#108200 From: "Lukas" Date: Sat Jul 3, 2010 8:39 pm Subject: Re: How to induce right effort? szmicio Dear Nina, I am not listening to the Dhamma recently, and I've noticed forgetfullness prevails. But maybe tomorrow I can start reading your Conditions. Best wishes Lukas > > How to induce right effort and stop laziness? > ------- > N: When you study the Tipitaka you come to see how precious, how > valuable are the Buddha's teachings. We learn that paryatti and > pa.tipatti are not to be separated. We should not just read but we > should also verify what he taught. He taught about seeing and visible > object. All realities appearing at this moment. Should we not > understand more about these? We come to understand that there is no > person who can induce seeing, hearing, kusala citta with right effort > and akusala citta with laziness. They arise when there are conditions > for their arising. It is so valuable that the Buddha taught the truth > about all these realities. When we see the benefit of the Dhamma > there are conditions for right understanding to develop, and right > understanding is accompanied by right effort. It does not matter what > the object of right understanding is, be it kusala or akusala. They > are all conditioned dhammas. We have no preference for this or that > reality. What is most important is right understanding. This can only > be developed in being aware of what appears now, just any reality. No > matter you like it or not. If you have preference for this or that > dhamma, it shows the clinging to self which is very powerful. How > beneficial it is to lessen the clinging to a self, and this is thanks > to the Buddha's teachings. We should be very grateful to be in the > position that we can begin to develop understanding of realities. > > ****** > Nina. #108201 From: "bakytzhano" Date: Sat Jul 3, 2010 4:32 pm Subject: Dharma and Science - Vancouver interpretation bakytzhano I want to describe in a few terms what the Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics is about. Few terms are needed because the whole essence of science is to find a set of statements that can be made a basis (0,1) of any observed phenomena. Paul Dirac said that the fewer is a number of such statements, the better it is. I decided that two logical states of a basic qubit suffice for this purpose. Otherwise it would be a story about a man who has built a house with one room only because less is impossible. First problem occurred immediately ? nobody knew not only what Psi function is about, but also how to relate those fermions and bosons. Supersymmetry was not an option from the beginning ? I wanted something simple, neglecting an advice from a famous scientist that "if your theory is simple it is wrong". Mathematics is, invariably, deductive, according to Whitehead. If something is intrinsically deductive, like mathematics, then it can be decomposed into certain constituents like a sunny ray can be decomposed into rainbow. Quantum mechanics says that we have two parties ? fermions and bosons, no other voters are allowed. We know how statistically each voter will behave from Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein, but we don't know how these parties are interrelated with each other, though a hunt after a Snark is under way (LHC etc). This is a summary of all good unified theories that you can find at Wiki or else. Old idea that our consciousness is what we are observing on a daily basis was so crazy that no scientist has taken me seriously. I am still not able to publish anything in a peer-reviewed journal like Journal of Consciousness Studies though I defined clearly what this much sought after consciousness is about. I started to think about Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics perhaps in 2002, when in a journal Buddhism.ru Shamarpa has given a clear definition of what the mind is, and it is one. Yet it is different. At about the same time I authored an article about information-based universe. The conclusion was that we are made of information, and particles are just a jargon of some scientists still capable to amass billons of dollars to dig and drill some expensive land around Geneva. I thought why computing with their Boolean gates does not serve as a basis of causal calculus that must have been incorporated into our mind as the reason de etre. Then another problem appeared ? how would you unite fermions and bosons and Boolean logical gates? Linearly? I remember a shock in voices of quantum scientists. Voices were shocked because it sounded so much schizophrenic, like a time machine. Now I am afraid that LHC will be the most expensive proof of any scientific theory in our history, and that this theory is Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics. Hidden symmetry. In theoretical physics what you need is a symmetry, that's it. Once you got it, all dynamics are appearing automatically, according to Glenn and Bogolubov. What if a symmetry is hidden? Then, you invent a supersymmetry and/or get lost in string jungles. Thousands of the best minds around the world regularly gather in Switzerland to continue the hunting for a Snark. Other well-paid scientists would say, understandably, that nothing should be published about Vancouver interpretation. For example because it defines what the consciousness is both philosophically and mathematically. The whole journal, like Journal of Consciousness Studies, would suddenly discover the subject matter of its (journal's) existence. Some theorists would claim that Vancouver interpretation is not original, or that it is not proven yet. It is true that Buddha has given a very precise description of the universe and that this description is a basis of Vancouver interpretation. Moreover, Albert Einstein has defined all ingredients the one needs to prepare a four-dimensional universe that we are talking about as of our consciousness. In addition, quantum-computing concepts (Feynman, Deutsch) have led others (Penrose, Hameroff, Hagan) to think that our brain is a quantum computer. However there was still a row, a good one, in terms of how to merge internal and external. Nobody really knew how to cross this Rubicon. Hidden symmetry is something that our scientists, except surely for Einstein, were not ready to face. Moreover, not only hidden it is, but also absolutely improbable to a common sense. Simply, hidden symmetry is such as to exclude any relation to a common sense, because common sense is based on classical logic that does not permit a quantum superposition. As Lama Ole Nydahl would say ? Yes or No is classical, superposition is a Buddhist way to think about things. Einsteinian hidden variables. Deductive methods are very powerful not only in mathematics, but also in any other area of human research because mathematics is a language of science, pretty much like English language is a language of all advanced science. However, deductive, and hence causal mode of relations between any type of objects, be them mathematical objects or otherwise, can be encoded into special type of wave function. Vancouver interpretation is constructed on a premise that our consciousness is a source of four-dimensional world that we call universe. It is this consciousness that finally brings peacefully (compare with LHC or string jungles) General Relativity and quantum mechanics together, as predicted by genius of Einstein. Should you look into journal dedicated to quantum computing or foundations of quantum mechanics, the one might get tired really quickly. All pages in such a magazine would be densely populated with a sign Psi. Mathematicians around the world are pursuing and developing all types of things with this function. Albert Einstein was right in telling that Heisenberg (and Niels Bohr) has planted a huge quantum egg, just like Lego. Lets face it, Einstein was right. There are hidden variables exist, and they play a major role not only in quantum mechanics or general relativity, but also in philosophy and economics. Thousands of years people were eager to know more about Moon, Sun and Space. Billions of dollars were spent to produce no answer to the most important question of a human civilization ? who are we and what is around us? What the universe is made of? How far does it last? Who are we? What is our future? No theory was dealing with these questions but Vancouver interpretation does deal with them both mathematically and philosophically. Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics is based on Einstenian variables. Einstenian variables are the ones that allow you to connect fermions and bosons using antisymmetrical and symmetrical (between and within) relations of pairs of quanta. "Charles Wang and Ashtekar" have described them in so much detail that I will skip technicalities here. Background. If mathematically the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics (Vancouver interpretation) was made lets say before 1946, even then nobody perhaps apart from Alan Turing, and of course Einstein, could figure out the physical meaning of it. It took Dirac, Feynman, Wheeler, Penrose and Deutsch before we could finally realize how and most importantly where to look for Einstenian variables. We all know that Einstein him self has spent decades of his life looking for these variables because he knew that Einstein causality cannot be violated. Einstein would not trust to fanfares of successes in quantum mechanics until the one completes its description, and makes quantum mechanics compatible with general relativity. This subject became a Holy Grail of all science, and now it is achieved. The meeting point of quantum mechanics and general relativity is our consciousness, the place where anything comes from. The idea that our mind and external reality are one is not new. From Chitta-mattra (Mind-only) in Tibet, China to Bishop Berkeley in England this astonishing concept has found its loyal followers, though superposition is very difficult to understand indeed. Isaac Newton had simply replaced superposition by God, hence it was now not his domain and responsibility to explain an order described by differential calculus, invented by Leibniz and Newton. This picture was good but rather incomplete for it allowed the presence of God as a justification of a purely scientific phenomenon, such as gravity and electromagnetism. I remember how prof. Manin said me on the phone ? study what you like but leave gravity in peace, because the best of the best are busy with gravity and nothing came out of it so far. Urgen Tulku said that even if thousands of scientists would surround you and would question your concept ? don't worry about it as long as it is based on Shuniata teachings. Interestingly, I came to the idea of unification not from pure mathematics. In my view the one cannot simply conceive such symmetry because it is not evident. Rather, I came from a philosophical standpoint of view, trying to bring together the concepts of the mind and of the universe. I thought how is mind and universe are one when we cannot define what the mind is and what the universe is separately. Scott Hagan asked me to define the consciousness first and then to proceed to arguments. I have defined what a consciousness is in about two weeks, and this definition became a first postulate of Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics. No journal has published it so far, so here it is: Based on the assumption that the human neurological basis acts as an information processing system, consciousness is defined as the modus operandi of an information processing system sufficiently sophisticated that it is capable and set to distinguish its self from the surrounding environment. My reasoning was based on a simple proposition that everything ? numbers, geometry, consciousness and quantum mechanics have one root in common and that Einstein was right. There must have been some hidden variables that would bring together all science while restoring Einstein causality. The search was not easy but luckily was restricted to fermions and bosons. Anything else was either less or more, like monads, tertraktis or strings. Once, I had to go into Four Seasons Hotel in Vancouver and to spend a night in it. I thought about fermions and bosons, how to put them linearly together so they can fit into Boolean gates. Prof. Manin advised me to forget about such a strategy and to begin with description of Niels Bohr's model of hydrogen. Now I am glad that I decided to think big and leave the atom in peace. So in a hotel I spent a night searching for any type of relations between fermions and bosons until I found prof. Fowler's work describing probability distributions of a pair of fermions and bosons. I printed it out and I knew at that time that the job is done, because I understood that geometrical interpretation is correct and I can link gravity to orthogonal vectors in spite of anything. Not everyone agreed with me later, however. One bright scientist enquired ? how you can see something in this work, which is probably some 60 years old? Then I realized that mathematicians don't really know what they are doing. Moreover, when I tried to pursue this same scientist into expressing metric tensor g using probability distributions of electrons, I did not find any support either. Luckily, Sir Eddington has written about this idea some 50 years ago, but I had to come to it myself. From a mere fact that electrons and fundamental tensor are related the one cannot produce anything meaningful unless you know why this fact is important to you. If you look at probability distributions of fermions and bosons and you are not specifically looking for a connection between them, you will probably see nothing. Briefly speaking my route to Vancouver interpretation was as follows: 1) Mind is one, but it is different. Form is emptiness, emptiness is a form. 2) 0 and 1, fermions and bosons, relativity and quantum mechanics. 3) Define consciousness, define its function, you are done. It is a good time to say what Vancouver interpretation is about. It is about our consciousness. Our consciousness is a diamond that projects anything we can ever experience. Nothing is foreign to you. Whatever you can think about anything ? it is your consciousness. It will think. It will make things look real, but they are not. Hence we are free. Let your ego resign. Bakytzhan Oralbekov, Vancouver, June 27, 2010. #108202 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 1:52 am Subject: Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? kenhowardau Hi pt and Nina, ------ <. . .> pt: > I was just wondering about this - isn't panna responsible for any kind of understanding - from arithmetics, to thinking, to direct insight? I thought it's just different kinds of panna, but still some sort of panna? ------ My first reaction is to say, no, panna is not conventional knowledge. Being able to calculate the speed of light or the distance between galaxies (etc) does not require panna. Samma-ditthi (panna) is right understanding of ultimate reality: miccha-ditthi is wrong understanding of ultimate reality. They have nothing to do with scientific, or other conventional, understandings. However, I have just seen Nina's answer and her quote from K Sujin. So maybe I need to reconsider. :-) ------------- N: > Many levels of pa~n~naa. In the Vis. even making a plough to help people raising crops is some kind of pa~n~naa. Kh Sujin said; even knowing the right time when to stretch out after sitting is a kind of pa~n~naa. -------------- In the plough example, I can see a connection with ultimate reality. It is about knowing how to do something kusala. "Kusala" is property of ultimate realities, and so I can see how panna could be involved. Knowing when to stretch out after sitting! (?) That is a harder one. I can only assume it was said in connection with good manners. In that case it would entail knowing when one's citta was kusala and when it was akusala. And that certainly would be an instance of panna. I doubt it was said in relation to one's health or personal comfort. I can't see how knowing when to stretch out for those reasons could involve panna. It might; I just don't know. What do you think, pt? Ken H #108203 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 4:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: levels of pa~n~naa, was Bhavangacitta ... ptaus1 Dear Nina, Thank you for your replies. Best wishes > N: Many levels of pa~n~naa. In the Vis. even making a plough to help > people raising crops is some kind of pa~n~naa. Kh Sujin said; even > knowing the right time when to stretch out after sitting is a kind of > pa~n~naa. #108204 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 4:56 am Subject: Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? ptaus1 Hi KenH, > > N: Many levels of pa~n~naa. In the Vis. even making a plough to help people raising crops is some kind of pa~n~naa. Kh Sujin said; even knowing the right time when to stretch out after sitting is a kind of pa~n~naa. > KH: I doubt it was said in relation to one's health or personal comfort. I can't see how knowing when to stretch out for those reasons could involve panna. It might; I just don't know. > > What do you think, pt? pt: I don't really know. My reasoning is that panna has the role of understanding, no matter what it's applied to. E.g. when reading an algebra problem, I can read it 5 times, think about it, and yet not really understand what it's all about. And then at one moment it would "click" and instantly there would now be an understanding of the whole problem, regardless of whether I think more about it or not. Similarly, when I first understood anatta in a practical way, it happened just as instantly, and the experience of that understanding arising had the same "flavor" so to speak, even though the application/situation was completely different now. So, I'd guess it was the same panna cetasika in both cases, just that when it's applied to algebra it helps with our conceptual problems, and when it's applied to direct experience/dhammas, it helps with our existential problems, etc. Best wishes pt #108205 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 8:16 am Subject: Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? kenhowardau Hi pt, ---- <. . .> pt: I don't really know. My reasoning is that panna has the role of understanding, no matter what it's applied to. E.g. when reading an algebra problem, I can <. . .> ----------- One important point to bear in mind is that panna arises only in cittas that are classified as bhavana (mental development). That means either samatha or vipassana. Algebra might be a form of mental development, but not within the meaning of bhavana. ------------------- <. . .> pt: > So, I'd guess it was the same panna cetasika in both cases, just that when it's applied to algebra it helps with our conceptual problems, and when it's applied to direct experience/dhammas, it helps with our existential problems, etc. ------------------- I agree there are several cetasikas (sanna, vitakka, vicara, . .) that are crucial in both cases, but not panna. Panna plays a role in the second one only. Looking at the Vism. quote Nina gave us I it says that panna arises in a process of scientific or mathematical reasoning only when it is somehow linked to knowledge of kamma and vipakka or knowledge of the impermanence of the khandhas. --- < And this is said: 'Herein, what is understanding consisting in what is reasoned? In the spheres of work invented by ingenuity, or in the spheres of craft invented by ingenuity, or in the sorts of science invented by ingenuity, any preference, view, choice, opinion, judgement, liking for pondering over things, that concerns ownership of deeds (kamma) or is in conformity with truth or is of such kind as to conform with (the axioms) "Materiality is impermanent" or "Feeling ... perception ... formations ... consciousness is impermanent" that one acquires without hearing it from another--that is called understanding consisting in what is reasoned. ' (In the spheres ... ) that one acquires by hearing it from another--that is called understanding consisting in what is learnt (heard). 'And all understanding in anyone who has attained (an attainment) is understanding consisting in development' (Vbh. 324-25). So it is of three kinds as consisting in what is thought out, in what is heard, and in development.> --- Ken H #108206 From: jcbrand76@... Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 5:10 am Subject: this is my hello haikusuperstar when I joined this group it sent me a message saying i should say hello and introduce myself. so here is that message hello! first of all my name is jc some of you may know me from the dhammawheel message board. i haven't been a student of the dhamma for very long, just a little over a decade(though the 1st 5 of those years was spent studying with a Japanese Zen priest so i didn't pick up much in the was of the pali canon), but i try to absorb what i can and put it into practice in my daily life. not always an easy thing to do. i have read a few of the book associated with members of this group The World in the Buddhist Sense .Metta: Loving kindness in Buddhism Abhidhamma in Daily Life mental development in daily life The Buddha's Path and i have a few on my shelf i still need to read. but i thought it was time i should join this group, i have been meaning to for quite some time. i hope to learn what i can from everyone. with metta jc #108207 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 10:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhanas as taught by Ajahn Brahmavamso jonoabb Hi Swee Boon Nice to see you on the list again. (108132) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Neo" wrote: > > Hi Nina, > ... > The pleasure of the jhanas is called RENUNCIATION-PLEASURE, SECLUSION-PLEASURE, CALM-PLEASURE and SELF-AWAKENING PLEASURE. > If this very assurance of the Buddha is not sufficient to instill confidence in you, then nothing will. > =============== J: I'm not sure what assurance you see in the passage from M 66. As I read it, the Buddha is asserting that the pleasurable feeling associated with kusala (all kinds, including of course jhana) is to be developed, not to be feared. This was contrary to certain other teachings of the time. But it is not controversial among dhamma-followers today (as far as I know). As Nina points out, it takes panna to know the difference between kusala consciousness and akusala consciousness. This is the essence of the development of samatha. Unless this difference is known from the outset, any assumed development of samatha/jhana will more likely be the development of akusala. I think this is fully consistent with the assertion contained in the passage. Jon > ------------------------------------------ > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.066.than.html > > "Now, there is the case where a monk ? quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities ? enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation ? internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain ? as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress ? he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called renunciation-pleasure, seclusion-pleasure, calm-pleasure, self-awakening-pleasure. And of this pleasure I say that it is to be cultivated, to be developed, to be pursued, that it is not to be feared. > ------------------------------------------ > #108208 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 11:05 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? jonoabb Hi Mike (108153) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > Thanks for the clarification. I forgot that it was common to use "process" in that very particular technical sense in the Abhidhamma literature. My use of the word was more general. I could just have used "conditioned" instead. > =============== J: Thanks for clarifying. I have no problem with "process" being used in a more conventional sense. The question we're discussing, however, is whether "process" can be used as a substitute term for "dhamma". I still don't see how it can. Jon #108209 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 11:02 am Subject: Re: Present moment jonoabb Hi Alex (108150) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Jon, all, > > >J: Anything that is done as part of a 'practice' risks being wrong >practice. Things done for other purposes altogether obviously >cannot >involve wrong practice. > > why wrong practice? > =============== J: Sorry, but I don't understand your question. Would you mind re-stating it. Thanks. > =============== Why can one put on the cloth to warm the body, sweep the floor to make it cleaner, eat food to stop hunger, and so on? Or are you saying that a person needs to turn into happy-clam lying on the floor like a insentient piece of wood? > =============== J: No, I'm saying quite the opposite: The undertaking of conventional activities totally unrelated to any idea of a "practice" is not likely to involve wrong practice. > =============== > Maybe because one can do these things without self belief. > > So why can't one develop more kusala through wise practice and without holding wrong view of "my practice, or I am doing it"? > =============== J: Kusala is developed by being recognised when it arises naturally. It cannot be made to arise by undertaking a "practice". Jon #108210 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 11:09 am Subject: Re: this is my hello jonoabb Hi jc Welcome to the list. I hope you find your stay here rewarding. I'm impressed by your obvious interest and commitment in reading the books you mention. Please feel free to join in any of the threads, or start one of your own. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, jcbrand76@... wrote: > > when I joined this group it sent me a message saying i should say hello and > introduce myself. so here is that message ... #108211 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 11:14 am Subject: Re: Dharma and Science - Vancouver interpretation jonoabb Hi Bakytzhan Thanks for the extensive description of the Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics. What do see as being its relevance to the teachings of the Buddha? Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bakytzhano" wrote: > > I want to describe in a few terms what the Vancouver interpretation of quantum mechanics is about. Few terms are needed because the whole essence of science is to find a set of statements that can be made a basis (0,1) of any observed phenomena. ... > ... > It is a good time to say what Vancouver interpretation is about. It is about > our consciousness. Our consciousness is a diamond that projects anything we can ever experience. Nothing is foreign to you. Whatever you can think about anything ? it is your consciousness. It will think. > It will make things look real, but they are not. Hence we are free. Let your ego resign. > > Bakytzhan Oralbekov, > Vancouver, June 27, 2010. #108212 From: "Mike" Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 11:44 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? mikenz66 Hi Jon: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Mike > > (108153) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > Thanks for the clarification. I forgot that it was common to use "process" in that very particular technical sense in the Abhidhamma literature. My use of the word was more general. I could just have used "conditioned" instead. > > =============== > > J: Thanks for clarifying. I have no problem with "process" being used in a more conventional sense. The question we're discussing, however, is whether "process" can be used as a substitute term for "dhamma". I still don't see how it can. Mike: Hmm, sorry for the confusion. I wasn't trying to say that. What I was calling a "process" was a sequence of dhammas with some sort of causal/conditioning connection. Mike #108213 From: Kevin F Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 4:48 pm Subject: (No subject) farrellkevin80 Hi friends, Well, I wrote a post here that some people might be interested in. I hope you enjoy it. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4857 Thanks, kevin The Lost Trailers: http://www.vevo.com/watch/the-lost-trailers/country-folks/USBVA0900012 #108214 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 5:11 pm Subject: Self View and actions truth_aerator Hi Jon, all, > Hi Alex > > (108150) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, all, > > > > >J: Anything that is done as part of a 'practice' risks being wrong >practice. Things done for other purposes altogether obviously >cannot >involve wrong practice. > > > > why wrong practice? > > =============== > > J: Sorry, but I don't understand your question. Would you mind re-stating it. Thanks. > You say that intentional doing something, or intentionally trying to alter something involves delusion of "Self trying to control". We have to do intentional actions (such as get out of the bed, get dressed, eat, wash and so on). So why are these OK and not the meditation instructions that Buddha has given in the suttas (see anapanasati, or kayagatasati sutta for example). Also why can't there be chanda, viriya, adhimokkho and so on that doesn't involve self view? Buddha, Arahants and stream-enterers do have these qualities - so they are not bad in and of themselves. Practice doesn't have or require to involve Self Views, just like sweeping the floor doesn't have to reinforce the idea of "Self". Of course one can add wrong views, but one can add wrong views to anything - including studying and knowledge that one has. With metta, Alex #108215 From: "Christine" Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 10:09 pm Subject: A Sotapanna christine_fo... Hello all, I would be intensely interested in the students of K. Sujin sharing their knowledge/opinions about the achievement of Ariya level - Kevin explains his achievement here in this thread on Dhamma Wheel http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4857 with metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: > > > > Hi friends, > > Well, I wrote a post here that some people might be interested in. > > I hope you enjoy it. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4857 > > Thanks, > > kevin > > The Lost Trailers: > > > http://www.vevo.com/watch/the-lost-trailers/country-folks/USBVA0900012 > > #108216 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Jul 4, 2010 11:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? kenhowardau Thanks, Howard, I'll have another look. Ken H > ------------------------------------------------------ > There are 3 versions on ATI. Two of them are excerpts. The one I > quoted from is by John Ireland. Olendzki's doesn't include that paragraph. The > only full version is, unfortunately, by Ven T. His includes the material, > but I think it is poor compared to Ireland's. The sutta name is correct. > #108217 From: Vince Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 1:57 am Subject: [dsg] A Sotapanna cerovzt@... Christine wrote: > Hello all, > I would be intensely interested in the students of K. Sujin sharing > their knowledge/opinions about the achievement of Ariya level - > Kevin explains his achievement here in this thread on Dhamma Wheel > http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4857 > with metta > Chris it can be gossip and wrong speech. In the Pali Canon there are quite related things: "When I was seven & newly gone forth, having conquered with my power the great powerful serpent, I was fetching water for my preceptor from the great lake, Anotatta, when the Teacher saw me & said: Look, Sariputta, at that one, the young boy coming there, carrying a pot of water, well-centered within, his practices ? inspiring; his bearing ? admirable. He's Anuruddha's novice, mature in his powers, made thoroughbred by a thoroughbred, good by one who is good, tamed by Anuruddha, trained by one whose task is done. He,having reached the highest peace & realized the unshakable, Sumana the novice wants this: 'Don't let anyone know me.'" ? Thag 6.10. