practise must have a self. Dhammas are not self, our actions are conditioned by our accumulations. That is why the samantha objects must suit a person accumulations, and this also accords to the text. > =============== J: Any kind of 'practice' that is not accompanied by panna will be wrong practice. Panna cannot be made to arise whenever there is a period of formal practice. That's why I say there's a conflict between the ideas of (a) formal practice and (b) dhammas as 'not-self'. You have said that the panna is developed first (before the stage of the formal practice described in Vism). Hence my earlier comments. > =============== > KO: that is also wrong and base on your intepretation. Nobody make the assertation that we must change the way we practise. it depends on your method and your accumulations. Visud make it very clear that the student must remove the minor impedients, etc and then seek a suitable teacher and take a subject from a teacher. So your assertations are not supported by the text. You have to show me textual support and not base on your reasoning and say it is nothing to do with the text. Everyone could reason, IMHO and no offence to anyone, highly respectable Ledi Sayadawi also make the same error, giving his own interpretation of the text. That is where people lose faith in the commentaries because many people start having their own ideas. Not everyone take on this samantha vehicle method, some took the vipassana method. This is also in line with the suttas. Till date you only make your own intepretation. I appreciate if > you could give textual support of your claims against the samantha vehicle method as describe in the Visud and other texts. > =============== J: I've not made any claims against the samatha vehicle as described in the Vism (I'm surprised you should be saying this at this stage of our discussion!!). I've been giving my understanding/interpretation of that text, which of course differs from yours. Perhaps there's been some misunderstanding. Jon #105797 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 4:18 pm Subject: Re: Method in VsM jonoabb Hi Alex (105784) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > ... > Even if one disregards (against VsM advice) Then there is still mental recitation of 32 parts. > =============== J: I'm not disregarding the Vism text. My reading of it differs from yours ;-)) > =============== > How do you know that they were correct? After and even during Buddha's time there were monks with diverse opinions. Some were wrong. > > Even before Mahayana there were like 18-20 schools. Which one do you take to be correct, and why? > =============== J: The Theravada tradition is a long one and likely reflects the understanding of the Buddha's disciples as to the underlying meaning of the suttas. . There is no more authoritative source to consult. The suttas need considerable interpretation to be understood. I'm not particularly interested in what modern-day thinkers who reject the commentaries have to say about the sutta texts. > =============== > Even within Theravada, there were different opinions on certain aspects. > =============== J: Yes, these are recorded in the texts. Jon #105798 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 5:06 pm Subject: Re: Method in VsM truth_aerator Hello Jon, KenO, all, >dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > (105784) > Alex wrote: > > ... > > Even if one disregards (against VsM advice) Then there is still >mental recitation of 32 parts. > > =============== > >J: I'm not disregarding the Vism text. My reading of it differs >from yours ;-)) > So what do you think the Buddhaghosa has meant when he said: ""Even if one is master of the Tipitaka, the verbal recitation should still be done at the time of first giving it attention." - Vsm VIII,1 "The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times." Alex: Above is an instruction on what to do. "For it is through verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar, and the mind being thus prevented from running here and there, the parts become evident and seem like [the fingers of] a pair of clasped hands, like a row of fence posts." - Vsm VIII,56 Alex: Above states why it should be vocally recited. That phrase states it clearly that Even if you are a master of Tipitaka, you still should, SHOULD, do the verbal recitation. It also explains *why* it needs to be done "For it is through verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar...the parts become evident..." Why verbal recitation may be an indispensible? See VsM quote below -> "57. 2. The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally. For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]." - VsM VIII, 56-57 "For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation," And "the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]" Characteristic of foulness belongs to dukkha lakkhana, it is something one sees with insight. So this practice does have insight component. > > =============== > > How do you know that they were correct? After and even during Buddha's time there were monks with diverse opinions. Some were wrong. > > > > Even before Mahayana there were like 18-20 schools. Which one do you take to be correct, and why? > > =============== > > J: The Theravada tradition is a long one [snip] So you go just by tradition? >and likely reflects the understanding of the Buddha's disciples as >to the underlying meaning of the suttas. What about Sati, Arittha and so on. They were Buddha's disciples and dead wrong. >There is no more authoritative source to consult. The Buddha's words themselves. > > The suttas need considerable interpretation to be understood. Here we disagree. I believe that the Buddha did a good job at trying to be as clear as possible. Are you saying that Buddha didn't know how to teach and that His message needs to be commented and corrected by later monks? With metta, Alex #105799 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Mar 7, 2010 5:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Study and practice Dhp 19-20 truth_aerator Hello Jon, Nina, Sarah, KenH, KenO, Scott, all, > J: Any kind of 'practice' that is not accompanied by panna will be >wrong practice. And who is telling here to practice without understanding? Which teacher says this, which sutta? With metta, Alex