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.06.10.than.html best #108218 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 3:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna sukinderpal Hi Chris and Kevin, I've read the original post and gone through some of the responses. Like a few members in that forum, I see no good reason why one would make such a declaration especially on the internet where all sorts of people read in. But then again, I myself am a putthjujana, one who is deep to the neck in the mud and think and speak like one..... Although I'd be happy if it is indeed true that Kevin is a Sotapanna, especially since this would add more weight to what has been said here regarding the development of wisdom being natural and not requiring any special 'doing'. And this may cause certain people to question what they consider 'practice' and in fact their basic understanding of the Dhamma. The first thing that came to my mind and which I didn't see anyone addressing is the following: The Vipassana-nanas must precede enlightenment. When and how often this happens including whether all the stages must occur at least once in this lifetime, I'm not sure about. What it would seem though, is that someone who is enlightended must have the necessary knowledge got from theses different vipassana-nanas. So my question to Kevin is, does he clearly distinguish nama and rupa and has he all those other 'insight knowledges' including Kammasakata-nana? I'm interested not so much in testing Kevin, but that if indeed he has all the insight knowledges, he'd be a good person to talk to about 'Abhidhamma in daily life'. ;-) Metta, Sukinder On 7/5/2010 5:09 AM, Christine wrote: > > Hello all, > > I would be intensely interested in the students of K. Sujin sharing > their knowledge/opinions about the achievement of Ariya level - Kevin > explains his achievement here in this thread on Dhamma Wheel > http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4857 > > > with metta > Chris > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > , Kevin F > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi friends, > > > > Well, I wrote a post here that some people might be interested in. > > > > I hope you enjoy it. > http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4857 > > > > > Thanks, > > > > kevin > > > > The Lost Trailers: > > > > > > http://www.vevo.com/watch/the-lost-trailers/country-folks/USBVA0900012 > > #108219 From: Kevin F Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 3:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Dear Sukinder, how are you my friend? : ) It is good to talk to you again. In my experience, one passes through all the stages of insight, however, as this happens, it just seems that as time goes on and more moments of genuine satipatthana occur, that panna gets deeper and clearer again and again. It is simply a natural progression of panna developing. Things become clearer and panna just seems to penetrate deeper and deeper. The mechanics of such a thing is broken down as those stages. I have to admit, I was not aware that Kammasakata-nana was one of the stages of insight (but then again, your knowledge of dhamma has always impressed me). Can you explain a little bit more about this please? To answer your question, yes I reached the stages such as differentiation between nama and rupa and the others. As to why I stated this on the internet, I did go into that a litle bit in the thread, a few pages in. You might enjoy reading that. Basically, though, the reason is that I just felt like it. There are always a lot of factors at play. I still have a lot of lobha and dosa. Those unwholesome mindstates motivate many things. Unwholesomeness arises frequently as you know. Kevin ________________________________ From: Sukinderpal To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, July 4, 2010 11:00:13 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna Hi Chris and Kevin, I've read the original post and gone through some of the responses. Like a few members in that forum, I see no good reason why one would make such a declaration especially on the internet where all sorts of people read in. But then again, I myself am a putthjujana, one who is deep to the neck in the mud and think and speak like one..... Although I'd be happy if it is indeed true that Kevin is a Sotapanna, especially since this would add more weight to what has been said here regarding the development of wisdom being natural and not requiring any special 'doing'. And this may cause certain people to question what they consider 'practice' and in fact their basic understanding of the Dhamma. The first thing that came to my mind and which I didn't see anyone addressing is the following: The Vipassana-nanas must precede enlightenment. When and how often this happens including whether all the stages must occur at least once in this lifetime, I'm not sure about. What it would seem though, is that someone who is enlightended must have the necessary knowledge got from theses different vipassana-nanas. So my question to Kevin is, does he clearly distinguish nama and rupa and has he all those other 'insight knowledges' including Kammasakata-nana? I'm interested not so much in testing Kevin, but that if indeed he has all the insight knowledges, he'd be a good person to talk to about 'Abhidhamma in daily life'. ;-) Metta, Sukinder On 7/5/2010 5:09 AM, Christine wrote: > > Hello all, > > I would be intensely interested in the students of K. Sujin sharing > their knowledge/opinions about the achievement of Ariya level - Kevin > explains his achievement here in this thread on Dhamma Wheel > http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4857 > > > with metta > Chris > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > , Kevin F > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi friends, > > > > Well, I wrote a post here that some people might be interested in. > > > > I hope you enjoy it. > http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4857 > > > > > Thanks, > > > > kevin > > > > The Lost Trailers: > > > > > > http://www.vevo.com/watch/the-lost-trailers/country-folks/USBVA0900012 > > #108220 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 5:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna sukinderpal Hi Kevin, > It is good to talk to you again. > Likewise here. :-) > In my experience, one passes through all the stages of insight, > however, as this happens, it just seems that as time goes on and more > moments of genuine satipatthana occur, that panna gets deeper and > clearer again and again. It is simply a natural progression of panna > developing. Things become clearer and panna just seems to penetrate > deeper and deeper. The mechanics of such a thing is broken down as > those stages. > > I have to admit, I was not aware that Kammasakata-nana was one of the > stages of insight (but then again, your knowledge of dhamma has always > impressed me). Can you explain a little bit more about this please? > Of course you wouldn't need to know about kammasakata-nana. And while I may know it's definition, you'd have had direct understanding of it without necessarily making associations with any labels or learnt definition. Kammaskata-nana is basically the understanding and distinguishing of kamma and vipaka and knowing directly that indeed this moment is conditioned in various ways and is a condition for the citta following it. > > To answer your question, yes I reached the stages such as > differentiation between nama and rupa and the others. > > As to why I stated this on the internet, I did go into that a litle > bit in the thread, a few pages in. You might enjoy reading that. > > Basically, though, the reason is that I just felt like it. There are > always a lot of factors at play. I still have a lot of lobha and dosa. > Those unwholesome mindstates motivate many things. Unwholesomeness > arises frequently as you know. > I did read your explanations there but still am not convinced by your line of reasoning. It would seem to me that you'd see no good reason to declare your attainment and this would be a result of wisdom. This being so may or may not condition more thinking along the same line down the road. However it would seem, that just the one instance of right understanding would likely override any inclination to then do what was initially judged as inappropriate. But like I said, I think and speak as a muddle-headed putthjujana....;-) Metta, Sukinder > Kevin > > ________________________________ > From: Sukinderpal > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sun, July 4, 2010 11:00:13 PM > Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna > > Hi Chris and Kevin, > > I've read the original post and gone through some of the responses. > Like a few members in that forum, I see no good reason why one would > make such a declaration especially on the internet where all sorts of > people read in. But then again, I myself am a putthjujana, one who is > deep to the neck in the mud and think and speak like one..... Although > I'd be happy if it is indeed true that Kevin is a Sotapanna, especially > since this would add more weight to what has been said here regarding > the development of wisdom being natural and not requiring any special > 'doing'. And this may cause certain people to question what they > consider 'practice' and in fact their basic understanding of the Dhamma. > > The first thing that came to my mind and which I didn't see anyone > addressing is the following: > > The Vipassana-nanas must precede enlightenment. When and how often this > happens including whether all the stages must occur at least once in > this lifetime, I'm not sure about. What it would seem though, is that > someone who is enlightended must have the necessary knowledge got from > theses different vipassana-nanas. So my question to Kevin is, does he > clearly distinguish nama and rupa and has he all those other 'insight > knowledges' including Kammasakata-nana? I'm interested not so much in > testing Kevin, but that if indeed he has all the insight knowledges, > he'd be a good person to talk to about 'Abhidhamma in daily life'. ;-) > > Metta, > > Sukinder > > On 7/5/2010 5:09 AM, Christine wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > I would be intensely interested in the students of K. Sujin sharing > > their knowledge/opinions about the achievement of Ariya level - Kevin > > explains his achievement here in this thread on Dhamma Wheel > > http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4857 > > > > > > > > with metta > > Chris > > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > > , Kevin F > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi friends, > > > > > > Well, I wrote a post here that some people might be interested in. > > > > > > I hope you enjoy it. > > http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4857 > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > kevin > > > > > > The Lost Trailers: > > > > > > > > > http://www.vevo.com/watch/the-lost-trailers/country-folks/USBVA0900012 > > > #108221 From: Kevin F Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 5:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Sukinder, S: Of course you wouldn't need to know about kammasakata-nana. And while I may know it's definition, you'd have had direct understanding of it without necessarily making associations with any labels or learnt definition. Kammaskata-nana is basically the understanding and distinguishing of kamma and vipaka and knowing directly that indeed this moment is conditioned in various ways and is a condition for the citta following it. K: Thanks a lot for your explanation Sukinder. Yes, without understanding and distinguishing kamma and vipaka and knowing and realizing that each individual moment is conditioned in various ways and that it conditions the next moment, I don't think much of any insight will occur. Kamaskata-nana is very important. I understand this intellectually before any of the stages of insight occurred. S: I did read your explanations there but still am not convinced by your line of reasoning. It would seem to me that you'd see no good reason to declare your attainment and this would be a result of wisdom. This being so may or may not condition more thinking along the same line down the road. However it would seem, that just the one instance of right understanding would likely override any inclination to then do what was initially judged as inappropriate. But like I said, I think and speak as a muddle-headed putthjujana....;-) Metta, Sukinder K: To be quite honest with you Sukinder, I experienced a lot of aversion to not being able to talk about dhamma with others on any regular basis and on any personal level. As you know, my dhamma friends who share my understanding are in Bangkok and in other places of the world. I am not close to those people. I had unpleasant feelings from not being able to talk about dhamma and from only talking about mundane subjects with friends and co-workers. That was one thing. On top of that, I had aversion to the fact that I could not share what happened to me with others and have them rejoice. I need a sense of community. I admit that I feel different from others because of the experience. Please remember that at sotapanna the three fetters are removed and one does not take any dhamma for self but one still thinks "I am", just not that anything is "I". I think you understand this. Although I am a sotapanna my wisdom is still poor in that I have a lot of attachment and aversion. I enjoy listening to music, sensual experiences, and sexual activity, and so on. In many ways, I am much like your common man. I think there really is a remarkable difference between the first stage of enlightenment and the second, not to mention between the first and the third or the first and the final stage. In the end, I needed to speak and to communicate this to others. Sadly, the motivation wasn't really one of wishing to inspire others or teach others at all, although there are moments where that genuinely does occur, based on both wholesome and unwholesome mental factors I assume. So you can say that my motivations selfish*. How is that for irony? * Just to be clear for anyone who may read this, when I say selfish, I don't mean self as in pertaining to a self, but it implies strong attachment and aversion. Of course, I have been a member of internet communities for a long time. On one board I had a few thousand posts. That being my main-stay for communication as a Buddhist since the very beginning of my time as a "Buddhist" literally, it was only natural that I expressed myself there after the "pot boiled over", taking into account the lack of any significant Buddhist relationships in person at the moment save for the occasional e-mail exchange or internet communication (the internet discussion I had become slightly averse to in general as well, being that there tends to be a lot of arguments and people vying for their views strongly, though of course that is fine, you cannot blame people for that ). Thus maybe I am a poor sotapanna without the more virtuous intentions. But I will not beat myself up. And, alas, it is just conditioned nama arising and falling away. It is not a soul or an individual,as you know. I can just picture now someone reading this who is not well versed in the various cetasikas or in the fetters or with which fetters are removed at what stages and so on and thinking to him or herself, "wow that really sounds like a lot of self-view". Again, attachment and aversion is basically as strong as it was before, its just that, having seen the deathless, when it comes down to it, one cannot take any dhamma as "oneself" and one cannot put "oneself" over any other being by killing, stealing, and so on. How could one do that knowing that their is not any entity here? I think the fact that one can be at this particular stage and still have strong attachment and aversion in general is both a testament to the true anatta nature of all dhammas, and to the fact that unwholesome accumulations run deep having been accumulated for timeless eons. What do you think? I hope our conversation continues. Yours truly, Kevin F. ________________________________ From: Sukinderpal To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 1:15:14 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna Hi Kevin, > It is good to talk to you again. > Likewise here. :-) > In my experience, one passes through all the stages of insight, > however, as this happens, it just seems that as time goes on and more > moments of genuine satipatthana occur, that panna gets deeper and > clearer again and again. It is simply a natural progression of panna > developing. Things become clearer and panna just seems to penetrate > deeper and deeper. The mechanics of such a thing is broken down as > those stages. > > I have to admit, I was not aware that Kammasakata-nana was one of the > stages of insight (but then again, your knowledge of dhamma has always > impressed me). Can you explain a little bit more about this please? > Of course you wouldn't need to know about kammasakata-nana. And while I may know it's definition, you'd have had direct understanding of it without necessarily making associations with any labels or learnt definition. Kammaskata-nana is basically the understanding and distinguishing of kamma and vipaka and knowing directly that indeed this moment is conditioned in various ways and is a condition for the citta following it. > > To answer your question, yes I reached the stages such as > differentiation between nama and rupa and the others. > > As to why I stated this on the internet, I did go into that a litle > bit in the thread, a few pages in. You might enjoy reading that. > > Basically, though, the reason is that I just felt like it. There are > always a lot of factors at play. I still have a lot of lobha and dosa. > Those unwholesome mindstates motivate many things. Unwholesomeness > arises frequently as you know. > I did read your explanations there but still am not convinced by your line of reasoning. It would seem to me that you'd see no good reason to declare your attainment and this would be a result of wisdom. This being so may or may not condition more thinking along the same line down the road. However it would seem, that just the one instance of right understanding would likely override any inclination to then do what was initially judged as inappropriate. But like I said, I think and speak as a muddle-headed putthjujana....;-) Metta, Sukinder > Kevin > > ________________________________ > From: Sukinderpal > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sun, July 4, 2010 11:00:13 PM > Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna > > Hi Chris and Kevin, > > I've read the original post and gone through some of the responses. > Like a few members in that forum, I see no good reason why one would > make such a declaration especially on the internet where all sorts of > people read in. But then again, I myself am a putthjujana, one who is > deep to the neck in the mud and think and speak like one..... Although > I'd be happy if it is indeed true that Kevin is a Sotapanna, especially > since this would add more weight to what has been said here regarding > the development of wisdom being natural and not requiring any special > 'doing'. And this may cause certain people to question what they > consider 'practice' and in fact their basic understanding of the Dhamma. > > The first thing that came to my mind and which I didn't see anyone > addressing is the following: > > The Vipassana-nanas must precede enlightenment. When and how often this > happens including whether all the stages must occur at least once in > this lifetime, I'm not sure about. What it would seem though, is that > someone who is enlightended must have the necessary knowledge got from > theses different vipassana-nanas. So my question to Kevin is, does he > clearly distinguish nama and rupa and has he all those other 'insight > knowledges' including Kammasakata-nana? I'm interested not so much in > testing Kevin, but that if indeed he has all the insight knowledges, > he'd be a good person to talk to about 'Abhidhamma in daily life'. ;-) > > Metta, > > Sukinder > > On 7/5/2010 5:09 AM, Christine wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > I would be intensely interested in the students of K. Sujin sharing > > their knowledge/opinions about the achievement of Ariya level - Kevin > > explains his achievement here in this thread on Dhamma Wheel > > http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4857 > > > > > > > > with metta > > Chris > > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > > , Kevin F > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi friends, > > > > > > Well, I wrote a post here that some people might be interested in. > > > > > > I hope you enjoy it. > > http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4857 > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > kevin > > > > > > The Lost Trailers: > > > > > > > > > http://www.vevo.com/watch/the-lost-trailers/country-folks/USBVA0900012 > > > #108222 From: "billybobby717" Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 4:57 am Subject: Devidatta and hell billybobby717 Thank's everyone! A Christian was telling me the other day that the Buddha sent Devidatta to hell? Is this true? WHERE DOES THIS OCCUR? Thank you! Billy #108223 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 8:23 am Subject: Re: A Sotapanna kelvin_lwin Hi Kevin, I did read the original thread and everything you said here. Would it be correct to characterize your new state of being as more 'loose'? Your example of no longer trying to avoid showing people where the pesticides are etc. I'm curious to know how you measure yourself with adhi-sila. 1) How do you understand the 3rd precept in relation to the kind of thoughts about some random person? Would you date around or only have a stable partner? 2) What constitutes lying to you now? Not even an intention or a thought of transgression? How about white lies or hiding something ? How about the other 3: back-biting, harsh speech or idle chatter? 3) How do you know the magga-vithi is 1 magga and 2 phala if it all happened in a flash and you only knew it afterwards with some analysis? What's the difference with 3 fetters being surpressed vs being completely gone? How can you be sure? (there are stories of ariyas who had to ask Buddha cuz they weren't sure) I asked these questions in an earnest way and look forward to reading your reflective answers. - Kel #108224 From: "Christine" Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 8:51 am Subject: Re: Devidatta and hell christine_fo... Hello Billy, No it is not true. This is the story of Devadatta. You might find Buddhanet.net a good resource to learn from as well: Devadatta, the Buddha's Enemy http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_5lbud.htm with metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "billybobby717" wrote: > > > Thank's everyone! > > A Christian was telling me the other day that the Buddha sent Devidatta to hell? Is this true? WHERE DOES THIS OCCUR? > > Thank you! > > Billy > #108225 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 8:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna sukinderpal Hi Kevin, I agree with you that a Sotapanna basically lives his life more or less the same way as he did when he was still a putthujana. And those of us who have so very little understanding, we can easily project our misunderstandings into the picture. ----------------- > > S: Of course you wouldn't need to know about kammasakata-nana. And > while I > may know it's definition, you'd have had direct understanding of it > without necessarily making associations with any labels or learnt > definition. Kammaskata-nana is basically the understanding and > distinguishing of kamma and vipaka and knowing directly that indeed this > moment is conditioned in various ways and is a condition for the citta > following it. > > K: Thanks a lot for your explanation Sukinder. Yes, without > understanding and distinguishing kamma and vipaka and knowing and > realizing that each individual moment is conditioned in various ways > and that it conditions the next moment, I don't think much of any > insight will occur. Kamaskata-nana is very important. I understand > this intellectually before any of the stages of insight occurred. > Yes, and in case someone misunderstood what I said. When I wrote, "you wouldn't need to know about kammasakata-nana" I didn't mean to imply that intellectual understanding needn't have been accumulated. I even thought to put in quotes the "about" in the sentence, because what I meant to say is that there need not have been a 'theoretical knowledge' about this and most other things, which is something that is associated with memory in this present lifetime. ----------------------- <...> > > K: To be quite honest with you Sukinder, I experienced a lot of > aversion to not being able to talk about dhamma with others on any > regular basis and on any personal level. As you know, my dhamma > friends who share my understanding are in Bangkok and in other places > of the world. I am not close to those people. I had unpleasant > feelings from not being able to talk about dhamma and from only > talking about mundane subjects with friends and co-workers. That was > one thing. > I can accept all this as being something which happened prior to that special moment and accumulated such that later this conditioned some of your thoughts even after the event. ------------------- > > On top of that, I had aversion to the fact that I could not share what > happened to me with others and have them rejoice. I need a sense of > community. > This I am having a hard time understanding. I can understand the aversion associated with not getting what one desires. But why would you desire others to rejoice in your attainment when the best thing you could give anyone at anytime is the Dhamma? Besides, all this time you were already involved with communicating with other Buddhists everywhere, what other sense of community were you seeking, and why would this be dependent on the perception by someone else of your being a Sotapanna? ------------------- > > I admit that I feel different from others because of the experience. > Please remember that at sotapanna the three fetters are removed and > one does not take any dhamma for self but one still thinks "I am", > just not that anything is "I". I think you understand this. Although I > am a sotapanna my wisdom is still poor in that I have a lot of > attachment and aversion. I enjoy listening to music, sensual > experiences, and sexual activity, and so on. In many ways, I am much > like your common man. > On the surface, yes, but otherwise I think, the difference between the sotapanna and a putthijana is much, much greater than between the different ariyan stages, it is what I'd call a quantum leap. --------------- > > I think there really is a remarkable difference between the first > stage of enlightenment and the second, not to mention between the > first and the third or the first and the final stage. In the end, I > needed to speak and to communicate this to others. Sadly, the > motivation wasn't really one of wishing to inspire others or teach > others at all, although there are moments where that genuinely does > occur, based on both wholesome and unwholesome mental factors I > assume. So you can say that my motivations selfish*. How is that for > irony? > I don't know about selfish, but you seem to be thinking a lot about 'people out there'. One good reminder I get from A. Sujin is that "we are not world managers", and one thing I know about her is that she is never driven by such thoughts as 'going out to spread the word'. In fact I believe that this is the reason why she then has so much energy to actually teach because it is always for the potential student to approach her rather than she seeking them out. --------------- > Of course, I have been a member of internet communities for a long > time. On one board I had a few thousand posts. That being my main-stay > for communication as a Buddhist since the very beginning of my time as > a "Buddhist" literally, it was only natural that I expressed myself > there after the "pot boiled over", taking into account the lack of any > significant Buddhist relationships in person at the moment save for > the occasional e-mail exchange or internet communication (the internet > discussion I had become slightly averse to in general as well, being > that there tends to be a lot of arguments and people vying for their > views strongly, though of course that is fine, you cannot blame people > for that ). > And you can continue to discuss the Dhamma, if anything is boiled over it is best in the form of words of wisdom. The Kalyanamitta is one who is involved in the development of understanding and with metta would encourage the same in others. ---------------- > > > Thus maybe I am a poor sotapanna without the more virtuous intentions. > But I will not beat myself up. And, alas, it is just conditioned nama > arising and falling away. It is not a soul or an individual,as you know. > Yes, no point in ever beating oneself up, including if and when one discovers that one was wrong about one's attainment. ;-) -------------- > > > I can just picture now someone reading this who is not well versed in > the various cetasikas or in the fetters or with which fetters are > removed at what stages and so on and thinking to him or herself, "wow > that really sounds like a lot of self-view". Again, attachment and > aversion is basically as strong as it was before, its just that, > having seen the deathless, when it comes down to it, one cannot take > any dhamma as "oneself" and one cannot put "oneself" over any other > being by killing, stealing, and so on. How could one do that knowing > that their is not any entity here? I think the fact that one can be at > this particular stage and still have strong attachment and aversion in > general is both a testament to the true anatta nature of all dhammas, > and to the fact that unwholesome accumulations run deep having been > accumulated for timeless eons. What do you think? > Again, I may be projecting my putthujana ideas into the situation. I have no problems with a sotapanna having attachment dissociated from wrong view and any aversion resulting from this. But I can't help in continuing this discussion with you, going away with the perception that some 'cheating dhammas' are at play. But I'll continue to listen to any clarifications from you or anyone else who'd care to join in. ---------------- > > I hope our conversation continues. > And I hope I haven't been too blunt. ;-) Metta, Sukinder #108226 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 9:43 am Subject: Re: this is my hello ptaus1 Hi jc, Nice to see you here as well. Best wishes pt > hello! > > first of all my name is jc #108227 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 9:41 am Subject: Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? ptaus1 Hi KenH, > KH: I agree there are several cetasikas (sanna, vitakka, vicara, . .) that are crucial in both cases, but not panna. Panna plays a role in the second one only. > > Looking at the Vism. quote Nina gave us I it says that panna arises in a process of scientific or mathematical reasoning only when it is somehow linked to knowledge of kamma and vipakka or knowledge of the impermanence of the khandhas. pt: Ah, that's interesting, the way I understood Nina and Vsm quote was that there are different levels/kinds of panna corresponding to different aspects of understanding, so not just bhavana (and not just related to kamma-vipaka and impermanence). Assuming that things are as you say though, what mental factor would then be responsible for understanding outside of bhavana (e.g. like in algebra)? Would you simply relegate that sort of conventional understanding to sanna, vitakka and vicara, for example? Best wishes pt #108228 From: Kevin F Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 5:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hello Kelwin, Kelwin: I did read the original thread and everything you said here. Would it be correct to characterize your new state of being as more 'loose'? Your example of no longer trying to avoid showing people where the pesticides are etc. I'm curious to know how you measure yourself with adhi-sila. Kevin: The sotapanna does have perfect sila in the sense of following the five precepts. The reason behind this is a little hard to explain though. With the absence of any thing being identified with as an "entity of self", one cannot put that "self" (not finding one) over another in a way that would harm that other in any significant way for ones own personal gain. For example, If I had a large gun in the woods and a grizzly bear approached me with the intent to kill, I simply could not kill the bear. It would be impossible. It is not that I wouldn't do it because now I have more compassion than I did before or because I took a vow not to or anything like that. It would be impossible because that would be putting some self higher than the bear in a situation that would have some significance in that creatures life. I couldn't do that. Kelwin: How do you understand the 3rd precept in relation to the kind of thoughts about some random person? Would you date around or only have a stable partner? Kevin: I could date around. That is fine. It isn't about sticking to a rule for the sake of a rule. If the other person is in a relationship or under the protection of another, then I wouldn't pursue them because it could make me put myself above another (that persons spouse) in a way that would I know would result in harming that other person (the spouse) and taking from them. I don't mean to sound crude, but it would be stealing. Kelwin: What constitutes lying to you now? Not even an intention or a thought of transgression? How about white lies or hiding something ? How about the other 3: back-biting, harsh speech or idle chatter? Kevin: The idea of telling a lie could enter my mind in the normal process of thinking. Things are anatta, so imagining a lie is possible. However, I would not lie to anyone in real life. Again, this goes back to putting some "self" higher than another when I know that it could harm that person emotionally (or other ways) if they knew the actual truth. This is how the sila works for a sotapanna. The sila is this way because of the absence of the fetter of a self, and that comes into play every time that one does not commit a transgression of it. It is not as if one sees nibbana and then decides to vow never to break five precepts and carries through with that, or thinks that they are higher than anyone else and will be moral. Instead, it is that the fuel to commit a strong unwholesome act on another being is gone, vanished, since there is not an entity here to put over (or above) another person. I think that a very small white lie whereby even if someone found out the truth to be otherwise, said simply to save time or make life a little easier for the sotapanna or some such thing could be said, so long as the teller of the fib feels that in the end if the other person found out the truth at a later time they would really see it as very insignificant and not experience any negative emotion because of it. To think other is called si-labbata-para-ma-so, in not bending the truth for the sake of it, not because it doesn't put oneself over another to cause personal gain at the others expense. This is an important point in how morality works. Other than that I still have a great deal of lobha and dosa. Back-biting, idle speech, and harsh speech are possible, no doubt. Sometimes those are not based in self-view but simply in dosa and lobha. Kelwin: How do you know the magga-vithi is 1 magga and 2 phala if it all happened in a flash and you only knew it afterwards with some analysis? What's the difference with 3 fetters being surpressed vs being completely gone? How can you be sure? (there are stories of ariyas who had to ask Buddha cuz they weren't sure) Kevin: I don't know for sure that it was only 3 cittas in total, but I know that it was extremely brief. So brief that there was no awareness of me thinking, "oh so this is what nibbana is like". The thinking process kicked in directly afterwards, as an afterthought and knew that the deathless element, which is beyond the elements of earth, water, fire, and air, the place where there is no footing for arising dhammas, had been contacted. There was then understanding that the fetters had been removed. It really rocked me. It was known right aftewards that nibbana had been known, and there was a conceptual rememberance of the experience to a degree. There was an understanding all about the deathless, having had the experience just a moment before. I've had experiences whereby I found it was impossible for me to break the sila even at great expense to what I would refer to as "me" usually, to the degree that I am sure that self-view cannot arise ever again, even in a high pressure situation. Having studied the dhamma pretty well and understood some important points, I understand that I am an ariya. I understand how some may have confusion about their own experience and may with to ask the Buddha for verfication. That is perfectly normal. It can be a confusing experience. If one also attained sakadagami or anagami right away, it may be less confusing, and also, one may not care so much then, having less attachment and aversion. Kelwin: I asked these questions in an earnest way and look forward to reading your reflective answers. Kevin: I know that you asked those questions in earnerst . I thank you for that. Asking questions of Noble One is the right way to engeander Right View within oneself and keep yourself on the Right Path. Although I am a sotapanna who has poor wisdom in that panna has not grown to the level that it has not decreased my attachment and aversion in a real significant way, I do have a noble lineage and Right View concerning dhamma, therefore am a fit recipient of your questions. I am here to help you in any way that I can. Please remember that and never be afraid to ask anything. Thanks again, Kevin #108229 From: Kevin F Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Sukinder, Sukinder :I agree with you that a Sotapanna basically lives his life more or less the same way as he did when he was still a putthujana. And those of us who have so very little understanding, we can easily project our misunderstandings into the picture. Kevin: I think this is natural. People may not understand some of the intracacies. I think some of those are explain in the message I just posted in response to Kelwin. For example, a sotapanna doesn't really became stable in morality because of less lobha and dosa really, but because of the absence of view. I think this is super important to understand. Lobha and dosa, save for that directly connected to the three fetters is not lessened at all until the second stage of Ariyanship. This can be hard for some people to understand, or even to accept possibly. Sukinder: I can accept all this as being something which happened prior to that special moment and accumulated such that later this conditioned some of your thoughts even after the event. Kevin: Yes, Sukinder. I think that is a big part of it. Sukinder:This I am having a hard time understanding. I can understand the aversion associated with not getting what one desires. But why would you desire others to rejoice in your attainment when the best thing you could give anyone at anytime is the Dhamma? Besides, all this time you were already involved with communicating with other Buddhists everywhere, what other sense of community were you seeking, and why would this be dependent on the perception by someone else of your being a Sotapanna? Kevin: I have always had an inclination to "find the right path and share it with othres". I have no idea where this comes. Over the course of so many lifetimes, it is possible that perhaps at some time I aspired to be a bodhisatta or a teacher of dhamma or some other such thing and developed accumulation towards that. I really don't know. What I do know is that I had always been interested in sharing the dhamma with others, this also expressed itself in my old interest in Mahayana, which is gone. I do not wish people to treat me any differently or make any gestures of respect towards me, but, at the same time, deep down I know that any a slight gesture of respect or kindness or generosity towards a sotapanna brings great fruit. This brings other people happiness. Maybe I wished for people to rejoice simply so my friends, whom I am attached to, could make merit? The real thing is that I simply wanted to share. It is just my nature, by conditions of course (like all things). Who knows what conditions come into play, what actions were taken in the past? Sukiner: On the surface, yes, but otherwise I think, the difference between the sotapanna and a putthijana is much, much greater than between the different ariyan stages, it is what I'd call a quantum leap. Kevin: Oh yes, asbsolutely. I agree. There is no doubt about that. And I did focus on that for some time, or should I say I was keenly aware of that for a time. Now that some time has passed and I am a bit more ... comfortable... with the fact that I am a sotapanna, some of the shock value has decreased. You have to understand how being a sotapanna for a period of time might conditions ones thoughts after a while. Now the focus has shifted from difference of being a sotapanna rather than a putthujana, to the fact that I am an ariya (very used to the fact of being a sotapanna now, no surprises or "shock value" there for me any more) who still has a great deal of defilements left. In fact compared to most ariyas, my level of wisdom is actually very poor. Attachment and aversion being so strong in me, I am an ariya who still has a lot of growth to accomplish. That is how things are seen from my perspective. Let's be clear here, moha, lobha, dosa, and even mana, conceit, still arise in the sotapanna though the lineage has changed permanently. This is a far cry from the more Noble Ones. Sukinder: I don't know about selfish, but you seem to be thinking a lot about 'people out there'. One good reminder I get from A. Sujin is that "we are not world managers", and one thing I know about her is that she is never driven by such thoughts as 'going out to spread the word'. In fact I believe that this is the reason why she then has so much energy to actually teach because it is always for the potential student to approach her rather than she seeking them out. Kevin: I feel the same way. Sukinder:And you can continue to discuss the Dhamma, if anything is boiled over it is best in the form of words of wisdom. The Kalyanamitta is one who is involved in the development of understanding and with metta would encourage the same in others. Kevin: For sure. Sukin: Again, I may be projecting my putthujana ideas into the situation. I have no problems with a sotapanna having attachment dissociated from wrong view and any aversion resulting from this. But I can't help in continuing this discussion with you, going away with the perception that some 'cheating dhammas' are at play. But I'll continue to listen to any clarifications from you or anyone else who'd care to join in. Kevin: Okay. Sukinder: And I hope I haven't been too blunt. ;-) No you haven't at all. And I am the one who is usually too blunt anyway. Kevin #108230 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 8:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna truth_aerator Hello Kevin, Congratulations on your achievement. When you have time, could you please make more comments on what you did to reach stream? Any practical advice? Thanks, With metta, Alex #108231 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jul 5, 2010 11:31 pm Subject: Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? kenhowardau Hi pt, --- <. . .> pt: > Ah, that's interesting, the way I understood Nina and Vsm quote was that there are different levels/kinds of panna corresponding to different aspects of understanding, so not just bhavana (and not just related to kamma-vipaka and impermanence). --- I can see how you got the wrong idea, but that is not what Nina and the Vsm quote were saying. Panna knows the nature of dhammas. No doubt panna can arise in the course of a scientific calculation but there would have to be a link. It will be good to hear more on this from Nina and others. ------------- pt: > Assuming that things are as you say though, what mental factor would then be responsible for understanding outside of bhavana (e.g. like in algebra)? Would you simply relegate that sort of conventional understanding to sanna, vitakka and vicara, for example? ------------- Yes, I would say just those ordinary cetasikas. When a mathematician's calculations are correct the cetasikas are the same as when his calculations are incorrect (all other things being equal). They could be wholesome or unwholesome (unlike panna, which is always wholesome), but most often unwholesome. They could be wholesome only when performed as part of an act of dana, sila or bhavana. And in the case of bhavana they would include panna. (Just don't ask me to explain "an act". It's not my strong point. :-)) Ken H #108232 From: Sukinderpal Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 12:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna sukinderpal Hi Kevin, Thanks for your response. I'll not pursue with this discussion and I hope that my impressions are wrong. I still think that it is a bad idea to be declaring oneself an Ariyan to other people. I mean I'd rejoice in anyone's Right Understanding when they express it, but stating that oneself is an Ariyan does not give rise to the same kind of feelings. But again, I know myself to be with so much kilesas including issa and machariya. ;-) Metta, Sukinder On 7/6/2010 1:39 AM, Kevin F wrote: > > Hi Sukinder, > > Sukinder :I agree with you that a Sotapanna basically lives his life > more or less > the same way as he did when he was still a putthujana. And those of us > who have so very little understanding, we can easily project our > misunderstandings into the picture. > > Kevin: I think this is natural. People may not understand some of the > intracacies. I think some of those are explain in the message I just > posted in response to Kelwin. For example, a sotapanna doesn't really > became stable in morality because of less lobha and dosa really, but > because of the absence of view. I think this is super important to > understand. Lobha and dosa, save for that directly connected to the > three fetters is not lessened at all until the second stage of > Ariyanship. This can be hard for some people to understand, or even to > accept possibly. > #108233 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 12:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna kenhowardau Hi Kevin and Sukin, I too am not interested in pursuing this thread. I look forward to the day when Kevin writes, "Sorry about that, everyone, I was getting ahead of myself for a while there. :-) Now let's get back to discussing Dhamma!" :-) Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Kevin, > > Thanks for your response. > > I'll not pursue with this discussion and I hope that my impressions are > wrong. > I still think that it is a bad idea to be declaring oneself an Ariyan to > other people. I mean I'd rejoice in anyone's Right Understanding when > they express it, but stating that oneself is an Ariyan does not give > rise to the same kind of feelings. But again, I know myself to be with > so much kilesas including issa and machariya. ;-) > > Metta, > > Sukinder > > #108234 From: Vince Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? cerovzt@... Ken wrote: > I can see how you got the wrong idea, but that is not what Nina and > the Vsm quote were saying. Panna knows the nature of dhammas. No > doubt panna can arise in the course of a scientific calculation but > there would have to be a link. It will be good to hear more on this > from Nina and others. inside The Expositor it is said the contact is revealed thorough its own cause, starting a process which ends in the catching of the object. The Expositor cites Majjhima,i, 111: "The sense is brought up to the object, there is attention or adverting to the object, the object is prepared, and there is cognition of the object by consciousness". So I wonder if you talk of panna in the preparation of the object in the case of numbers. Because in the case of numbers, the final nature of phenomena belongs to the knowledge of the nature of space and time. When we think in a mathematical calculation we expend some time until we access to the truth. But that final instant knowledge is not the knowledge of the final nature of the number-object. The actual world record of extracting mentally the 13th root from a 100-digit number is of 0.15 seconds. Such type of people sometimes can access to that knowledge speedier than any computer. This is because they play with space and time instead the numbers in themselves. We can name it panna but the fact is they ignore the nature of space and time, although they can manage them so well. I wonder if this can be a valid analogy with the knowledge of citta speed regarding anatta. Both things sure are related but the point is at what level it becomes manifest. I cannot find examples in the Suttas except in the case of Buddha himself or arhants. Or maybe when somebody cultivates the knowledge of cittas and functions from the beginning then it becomes their immediate fruit. At least to me, this point of the Abhidhamma is a little confusing when comparing some Suttas episodes of the attaining of unconditioned, in where we cannot find any mention to cittas and their speed. If somebody can clarify this point it would be of profit, I think. best, #108235 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 2:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? kenhowardau Hi Vince, ------ V: > The Expositor cites Majjhima,i, 111: "The sense is brought up to the object, there is attention or adverting to the object, the object is prepared, and there is cognition of the object by consciousness". So I wonder if you talk of panna in the preparation of the object in the case of numbers. ------ I think the particular "preparation" being referred in the Expositor might be mind-door-averting-consciousness (mano-dvaravajjana-citta). That citta contains only the five universal general-cetasikas plus four of the six secondary general-cetasikas. So there would be no possibility of panna in that instance. --------------- <. . .> V: > At least to me, this point of the Abhidhamma is a little confusing when comparing some Suttas episodes of the attaining of unconditioned, in where we cannot find any mention to cittas and their speed. ----------------- I am sure it is there, either expressly or impliedly, in every sutta that describes the factors leading to enlightenment. By means of satipatthana, conditioned dhammas (citta, cetasika and rupa) are understood for what they are - anicca (fleeting) dukkha and anatta. As a result of this understanding, there is a turning away from the conditioned to the unconditioned. Are you thinking there might be another way that leads to enlightenment? Ken H #108236 From: Kevin F Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Alex. Thanks. As far as what I did is I just tried to understand nama and rupa with right understanding -- tried to understand that it is not self, that it is just nama and rupa, tried to understand the six sense bases and that each dhamma arises separately at those bases and that it is not a person or a whole, tried to understand the difference between realities and concepts, and I listened to Ajahn Sujin and wise people. That is all I did. Kevin ________________________________ From: truth_aerator To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 4:50:51 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna Hello Kevin, Congratulations on your achievement. When you have time, could you please make more comments on what you did to reach stream? Any practical advice? Thanks, With metta, Alex #108237 From: Kevin F Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 3:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Sukin, That is fine. Thanks for your message. I look forward to our continued discussion on various topics, of course. Speaking with you is always a pleasure for me. Kevin ________________________________ From: Sukinderpal To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 8:04:59 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna Hi Kevin, Thanks for your response. I'll not pursue with this discussion and I hope that my impressions are wrong. I still think that it is a bad idea to be declaring oneself an Ariyan to other people. I mean I'd rejoice in anyone's Right Understanding when they express it, but stating that oneself is an Ariyan does not give rise to the same kind of feelings. But again, I know myself to be with so much kilesas including issa and machariya. ;-) Metta, Sukinder #108238 From: Kevin F Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 3:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Ken, I think by saying "I look forward to..." you have accumulated a degree of negative kamma. Disbelieving is one thing, stating that to me is quite another thing. That comment holds a lot of weight. I would retract it if I were you. Disbelieving is one thing. Stating that is quite another. It has been a while now and I can assure you that I am not ahead of myself, not in the slightest bit. Take the wise course of action. Kevin ________________________________ From: Ken H To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 8:38:17 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna Hi Kevin and Sukin, I too am not interested in pursuing this thread. I look forward to the day when Kevin writes, "Sorry about that, everyone, I was getting ahead of myself for a while there. :-) Now let's get back to discussing Dhamma!" :-) Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Kevin, > > Thanks for your response. > > I'll not pursue with this discussion and I hope that my impressions are > wrong. > I still think that it is a bad idea to be declaring oneself an Ariyan to > other people. I mean I'd rejoice in anyone's Right Understanding when > they express it, but stating that oneself is an Ariyan does not give > rise to the same kind of feelings. But again, I know myself to be with > so much kilesas including issa and machariya. ;-) > > Metta, > > Sukinder > > #108239 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 4:35 am Subject: Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? ptaus1 Hi KenH, > KH: I can see how you got the wrong idea, but that is not what Nina and the Vsm quote were saying. Panna knows the nature of dhammas. No doubt panna can arise in the course of a scientific calculation but there would have to be a link. > > It will be good to hear more on this from Nina and others. Thanks for your reply. I'd also be glad to hear more on this topic. Best wishes pt #108240 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 4:52 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? ptaus1 Hi KenH, Mike and all, Continuing with the Visuddhimagga VIII,246, note 68. So far, we've discussed the beginning of Note 68 which was based on Vsm commentary (Pm). Now comes the part of the note where the translator gives his own summary on the topic of sabhava: "In the Pitakas the word sabha-va seems to appear only once (Ps.ii,178). It next appears in the Netti (p.79), the Milindapanha (pp. 90, 164, 212, 360). It is extensively used for exegetical purposes in the Visuddhimagga and main commentaries and likewise in the sub-commentaries. As has just been shown, it is narrower than dhamma (see also Ch. XXIII, n.l8). It often roughly corresponds to dha-tu (element?"see e.g. Dhs A. 263) and to lakkhana (characteristic?"see below), but less nearly to the vaguer and (in Pali) untechnical pakati (nature), or to rasa (function?"see Ch. I,21). The Atthasa-lini- observes: 'It is the individual essence, or the generality, of such and such dhammas that is called their characteristic' (DhsA. 63); on which the Mu-la Tika- comments: 'The individual essence consisting in, say, hardness as that of earth, or touching as that of contact, is not common to all dhammas. The generality is the individual essence common to all consisting in impermanence, etc.; also in this context (i.e. Dhs.1) the characteristic of being profitable may be regarded as general because it is the individual essence common to all that is profitable; or alternatively it is their individual essence because it is not common to the unprofitable and indeterminate [kinds of consciousness]' (DhsAA. 63)." ---- end quote This bit seems pretty straight-forward. Best wishes pt #108241 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 8:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna kelvin_lwin Hi Kevin, So I take it that you understand adhi-sila to be just perfection in terms of verbal and bodily actions. I had thought it was referring to mental actions. The potential or even temptation to break the precept is no longer there, hence no matter what the type of actions that will pull one to the 4 lower realms are no longer possible. I'm not sure if I understand how we can make differentitate between normal/fleeting thoughts versus one that can grow into verbal/bodily actions. As long as the spark remains, the fire can come back anytime in the future, imho. Your view about not putting 'oneself' over others is intriguing. I wonder what happens at the subtler level though. What if one gets a thought or imagery of bedding a woman let's say? We just didn't know if she was taken or perhaps she has a 'guardian' or someone who will be hurt by such an action. How can we be sure to stay clear of such thorny issues if one is still lusting after any/all attractive objects? What is kosher and what is not? Surely actions out of 'ignorance' is not a good excuse when it comes to sila. What if let's say you wanted to become a monk later while dating a woman. She wants to have a family and kids. Wouldn't you end up causing some pain to the woman due to being involved and perhaps made worse by physical intimacy. How do you see 'selfless' thinking in that scenario instead of just chalking up to lust? Along the same line, being able to fib for some convenience sake seems like a slippery slope. Who is to say if your life is truly threatened or you're really hungry, you would not resort to breaking the precepts in slightly 'bigger' way. Or even worse, you do have a wife and kids who are starving and begging for you to find food. What would happen in those instances? Or maybe a smaller example, you know how grocery stores have dried fruits, nuts or candy in boxes. Would you sample items that you had no intentions of buying? In this case there isn't another 'self' to reference one against. It wasn't just sotapanna who asked Buddha about which fetters are gone and which still remain. Higher ariyas also did that. There are also stories of monks who had perfect sila and thought themselves to be arahants when in fact they were not even a sotapanna. So the question of how to be so sure of oneself seems important to me. Are you able to enjoy the sotapanna-phala whenever you wish or maybe sometime 'fall' into it? Instructions by some teachers suggest a determination of enjoy already obtained fruit is different from pursuing the next stage. Lastly some pali commentaries add to the list of qualities of a sotapanna the lack of the following: Envy, Jealousy, Hypocrisy, Fraud Denigration, Domineering. What do you think about that? - Kel #108242 From: "Christine" Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 9:14 am Subject: Re: this is my hello christine_fo... Hello JC, Glad you made it over here. :-) with metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #108243 From: Sukinderpal Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 10:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna sukinderpal Hi Kevin, > That is fine. Thanks for your message. I look forward to our continued > discussion on various topics, of course. Speaking with you is always a > pleasure for me. > Thanks, so if I may I'd like to go into the topic of kamma prompted by your comments to Ken H, which is something I have more questions than answers for. Quote Kevin: I think by saying "I look forward to..." you have accumulated a degree of negative kamma. Disbelieving is one thing, stating that to me is quite another thing. That comment holds a lot of weight. I would retract it if I were you. Disbelieving is one thing. Stating that is quite another. It has been a while now and I can assure you that I am not ahead of myself, not in the slightest bit. Take the wise course of action. I know that this is in the Texts, about retracting one's statements. What is the effect of this? Surely the deed has been committed and the kamma accumulated, does this mean that by retracting this is simply a matter of now doing a good deed? The 'disbelief' on Ken's part if it was indeed conditioned by ignorance, is this worse than in some other more ordinary situation? If you are correct about Ken then he must have been involved in some akusala thinking, however I do believe that he also had some right thinking about certain aspects of the Dhamma and which must have had some influence. What of these moments of Right Understanding, do they result in good? Furthermore, Ken obviously had good intentions when he said what he did. Although there may have been some ignorance and craving, does the good intention have any influence and if so, in what way? I know the workings of kamma is something that only the Buddha would fully understand. But perhaps you have some insight that you could share? Thanks in advance. Metta, Sukinder #108244 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 10:53 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? jonoabb Hi Mike (108212) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Hi Jon: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > ... > Mike: Hmm, sorry for the confusion. > =============== J: Not at all. Sorry for misreading you. > =============== I wasn't trying to say that. What I was calling a "process" was a sequence of dhammas with some sort of causal/conditioning connection. > =============== J: I think you are referring to the cittas etc of a given individual? I think this is spoken of in the texts as a 'stream', rather than a process. That is certainly so in the case of the bhavanga cittas (bhavanga-sota = stream of life continuum cittas). However, not all dhammas arising in a day arise as part of a stream. The objects that are experienced through the 5 sense-doors arise independent of the stream of cittas. by which they are experienced However, they are taken for 'self' and thus are to be seen with wisdom for what they truly are: anicca, dukkha and anatta (just like the dhammas that are part of the 'stream'). Jon #108245 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 10:56 am Subject: Re: Self View and actions jonoabb Hi Alex (108214) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > ... > You say that intentional doing something, or intentionally trying to alter something involves delusion of "Self trying to control". > =============== J: No, not in the case of everyday activities. But if done as part of a 'practice' with the idea of generating the arising of awareness there and then, then yes. > =============== > We have to do intentional actions (such as get out of the bed, get dressed, eat, wash and so on). So why are these OK and not the meditation instructions that Buddha has given in the suttas (see anapanasati, or kayagatasati sutta for example). > =============== J: Anything the Buddha said in the suttas is 'OK' ;-)). The difference between us lies in an understanding of the meaning of what the Buddha said. > =============== > Also why can't there be chanda, viriya, adhimokkho and so on that doesn't involve self view? > > Buddha, Arahants and stream-enterers do have these qualities - so they are not bad in and of themselves. > =============== J: Right. The kusala ones are kusala and the akusala ones are akusala ;-)) > =============== > Practice doesn't have or require to involve Self Views, just like sweeping the floor doesn't have to reinforce the idea of "Self". Of course one can add wrong views, but one can add wrong views to anything - including studying and knowledge that one has. > =============== J: If the practice is not in accordance with the meaning of what the Buddha said, it will be wrong practice and will tend to reinforce the idea of "self", in my view. Jon #108246 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 1:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna truth_aerator Hello Kevin, > Hi Alex. > > Thanks. As far as what I did is I just tried to understand nama and rupa with right understanding -- tried to understand that it is not self, that it is just nama and rupa, tried to understand the six sense bases and that each dhamma arises separately at those bases and that it is not a person or a whole, tried to understand the difference between realities and concepts, and I listened to Ajahn Sujin and wise people. That is all I did. > > Kevin By "tried to understand" do you mean reading & considering and then living a normal life (without trying to be attentive to the present)? Or were you analyzing what is happening as it was happening (as Satipatthana Comy talks about it under "clear comprehension, postures," and so on). Thank you very much for your reply. If you have any tips, please share them when you have the time. With metta, Alex #108247 From: Kevin F Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Well, Hi Kelwin, Kelwin: So I take it that you understand adhi-sila to be just perfection in terms of verbal and bodily actions. I had thought it was referring to mental actions. The potential or even temptation to break the precept is no longer there, hence no matter what the type of actions that will pull one to the 4 lower realms are no longer possible. I'm not sure if I understand how we can make differentitate between normal/fleeting thoughts versus one that can grow into verbal/bodily actions. As long as the spark remains, the fire can come back anytime in the future, imho. Kevin: There is more to it than meets the eye. The thinking process can very easily think, "in this situation, in the past, I would have told this lie", and so on. Therefore you could potentially dream up a lie but there would be no motivation to say it. The reason one cannot say it there is not enough fuel to, as I explained earlier. This doesn't meant the thinking process doesn't dream up many different things. Let's say someone has a beautiful wife that I am sexually attracted to. Now, you know that a sotapanna has not lessened the fetters of lobha and dosa yet, right? So do you really think it would be "impossible" for a thought or an image to come into my head of me and that woman together? It is most certainly possible. However, the action itself could never be undertaken in real life. That is a little bit different though. As far as lies are concerned, I don't remember myself being tempted to tell one since the experience. Kelwin: Your view about not putting 'oneself' over others is intriguing. I wonder what happens at the subtler level though. What if one gets a thought or imagery of bedding a woman let's say? We just didn't know if she was taken or perhaps she has a 'guardian' or someone who will be hurt by such an action. How can we be sure to stay clear of such thorny issues if one is still lusting after any/all attractive objects? What is kosher and what is not? Surely actions out of 'ignorance' is not a good excuse when it comes to sila. Kevin: Before I "bedded" someone, I would ask about their status. What if someone lied to me and I didn't suspect at all that it was a lie? Would I be responsible for breaking the sila? No. (silabbata- paraamasa Kelwin: What if let's say you wanted to become a monk later while dating a woman. She wants to have a family and kids. Wouldn't you end up causing some pain to the woman due to being involved and perhaps made worse by physical intimacy. How do you see 'selfless' thinking in that scenario instead of just chalking up to lust? Kevin: That all seems like a dream to me. It is just a lot of proliferation. I wouldn't lead a woman on to think that we would get married if I thought I would end up ordaining. I'd be perfectly honest, as is my custom. Kelwin: Along the same line, being able to fib for some convenience sake seems like a slippery slope. Who is to say if your life is truly threatened or you're really hungry, you would not resort to breaking the precepts in slightly 'bigger' way. Kevin: I don't think you've accurately understood what I explained about the effect of the first fetter being cut on ones actions and how it effects sila. Some tiny fib (and I mean "tiny") that doesn't put "myself" over someone in a way that could cause them pain or discomfort if they found out the truth is harmless. It is due to the fetter of belief in a self being cut that I cannot lie to someone. That doesn't come into play in the instance where a small mistruth does not place a "Self" here higher than another person in a way that might cause them pain and therefore put this "self" higher than their "self". That is what is impossible. It is solely because of that reason that sila becomes pure, no other reason. This should be understood. Kelwin: It wasn't just sotapanna who asked Buddha about which fetters are gone and which still remain. Higher ariyas also did that. Kevin: That is interesting. I'd be interested to know which ones, should you know off of the top of your head. Simply because I am intrigued and it is not something I studied before. Anybody can be confused by the experience, I'm sure. Kevin: There are also stories of monks who had perfect sila and thought themselves to be arahants when in fact they were not even a sotapanna. So the question of how to be so sure of oneself seems important to me. Kevin: That's fine. In my case I just don't think I am a sotapanna because I have a certain level of sila. I am very aware of my own mind and what is running through it. Kelwin: Are you able to enjoy the sotapanna-phala whenever you wish or maybe sometime 'fall' into it? Kevin: I would like to. That is only possible if one has mastered a jhana though. Kelwin: Lastly some pali commentaries add to the list of qualities of a sotapanna the lack of the following: Envy, Jealousy, Hypocrisy, Fraud Denigration, Domineering. What do you think about that? Seems accurate to me. All the best, Kevin #108248 From: Kevin F Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 3:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Sukin, Kevin: Thank you for your message. Sukin: Thanks, so if I may I'd like to go into the topic of kamma prompted by your comments to Ken H, which is something I have more questions than answers for. Sukin Quote Kevin: I think by saying "I look forward to..." you have accumulated a degree of negative kamma. Disbelieving is one thing, stating that to me is quite another thing. That comment holds a lot of weight. I would retract it if I were you. Disbelieving is one thing. Stating that is quite another. It has been a while now and I can assure you that I am not ahead of myself, not in the slightest bit. Take the wise course of action. I know that this is in the Texts, about retracting one's statements. What is the effect of this? Surely the deed has been committed and the kamma accumulated, does this mean that by retracting this is simply a matter of now doing a good deed? Kevin: Yes, once a kamma has been comitted, it can't be taken back. So the act of retracting a statement would simply be that of doing a good deed instead. However, it would also cause one to rejoice less about the first action when one looks back on it in the future and instead rejoice on the positive deed that one did to rectify it. This would create more good kamma in the future rather than negative. Some good kamma is also made off the person the statement was made to, so that also affects their mind. They are more satisfied since you are creating less negative kamma each time you think about the situation now, and this fact can be cause of the positive kamma you made to be heavier. Again, I don't have any special powers and I am not a Buddha, so I do not know how accurate my explanation is. It is what I believe. Sukin: The 'disbelief' on Ken's part if it was indeed conditioned by ignorance, is this worse than in some other more ordinary situation? Kevin: I'm not sure. But I don't really think disbelieving that someone is an Ariya when they actually are is such a big deal, save for the fact that you miss an opportunity to speak to one and all the other things. Sukin: If you are correct about Ken then he must have been involved in some akusala thinking, however I do believe that he also had some right thinking about certain aspects of the Dhamma and which must have had some influence. What of these moments of Right Understanding, do they result in good? Kevin: Of these right moments, I think they accumulate in the citta and effect the degree of understanding that arises or doesn't arise in future times. Sukin: Furthermore, Ken obviously had good intentions when he said what he did. Although there may have been some ignorance and craving, does the good intention have any influence and if so, in what way? Kevin: Not only with the accumulation for that good intention be strengthened in the citta, but also good kamma has been made. There may have also been dosa, which is undesirable part. I hope this helps. Kevin ________________________________ #108249 From: Kevin F Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 4:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Alex. One should be aware that the development of wisdom takes an extremely long time. A lot of success may or may not be mind in this lifetime. That is fine. The point is that the more conceptual right understanding there is now, the more it will influence the citta in coming lifetimes and the more one will progress with more ease then, the more one will easily recognize the path in future lifetimes if it is presented and so on, thus one can continue ones path. Also, the more ones life will be enhanced even when one is born in non-Buddhist times because of the higher degree of panna that one has. As far as looking at the mechanics of things, I have done that from time to time but only when spontaneous interest arose to understand some aspect of it. I never did it as a rote excercise that is performed again and again in succession. This is about understanding, not about an excercise. Kevin #108250 From: Kevin F Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 8:02 pm Subject: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process farrellkevin80 Hi everyone, There have been a number of questions that have to do with confusion about the degrees of lobha and dosa that may be in the mind-stream of a sotapanna. I would like to address some of those questions here. Sometimes people are not clear that lobha and dosa are only said to be significantly reduced at the level of sakadagami, and only eradicated at anagami. They are not significantly reduced or eradicated at the level of sotapanna, only the first three fetters are. This can be hard for some people to understand. What it means for some is that a sotapanna, although very different from a common man in that he has seen nibbana and will only have seven lifetimes left at maximum, is much, much more like a common man in certain ways than some people might realize. Kelwin asked a question and it seemed rather clear to me from his wording that he assumed that a sotapanna could not even imagine himself with a partner who was already accounted for. Thank you for that good question Kelwin. I would really like to address this here and I think it is very important to. Another person on the other list I post on (dhammawheel) asked if I considered trying to become a monk again now, after the experience that I had. The reason I left the monkhood was because I do not have the proper accumulations to be a monk in that I have too much lobha, and dosa. That has not changed. I have not even considered becoming a monk recently either. Perhaps when lobha and dosa arise less strongly in my mindstream that will change. However, that would only occur if I reached any of the other Ariyan stages. I hope the example I give is not too explicit for anyone, but to demonstrate the way that lobha and dosa can still arise in a sotapanna I would like to go through a "visualisation" with everyone here. Please excuse me if this is too explicit for some people. Please imagine that I am a sotapanna and that I travel to a store. Remember now, as a sotapanna, the first three of the ten fetters are permanently cut, but the other seven remain and the fetters of attachment and aversion are not even considered to be significantly reduced yet. That is an important point in this situation. Let's say at the store I see an attractive member of the opposite sex. Let's say that this person is very attractive, perhaps dressed provocatively (which is not hard to imagine here in the summer in New York State). Do you think it is possible for the sotapanna to imagine a sexual experience with that person? It most absolutely is possible. Please remember that lobha and dosa have not be significantly decreased in this persons mind-stream. Because of lobha, there may be sexual desire. Now let's say the sotapanna sees another, different beautiful woman at the same store. Do you think it might be possible for the sotapanna to have a thought of sensual pleasure with that woman as well? Do you think it is possible that a sexual image might come into the sotapannas mind stream? It most certainly is possible. Why? Lobha. Now let's say after that the sotapanna runs into an old friend. The old friend has recently become married and the sotapanna meets the friends wife for the first time. Let's say that this woman is exceedingly gorgeous. Let's say that it is summer time and that this woman has on a short skirt and a skimpy top or some other such provacative dress. Now, I don't mean to be sarcastic at all, by any means Kelwin, so please do not take my next comment the wrong way, I mean it in all friendliness, but do you think that just because the sotapanna has known nibbana that now there is some magical spell imprinted on his mind such that a sensual image of himself and that woman could not enter his mind? Lobha desires objects. Lobha does not make moral decisions. It is not it's function. It's function is simply attachment, which a sotapanna has. So the answer is that yes, a sotapanna could imagine a sexual experience between himself and that other woman just as he did with the other two women. Now the difference here between the sotapanna and the putthujana is that it is impossible for the sotapanna to plan on trying to make love to that woman or to ever actually make love to that woman. Why is that? Because of the absence of antother cetasika-- that of ditthi cetasika. Because this cetasika does not arise in the Ariya, he cannot (not will not, but can not) perform or plan on performing such a gross unwholesome deed. Why? Because there are thought processes that occur every time we commit to an action. With an awareness that this particular person has a spouse who would be hurt if he saw his spouse asleep with another, there is not enough impetus to follow through with such an immoral action because it would cause putting ones own needs above another's in a situation that would cause that other person to be hurt. Even though lobha naturally arises for pleasant objects, and seeks them out in the sotapanna, there is not a "being" to be fed, so when it comes down to doing a bad action for the sake of oneself at the expense of another, no "self" is found for which to commit that bad action, even though there is lobha. Thus, it is impossible for a sotapanna to do such a thing. He cannot put "himself" above another if that decision would cause harm to the other in a decision making process. This is because of the absence of the idea of a self that could be put over somebody else. The underlying point here is that certain things have been removed in a sotapanna, but certain things are still present. I think being clear about this can help us undrestand the anatta nature of all dhamams. A sotapanna does not consciously choose to follow the five precepts; the cetasikas that would cause him to do those things simply never arise again in him. Lobha cetasika still arises, as it does in the common man,. Kevin #108251 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jul 6, 2010 10:26 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi pt, -------- <. . .> pt: > Now comes the part of the note where the translator gives his own summary on the topic of sabhava: > > "In the Pitakas the word sabha-va seems to appear only once (Ps.ii,178). It next appears in the Netti (p.79), the Milindapanha (pp. 90, 164, 212, 360). It is extensively used for exegetical purposes in the Visuddhimagga and main commentaries and likewise in the sub-commentaries. <. . .> -------- KH: I suppose it is somewhat controversial that such an important word would appear only once in the Pitakas. From my hazy memory of previous discussions, however, I was expecting even more controversy. I seemed to remember someone saying that the only time the Pitakas did mention sabhava was when they were denying its existence! The explanation given for this (by the Pali experts) was that a different meaning of sabhava was being used in that case. Apparently it can sometimes mean substantial in the sense of "containing atta." But carry on, don't let my hazy memory cause unnecessary confusion. :-) Ken H #108252 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 12:39 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? truth_aerator > pt: > Now comes the part of the note where the translator gives his >own summary on the topic of sabhava: > > > > "In the Pitakas the word sabha-va seems to appear only once (Ps.ii,178). It next appears in the Netti (p.79), the Milindapanha (pp. 90, 164, 212, 360). It is extensively used for exegetical purposes in the Visuddhimagga and main commentaries and likewise in the sub-commentaries. <. . .> > -------- > > KH: I suppose it is somewhat controversial that such an important word would appear only once in the Pitakas. From my hazy memory of previous discussions, however, I was expecting even more controversy. I seemed to remember someone saying that the only time the Pitakas did mention sabhava was when they were denying its existence! > > The explanation given for this (by the Pali experts) was that a different meaning of sabhava was being used in that case. Apparently it can sometimes mean substantial in the sense of "containing atta." > > But carry on, don't let my hazy memory cause unnecessary confusion. :-) > > Ken H Hello KenH, Pt, all, In Ptsm the sabhava is used, where it is rejected "5. What is voidness in change? Born materiality is void of individual essence;1 disappeared2 materiality is both changed and void. Born feeling is void of individual essence; disappeared feeling is both changed and void. Born perception ... [and so on with 199 of the 201 ideas listed in Tr. I §5, omitting the last two members of the Dependent Origination, up to] ... Born being is void of individual essence; [179] disappeared being is both changed and void." Ptsm TREATISE XX. ?" ON VOIDNESS Any comments? With metta, Alex #108253 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 1:56 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: <. . .> > In Ptsm the sabhava is used, where it is rejected <. . .> ---------- Hi Alex, Thanks for your help. Forgive my ignorance, but is the reference you gave (Ptsm TREATISE XX. ON VOIDNESS) the same as Ps.ii,178? Or do they refer to two different texts? I have Googled "Ps.ii,178" without much success. In doing so, however, I came across an old DSG post from Suan in which he claimed to know of four places in the Tipitaka where the Buddha mentioned sabhava, and another four places where Sariputta mentioned it. It is not an important issue to my way of thinking because I have no doubt that the Dhamma states - clearly and frequently - that all dhammas have their own inherent essences (characteristics, lakkhana, sabhava). It is, however, an important issue for those modern-day Buddhists who desperately want to believe that dhammas lack "own being." Dangerously addicted to wrong view, they seize upon any obscure quote from the Tipitaka that might support their habit. :-) Ken H > > > > "In the Pitakas the word sabha-va seems to appear only once (Ps.ii,178). > #108254 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 2:08 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, Ps.ii,178 is pali reference to Ptsm in Pali. I gave reference for english chapter. I just checked. It is the same chapter. With metta, Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > <. . .> > > > In Ptsm the sabhava is used, where it is rejected > <. . .> > ---------- > > Hi Alex, > > Thanks for your help. Forgive my ignorance, but is the reference you gave (Ptsm TREATISE XX. ON VOIDNESS) the same as Ps.ii,178? Or do they refer to two different texts? > > I have Googled "Ps.ii,178" without much success. > > In doing so, however, I came across an old DSG post from Suan in which he claimed to know of four places in the Tipitaka where the Buddha mentioned sabhava, and another four places where Sariputta mentioned it. > > It is not an important issue to my way of thinking because I have no doubt that the Dhamma states - clearly and frequently - that all dhammas have their own inherent essences (characteristics, lakkhana, sabhava). > > It is, however, an important issue for those modern-day Buddhists who desperately want to believe that dhammas lack "own being." Dangerously addicted to wrong view, they seize upon any obscure quote from the Tipitaka that might support their habit. :-) > > Ken H > > > > > > "In the Pitakas the word sabha-va seems to appear only once (Ps.ii,178). > > #108255 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 2:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? farrellkevin80 Ken: It is, however, an important issue for those modern-day Buddhists who desperately want to believe that dhammas lack "own being." Dangerously addicted to wrong view, they seize upon any obscure quote from the Tipitaka that might support their habit. :-) Kevin: I have seen this happen again and again, Ken. Kevin #108256 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 2:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? farrellkevin80 In fact this idea that dhammas aren't real on any ultimate level leads to the mahayana idea that nothing really exists and all is like a "dream". There is nothing even remotely Theravada about it. If dhammas aren't really there they cannot be insighted (ie., their characterstics cannot be known) this leads to it being impossible to become an Ariya. Mahayana writes this off as Ariyas, as they are known in Theravada, as having only understand half, or a percentage, of the real "emptiness" of things leading to a Mahayana belief that an Arahant is a "being" that gets reborn in a Pure Land where he sits in front of a Buddha and bodhisattas and makes more merit serving them and making offerings to them until it results in him developing more wisdom. It is quite ridiculous. It also leads mahayanists to believe that beings can become omniscient buddhas in this lifetime due to nothing being fully real and to them being able to manifest many bodies to help others, not because of an iddhi, but because they are omniscient, realize the dreamlike fabric of "reality" and can manipulate that dreamlike fabric. Thus there is a Buddha that can purify your kamma, one that can increase your intelligence, and so on. It sounds like a dreamlike fabrication to me that falls into the category of wrong views which lead one to planes of woe. Kevin #108257 From: "gazita2002" Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 4:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma Series, no 21. The Four Planes of Consciousness (part 1). gazita2002 hallo Nina and pt, hope all is well for you Nina, I note you are taking a break. I find this topic interesting. It was a big part of the discussion on Sat. at the foundation. It seems to be most important that this knowledge of kusala citta while developing samatha is arising, otherwise 'sitting' is a useless practice if one thinks that jst by 'meditating' one is doing a good thing. I know this is one of those continuous discussions, and I dont wish at this point to enter into a 'meditation' debate, but true samatha development must be accompanied by wisdom that knows kusala from akusala. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear pt, > appreciating your keen questions. > Op 3-jul-2010, om 11:20 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > > > How can panna in samatha know when the citta is a/kusala if there > > was no insight knowledges attained? As I understood your reply to > > KenH, before the first insight knowledge, there's no direct knowing > > of a nama (like a citta) and its distinct characteristics. > -------- > N: In samatha akusala citta can be known as akusala citta and kusala > citta can be known as kusala citta, but these are not known as just a > dhamma, non-self. However, it must be great understanding that knows > kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. It is no small matter to > develop samatha. Also in samatha sati and pa~n~naa are necessary, but > these are not of the same level as in vipassanaa. > ---------- > > > > pt:I guess the same could be asked regarding having a keen > > understanding of the characteristic of calm - how can there be such > > a keen understanding prior to the first insight knowledge? > -------- > N: It is the same as above. There is calm with each kusala citta, but > in samatha more calm is developed. > --------- > > > > pt:Also, while calm in samatha is wholesome, and the citta in jhana > > is a mahakusala citta, would it be classed as sammasamadhi though? > ------- > N: Yes, there is sammaadi.t.thi and sammaasamaadhi in samatha, but > these are not of the eightfold Path leading to the eradication of > defilements. Thus, when mentioning sammaadi.t.thi and sammaasamaadhi > we should add of the eightfold Path if we refer to these as factors > of the eightfold Path. > > I would like to continue this dialogue, but now I am first taking a > break for a while. > Nina. > #108258 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 5:09 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi Alex, pt and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi KenH, all, > > Ps.ii,178 is pali reference to Ptsm in Pali. > > I gave reference for english chapter. > > I just checked. It is the same chapter. > Thanks Alex, that make me wonder why the translator made no reference in his notes to the fact that "sabhava" on the one occasion that it is mentioned in the Pitakas, is being rejected. Surely the word must have a different meaning there than in the commentaries, and yet he (the translator) said nothing about it. (?) Ken H #108259 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 5:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi Kevin, --- <. . .> Kevin: > I have seen this happen again and again, Ken. --- Yes, I know from an earlier conversation that you and I have similar opinions on this matter. By denying the ultimate reality of conditioned dhammas, people deny the one possible way in which there can be a world without atta. That leaves the way open for them to see Nibbana as a kind of self (by another name). I was interested to read your summary of Mahayana beliefs. Such a pity that the original Dhamma could have become so comprehensively altered! Ken H #108260 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 5:51 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? ptaus1 Hi KenH and Alex, > KH: I suppose it is somewhat controversial that such an important word would appear only once in the Pitakas. From my hazy memory of previous discussions, however, I was expecting even more controversy. I seemed to remember someone saying that the only time the Pitakas did mention sabhava was when they were denying its existence! > > The explanation given for this (by the Pali experts) was that a different meaning of sabhava was being used in that case. Apparently it can sometimes mean substantial in the sense of "containing atta." pt: Yes, we've discussed this Psm passage some months ago, and as I remember, sabhava was used in Psm to signify the context that dhammas are self-existent, in the sense that they are not conditioned. Hence, sabhava as such was refuted, because dhammas are in fact conditioned. I'm not sure what the mentioned Netti excerpt is saying on sabhava - Netti is a part of Khuddaka nikaya, so it should be the second time sabhava is mentioned in the nikayas, though I guess Netti is considered a later addition. > KH: In doing so, however, I came across an old DSG post from Suan in which he claimed to know of four places in the Tipitaka where the Buddha mentioned sabhava, and another four places where Sariputta mentioned it. pt: Yes, it would be interesting to hear from Suan on this. > KH: It is not an important issue to my way of thinking because I have no doubt that the Dhamma states - clearly and frequently - that all dhammas have their own inherent essences (characteristics, lakkhana, sabhava). pt: Imo, I like the way the Ven.Nanamoli said that sabhava is used for exegetical purpose. So, in my mind, whenever I read sabhava, I think - individual and general characteristics. Imo, that's what sabhava really stands for. And it's easy to see this even in the suttas - e.g. every time it's said "form is impermanent, feeling is impermanent..."etc, imo this is 100% equivalent to naming individual and general characteristics. > KH: It is, however, an important issue for those modern-day Buddhists who desperately want to believe that dhammas lack "own being." Dangerously addicted to wrong view, they seize upon any obscure quote from the Tipitaka that might support their habit. :-) pt: With respect, this seems like an oversimplification to me. There's a lot of conflicting info on this topic out there, and it's very easy to get confused. E.g. I find that most often sabhava is (mis)understood among modern theravadins to signify some sort of self-existence that defies conditionality - and that is why they reject sabhava - because it supposedly goes directly against conditionality. So, this is pretty much identical to the Psm refutation of sabhava. However, the problem is that in the commentaries, sabhava is used a bit differently - to stand for the individual and general characteristics. In that regard, I find sabhava is rejected among modern theravadins most often on the basis that individual characteristics are equated to conceptual proliferation - so, not real insight, but a process conditioned by ignorance. On the other hand, I haven't yet encountered a disagreement on the general characteristics. Best wishes pt #108261 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 4:39 am Subject: Re: sotapanna philofillet Hi Kevin and all I've found your declaration here and at Dhammawheel very interesting, Kevin. It's a great oppportunity to discuss what sotapanna does and doesn't involve. I'd like to ask about one aspect. Now, remember, I was the first person to jump up and congratulate you on your wholesome aspiration to translate the tipitika, so don't assume that I am by nature a doubter. My current doubt lies here - if you were a sotapanna, would you post in a public forum where your wisdom (basic common sense, really, based on knowing how people behave) would tell you that people would feel aversion? Wouldn't that be a kind of harmfulness? Or does a sotapanna say that the aversion people would feel would be good for them, could help wake them to the truth (no pain, no gain, kind of thing) and that the harmfulness done by causing perdictable aversion to arise for people would be outweighed by giving people the opportunity to rejoice in your accomplishment, and to have the good kamma of asking questions of a sotapanna? Are sotapannas capable of behaving in ways that harm others by causing the arising of aversion etc??@I guess they are, there is no telling others' cittas. Sotpannas still function in the world, and of course we know that the presence of holy people causes aversion in unholy people. That's in Dhammapada, that the holy one is unpleasant to the bad person. At first I thought it meant he behaved in an unpleasant way to teach a lesson, but the commentary made it clear that he is unpleasant just by his presence which is troubling to the bad one. Interesting. I think most people tend to think "a sotapanna doesn't announce himself in public" (though it seems to me that I have seen self-declared sotapannas in the tipitika) but on the other hand it certainly is true that the arrival of a sotapanna in a forum gives good kamma opportunities for that forum's members, so it can be an opportunity for all to feel thankful. I won't be discussing further, just wanted to ask you how you feel about causing the aversion (ie being harmful) that you certainly would have been able to predict and whether a kind of weighing of harmfulness and generosity went on in your mind... I haven't written yet that I rejoice in your attainment. Something is holding me back that didn't hold me back when I rejoiced in your translation aspiration. But I won't throw myself into grave sin the way Ken H did by saying I am looking forward to your retraction! (Wink at Ken H.) Maybe failing to rejoice is also bad kamma. So be it, I guess.... Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > There have been a number of questions that have to do with confusion about the degrees of lobha and dosa that may be in the mind-stream of a sotapanna. #108262 From: "Mike" Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 10:42 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? mikenz66 Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: ... > > =============== > I wasn't trying to say that. What I was calling a "process" was a sequence of dhammas with some sort of causal/conditioning connection. > > =============== > > J: I think you are referring to the cittas etc of a given individual? I think this is spoken of in the texts as a 'stream', rather than a process. That is certainly so in the case of the bhavanga cittas (bhavanga-sota = stream of life continuum cittas). > > J: However, not all dhammas arising in a day arise as part of a stream. The objects that are experienced through the 5 sense-doors arise independent of the stream of cittas. by which they are experienced However, they are taken for 'self' and thus are to be seen with wisdom for what they truly are: anicca, dukkha and anatta (just like the dhammas that are part of the 'stream'). Mike: Yes, thanks for reminding me that some causes are external. Mike #108263 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 8:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Ken & pt) - In a message dated 7/6/2010 8:43:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello KenH, Pt, all, In Ptsm the sabhava is used, where it is rejected "5. What is voidness in change? Born materiality is void of individual essence;1 disappeared2 materiality is both changed and void. Born feeling is void of individual essence; disappeared feeling is both changed and void. Born perception ... [and so on with 199 of the 201 ideas listed in Tr. I §5, omitting the last two members of the Dependent Origination, up to] ... Born being is void of individual essence; [179] disappeared being is both changed and void." Ptsm TREATISE XX. â€" ON VOIDNESS Any comments? With metta, Alex =============================== My understanding of the historical development is as follows: The PTSM is a somewhat Abhidhamma-like compendium of suttas and analyses that appeared relatively late on the scene, in the 2nd century C. E., around the same time as Mahayana sutras found their way into China and also around the time that the Sarvastivadins had their 4th council (around 100 C. E.), and this "anti-sabhava material" in the PTSM matched the "anti-svabhava material" in Mahayana, both likely reacting to a tendency within the Sarvastivadin school replacing the innocent Theravadin sense of "lakkhana/quality" for 'sabhava' by a substantialist, atta-like sense of "essence" for 'svabhava'. (The Sarvastivadins seem to have used Sanskrit instead of Pali, BTW.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #108264 From: Vince Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 2:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? cerovzt@... Ken wrote: > I think the particular "preparation" being referred in the > Expositor might be mind-door-averting-consciousness > (mano-dvaravajjana-citta). That citta contains only the five > universal general-cetasikas plus four of the six secondary > general-cetasikas. So there would be no possibility of panna in that instance. but note in a numbers calculation we unveil the result (i.e: 2+3 = 5) and we name this knowledge panna. However still we ignore the nature of the object; what's the number itself. What we have always is the knowledge of a representation instead the knowledge of the thing itself. Numbers are a representation of time and space. They are objects. When we know the result this is the knowledge of another object but not the knowledge of the nature of numbers. For that reason somebody invented number 0. Number 0 here is like a paramattha-dhamma but also it becomes another object of grasping in order to operate with it. We can think the result of these operations are real but themselves, without being aware all results are conditioned. In the same way, we can know that my seeing is not the seeing but then we are getting another object. Just another representation. This is how I understand the "preparation" of the object; in order to be grasped and known. > I am sure it is there, either expressly or impliedly, in every > sutta that describes the factors leading to enlightenment. By means > of satipatthana, conditioned dhammas (citta, cetasika and rupa) are > understood for what they are - anicca (fleeting) dukkha and anatta. > As a result of this understanding, there is a turning away from the > conditioned to the unconditioned. > Are you thinking there might be another way that leads to enlightenment? yes, of course. Because the cultivation for the understanding of dukkha, anicca or anatta can lead to enlightenment even ignoring citta, cetasika and rupa. However, a cultivation for the understanding of citta, cetasika and rupa cannot lead to enlightenment while ignoring the existence of dukkha, anicca and anatta. best, #108265 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 2:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? truth_aerator Hello KenH, all, >KenH: Yes, I know from an earlier conversation that you and I have >similar opinions on this matter. By denying the ultimate reality of >conditioned dhammas, people deny the one possible way in which there >can be a world without atta. That leaves the way open for them to see >Nibbana as a kind of self (by another name). There is a belief that in the pursuit of anatta, where one breaks-up the perception of compact, one doesn't arrive and cling to parts that are regarded themselves as "little wholes". It just shifts the perception of the compact to a more micro level and that can also be backhanded door for "Atta" (which doesn't exist). Of course different qualities are different. Coldness is not felt as hotness in a specific case. As for quotes, as I've said: Sabhava seems to first be mentioned in Ptsm, where it is rejected outright for most things. In MN1 it appears that the Buddha rejects conceptualization even of Dhammas, and in MN18 due to prolific conceptual activity creates various categories that attack one... In another sutta (cosmologist sutt) The Buddha rejected the idea of plurality or monism. Perhaps because it is conceptual proliferation. =========================================== ""'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." "'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman." 'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman." "'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology,"" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html ""By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html The point is to let go off all clinging, clinging to "ultimate dhammas" as well. With metta, Alex #108266 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 8:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? farrellkevin80 Hi Ken, Ken: Yes, I know from an earlier conversation that you and I have similar opinions on this matter. By denying the ultimate reality of conditioned dhammas, people deny the one possible way in which there can be a world without atta. That leaves the way open for them to see Nibbana as a kind of self (by another name). Kevin: Ken, you really said it. People could learn from you! Ken:I was interested to read your summary of Mahayana beliefs. Such a pity that the original Dhamma could have become so comprehensively altered! Kevin: Yes, Mahayana is simply based on more conceptual proliferation and ideas. Without understanding the difference between concepts and ultimate realities as taught by the Buddha how can one guard oneself against wrong views? And wrong view is Mara as far as I am concerned (my definition may not be completely accurate) because it leads one further away from the truth. Kevin #108267 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 5:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? upasaka_howard Hi, Kevin & Ken - In a message dated 7/7/2010 4:54:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, farrellkevin80@... writes: Without understanding the difference between concepts and ultimate realities as taught by the Buddha how can one guard oneself against wrong views? ============================== Just a note: If you would read more of the Mahayana works, especially within the Tibetan traditions, you would note that all the conglomerate objects of the world, including trees, and buildings, and persons are viewed as concept-only and illusory. Moreover, within the Pali suttas themselves, the Buddha speaks not only of conglomerate worldly objects as ultimately unreal, but of all conditioned dhammas in such a fashion. In that latter regard, a few relevant quotations from the suttas follow: /"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. "When hearing... "When sensing... "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer./ (From the Kalaka Sutta) _________________________________ /Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./ (From the Phena Sutta) _______________________________ /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ and /He who neither goes too far nor lags behind and knows about the world: "This is all unreal," — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) _______________________________ /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) ___________________________________ "Now suppose a man, when dreaming, were to see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes, and on awakening were to see nothing. In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a dream, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace." (From the Potaliya Sutta) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #108268 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 10:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? farrellkevin80 Hi Upasaka, Howard: If you would read more of the Mahayana works, especially within the Tibetan traditions, you would note that all the conglomerate objects of the world, including trees, and buildings, and persons are viewed as concept-only and illusory. Moreover, within the Pali suttas themselves, the Buddha speaks not only of conglomerate worldly objects as ultimately unreal, but of all conditioned dhammas in such a fashion. In that latter regard, a few relevant quotations from the suttas follow: ... Kevin: Howard there is a big difference which i think you may have overlooked. In the Mahayana suttas no object is seen to be ultimately real, but in the Theravada tradition and the Pali works, paramattha dhammas are said to be ultimately real with concepts of "wholes" which are only conventionally real, built up around those dhammas due to the presence of delusion. Mahayana accepts nothing as being ultimately real and "everything" as being like a dream. Theravada states that there are realities which when not understood with wisdom lead one to see them as conglomerate wholes. Those wholes are said to be like "dreams", but their parts are explicitly shown to be real and not like "dreams" or "water-bubbles" at all. All the best, Kevin #108269 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 11:14 pm Subject: Concepts and reality truth_aerator Hello Kevin, Nina, all, > Kevin: Howard there is a big difference which i think you may have >overlooked. In the Mahayana suttas no object is seen to be >ultimately >real, but in the Theravada tradition and the Pali works, >paramattha >dhammas are said to be ultimately real with concepts of >"wholes" >which are only conventionally real, built up around those >dhammas >due to the presence of delusion. Could you please explain a basis for classifying something as concept, vs reality? To me personally it seems that analysis (breaking wholes into parts) is a conceptual work of the mind just like synthesis (making wholes out of parts). It seems to me that what you say is that whatever is whole is a concept. According to this definition each citta* would be a whole and thus conventional. Each rupa kalapa* would also be a whole and thus conventional. *citta always comes with at least (usually much more) 7 universal cetasikas. None of the cetasikas can ever arise singly. Each inseparable rupakalapa is made at least of 8 parts. None of those qualities can ever occur alone. Thus another "whole". Only Nibbana, like mathematical Zero, cannot be divided as it is not made of any parts. Can someone please explain this to me? With metta, Alex #108270 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 11:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts and reality farrellkevin80 Hi Alex, Alex: Could you please explain a basis for classifying something as concept, vs reality? To me personally it seems that analysis (breaking wholes into parts) is a conceptual work of the mind just like synthesis (making wholes out of parts). It seems to me that what you say is that whatever is whole is a concept. Kevin: Sure, but my suggestion is to read Realities and Concepts by Ajahn Sujin (it is only a few pages long), which should help to clarify all or at least most of your questions. I remember suggesting this to you before. At the time you said you looked at it but had only skimmed it. That work, although brief has tons of information in it about realities and concepts and referring you to it saves a lot of time and effort. It would be much easier for you to get all the information there than to retype it all here. Alex: *citta always comes with at least (usually much more) 7 universal cetasikas. None of the cetasikas can ever arise singly. Kevin: That is correct. Each separate one is a reality. Alex: Each inseparable rupakalapa is made at least of 8 parts. None of those qualities can ever occur alone. Thus another "whole". Correct. The individual rupas are paramattha dhamams. The kalapa itself is just a concept. The idea "kalapa" cannot be insighted. It is thinking, not a reality. The cita and cetasika involved in the thought process can be insighted, however. There are simply conditions that cause these rupa to arise in dependence upon each other. Therefore, everytime certain rupa arise, certain other ones arise, due to conditions. The idea of this is known as "kalapa". A kalapa is not a reality. It is a conglomeration of realities. All the best, Kevin ________________________________ The Lost Trailers: http://www.vevo.com/watch/the-lost-trailers/country-folks/USBVA0900012 ________________________________ From: truth_aerator To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 7:14:11 PM Subject: [dsg] Concepts and reality Hello Kevin, Nina, all, > Kevin: Howard there is a big difference which i think you may have >>overlooked. In the Mahayana suttas no object is seen to be >ultimately >real, >but in the Theravada tradition and the Pali works, >paramattha >dhammas are said >to be ultimately real with concepts of >"wholes" >which are only conventionally >real, built up around those >dhammas >due to the presence of delusion. Could you please explain a basis for classifying something as concept, vs reality? To me personally it seems that analysis (breaking wholes into parts) is a conceptual work of the mind just like synthesis (making wholes out of parts). It seems to me that what you say is that whatever is whole is a concept. According to this definition each citta* would be a whole and thus conventional. Each rupa kalapa* would also be a whole and thus conventional. *citta always comes with at least (usually much more) 7 universal cetasikas. None of the cetasikas can ever arise singly. Each inseparable rupakalapa is made at least of 8 parts. None of those qualities can ever occur alone. Thus another "whole". Only Nibbana, like mathematical Zero, cannot be divided as it is not made of any parts. Can someone please explain this to me? With metta, Alex #108271 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jul 7, 2010 8:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? upasaka_howard Hi, Kevin - In a message dated 7/7/2010 6:18:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, farrellkevin80@... writes: Hi Upasaka, Howard: If you would read more of the Mahayana works, especially within the Tibetan traditions, you would note that all the conglomerate objects of the world, including trees, and buildings, and persons are viewed as concept-only and illusory. Moreover, within the Pali suttas themselves, the Buddha speaks not only of conglomerate worldly objects as ultimately unreal, but of all conditioned dhammas in such a fashion. In that latter regard, a few relevant quotations from the suttas follow: ... Kevin: Howard there is a big difference which i think you may have overlooked. In the Mahayana suttas no object is seen to be ultimately real, but in the Theravada tradition and the Pali works, paramattha dhammas are said to be ultimately real with concepts of "wholes" which are only conventionally real, built up around those dhammas due to the presence of delusion. ------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps so for "Theravada tradition," but such sutta material as I quoted suggests that the original teachings of the Buddha himself do not accord such "reality" to the so called paramattha dhammas. The emphasis is not on "reality" but on fleetingness, insubstantiality, emptiness, and even unreality. ----------------------------------------------------- Mahayana accepts nothing as being ultimately real and "everything" as being like a dream. Theravada states that there are realities which when not understood with wisdom lead one to see them as conglomerate wholes. Those wholes are said to be like "dreams", but their parts are explicitly shown to be real and not like "dreams" or "water-bubbles" at all. ------------------------------------------------------ You might reexamine what I quoted. ---------------------------------------------------- All the best, Kevin =============================== With metta, Howard The Aggregates are Void /Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./ (From the Phena Sutta) #108272 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 12:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? farrellkevin80 Hi Howard, Howard:Perhaps so for "Theravada tradition," but such sutta material as I quoted suggests that the original teachings of the Buddha himself do not accord such "reality" to the so called paramattha dhammas. The emphasis is not on "reality" but on fleetingness, insubstantiality, emptiness, and even unreality. Kevin: Yes, according to the Theravada tradition, which is what I follow. Howard: You might reexamine what I quoted. Kevin: First you deny that the Pali suttas take any dhammas as ultimately real. That is fine if that is your perogative (although I disagree with the assertion). But then when in response to my assertions you claim that I should "reaxime" the Mahayana quotes your provided, implying that that my assertion that Mahayana suttas teach that no reality is ultimately real and that in fact all is "dreamlike" is incorrect. So which is it? Are you now asserting that the Mahayana tradition asserts ultimate realities do exist and that the Theravada tradition doesn't instead? Kevin #108273 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 12:36 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi pt, ------- <. . .> KH: > > . . . Apparently it can sometimes mean substantial in the sense of "containing atta." pt: > Yes, we've discussed this Psm passage some months ago, and as I remember, sabhava was used in Psm to signify the context that dhammas are self-existent, in the sense that they are not conditioned. Hence, sabhava as such was refuted, because dhammas are in fact conditioned. ----------- That is familiar now that you mention it. (However, I wonder what "self-existent in the sense that they are not conditioned" might mean. I still suspect it refers to a way of seeing atta in the world.) ---------------- pt: > I'm not sure what the mentioned Netti excerpt is saying on sabhava - Netti is a part of Khuddaka nikaya, so it should be the second time sabhava is mentioned in the nikayas, though I guess Netti is considered a later addition. ----------------- That level of discussion is out of my league, unfortunately. -------------- pt: > Imo, I like the way the Ven.Nanamoli said that sabhava is used for exegetical purpose. So, in my mind, whenever I read sabhava, I think - individual and general characteristics. Imo, that's what sabhava really stands for. And it's easy to see this even in the suttas - e.g. every time it's said "form is impermanent, feeling is impermanent..."etc, imo this is 100% equivalent to naming individual and general characteristics. --------------- If I understand you correctly, you are saying that, whereas the suttas only use the term "anicca" etc., the commentaries also use "sabhava" as a way of explaining the meaning of "anicca" etc. ---------------------- KH: > > It is, however, an important issue for those modern-day Buddhists who desperately want to believe that dhammas lack "own being." Dangerously addicted to wrong view, they seize upon any obscure quote from the Tipitaka that might support their habit. :-) pt: > With respect, this seems like an oversimplification to me. There's a lot of conflicting info on this topic out there, and it's very easy to get confused. -------------------- You are being sympathetic and understanding, which is all very good, of course. However, I think you will find the objections continue even after the confusion has been cleared up. Many people who have been made aware of the original Theravada still prefer various modern-day alternatives. ------------------------- pt: > E.g. I find that most often sabhava is (mis)understood among modern theravadins to signify some sort of self-existence that defies conditionality - and that is why they reject sabhava - because it supposedly goes directly against conditionality. So, this is pretty much identical to the Psm refutation of sabhava. -------------------------- As I was saying, this can be easily cleared up. And yet, when it is cleared up, many people continue to reject sabhava. -------------------------------- pt: > However, the problem is that in the commentaries, sabhava is used a bit differently - to stand for the individual and general characteristics. In that regard, I find sabhava is rejected among modern theravadins most often on the basis that individual characteristics are equated to conceptual proliferation - so, not real insight, but a process conditioned by ignorance. On the other hand, I haven't yet encountered a disagreement on the general characteristics. ---------------------------------- I encounter it all the time. :-) In my opinion there can be no agreement on the general characteristics unless it is also agreed that they are the *sabhava of absolute realities*. Ken H #108274 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 2:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sotapanna farrellkevin80 Dear Philip, Thank you very much for your questions. I appreciate the message very much. My apologies if this reply comes late, but as you know, mail does not always travel instantly on yahoo, and I don't know when your message appeared in my box, but I did not see it until just a few moments ago. Again, I really appreciate your message. Your questions are good. As to the aversion that some people may have, I personally don't feel any responsibility. Many people will not know what to think and just leave the whole situation alone, not sure if they believe what I have said or not. Others will believe and may wish to associate with me. Others may create unwholesome kamma. Such is life. When the Buddha became the Buddha, I don't think he hesitated his announcement simply because he knew the naked ascetics would acrue a mass of negative kamma in relation to him. Of course, He also knew that he would help deliver many people from ignorance. Whatever happens, happens. I am sure that it will be of benefit to some. The interesting part here to me, when I look at things objectively, is that I acted largely out of my own aversion. Again, people have a hard time accepting the degree of defilements that a sotapanna does have. Kevin __________________________________ Philip wrote: ________________________________ Hi Kevin and all I've found your declaration here and at Dhammawheel very interesting, Kevin. It's a great oppportunity to discuss what sotapanna does and doesn't involve. I'd like to ask about one aspect. Now, remember, I was the first person to jump up and congratulate you on your wholesome aspiration to translate the tipitika, so don't assume that I am by nature a doubter. My current doubt lies here - if you were a sotapanna, would you post in a public forum where your wisdom (basic common sense, really, based on knowing how people behave) would tell you that people would feel aversion? Wouldn't that be a kind of harmfulness? Or does a sotapanna say that the aversion people would feel would be good for them, could help wake them to the truth (no pain, no gain, kind of thing) and that the harmfulness done by causing perdictable aversion to arise for people would be outweighed by giving people the opportunity to rejoice in your accomplishment, and to have the good kamma of asking questions of a sotapanna? Are sotapannas capable of behaving in ways that harm others by causing the arising of aversion etc? I guess they are, there is no telling others' cittas. Sotpannas still function in the world, and of course we know that the presence of holy people causes aversion in unholy people. That's in Dhammapada, that the holy one is unpleasant to the bad person. At first I thought it meant he behaved in an unpleasant way to teach a lesson, but the commentary made it clear that he is unpleasant just by his presence which is troubling to the bad one. Interesting. I think most people tend to think "a sotapanna doesn't announce himself in public" (though it seems to me that I have seen self-declared sotapannas in the tipitika) but on the other hand it certainly is true that the arrival of a sotapanna in a forum gives good kamma opportunities for that forum's members, so it can be an opportunity for all to feel thankful. I won't be discussing further, just wanted to ask you how you feel about causing the aversion (ie being harmful) that you certainly would have been able to predict and whether a kind of weighing of harmfulness and generosity went on in your mind... I haven't written yet that I rejoice in your attainment. Something is holding me back that didn't hold me back when I rejoiced in your translation aspiration. But I won't throw myself into grave sin the way Ken H did by saying I am looking forward to your retraction! (Wink at Ken H.) Maybe failing to rejoice is also bad kamma. So be it, I guess.... Metta, Phil #108275 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 3:14 am Subject: Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? kenhowardau Hi Vince, --- <. . .> KH: > > Are you thinking there might be another way that leads to enlightenment? V: > yes, of course. Because the cultivation for the understanding of dukkha, anicca or anatta can lead to enlightenment even ignoring citta, cetasika and rupa. However, a cultivation for the understanding of citta, cetasika and rupa cannot lead to enlightenment while ignoring the existence of dukkha, anicca and anatta. --- I assume relates to what you were saying about numbers, space and time. I am sorry to say, however, that I have no understanding of the theory involved in that. I know various scientists have tried to link the Dhamma with science, but I disagree with their whole approach. In my opinion, the only way of understanding the Dhamma is the way that is found *in the Tipitaka*. Therefore, I have no doubt that right understanding of anicca, dukkha and anatta is inseparable from right understanding of conditioned dhammas. That's the way they are taught in the Tipitaka. The two cannot be separated. Ken H #108276 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 4:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna sukinderpal Hi Kevin, I didn't get a chance to respond earlier. Thank you for your answers, I liked them. Although I had further questions to ask, I have forgotten what they were, but I'm sure I'll be asking other questions in the future. :-) Metta, Sukinder On 7/6/2010 10:55 PM, Kevin F wrote: > > Hi Sukin, > > Kevin: Thank you for your message. > > Sukin: > > Thanks, so if I may I'd like to go into the topic of kamma prompted by > your comments to Ken H, which is something I have more questions than > answers for. > > Sukin Quote Kevin: > I think by saying "I look forward to..." you have accumulated a degree > of negative kamma. Disbelieving is one thing, stating that to me is > quite another thing. That comment holds a lot of weight. I would retract > it if I were you. Disbelieving is one thing. Stating that is quite > another. It has been a while now and I can assure you that I am not > ahead of myself, not in the slightest bit. Take the wise course of > action. > > I know that this is in the Texts, about retracting one's statements. > What is the effect of this? Surely the deed has been committed and the > kamma accumulated, does this mean that by retracting this is simply a > matter of now doing a good deed? > > Kevin: Yes, once a kamma has been comitted, it can't be taken back. So > the act of retracting a statement would simply be that of doing a good > deed instead. However, it would also cause one to rejoice less about > the first action when one looks back on it in the future and instead > rejoice on the positive deed that one did to rectify it. This would > create more good kamma in the future rather than negative. Some good > kamma is also made off the person the statement was made to, so that > also affects their mind. They are more satisfied since you are > creating less negative kamma each time you think about the situation > now, and this fact can be cause of the positive kamma you made to be > heavier. Again, I don't have any special powers and I am not a Buddha, > so I do not know how accurate my explanation is. It is what I believe. > #108277 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 4:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Sukin, Sukin: Thank you for your answers, I liked them. Kevin: Thank you Sukinder. I am glad we got a chance to speak with each other again. I always look forward to speaking with you. All the best, Kevin #108278 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 4:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: sotapanna philofillet Hi Kevin Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You seem to be thinking things through clearly. :) Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: > > Dear Philip, > > Thank you very much for your questions. I appreciate the message very much. #108279 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 4:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Philip, Phil: hanks for your thoughtful comments. You seem to be thinking things through clearly. :) Kevin. I think I detect a sense of sarcasm. Ha ha! That is a good one. :) All the best, Kevin #108280 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 5:00 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? ptaus1 Hi KenH, > KH: (However, I wonder what "self-existent in the sense that they are not conditioned" might mean. I still suspect it refers to a way of seeing atta in the world.) pt: Yes I'd think so, because without conditionality, one can only speculate in terms of extreme views of eternal self and nihilistic no-self. > KH: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that, whereas the suttas only use the term "anicca" etc., the commentaries also use "sabhava" as a way of explaining the meaning of "anicca" etc. pt: Well, I don't really know, the way I understand it now is that the commentarial sabhava is basically just a shorthand expression for indidividual and general characteristics. So, when a sutta says "feeling is impermanent" - there feeling=individual characteristics, and impermanent=general characteristic. So, imo sabhava doesn't introduce nor explain anything new that wasn't already explained in the suttas. > KH: However, I think you will find the objections continue even after the confusion has been cleared up. Many people who have been made aware of the original Theravada still prefer various modern-day alternatives. ... > As I was saying, this can be easily cleared up. And yet, when it is cleared up, many people continue to reject sabhava. pt: Yes, though in my mind that's kind of normal as long as we have to rely on conceptual understanding only (so no stages of insight yet). In addition, I find that a lot of misunderstnading comes from using the same terms, but unknowingly putting different meanings in them. E.g. some prefer using sabhava in the way it's used in Psm, others in the way it's in the commentaries, while some think that sabhava simply should not be used as it wasn't found in the suttas... > KH: I encounter it all the time. :-) pt: You mean you actually encountered theravadins who reject that aggregates are anicca, dukkha and anatta? > KH: In my opinion there can be no agreement on the general characteristics unless it is also agreed that they are the *sabhava of absolute realities*. pt: Hm, in that case I think you and me are not in agreement :) Because imo sabhava is not "of absolute realities", i.e. it is not an additional characteristic of absolute realities, but sabhava = absolute realities = individual and general characteristics = an instance of insight. Best wishes pt #108281 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 5:12 am Subject: Trimming posts ptaus1 Hi all, Just a general reminder to trim your messages - e.g. when replying to someone's message, yahoo will automatically reproduce entirely the old message you're replying to, so please delete all the bits from that old message which are not directly relevant to your reply. Trimming messages is really helpful to those members who follow dsg posts by printing them all out. You can imagine their frustration (as well as the waste of paper and energy) when a lot of duplicate material has to be printed out. And since we're here already, also a general reminder to address your messages to someone, even if it's "Hi all", as well as, sign off with your name at the end of your posts. Thanks for your help Best wishes pt #108282 From: james brand Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 4:12 am Subject: Re: this is my hello haikusuperstar thanks for the welcomes! metta jc #108283 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 10:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi Alex, --- <. . .> KH: > > By denying the ultimate reality of conditioned dhammas, people deny the one possible way in which there >can be a world without atta. That leaves the way open for them to see >Nibbana as a kind of self (by another name). > > A: > There is a belief that in the pursuit of anatta, where one breaks-up the perception of compact, one doesn't arrive and cling to parts that are regarded themselves as "little wholes". It just shifts the perception of the compact to a more micro level and that can also be backhanded door for "Atta" (which doesn't exist). ----------- Calling dhammas "little wholes" doesn't prove anything. Also, you seem to be assuming that to know a dhamma means to "cling" to it. It doesn't mean that at all. ------------ A: > Of course different qualities are different. Coldness is not felt as hotness in a specific case. ------------ A quality has to be *of* something. Heat is a quality *of* a tactile rupa. You seem to be saying heat is a quality of nothing. --------------------------- A: > As for quotes, as I've said: Sabhava seems to first be mentioned in Ptsm, where it is rejected outright for most things. ---------------------------- Yes, but do you know what "sabhava" meant in that case? ------------- A: > In MN1 it appears that the Buddha rejects conceptualization even of Dhammas, ------------- What do you mean by "rejects conceptualization"? --------------- A: > and in MN18 due to prolific conceptual activity creates various categories that attack one... --------------- You would have to explain that for me too. ------------------------ A: > In another sutta (cosmologist sutta) The Buddha rejected the idea of plurality or monism. Perhaps because it is conceptual proliferation. > > > ""'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." > "'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman." > 'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman." > "'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology,"" > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html > > > ""By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html ----------------- These suttas have been explained in the commentaries, and discussed at length at DSG. But you reject all of the explanations and seem to interpret suttas as saying, "Nothing can be explained." ------------------------ A: > The point is to let go off all clinging, clinging to "ultimate dhammas" as well. ------------------------ Here again you seem to be saying that to know something is to cling to it. You can't just "let go." What can happen is, panna can understand the nature of conditioned dhammas. When it does, there is no more inclination to cling. Ken H #108284 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 12:05 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi pt, I need to go back to the beginning of this thread: ----- pt: > > Continuing with the Visuddhimagga VIII,246 - here is the start of Note 68, which addresses the sentence - "Dhammas [means] individual essences". Note 68. In such pasages as "Dhammas that are concepts" (Dhs., p. 1; par.1308) even a non-entity (abha-va) is thus called a "dhamma" since it is borne (dha-riyati) and affirmed (avadha-riyati) by knowledge. That kind of dhamma is excluded by his saying "Dhammas [means] individual essences'. The act of becoming (bhavana), which constitutes existingness (vijjama-nata-) in the ultimate sense, is essence (bha-va); it is with essence (saha bha-vena), thus it is an individual essence (sabha-va); the meaning is that it is possible (labbhama-narupa) in the true sense, in the ultimate sense. For these are called "dhammas (bearers)" because they bear (dha-rana) their own individual essences (sabha-va), and they are called "individual essences" in the sense already explained' (Pm. 282; cf. Ch. VII,n.l). ----- At first, I hadn't noticed that the Vism was saying two apparently different things: (1) "dhammas means essences" and (2) "dhammas bear essences." So which is it? I firmly believe dhammas *bear* sabhava. And I assume that is that is the same as saying "dhammas bear essences." You, on the other hand, seem to firmly believe dhammas *are* sabhava. Apparently, we are both right: "For these are called "dhammas (bearers)" because they bear (dha-rana) their own individual essences (sabha-va), and they are called "individual essences" in the sense already explained' (Pm. 282; cf. Ch.VII,n.l)." I think I can see how we are both right, but I am not sure you can. You seem to think that dhammas are *only* essences - and *not* bearers of essences. In other words, you seem to think there is nothing more to dhammas than their characteristics. One thing that gives me confidence in my view is that DSG had a similar discussion years ago - before you joined - and I remember something Jon explained to me at the time. He said that the characteristics of paramattha dhammas were not, themselves, paramattha dhammas. I take that as confirmation that there is more to dhammas than their characteristics. Ken H > > KH: In my opinion there can be no agreement on the general > characteristics unless it is also agreed that they are the *sabhava > of absolute realities*. > pt: Hm, in that case I think you and me are not in agreement :) > Because imo sabhava is not "of absolute realities", i.e. it is not an additional characteristic of absolute realities, but sabhava = absolute realities = individual and general characteristics = an instance of insight. > #108285 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 8:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? upasaka_howard Hi, Kevin - In a message dated 7/7/2010 8:31:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, farrellkevin80@... writes: Hi Howard, Howard:Perhaps so for "Theravada tradition," but such sutta material as I quoted suggests that the original teachings of the Buddha himself do not accord such "reality" to the so called paramattha dhammas. The emphasis is not on "reality" but on fleetingness, insubstantiality, emptiness, and even unreality. Kevin: Yes, according to the Theravada tradition, which is what I follow. Howard: You might reexamine what I quoted. Kevin: First you deny that the Pali suttas take any dhammas as ultimately real. That is fine if that is your perogative (although I disagree with the assertion). But then when in response to my assertions you claim that I should "reaxime" the Mahayana quotes your provided, implying that that my assertion that Mahayana suttas teach that no reality is ultimately real and that in fact all is "dreamlike" is incorrect. So which is it? Are you now asserting that the Mahayana tradition asserts ultimate realities do exist and that the Theravada tradition doesn't instead? -------------------------------------------------- No, I didn't say that at all. What I was replying to was your statement , and my reply to that pertained to what you wrote there starting with 'Theravada'. My point was that the sutta quotes show the Buddha as not viewing conditioned phenomena as "ultimate realities." And what claimed "Mahayana quotes" did I give??? I don't recall giving any Mahayana quotes as you assert, but solely quoting from Pali suttas. Please remind me of the Mahayana quotes you believe that I gave. To be clear, Kevin, my claim was and is twofold, the first not as important as the second (which I went on to back up): 1) Mahayana, especially in the Tibetan traditions, also accords no ultimate reality to conglomerates (which was all I said about Mahayana), and 2) The Buddha in the Pali suttas taught emptiness (and even ultimate unreality) of namas and rupas as well as conglomerates, and I backed up that perspective with quotes from the Sutta Pitaka. I recall giving no quotes from Mahayana sutras. What I wrote to you, exactly, was the following: (And I then followed that with numerous teachings of the Buddha himself as recorded in the Pali suttas. I did not quote from anything but Pali suttas, and specifically not in ANY way from the Mahayana tradition.) --------------------------------------------------------- Kevin ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #108286 From: Vince Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 12:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? cerovzt@... Ken wrote: > I assume relates to what you were saying about numbers, space and > time. I am sorry to say, however, that I have no understanding of > the theory involved in that. well, sorry for the explanation but I don't try to add any theory. When we grasp any object there is space and there is time. It can be checked by anyone at that same moment. This is not a theory. Object has a place and is being grasped before or after another object. This is our common experience. In fact, we can know there is a citta also because space and time. Contemplating both conditions for the object becomes a way of being aware of citta and their speed. > In my opinion, the only way of understanding the Dhamma is the way > that is found *in the Tipitaka*. > Therefore, I have no doubt that right understanding of anicca, > dukkha and anatta is inseparable from right understanding of > conditioned dhammas. That's the way they are taught in the Tipitaka. > The two cannot be separated. they are dependent but according same Tipitaka, only in arhanthood that dependence can be understood completely. Tipitaka is plenty of classifications citing doors, insights, purifications, etc... leading to nibbana. There is not an only one way In example, inside Samyutta Nikaya: "And what, bhikkhus, is the very good way leading to this undying state of Nibbana ? Awareness of the body as just a heap of organs is a way to this uncorrupted state ... The four foundations of awareness is a way to this absolute truth ... Serene calm and profound insight is a way to this the far shore ... Absorption into concentrated directed thought & sustained examination is a way... Absorption into emptiness, into signlessness, and into the uninclined is a way... The four right efforts is a way to this the very difficult to see ... The four roads to force is a way to this supreme bliss ... The five pure abilities is a way to this purity ... The five pure powers is a way to this freedom ... The seven links to awakening is a way to this peace ... The Noble 8-fold Way is a way to this deathless destination ... These are ways leading to this Nibbana" best, #108287 From: Vince Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 12:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sotapanna cerovzt@... Dear Kevin you wrote: > not sure if they believe what I have said or not. Others will believe > and may wish to associate with me. Others may create unwholesome kamma. or wholesome. Every time you can say something wrong and they don't believe you, they are creating good kamma. best, #108288 From: "philip" Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 1:01 pm Subject: Re: sotapanna philofillet Hi Kevin No sarcasm intended in this case. I don't think you're a sotapanna (I have a doubt issue about Ariyan attainments of any kind in this day and age, that is my doubt problem, hindrance) but I admire the way you are dealing with questions/comments in a diplomatic way. Metta, Phil > Kevin. I think I detect a sense of sarcasm. Ha ha! That is a good one. :) > > All the best, > > Kevin #108289 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 4:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? farrellkevin80 Hi Howard, Howard: I don't recall giving any Mahayana quotes as you assert, but solely quoting from Pali suttas. Kevin: The way some of them were translated I thought they were Mahayana, my mistake. Howard: ) The Buddha in the Pali suttas taught emptiness (and even ultimate unreality) of namas and rupas as well as conglomerates, and I backed up that perspective with quotes from the Sutta Pitaka. Kevin: It seems you are only referring to Suttas for your rinformation, while I am referring to the rest of the Canon as well, ie. Commentaries, theAbhidhamma and so on. If you can't accept those teachings there is not much I can do. You will continue to have your views. Kevin #108290 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 1:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? upasaka_howard Hi, Kevin - In a message dated 7/8/2010 12:46:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, farrellkevin80@... writes: Hi Howard, Howard: I don't recall giving any Mahayana quotes as you assert, but solely quoting from Pali suttas. Kevin: The way some of them were translated I thought they were Mahayana, my mistake. ------------------------------------------------- Okay, no problem. :-) ------------------------------------------------ Howard: ) The Buddha in the Pali suttas taught emptiness (and even ultimate unreality) of namas and rupas as well as conglomerates, and I backed up that perspective with quotes from the Sutta Pitaka. Kevin: It seems you are only referring to Suttas for your rinformation, while I am referring to the rest of the Canon as well, ie. Commentaries, theAbhidhamma and so on. -------------------------------------------------- I consider the Pali suttas to be the word of the Buddha. ------------------------------------------------- If you can't accept those teachings there is not much I can do. You will continue to have your views. ------------------------------------------------- We all will. ------------------------------------------------- Kevin =============================== With metta, Howard P. S. I note that you have not addressed the content of the Pali sutta material that I provided. It is not spurious material, in case you were wondering. Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #108291 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 5:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? farrellkevin80 Hi Howard, Howard: We all will. Kevin: Indeed. Howard: P. S. I note that you have not addressed the content of the Pali sutta material that I provided. It is not spurious material, in case you were wondering. Kevin: I think if you read the Commentarial works connected with those suttas, as well as with other ones, and other material such as the Abhidhamma, that all your wrong views will be addressed. All the best, Kevin #108292 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 5:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sotapanna farrellkevin80 Dear Phil, Phil: (I have a doubt issue about Ariyan attainments of any kind in this day and age, that is my doubt problem, hindrance) I can understand your concerns when you think that no one will attain in this day and age. I too have had similar feelings. All the best, Kevin #108293 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 2:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? upasaka_howard Hi, Kevin - In a message dated 7/8/2010 1:22:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, farrellkevin80@... writes: Hi Howard, Howard: We all will. Kevin: Indeed. Howard: P. S. I note that you have not addressed the content of the Pali sutta material that I provided. It is not spurious material, in case you were wondering. Kevin: I think if you read the Commentarial works connected with those suttas, as well as with other ones, and other material such as the Abhidhamma, that all your wrong views will be addressed. -------------------------------------------------- LOLOL! I would have written "your views that I consider to be wrong ones," rather than "your wrong views," as you wrote, but apparently you are more certain of your views than I. -------------------------------------------------- All the best, Kevin ================================ With metta, Howard Safeguarding the Truth "But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth." "If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth. "If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. (From the Canki Sutta) #108294 From: A T Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 6:56 pm Subject: RE: What is the ALL actually? truth_aerator Hello KenH, Howard, all, >KH: Calling dhammas "little wholes" doesn't prove anything. Actually it does show that even the most basic units of experience lack singular characteristic and is amalgam of at least 7 different parts none of which can ever appear alone. As you know, according to comy Abh, ever citta arises with at least 7 cetasikas. Citta cannot arise with less than 7 cetasikas. Furthermore in the case of 5 sense cognition, ru-pa also doesn't arise singly but as ru-pakala-pa. Its most basic unit is made of 8 parts (suddhat.t.hakam.), none of which can ever arise singly. And in the case of lets say seeing, the ru-pa is made of more. The point is that if we consider concepts all that is made of parts, then citta and ru-pa would be wholes and thus concepts. If we consider concepts to be everything that is known in the mind, then everything being known only in the mind citta, na-ma, (matter doesn't know) would be a concept. IMHU of the suttas, to go beyond seeing, hearing, sensing and cognizing would be to get involved in views (such as of existence or non-existence). Remember the famous Bahiya sutta? "In the seen, let there be just the seen..." . The Buddha taught Bahiya to stop short at sense-data and not to speculate if there is anything (or nothing) beyond seeing. To speculate what is outside of experience involves craving and views. One either likes this or that view and argues accordingly as for the existence of things beyond the seeing and so forth. As I've said: ""'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." "'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman." 'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman." "'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology,"" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html ""By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html It could be that to posit some thing that do or do not exist beyond experience is to go into speculative (and unverifiable views) views. I've read quite a bit about arguments of what really really exists and what exists only conventionally. Of course all these may be due to not appreciating what the Buddha has said and just more papañca. As Kaccayana sutta states, to take polarity of existence/nonexistence is ignorant viewmaking. Some things that I read are uncomfortably close to wrong views. For example some may say that river flowing, wind blowing, pregnant women are concepts just like "‘The winds do not blow, the rivers do not flow, pregnant women do not give birth, the moon and sun do not rise and set but stand as steady as a pillar’" [then it proceeds with 5 khandha analysis in anicca-dukkha-anatta and end with] "“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has abandoned perplexity in these six cases, and when, further, he has abandoned perplexity about suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the way leading to the cessation of suffering, he is then called a noble disciple who is a stream-enterer, no longer bound to the nether world, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as his destination.”" -SN 24.1 Winds BB Trans I've heard that some people deny motion because it is just rupas appearing at different places at different times, plus the "fact" that wholes do not really exist - so how could they move or change? Or that since concepts (such as flowing river, pregnant women, sun, moon, etc) do not exist, they aren't inconstant (and I would assume that they do not change, as change requires anicca). The MN1 is also a very deep sutta, and it is the first sutta in MN - perhaps for a good reason. "The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — perceives (sañja-na-ti) earth as earth. Perceiving (saññatva-) earth as earth, he conceives [things] about earth, he conceives (maññati) [things] in earth, he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended (Apariñña-tam.) it, I tell you." repeat the same for 24 bases including "he seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized[4] ... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity[5] ... the All as the All[6] ..." The trainee: ""A monk who is a trainee — yearning for the unexcelled relief from bondage, his aspirations as yet unfulfilled — directly knows (abhija-na-ti) earth as earth. Directly knowing (abhiñña-ya) earth as earth, let him not conceive (ma- maññi) things about earth, let him not conceive things in earth, let him not conceive things coming out of earth, let him not conceive earth as 'mine,' let him not delight in earth. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you." The Arahant: ""A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations — who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge — directly knows (abhija-na-ti) earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive (na maññati) things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html Note: An Arahant does not imagine things about consciousness, matter and so on. He wouldn't imagine theoretical systems of how things work beyond experience. The sutta states that only an ignorant worldling who doesn't know the Dhamma would speculate about things such as "from multiplicity comes this or that..." Creating a lot of categories is also an outcome of: "What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one "papañcizes." Based on what a person papañcizes, the perceptions & categories of papañca assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye [as with the remaining senses]. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html Again, making of categories, analysis/synthesis is just papanca at work. It is just building up elaborate thought construction to satisfy views and preferences and the desire "to know". Nothing to say about building the ego by "I've got PhD in Buddhology! I know more than you do!" "For a person indifferent towards all conditions, whatever is seen, heard or cognized, he is one who sees it as it really is and lives with clarity (of mind). With what could he be identified in the world?" "They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion), ... The (true) brahmana who has gone beyond limitations, having understood and seen there is no longer any assumption for him, he is neither disturbed by lust nor agitated by revulsion. For him there is nothing upheld as 'the highest.'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.04.irel.html "For him there is nothing upheld as 'the highest.'" Snp 4.4 Thus a true Brahman would never upheld anything as "the highest" (natthi- paramuggahi-tanti). natthi- = na + atthi = no; not; not present. paramuggahi-tanti = param + uggahi-tanti parama = superior; best; excellent. uggahi-tanti = 1. learnt; 2. raised; 3. taken wrongly. "the instructed noble disciple reflects thus: ‘Is there anything in the world that I could cling to without being blameworthy?’ He understand thus "There is nothing in the world that I could cling to without being blameworthy." SN 22.80(9) Alms gatherer BB Trans. ""In the same way, monks, have I shown to you the Teaching's similitude to a raft: as having the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of being clung to. 14. "You, O monks, who understand the Teaching's similitude to a raft, you should let go even (good) teachings,[14] how much more false ones!" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html So one should eventually let go even of the "ultimates". IMHO. With metta, Alex #108295 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Jul 9, 2010 6:16 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? ptaus1 Hi KenH, Thanks for your reply. > KH: At first, I hadn't noticed that the Vism was saying two apparently different things: (1) "dhammas means essences" and (2) "dhammas bear essences." >... > I think I can see how we are both right, but I am not sure you can. You seem to think that dhammas are *only* essences - and *not* bearers of essences. In other words, you seem to think there is nothing more to dhammas than their characteristics. > > One thing that gives me confidence in my view is that DSG had a similar discussion years ago - before you joined - and I remember something Jon explained to me at the time. He said that the characteristics of paramattha dhammas were not, themselves, paramattha dhammas. > > I take that as confirmation that there is more to dhammas than their characteristics. pt: Perhaps you remember a similar discussion we had a couple of months back - the MN tika quote says "And although there IS NO REAL DISTINCTION between these dhammas and their characteristics, still, in order to facilitate understanding, the exposition makes a distinction as a mere metaphorical device." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/107212 So to me that quite clearly says dhamma=characterisitcs, and if dhamma=characterisitcs, then sabhava must be equal to characterisitcs as well, since "dhammas means essences". The next sentence in the quote also seems very important to me: "Also they are borne, or they are discerned, known, according to their specific nature, thus they are dhammas." To me this seems to say that when a dhamma is experienced, what is in fact experienced is its specific nature (I assume sabhava), which then to me says that in an instance of insight, it's the characteristics which are experienced by panna, not anything else. Anyway, that's how I understand the texts we had at our disposal so far. Perhaps Jon can say more on this topic if he disagrees. Best wishes pt #108296 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Jul 9, 2010 6:32 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? ptaus1 Hi Alex, These are just my thoughts on the issues you raise: > A: Actually it does show that even the most basic units of experience lack singular characteristic and is amalgam of at least 7 different parts none of which can ever appear alone. > > As you know, according to comy Abh, ever citta arises with at least 7 cetasikas. Citta cannot arise with less than 7 cetasikas. > > Furthermore in the case of 5 sense cognition, ru-pa also doesn't arise singly but as ru-pakala-pa. Its most basic unit is made of 8 parts (suddhat.t.hakam.), none of which can ever arise singly. And in the case of lets say seeing, the ru-pa is made of more. > > The point is that if we consider concepts all that is made of parts, then citta and ru-pa would be wholes and thus concepts. pt: I think there's a difference between taking abhidhamma only as a theory of how the world works, and taking it as a description of an instance of insight. If we take it in the first sense, then it can be said that citta and cetasikas cannot be separated since they arise at the same time, rupas in a kalapa cannot be separated, etc. However, if we take it in the second sense, then what the texts seem to say is that at an instance when insight occurs, a certain dhamma is the object of citta. So it will be just one rupa out of all those involved in a single kalapa, or one cetasika out of all those that arose together with a single citta, etc. It seems that's just how things are - how insight happens - it can't process more than a single dhamma at a time, even though many of them arise together at that instance. From here we can then argue in the sense of "ok, so what does an experience of a single dhamma actually mean? Is it just the experience of the characteristics, or is there something more to a dhamma than its characteristics?" etc, like KenH and me are discussing now. Best wishes pt #108297 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jul 9, 2010 9:16 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi pt, -------- <. . .> KH: > > > I take that as confirmation that there is more to dhammas than their characteristics. > > pt: > Perhaps you remember a similar discussion we had a couple of months back - the MN tika quote says "And although there IS NO REAL DISTINCTION between these dhammas and their characteristics, still, in order to facilitate understanding, the exposition makes a distinction as a mere metaphorical device." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/107212 ------- Oh dear, I have a mind like a sieve! :-) I must admit there has been a lot of fuzzy thinking in my last couple of posts. I can't quite grasp how something could be nothing more that its characteristics. According to the dictionary, a characteristic is a "defining feature: a feature or quality that makes somebody or something recognizable." (Encarta) Could it be argued that *everything* that makes up 'somebody or something' is a defining feature? I suppose it could! So I will leave at that for a while. Thanks for your help and patience. I look forward to the next instalment of the thread. Ken H #108298 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jul 9, 2010 3:01 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? truth_aerator >Pt: However, if we take it in the second sense, then what the texts >seem to say is that at an instance when insight occurs, a certain >dhamma is the object of citta. So it will be just one rupa out of all >those involved in a single kalapa, or one cetasika out of all those >that arose together with a single citta, etc. It seems that's just how >things are - how insight happens - it can't process more than a single >dhamma at a time, even though many of them arise together at that >instance. Hello Pt, and when one takes just onecetasika or rupa as object, even then it arises with the citta that has at least 7 cetasikas + panna + whatever other qualities are required. So even if one takes "one cetasika" it arises as a conglomeration of many factors and never totally alone. With metta, Alex #108299 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 4:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? farrellkevin80 Hello Howard, Well, sir, according to the Canon as a whole, your views can easily be considered wrong ones. Of course if all you accept as true Dhamma is the Suttas, then you would think it should be worded as "your views that I consider to be wrong ones". But you are conversing with someone who tries to come from the perspective of the Canon as a whole being correct, and not just from the suttas. Furthermore, this is a list run by Theravadins of the same pursuasion so it should be no surprise to you that I call your views "wrong views". All the best, Kevin #108300 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna sarahprocter... Hi Kel, Great to see you around and not surprising to read your sharp qus! Hope you're keeping well and look f/w to reading more! Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Hi Kevin, > > So I take it that you understand adhi-sila to be just perfection in terms of verbal and bodily actions. I had thought it was referring to mental actions. The potential or even temptation to break the precept is no longer there, hence no matter what the type of actions that will pull one to the 4 lower realms are no longer possible. I'm not sure if I understand how we can make differentitate between normal/fleeting thoughts versus one that can grow into verbal/bodily actions. As long as the spark remains, the fire can come back anytime in the future, imho. <...> #108301 From: sarah Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:21 am Subject: Re: this is my hello sarahprocter... Hi JC, I also appreciated your introduction and look forward to more sharing and discussion with you in due course. Would you care to tell us where you live? You've been reading some good Dhamma....keep it up! Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, jcbrand76@... wrote: > > when I joined this group it sent me a message saying i should say hello and > introduce myself. <...> #108302 From: james brand Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:00 am Subject: Re: this is my hello haikusuperstar hello Sarah I'm really hoping to pick up a lot , just been reading the posts here s far. right now I'm living in anchorage Alaska metta jc #108303 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:01 am Subject: Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? sarahprocter... Hi pt (& Ken H), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: >Panna knows the nature of dhammas. No doubt panna can arise in the course of a scientific calculation but there would have to be a link. > > It will be good to hear more on this from Nina and others. .... S: Yes, I've agreed with Ken H's comments on this topic. Not necessarily any panna at all whilst doing a scientific calculation - lots of sanna, vitakka as mentioned and also lots of (akusala) chanda and lobha usually, as in most tasks in which one has an interest. .... > > ------------- > pt: > Assuming that things are as you say though, what mental factor would then be responsible for understanding outside of bhavana (e.g. like in algebra)? Would you simply relegate that sort of conventional understanding to sanna, vitakka and vicara, for example? > ------------- > > Yes, I would say just those ordinary cetasikas. When a mathematician's calculations are correct the cetasikas are the same as when his calculations are incorrect (all other things being equal). They could be wholesome or unwholesome (unlike panna, which is always wholesome), but most often unwholesome. > > They could be wholesome only when performed as part of an act of dana, sila or bhavana. And in the case of bhavana they would include panna. (Just don't ask me to explain "an act". It's not my strong point. :-)) ... S: And I was just going to ask you what you meant by "an act of bhavana"! Anyway, the main point is that if there is no kusala, there is definitely no panna and even if there is some kusala, there may well not be any panna. Sometimes similes are given in the texts, such as the skill of making a plough, but these are not meant to literally imply that there is panna involved whenever one makes a plough! As Ken has said, one needs to read the context carefully, in my view. Metta Sarah ======== #108304 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? sarahprocter... Hi Kevin, I've been appreciating your discussions and sharing of your understanding of the Dhamma. --- On Sat, 10/7/10, Kevin F wrote: >Furthermore, this is a list run by Theravadins of the same pursuasion so it should be no surprise to you that I call your views "wrong views". ... S: Maybe not a surprise, but sometimes a little diplomacy or an "as I understand" can be more helpful in encouraging a further discussion of consideration of one's comments by the other. After all, you mentioned you wish to share and help:-) I've been behind with my reading and have a bunch of letters to catch up on tomorrow, but I was reading a post in which you suggest there is no significant reduction of lobha and dosa in a sotapanna and that, if I understood you, there may still be the thought or idea of killing, stealing, lying or sexual misconduct. I don't believe this is correct. As I understand, with the eradication of self-view and all ditthi, there is a significant reduction in lobha and dosa, such that these gross tendencies are completely eradicated and there'd never be such thoughts of harming at all, even thoughts of "white lies", whatever the justification. Of course, this is a gradual path, so such kinds of harming (or thoughts of such) are gradually "worn away" as satipatthana develops. By the second stage of insight (the cula-sotapanna), when the conditioned nature of dhammas is understood, I would think there has been "a significant reduction" in such gross lobha and dosa. There is no doubt about dhammas. Anyway, I look forward to catching up with all your interesting threads. I understand your wish to have a Dhamma community to share with. At least we have the internet! Metta Sarah ======= #108305 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? upasaka_howard Hi, Kevin - In a message dated 7/10/2010 12:59:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, farrellkevin80@... writes: Hello Howard, Well, sir, according to the Canon as a whole, your views can easily be considered wrong ones. Of course if all you accept as true Dhamma is the Suttas, then you would think it should be worded as "your views that I consider to be wrong ones". ---------------------------------------------- I believe, and the Buddha has said, that true Dhamma is to be found wherever it is expressed, even in other traditions. What I believe is not that Dhamma is to be found only in the suttas, but that it is only the suttas that I am confident in being the direct Buddha word, and thus I use the sutta pitaka as my yardstick. That is my perspective, but I am not looking to engage in disputes. :-) ---------------------------------------- But you are conversing with someone who tries to come from the perspective of the Canon as a whole being correct, and not just from the suttas. ---------------------------------------- That's fine! ----------------------------------- Furthermore, this is a list run by Theravadins of the same pursuasion so it should be no surprise to you that I call your views "wrong views". ---------------------------------------- I consider that as going too far, confusing belief with knowledge. Your views may be wrong, my views may be wrong - probably we are both filled with considerable misunderstanding. As for me, I don't claim to *know as fact* much of anything. -------------------------------------- All the best, Kevin ========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #108306 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? truth_aerator Hello Kevin, (and Howard) >K: Well, sir, according to the Canon as a whole, your views can >easily >be considered wrong ones. Of course if all you accept as >true Dhamma >is the Suttas, then you would think it should be worded >as "your views >that I consider to be wrong ones". But you are >conversing with >someone who tries to come from the perspective of >the Canon as a whole >being correct, and not just from the suttas. What about Mount Meru? What about cloud devas that cause rain or that sun rotates around the Earth? What about Jataka stories where animals can talk and apparently can think like wise humans? ======================================================== "3. Sitting, that monk said to the Blessed One: ?Venerable sir, why is it warm on a certain day?? 4. ?Monk, there are gods named warm clouds. On a certain day it occurs to them: `What if we delight as much as we like?' According to their intention it becomes warm. 5. ?Monks, as a result a certain day becomes warm.? --- 3. Sitting, that monk said to the Blessed One: ?Venerable sir, why is it windy on a certain day?? 4. ?Monk, there are gods named windy clouds. On a certain day it occurs to them: `What if we delight as much as we like?' According to their intention it becomes windy. ========== Sitting, that monk said to the Blessed One: ?Venerable sir, why is it rainy on a certain day?? 4. ?Monk, there are gods named rainy clouds. On a certain day it occurs to them: `What if we delight as much as we like?' According to their intention it rains. http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta3/31-Valaha-Samy\ utta/01-Valahakavaggo-e.html ============================================================ How to reconcile the above? With metta, Alex #108307 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 3:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna chandrafabian Dear Kevin, I agree with you wholeheartedly on this Sotapanna matter, sometimes Hard to explain to other people that a Sotapanna only removing three lower fetters, does not seem different from puthujana, because they did not lessen Ill will and passion. Eventhough deep within they know they have transformed into a higher understanding of the mind works... People tends to assume Sotapanna only slightly different compared to Arahat, in fact they are still widely different. But Sotapanna in my opinion have a glimpse understanding of Arahat's mind, because they experience Arahat's mind for a very short time. If you don't mind, may I know under whom do you practiced with? mettacittena, fabian --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: > > Hi Sukinder, > > Sukinder :I agree with you that a Sotapanna basically lives his life more or less > the same way as he did when he was still a putthujana. And those of us > who have so very little understanding, we can easily project our > misunderstandings into the picture. > > Kevin: I think this is natural. People may not understand some of the intracacies. I think some of those are explain in the message I just posted in response to Kelwin. For example, a sotapanna doesn't really became stable in morality because of less lobha and dosa really, but because of the absence of view. I think this is super important to understand. Lobha and dosa, save for that directly connected to the three fetters is not lessened at all until the second stage of Ariyanship. This can be hard for some people to understand, or even to accept possibly. > > Sukinder: I can accept all this as being something which happened prior to that > special moment and accumulated such that later this conditioned some of > your thoughts even after the event. > > Kevin: Yes, Sukinder. I think that is a big part of it. > > Sukinder:This I am having a hard time understanding. I can understand the > aversion associated with not getting what one desires. But why would you > desire others to rejoice in your attainment when the best thing you > could give anyone at anytime is the Dhamma? Besides, all this time you > were already involved with communicating with other Buddhists > everywhere, what other sense of community were you seeking, and why > would this be dependent on the perception by someone else of your being > a Sotapanna? > Kevin: I have always had an inclination to "find the right path and share it with othres". I have no idea where this comes. Over the course of so many lifetimes, it is possible that perhaps at some time I aspired to be a bodhisatta or a teacher of dhamma or some other such thing and developed accumulation towards that. I really don't know. What I do know is that I had always been interested in sharing the dhamma with others, this also expressed itself in my old interest in Mahayana, which is gone. I do not wish people to treat me any differently or make any gestures of respect towards me, but, at the same time, deep down I know that any a slight gesture of respect or kindness or generosity towards a sotapanna brings great fruit. This brings other people happiness. Maybe I wished for people to rejoice simply so my friends, whom I am attached to, could make merit? > > The real thing is that I simply wanted to share. It is just my nature, by conditions of course (like all things). Who knows what conditions come into play, what actions were taken in the past? > > Sukiner: On the surface, yes, but otherwise I think, the difference between the > sotapanna and a putthijana is much, much greater than between the > different ariyan stages, it is what I'd call a quantum leap. > > Kevin: Oh yes, asbsolutely. I agree. There is no doubt about that. And I did focus on that for some time, or should I say I was keenly aware of that for a time. Now that some time has passed and I am a bit more ... comfortable... with the fact that I am a sotapanna, some of the shock value has decreased. You have to understand how being a sotapanna for a period of time might conditions ones thoughts after a while. Now the focus has shifted from difference of being a sotapanna rather than a putthujana, to the fact that I am an ariya (very used to the fact of being a sotapanna now, no surprises or "shock value" there for me any more) who still has a great deal of defilements left. In fact compared to most ariyas, my level of wisdom is actually very poor. Attachment and aversion being so strong in me, I am an ariya who still has a lot of growth to accomplish. That is how things are seen from my perspective. Let's be clear here, moha, lobha, > dosa, and even mana, conceit, still arise in the sotapanna though the lineage has changed permanently. This is a far cry from the more Noble Ones. > > Sukinder: I don't know about selfish, but you seem to be thinking a lot about > 'people out there'. One good reminder I get from A. Sujin is that "we > are not world managers", and one thing I know about her is that she is > never driven by such thoughts as 'going out to spread the word'. In fact > I believe that this is the reason why she then has so much energy to > actually teach because it is always for the potential student to > approach her rather than she seeking them out. > > Kevin: I feel the same way. > > Sukinder:And you can continue to discuss the Dhamma, if anything is boiled over > it is best in the form of words of wisdom. The Kalyanamitta is one who > is involved in the development of understanding and with metta would > encourage the same in others. > > Kevin: For sure. > > Sukin: Again, I may be projecting my putthujana ideas into the situation. I > have no problems with a sotapanna having attachment dissociated from > wrong view and any aversion resulting from this. But I can't help in > continuing this discussion with you, going away with the perception that > some 'cheating dhammas' are at play. But I'll continue to listen to any > clarifications from you or anyone else who'd care to join in. > > Kevin: Okay. > > Sukinder: And I hope I haven't been too blunt. ;-) > > No you haven't at all. And I am the one who is usually too blunt anyway. > > Kevin > #108308 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 4:16 pm Subject: Re: sotapanna chandrafabian Dear Phil, I was a skeptic like you, but it was change after I practice Vipassana. I believe any person who believe Sotapanna can be reached in this life was a skeptic like me and you. Metta, fabian --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Kevin > > No sarcasm intended in this case. > > I don't think you're a sotapanna (I have a doubt issue about Ariyan attainments of any kind in this day and age, that is my doubt problem, hindrance) but I admire the way you are dealing with questions/comments in a diplomatic way. > > Metta, > > Phil > > > Kevin. I think I detect a sense of sarcasm. Ha ha! That is a good one. :) > > > > All the best, > > > > Kevin > > #108309 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 4:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna truth_aerator >Hard to explain to other people that a Sotapanna >only removing >three lower fetters, does not seem different from >puthujana, >because they did not lessen Ill will and passion. >Eventhough deep >within they know they have transformed into a higher >understanding >of the mind works... > >People tends to assume Sotapanna only slightly different compared to >Arahat, in fact they are still widely different. But Sotapanna in my >opinion have a glimpse understanding of Arahat's mind, because they >experience Arahat's mind for a very short time. > > If you don't mind, may I know under whom do you practiced with? Hello Fabian, all, A sotapanna doesn't recognize atta and doesn't see permanency anywhere. Furthermore with deep understanding of 4 NT (stress, its origin, its cessation, the path leading to cessation) it is very unlikely that a sotapanna would give much attention to starting new relationships, new worldly acquisitions etc. Of course a stream-enterer *can* (or not, as in Case of Ven. Ananda) have lustful thoughts, but to a lesser extent than a wordling and they are quickly recognized and dealt with. Perhaps the difference between a sotapanna and an Arahant is MUCH smaller than the difference between wordling and a sotapanna. A wordling can be reborn almost infinite amount, while a sotapanna at max 6. IMHO. With metta, Alex #108310 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Sarah: Sarah: The Lost Trailers: Great to see you around and not surprising to read your sharp qus! Hope you're keeping well and look f/w to reading more! Kevin: Thanks Sarah. It's nice to be here! I enjoy sharing dhamma with friends. Kevin #108311 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? farrellkevin80 Hello Sarah, The Lost Trailers: Sarah: I've been appreciating your discussions and sharing of your understanding of the Dhamma. Kevin: Thank you. I appreciate that. Sarah: Maybe not a surprise, but sometimes a little diplomacy or an "as I understand" can be more helpful in encouraging a further discussion of consideration of one's comments by the other. After all, you mentioned you wish to share and help:-) Kevin: I do wish to share and help. I'll try to be diplomatic. Sarah: I was reading a post in which you suggest there is no significant reduction of lobha and dosa in a sotapanna and that, if I understood you, there may still be the thought or idea of killing, stealing, lying or sexual misconduct. I don't believe this is correct. As I understand, with the eradication of self-view and all ditthi, there is a significant reduction in lobha and dosa, such that these gross tendencies are completely eradicated and there'd never be such thoughts of harming at all, even thoughts of "white lies", whatever the justification. Kevin: Life is very complex and so is the mind. Let's say I used to lie at work to the boss (just hypothetically). Then say I become a sotapanna and the next day I come in to work and I find myself in one of those same situations where the boss asks me a question and where I would have no doubt lied before. The sotapanna will not lie, nor will he plan on doing so, but the thought "I would have told such and such a lie in the past" could easily enter his mind. There would not be cetana pushing to tell this lie though. Such is how thinking works. As to what I mentioned about the lack of sexual misconduct in a sotapanna, lobha still desires objects. Do you think lobha asks now if the object is married or under someones protection now before becoming aroused? Not being sarcastic here. It is a serious question asked with friendliness. Sarah: when the conditioned nature of dhammas is understood, I would think there has been "a significant reduction" in such gross lobha and dosa. Kevin: Not that I have found. The lobha-mula citta without ditthi is the same for the sotapanna and the putthujana alike. I understand that three fetters are broken, and that lobha and dosa directly connected with those fetters does not arise, but lobha and dosa arises just as frequently and just as strongly otherwise as they did before. The wish to "romantacise" and think that sotapanna has less defilements than he really does is common and it is normal. All the best, Kevin ________________________________ From: sarah abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, July 10, 2010 7:25:39 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? Hi Kevin, I've been appreciating your discussions and sharing of your understanding of the Dhamma. --- On Sat, 10/7/10, Kevin F wrote: >Furthermore, this is a list run by Theravadins of the same pursuasion so it should be no surprise to you that I call your views "wrong views". ... S: Maybe not a surprise, but sometimes a little diplomacy or an "as I understand" can be more helpful in encouraging a further discussion of consideration of one's comments by the other. After all, you mentioned you wish to share and help:-) I've been behind with my reading and have a bunch of letters to catch up on tomorrow, but I was reading a post in which you suggest there is no significant reduction of lobha and dosa in a sotapanna and that, if I understood you, there may still be the thought or idea of killing, stealing, lying or sexual misconduct. I don't believe this is correct. As I understand, with the eradication of self-view and all ditthi, there is a significant reduction in lobha and dosa, such that these gross tendencies are completely eradicated and there'd never be such thoughts of harming at all, even thoughts of "white lies", whatever the justification. Of course, this is a gradual path, so such kinds of harming (or thoughts of such) are gradually "worn away" as satipatthana develops. By the second stage of insight (the cula-sotapanna), when the conditioned nature of dhammas is understood, I would think there has been "a significant reduction" in such gross lobha and dosa. There is no doubt about dhammas. Anyway, I look forward to catching up with all your interesting threads. I understand your wish to have a Dhamma community to share with. At least we have the internet! Metta Sarah ======= #108312 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? farrellkevin80 Hello Sarah, Sarah: I've been appreciating your discussions and sharing of your understanding of the Dhamma. Kevin: Thank you. I appreciate that. Sarah: Maybe not a surprise, but sometimes a little diplomacy or an "as I understand" can be more helpful in encouraging a further discussion of consideration of one's comments by the other. After all, you mentioned you wish to share and help:-) Kevin: I do wish to share and help. I'll try to be diplomatic. Sarah: I was reading a post in which you suggest there is no significant reduction of lobha and dosa in a sotapanna and that, if I understood you, there may still be the thought or idea of killing, stealing, lying or sexual misconduct. I don't believe this is correct. As I understand, with the eradication of self-view and all ditthi, there is a significant reduction in lobha and dosa, such that these gross tendencies are completely eradicated and there'd never be such thoughts of harming at all, even thoughts of "white lies", whatever the justification. Kevin: Life is very complex and so is the mind. Let's say I used to lie at work to the boss (just hypothetically). Then say I become a sotapanna and the next day I come in to work and I find myself in one of those same situations where the boss asks me a question and where I would have no doubt lied before. The sotapanna will not lie, nor will he plan on doing so, but the thought "I would have told such and such a lie in the past" could easily enter his mind. There would not be cetana pushing to tell this lie though. Such is how thinking works. As to what I mentioned about the lack of sexual misconduct in a sotapanna, lobha still desires objects. Do you think lobha asks now if the object is married or under someones protection now before becoming aroused? Not being sarcastic here. It is a serious question asked with friendliness. Sarah: when the conditioned nature of dhammas is understood, I would think there has been "a significant reduction" in such gross lobha and dosa. Kevin: Not that I have found. The lobha-mula citta without ditthi is the same for the sotapanna and the putthujana alike. I understand that three fetters are broken, and that lobha and dosa directly connected with those fetters does not arise, but lobha and dosa arises just as frequently and just as strongly otherwise as they did before. The wish to "romantacise" and think that sotapanna has less defilements than he really does is common and it is normal. All the best, Kevin #108313 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna chandrafabian Dear Alex, I don't see in Tipitaka saying the passion and/or the ill will lessen, in my opinion A Sotapanna easier to "let go" compared with puthujana, passion and ill will of sotapanna can be as strong as puthujana. However the attachment to it does not last as long. Let take example of upasikha Visakha, she became Sotapanna at age of 16, married and have twenty children. metta fabian. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > >Hard to explain to other people that a Sotapanna >only removing >three lower fetters, does not seem different from >puthujana, >because they did not lessen Ill will and passion. >Eventhough deep >within they know they have transformed into a higher >understanding >of the mind works... > > > >People tends to assume Sotapanna only slightly different compared to >Arahat, in fact they are still widely different. But Sotapanna in my >opinion have a glimpse understanding of Arahat's mind, because they >experience Arahat's mind for a very short time. > > > > If you don't mind, may I know under whom do you practiced with? > > > Hello Fabian, all, > > > A sotapanna doesn't recognize atta and doesn't see permanency anywhere. Furthermore with deep understanding of 4 NT (stress, its origin, its cessation, the path leading to cessation) it is very unlikely that a sotapanna would give much attention to starting new relationships, new worldly acquisitions etc. Of course a stream-enterer *can* (or not, as in Case of Ven. Ananda) have lustful thoughts, but to a lesser extent than a wordling and they are quickly recognized and dealt with. > > Perhaps the difference between a sotapanna and an Arahant is MUCH smaller than the difference between wordling and a sotapanna. A wordling can be reborn almost infinite amount, while a sotapanna at max 6. > > > IMHO. > > > With metta, > > Alex > #108314 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna truth_aerator Dear Fabian, all, > Dear Alex, > I don't see in Tipitaka saying the passion and/or the ill will >lessen, IMHO it does weaken. This is why it is so much easier to keep the precepts and this is why a sotapanna will not and cannot commit bad enough actions to go to lower realms because of less passion and less ignorance. > in my opinion A Sotapanna easier to "let go" compared with >puthujana, passion and ill will of sotapanna can be as strong as >puthujana. However the attachment to it does not last as long. > > Let take example of upasikha Visakha, she became Sotapanna at age >of 16, married and have twenty children. > > metta > fabian. In any case, in a patriarchal Indian society she didn't have much choice. IMHO she was passive in this area, her husband convinced her to have children and even if she refused she probably couldn't do much stop him. She didn't even have to get aroused and lustful (unlike men) to have this beastly activity. All IMHO. With metta, Alex #108315 From: "santa_esi09" Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna santa_esi09 To all, I am sorry to have disturbed your discussion. I had joined this group long time ago but just followed very few discussions long time ago. I am interested with this topic. As i find in several Buddhist scriptures especially in commentarial literatures, it is stated that although Sotapanna does not eliminate lustful thought and ill will, but the intensity of these defilement is accordingly lessen. This also can be seen by fact that sotapanna is perfect in morality. This perfection comes into being because the defilement of mind including lustful and ill will is lessen. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chandrafabian" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > I don't see in Tipitaka saying the passion and/or the ill will lessen, in my opinion A Sotapanna easier to "let go" compared with puthujana, passion and ill will of sotapanna can be as strong as puthujana. However the attachment to it does not last as long. > > Let take example of upasikha Visakha, she became Sotapanna at age of 16, married and have twenty children. > > metta > fabian. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > >Hard to explain to other people that a Sotapanna >only removing >three lower fetters, does not seem different from >puthujana, >because they did not lessen Ill will and passion. >Eventhough deep >within they know they have transformed into a higher >understanding >of the mind works... > > > > > >People tends to assume Sotapanna only slightly different compared to >Arahat, in fact they are still widely different. But Sotapanna in my >opinion have a glimpse understanding of Arahat's mind, because they >experience Arahat's mind for a very short time. > > > > > > If you don't mind, may I know under whom do you practiced with? > > > > > > Hello Fabian, all, > > > > > > A sotapanna doesn't recognize atta and doesn't see permanency anywhere. Furthermore with deep understanding of 4 NT (stress, its origin, its cessation, the path leading to cessation) it is very unlikely that a sotapanna would give much attention to starting new relationships, new worldly acquisitions etc. Of course a stream-enterer *can* (or not, as in Case of Ven. Ananda) have lustful thoughts, but to a lesser extent than a wordling and they are quickly recognized and dealt with. > > > > Perhaps the difference between a sotapanna and an Arahant is MUCH smaller than the difference between wordling and a sotapanna. A wordling can be reborn almost infinite amount, while a sotapanna at max 6. > > > > > > IMHO. > > > > > > With metta, > > > > Alex > > > #108316 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna truth_aerator Hello santa_esi09, all, > "santa_esi09" wrote: > > To all, > >I am sorry to have disturbed your discussion. I had joined this >group long time ago but just followed very few discussions long time >ago. I am interested with this topic. As i find in several Buddhist >scriptures especially in commentarial literatures, it is stated that >although Sotapanna does not eliminate lustful thought and ill will, >but the intensity of these defilement is accordingly lessen. This >also can be seen by fact that sotapanna is perfect in morality. This >perfection comes into being because the defilement of mind including >lustful and ill will is lessen. You are right. When 4NT are seen, there is much less motivation for worldliness. After all if you see that "all formations are dukkha" it is much harder to arose passion for them than before. Of course there can be remaining lustful tendencies, but they don't have to last as long and they don't have to make one follow most of them. As for woman having many children after stream-entry... Well a woman doesn't have to get sexually aroused to be able to have intercourse. She may not even desire it. In Ancient India women probably had less rights and were subject to their husband and certain social expectation, so even if she didn't really want sex or had much lust at all - she didn't have much choice. And you know, unlike men, she wouldn't need to do much physically to get pregnant. With metta, Alex #108317 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? farrellkevin80 Dear Howard, Howard wrote: I believe, and the Buddha has said, that true Dhamma is to be found wherever it is expressed, even in other traditions. What I believe is not that Dhamma is to be found only in the suttas, but that it is only the suttas that I am confident in being the direct Buddha word, and thus I use the sutta pitaka as my yardstick. That is my perspective, but I am not looking to engage in disputes. :-) Kevin: I consider your views "wrong views" I have searched but do not see any other way to put it. Be well, Kevin #108318 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? farrellkevin80 Hi Alex, Alex: What about Mount Meru? What about cloud devas that cause rain or that sun rotates around the Earth? What about Jataka stories where animals can talk and apparently can think like wise humans? Kevin: I see no reason to disbelieve any of those things. You may argue for science, but science is in it's infancy. It has barely learned to walk. As for animals talking, I don't believe they can talk, at leat not in human-speak (that was a joke ;) ). But I believe that in some cases they can think just like humans or other creatures and they may be depicted as "talking" when they are merely thinking. I don't know. Kevin #108319 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Dear Fabian, all, Fabian: If you don't mind, may I know under whom do you practiced with? Kevin: Main teacher was Ajahn Sujin. Main Kalyanamitta was my friend who is a student of her. Kevin ________________________________ #108320 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Dear Alex, Alex: Of course a stream-enterer *can* (or not, as in Case of Ven. Ananda) have lustful thoughts, but to a lesser extent than a wordling and they are quickly recognized and dealt with. Kevin: What are you talking about? Where did you come up with that silliness? Kevin #108321 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 3:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? upasaka_howard Hi, Kevin - In a message dated 7/10/2010 2:39:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, farrellkevin80@... writes: Dear Howard, Howard wrote: I believe, and the Buddha has said, that true Dhamma is to be found wherever it is expressed, even in other traditions. What I believe is not that Dhamma is to be found only in the suttas, but that it is only the suttas that I am confident in being the direct Buddha word, and thus I use the sutta pitaka as my yardstick. That is my perspective, but I am not looking to engage in disputes. :-) Kevin: I consider your views "wrong views" I have searched but do not see any other way to put it. ------------------------------------- So be it. :-) --------------------------------- Be well, Kevin =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #108322 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna truth_aerator Dear Kevin, and all interested, > Dear Alex, > > Alex: > >A: Of course a stream-enterer *can* (or not, as in Case of Ven. >Ananda) have lustful thoughts, but to a lesser extent than a >wordling and they are quickly recognized and dealt with. > > > Kevin: What are you talking about? Where did you come up with >that silliness? > > Kevin The more one sees the drawbacks of something, the less there is desire for it. By seeing 4 NT (especially 1st and 2nd NT) it removes much passion for worldly objects. As a saying goes "once bitten, twice shy". As for woman stream-enterer that you've wrote, I think that there are are difference between a married woman and unmarried man. A married woman may procreate not out of sexual lust, but due to her husband's desire and societal pressure. She, unlike men, doesn't need to have any lust for sex to occur and can be passive, submissive and do it only as a duty she has to do (but perhaps wouldn't do it if not being asked by her husband). IMHO, With metta, Alex #108323 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Dear Alex, Alex wrote: A married woman may procreate not out of sexual lust, but due to her husband's desire and societal pressure. She, unlike men, doesn't need to have any lust for sex to occur and can be passive, submissive and do it only as a duty she has to do (but perhaps wouldn't do it if not being asked by her husband). IMHO, With metta, Alex Kevin: I think that is completely ridiculous, with all due respect. Women lust just as much as men do. The sotapanna has not eradicated lust, nor has even the sakadagami. The anagami man and woman will no longer have lust, by conditions. Kevin ________________________________ #108324 From: "philip" Date: Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:09 am Subject: Re: sotapanna philofillet Hi Fabian Thanks for your encouraging message! Truly, there must be skepticism now and then at the beginning. I think I would reword what I said, saying sotapanna is not possible in this day and age was wrong, just that my battle (and that is a fair word) is at a very gross level of kilesas, so sotapanna is not at all of direct relevance to *me* - but I don't know others' kilesas, so I shouldn't say... ....but it's true that the matter is not helped by meditation retreat organizers who hint or even state that sotapanna is an expected result of following their programs. That's is charlatanism, of course. The necessary conditions for sotapanna cannot be fulfilled just by strictly following meditation instructions for 10 days or whatever. Anways, thanks again. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chandrafabian" wrote: > > Dear Phil, > > I was a skeptic like you, but it was change after I practice Vipassana. > > I believe any person who believe Sotapanna can be reached in this life was a skeptic like me and you. > > Metta, > fabian > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Kevin > > > > No sarcasm intended in this case. > > > > I don't think you're a sotapanna (I have a doubt issue about Ariyan attainments of any kind in this day and age, that is my doubt problem, hindrance) but I admire the way you are dealing with questions/comments in a diplomatic way. > > > > Metta, > > > > Phil > > > > > Kevin. I think I detect a sense of sarcasm. Ha ha! That is a good one. :) > > > > > > All the best, > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > #108325 From: "santa_esi09" Date: Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:00 am Subject: Discrimination santa_esi09 To all: I am from Indonesia and have joined this group several months ago but never active. I would like to ask a question which disturbs my mind especially regarding the woman discrimination in Buddhism. As we know, the Buddha had given right position towards women in the Indian society comparing his contemporary spiritual leaders. However, we also find in Buddhist scriptures especially in the commentarial literatures in which in some extent women is somewhat discriminated from woman in negative sense. For instance, it is stated that when man is reborn as women, it is due to bad kamma. Meanwhile, when woman is reborn as man, it is due to the accumulation of good kamma. Not only that, even if we see the Buddhist celestial planes, we find that no any female deity will be surrounded by many male deities in the heaven, while male deity will be so. I don't know whether this has been discussed or not and may be this topic seems to be silly, but I really want opinions from this member. With metta, Dhamma friend. #108326 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna rjkjp1 Dear Kevin Good to see you active. I have been a bit busy since getting back from vietnam on thursday and only have a few minutes now.\ Obviously sotapanna still have quiet intense lobha and dosa at times, think of the king who was a sakadagamii but who tried to drown himself after losing a war rather than submit to a king he despised. He also wondered to the Buddha why he had fear when he saw a wild elephant. Or anapinthikas daugher , also a sakadagamii, who couldn't eat becauce of being unable to find a husband and died from her intense grief about this. Anyway, if you dont mind, could I ask you some questions: The first one is what object/s (in the process/processess preceeding what you believe was magga and phala citta) was experiecned? Robert #108327 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:28 am Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Kevin, I found your declaration on DhammaWheel yesterday night and this afternoon I found you here in DhammaStudyGroup. Firstly, I want to congratulate you for having obtained the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye. As the Buddha had said, there is nothing wrong about declaring your noble achievement. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.092.than.html "When, for a disciple of the noble ones, these five forms of fear & animosity are stilled; when he is endowed with these four factors of stream-entry; and when, through discernment, he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out this noble method, then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening!'" Secondly, as the Buddha had said, a sotapanna has ferreted out the noble method: When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that. May I have the pleasure of sharing your process of ferreting out the noble method? Thirdly, may I know if you had felt a very great relief, like a heavy burden lifted off after having penetrated in an instance to the Dhamma? Swee Boon #108328 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna sarahprocter... Dear Fabian (*and all), Delighted to see you again after a long break! As I recall, you come from Jakarta and met Nina and her husband there a really long time ago? I'm appreciating all your comments on this thread. Metta Sarah * p.s All - as pt kindly reminded everyone recently, pls trim your messages! Just keep enough of the previous post for context and assume we all saw it. Ask pt, Jon or I off-list if you need any help with this. Thx in advance. #108329 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Discrimination sarahprocter... Dear Santa, --- On Sun, 11/7/10, santa_esi09 wrote: >I am from Indonesia and have joined this group several months ago but never active. ... S: Good to hear from you again after a long break also! I remember that you were studying in Sri Lanka and a samanera there. I think you were studying at Peradeniya Uni? Are you back in Indonesia now? ... >I would like to ask a question which disturbs my mind especially regarding the woman discrimination in Buddhism. As we know, the Buddha had given right position towards women in the Indian society comparing his contemporary spiritual leaders. However, we also find in Buddhist scriptures especially in the commentarial literatures in which in some extent women is somewhat discriminated from woman in negative sense. For instance, it is stated that when man is reborn as women, it is due to bad kamma. Meanwhile, when woman is reborn as man, it is due to the accumulation of good kamma. .... S: I think the Buddha just pointed out the truth - being a woman is not as good vipaka as being a man. On the other hand, all that really matters for a woman is that we are also able to develop understanding and eradicate defilements. Nothing much else matters as far as the Path is concerned. We read so many inspiring stories of Theriis who did just this. Connie quoted all these commentarial accounts before from the Theriigatha - they can be found in the "Useful Posts" section on the homepage. When we are concerned about the fate of women, the discrimination and so on, we tend to just accumulation more worry and aversion - better to develop understanding of the present realities now - the seeing, the hearing, the thinking and the worry, for example. Just my thoughts! Metta Sarah p.s pls remind us how you are commonly addressed - is it Santa, Santacitto or Ven. now? ====== #108330 From: "antony272b2" Date: Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:46 am Subject: 5 Hindrances the Cause of Dukkha? antony272b2 Hi, Just dropping by with another question. Are the five hindrances (nivarana: sensual desire, ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, sceptical doubt) the same as the 2nd Noble Truth (kama tanha, bhava tanha, vibhava tanha) as the only cause of dukkha? I used to think that the hindrances were just obstacles prior to starting the "real" meditation. And what about the ten fetters? Are these just different ways of categorizing the same problem? Thanks / Antony. #108331 From: "santa_esi09" Date: Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Discrimination santa_esi09 Hello dear Sarah, Yes, I am Samanera Santacitto. In my country, we samanera are normally simply called as 'samanera'. However, any kind of address is not really matter for me. I am still living in Sri Lanka and studying Buddhism at Kelaniya University. By the way, I have never studied at Peradeniya University. I totally agree with you that what now really matters for women is that they too have the same ability as men to eradicate defilements of mind, to realize the total liberation. However, you say that women, seeing the vipaka, is not as good as man. Could you explain more about this? Perhaps by giving examples? By the way, I am still not familiar with this website. Even I try to find out the 'useful posts' as you suggest, but cannot find it. Perhaps, if you don't mind, you can show the way how to get it. mettacittena, S.Santacitto. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Santa, > > --- On Sun, 11/7/10, santa_esi09 wrote: > >I am from Indonesia and have joined this group several months ago but never active. > ... > S: Good to hear from you again after a long break also! I remember that you were studying in Sri Lanka and a samanera there. I think you were studying at Peradeniya Uni? Are you back in Indonesia now? > ... > >I would like to ask a question which disturbs my mind especially regarding the woman discrimination in Buddhism. As we know, the Buddha had given right position towards women in the Indian society comparing his contemporary spiritual leaders. However, we also find in Buddhist scriptures especially in the commentarial literatures in which in some extent women is somewhat discriminated from woman in negative sense. For instance, it is stated that when man is reborn as women, it is due to bad kamma. Meanwhile, when woman is reborn as man, it is due to the accumulation of good kamma. > .... > S: I think the Buddha just pointed out the truth - being a woman is not as good vipaka as being a man. On the other hand, all that really matters for a woman is that we are also able to develop understanding and eradicate defilements. Nothing much else matters as far as the Path is concerned. We read so many inspiring stories of Theriis who did just this. Connie quoted all these commentarial accounts before from the Theriigatha - they can be found in the "Useful Posts" section on the homepage. > > When we are concerned about the fate of women, the discrimination and so on, we tend to just accumulation more worry and aversion - better to develop understanding of the present realities now - the seeing, the hearing, the thinking and the worry, for example. > > Just my thoughts! > > Metta > > Sarah > p.s pls remind us how you are commonly addressed - is it Santa, Santacitto or Ven. now? > ====== > #108332 From: james brand Date: Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:10 am Subject: 5 Hindrances the Cause of Dukkha? haikusuperstar i wouldn't think they are causes of dukkha as much as they are results of lobha, dosa, moha. i'm interested to see what others say though. metta jc #108333 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Discrimination ptaus1 Hi Santacitto and all, > S: By the way, I am still not familiar with this website. Even I try to find out the 'useful posts' as you suggest, but cannot find it. Perhaps, if you don't mind, you can show the way how to get it. This is a shortcut to Useful Posts file: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts.htm The topic that interests you is under the heading: Female, Women, also see 'Bhikkhunis', 'Love' Alternatively, you can get to the file by clicking on "Files" in the menu on the left on dsg homepage (you have to be signed in for the menu options to be active). Once you're on the Files page, scroll down until you see the Useful_Posts.htm file and click on the link. Best wishes pt #108334 From: "santa_esi09" Date: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Discrimination santa_esi09 Hello Pt, Thanks for the link you gives. I have opened it and it will be helpful for me to get various understanding of various topics on the Dhamma. I also have opened some opinions under the list 'female'. Thanks. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Santacitto and all, > > > S: By the way, I am still not familiar with this website. Even I try to find out the 'useful posts' as you suggest, but cannot find it. Perhaps, if you don't mind, you can show the way how to get it. > > > This is a shortcut to Useful Posts file: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts.htm > > The topic that interests you is under the heading: > Female, Women, also see 'Bhikkhunis', 'Love' > > > Alternatively, you can get to the file by clicking on "Files" in the menu on the left on dsg homepage (you have to be signed in for the menu options to be active). Once you're on the Files page, scroll down until you see the Useful_Posts.htm file and click on the link. > > Best wishes > pt > #108335 From: Kevin F Date: Mon Jul 12, 2010 1:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Rob, Robert: Good to see you active. I have been a bit busy since getting back from vietnam on thursday and only have a few minutes now.\ Kevin: Welcome back! I bet you have a lot of work and other things to catch up on. I had a long day at work today myself and didn't get much rest last night. Robert:Obviously sotapanna still have quiet intense lobha and dosa at times, think of the king who was a sakadagamii but who tried to drown himself after losing a war rather than submit to a king he despised. He also wondered to the Buddha why he had fear when he saw a wild elephant. Or anapinthikas daugher , also a sakadagamii, who couldn't eat becauce of being unable to find a husband and died from her intense grief about this. Kevin: Those are inetersting stories Robert. Do you happen to know the name of that King, by the way? Robert: Anyway, if you dont mind, could I ask you some questions: The first one is what object/s (in the process/processess preceeding what you believe was magga and phala citta) was experiecned? Robert Kevin: Hi Rob. Of course. As to your questions about the object or objects in the process preceeding the experience, I have to say that is an excellent question; it is hard to answer though. Many times during satipatthana one does not know what object is insighted. This is because the process happens so quickly. Sati simply arises along with the citta and panna and other cetasikas. What the ?ramma?a is isn't always known. Many times one may not even be aware that a moment of satipatthana has occurred since the moments can be very sublte and the process happens quickly. At other times one is aware that there is a moment of satipatthana but perhaps only sometimes is it known what the actual object was. In this case it may have been seeing, or it may have been some other nama. I am not sure. What I am sure about in the experience was when the citta contacted nibbana. If you have any questions about that I would be more than happy to answer them, Robert. Thanks again for your great and valuable questions. Kevin ________________________________ #108336 From: Kevin F Date: Mon Jul 12, 2010 1:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process farrellkevin80 Hello Swee Boon, Swee Boon: Hi Kevin, I found your declaration on DhammaWheel yesterday night and this afternoon I found you here in DhammaStudyGroup. Firstly, I want to congratulate you for having obtained the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye. Kevin: First of all, thank you very much Swee Boon. From your statements and questions in this post I can tell that you are a wise man and I admire you for that. Swee Boon: As the Buddha had said, there is nothing wrong about declaring your noble achievement. Kevin: Yes. And I declare that hell is ended, states of woe are ended. This beings mind has cooled. The deathless state, beyond the arising of the great elements has been known. The work is done. Turmoil is ended. Truth is known. Peace has been known. This world with it's "beings", "situations" and "things" is empty, utterly empty of any being or "self". Swee Boon: May I have the pleasure of sharing your process of ferreting out the noble method? Kevin: Yes, my friend, you may. The method is to understand conceptually about nama and rupa and to know conceptually with Right Understanding that there is not a person or self, but just conditioned dhammas arising and falling away. Right View must be won. Listening to Ajahn Sujin and her students such as Nina Van Gorkom is of great benefit. Their teachings are precise and accurate. Swee Boon: Thirdly, may I know if you had felt a very great relief, like a heavy burden lifted off after having penetrated in an instance to the Dhamma? Swee Boon Kevin: Yes, Swee Boon. It felt as if a great burden had been lifted. I felt like I had broken the back of the enemy, broken his spine, and utterly destroyed him. Kevin ________________________________ #108337 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:19 am Subject: Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? kenhowardau Hi Sarah, --- KH > > . . . Just don't ask me to explain "an act". It's not my strong point. > ... > S: And I was just going to ask you what you meant by "an act of bhavana"! --- With my sieve-like memory I only know that you and others have gone to a lot to trouble trying to explain to me how there could be an act of dana. If it's not too late, I'll take back my reference to an act of bhavana - which, of course, there can't be. Just don't ask me about an act of sila! :-/ Ken H #108338 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:21 am Subject: samatha. nilovg Dear Azita, ------- Azita : It seems to be most important that this knowledge of kusala citta while developing samatha is arising, otherwise 'sitting' is a useless practice if one thinks that jst by 'meditating' one is doing a good thing. I know this is one of those continuous discussions, and I dont wish at this point to enter into a 'meditation' debate, but true samatha development must be accompanied by wisdom that knows kusala from akusala. --------- thank you for your mail, I am just back from a trip and trying to read the many messages on the list. Pa~n~naa must be so keen to know exactly when the citta is kusala and when akusala. One may wonder how this is possible. It is pa~n~naa, not us. Nina. #108339 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > Robert: Good to see you active. I have been a bit busy since getting back from > vietnam on thursday and only have a few minutes now.\ > > Kevin: Welcome back! I bet you have a lot of work and other things to catch up > on. I had a long day at work today myself and didn't get much rest last night. > > Robert:Obviously sotapanna still have quiet intense lobha and dosa at times, > think of the king who was a sakadagamii but who tried to drown himself after > losing a war rather than submit to a king he despised. He also wondered to the > Buddha why he had fear when he saw a wild elephant. > Or anapinthikas daugher , also a sakadagamii, who couldn't eat becauce of being > unable to find a husband and died from her intense grief about this. > > Kevin: Those are inetersting stories Robert. Do you happen to know the name of > that King, by the way? Dear Kevin the story about the daugher of Anathapindika is in Book 1, 13 (trans. burlingame PTS edition p.242. It is about the youngest daughter of Anathapindika, Sumana. She was already a sakagami (her father was only a sotapanna) but she had been unable to find a husband. She was gradually overwhemeld with disapointment over this and refusing to eat [or unable to eat] she lay in her bed, ill. Anathapindika visited her and she called him "younger brother" and then died. Anathapindika (sotapanna) went to the Buddha. "Although the treasurer had obtained the Fruit of conversion(sotapan) he was unable to bear the grief that arose within him. Accordingly when he funeral rites over his daughters body he went weeping to the teacher. said the teacher 'householder how is it that you come to me sad and sorrowful, with tears in your eyes weeping?'" endquote. Anathapindika explained that what worried him most of all was that his daughter "died raving incoherently" [called him 'younger brother']. the Buddha explained that this was because she was already sakadagami while anathapindika was sotapanna . Naturally anathapindika was relieved knowing that his daughter was thus now reborn in a better world etc. Perhaps what is interesting here is that a sotapanna did not even know that his own daughter was already enlightened - and even believed that she temporarily deranged. If we judge people from their behaviour we can say "he looks always calm " But looks can be deceiving. Mahanama was the name of the sakyan prince who was a sakadagamii (sorry about my mistake: he was not a king). For the elephant story: (from Dict of PPN) Mah?n?ma the S?kyan visits the Buddha at N?grodh?r?ma and confesses his worry as to where he would be reborn if he were to meet with an accident while passing through the crowded streets of Kapilavatthu! The Buddha assures him that he need not distress himself as he has for long practised faith and virtue, learning, renunciation and insight. His mind will soar aloft like a jar of butter or of oil, broken in a deep pool of water, where the fragments of the jar will sink but the butter and the oil float. S.v.370. Mahanama was defeated by King Vidudabha http://www.archive.org/stream/buddhistlegends02burluoft/buddhistlegends02burluof\ t_djvu.txt Vidudabha was brought up in princely state. When he was seven years old, observing that the other princes received presents of toy elephants, horses, and the like from their maternal grandfathers, he asked his mother, "Mother, the other princes [347] receive presents from their maternal grandfathers, but no one ever sends me any. Have you no mother and father?" She replied, "Dear son, your grandparents are Sakiya kings, and they live a long way off; that is why they never send you anything." Thus did she deceive him. Again when he was sixteen years old, he said to her, "Dear mother, I should like to go and see your family, that of my maternal grand- father." But she put him off, saying, "Nay, my dear son, what would you do there?" However, in spite of her refusals, he repeated his request several times. Finally his mother gave her consent, saying, "Very well, you may go." He informed his father and set out with a large retinue. Vasabha- khattiya sent a letter ahead of him, saying, "I am living here happily. Let not my lords make any difference in their treatment of him." When the Sakiyas learned that Vidudabha was [coming, they said to themselves, "It is impossible for us to pay obeisance to him." Accord- ingly they sent the younger princes to the country, and when he arrived 38 Book b, Story S. Dhammapada 47 [N.i.347is- at the city of Kapila, they assembled in the royal rest-house. Vidu- dabha arrived at the rest-house and stopped there. They said to him, "Friend, this is your maternal grandfather and this is your uncle." As he went about, paying obeisance to all, he noticed that not a single one paid obeisance to him. So he asked, "How is it there are none that pay obeisance to me?" The Sakiyas replied, "Friend, the younger princes have gone to the country." [348] However, they showed him every hospitality. After remaining there a few days, he departed with his large retinue. Now a certain slave-woman washed with milk and water the seat in the royal rest-house on which Vidudabha had sat; and as she did so, she remarked contemptuously, "This is the seat on which sat the son of the slave- woman Vasabhakhattiya!" A certain man who had forgotten his sword went back for it, and as he took it, overheard the slave-woman's contemptuous remark about the prince Vidudabha. Inquiring into the matter, he learned that Vasabhakhattiya was the daughter of a slave-woman of Mahanama the Sakiya. And he went and informed the army, "Vasabhakhattiya, I am told, is the daughter of a slave- woman." Immediately there was a great uproar. When Vidudabha learned of the incident, he made the following vow, "These Sakiyas now wash the seat whereon I sat with milk and water; when I am established in my kingdom, I will wash my seat with the blood of their throats." - x When Vidudabha became king, he remembered his grudge. And saying to himself, "I will slay all the Sakiyas," he set out with a large army. On that day, as the Teacher surveyed the world at dawn, he saw the impending destruction of his kinsfolk. And thinking, "I must protect my kinsfolk," he went on his round for alms in the morn- ing; and returning from his alms-pilgrimage, lay down lion-like on his right side in the Perfumed Chamber; and in the evening went through the air and sat down at the foot of a tree with scanty shade in the vicinity of Kapilavatthu. Not far from there, on the boundary of Vidudabha's kingdom, stood a great banyan-tree giving dense shade. Vidudabha, seeing the Teacher, approached him, paid obeisance to him, and said, "Reverend Sir, why do you sit at the foot of this tree with scanty shade when it is so hot? Sit at the foot of this banyan- tree which gives dense shade, Reverend Sir." "Be not concerned, great king. The shade of my kinsmen keeps me cool." "The Teacher must have come for the purpose of protecting his kinsfolk," thought 1 Majjhima, 89: ii. 118-125. 44 Book h Story S. Dhammapada Jfl [N. 1.35715- Vidudabha, and having paid obeisance to the Teacher, he turned and went back to Savatthi. The Teacher rose into the air and returned to Jetavana. The king remembered his hatred of the Sakiyas and went forth the second time, but seeing the Teacher in the same place, turned back. Again the third time he went forth, but seeing the Teacher in the same place, turned back. But when he went forth the fourth time, the Teacher, surveying the former deeds of the Sakiyas and realizing the impossibility of averting the consequences of the evil deed they committed by throwing poison into the river, refrained from going the fourth time. Vidudabha therefore went forth with a large force, saying, "I will slay the Sakiyas." [358] Now the kinsmen of the Supremely Enlightened One do not slay their enemies, but are willing to die rather than take the lives of others. Therefore they said to themselves, "We are trained and skillful; we are expert archers and adepts with the long bow. Since it is unlawful for us to take the lives of others, we will put them to flight by a display of our skill." So they put on their armor and went forth and began battle. The arrows they shot sped through the ranks of Vidudabha's men, passing between their shields and through the holes for the ears, without hitting a man. When Vidudabha saw the arrows fly, he said, "I have understood it to be a boast of the Sakiyas that they do not kill their enemies; but they are now killing my men." One of his men asked him, "Master, why do you turn and look about you?" "The Sakiyas are killing my men." "Not one of your men is dead; pray have them counted." He had them counted and perceived that he had not lost one. As Vidudabha turned back, he said to his men, "I direct you to kill all those who say, 'We are Sakiyas,' but to spare the lives of those who follow Mahanama the Sakiya." The Sakiyas stood their ground, and having no other resources, some took blades of grass in their teeth, while others held reeds. Now the Sakiyas would rather die than utter an untruth. So when they were asked, "Are you Sakiyas or not?" those who held blades of grass in their teeth said, "Not sdka, 'potherb,' [359] but 'grass';" while those who held reeds said, "Not sdka, 'potherb,' but 'reed.'" The lives of those who followed Mahanama were spared. Those of the Sakiyas who held blades of grass in their teeth came to be known as Grass Sakiyas, and those who held reeds as Reed Sakiyas. Vidudabha slew all the rest, sparing not even infants at the breast. And when he had set flowing a river of blood, he -N. i.360i2] Vidudabha wreaks vengeance on the Sakiyas 45 washed his seat with the blood of their throats. Thus was the stock of the Sakiyas uprooted by Vidudabha. Vidudabha captured Mahanama the Sakiya and set out to return. When it was time for breakfast, he stopped at a certain place and thought to himself, "I will now have breakfast." When the food was brought to him, he said to himself, "I will eat with my grandfather," and sent for him. Now members of the Warrior caste would rather give up their lives than eat with the sons of slave- women. Therefore Mahanama, seeing a certain lake, said, "Dear grandson, my limbs are dirty. I wish to go and bathe." "Very well, grandfather, go and bathe." Mahanama thought to himself, "If I refuse to eat with him, he will kill me. That being the case, it is better for me to die by my own hand." So taking down his hair, he knotted it at the end, thrust his great toes into his hair, and plunged into the water. By the power of his merit the abode of the Nagas manifested signs of heat. The king of the Nagas, considering within himself, "What does this mean?" went to him, caused him to sit within his hood, and carried him to the abode of the Nagas. There he dwelt for twelve years. Vidudabha sat down and thought, "Now my grandfather will come; now my grandfather will come." Finally, after his grand- father had, as he thought, tarried an excessively long time, he caused the lake to be searched by lamplight, even examining the insides of his followers' clothing. Seeing him nowhere, he made up his mind, "He must have gone," and departed. Robert #108340 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 12, 2010 1:38 pm Subject: pain nilovg Dear all, a friend wrote to me about severe pains he has to undergo. We all do at times, so I think it helpful to repeat this discussion on list. ------ Question: I would really appreciate it if you could teach me how pain works and how to live with pain. At times, the pain is very strong that there are unpleasant feelings, agitation, irritation, anger, depression, despair and suicidal thoughts arising. (They all pass away as well) --------- N: It is good you realise that all such negative thoughts pass away. The physical pain is vipaaka, result of a past kamma we do not know. It is conditioned and unavoidable. But how do we react towards vipaaka? It seems that aversion about it arises at the same time as painful bodily feeling, but this is not so. But also aversion which is akusala, is conditioned. Conditioned by former moments of aversion that are accumulated in the citta from moment to moment. Understanding about conditions for the different cittas that arise cannot take away the pain, since pain is conditioned already. But through understanding there can be less aversion. In the suttas we read about two darts: the pain is one dart and the aversion is the second dart. Aversion makes it worse. We start thinking: poor me, poor me. There is not only painful feeling, there are many moments of seeing and hearing in between, and at those moments there cannot be pain at the same time. It seems that pain continues, but in reality this is not so. In India (I made many trips to the holy places) we had at times very severe cramps in the stomach. I tried to realize that pain is only a kind of naama, and I told Kh Sujin. She said: but it is still your pain, you take it for mine. That is true and we do not notice this. We do not see it as just a dhamma, a conditioned reality. Right understanding can cure the second dart which is worse than the first dart. I find the sutta about Nakulapitar very consoling. I quote from my Abhidhamma in Daily Life: The commentary explains that defilements are mental sickness. These can be overcome by right understanding of realities. By understanding the reality that appears right now, be it pain, or aversion or any other kind of dhamma. --------- Question: Secondly, when one reaches the stream entry, does he/she need any pain killer and does he/she need any anaesthetics when undergoing an operation? ------- N: This is not a problem. We have to be obedient to the doctor's instructions. The person who is a sotaapanna has awareness and understanding which have become powers, balas. They can arise in any circumstance. No need to avoid medicine that can relieve pain. Thus in short, the Dhamma cannot take away the physical pain but it helps to take a positive attitude towards it. As Azita always reminds us: courage and good cheer, Nina. #108341 From: "lawstu_uk" Date: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:10 pm Subject: Re: pain lawstu_uk Dear Nina and other Kalyana Mittas, Many thanks for this detailed reply. I am very grateful. So, even aversion, which is akusala, is conditioned? And it (aversion) is conditioned by former moments of aversion that are accumulated in the citta from moment to moment. Am I right to say that current/present aversion accumulated in the citta will become future conditioned aversion? In this case, is it possible to 'break' the chain? May you all be free from sufferings. Andrew Lai --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear all, > a friend wrote to me about severe pains he has to undergo. We all do > at times, so I think it helpful to repeat this discussion on list. > ------ > Question: I would really appreciate it if you could teach me how pain > works and how to live with pain. At times, the pain is very strong > that there are unpleasant feelings, agitation, irritation, anger, > depression, despair and suicidal thoughts arising. (They all pass > away as well) > --------- > N: It is good you realise that all such negative thoughts pass away. > The physical pain is vipaaka, result of a past kamma we do not know. > It is conditioned and unavoidable. But how do we react towards > vipaaka? It seems that aversion about it arises at the same time as > painful bodily feeling, but this is not so. But also aversion which > is akusala, is conditioned. Conditioned by former moments of aversion > that are accumulated in the citta from moment to moment. > Understanding about conditions for the different cittas that arise > cannot take away the pain, since pain is conditioned already. But > through understanding there can be less aversion. #108342 From: Gemunu Rohana Date: Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:23 am Subject: Lesson 12 :: Chethasika Samprayoga of 8 Kamawachara Kusala (Sense sphere wholesome) Chitta gemunu.rohana From the total of 89(or 121) Chitta illustrated in http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xott3Oav2Qg/S690VDokzcI/AAAAAAAAAEk/xlvLiZsijSA/s1600/\ 5-Vinnana+Skanda.bmp, you can easily spot this collection as a part of 21(37) Kusala Chitta. This is the collection of Chitta only an educated Buddhist can utilize to gain anything he wishes in Sansara. Even though locking one self up a fraction of second in the fears Sansara is not recommended, Attaining Nirvana through Marga pala needs unimaginable amount of Paramitha to succeed. Until the paramitha are matured enough, one will have to stuck in fearful Sansara regardless of his wishes against it. The fearfulness of Sansara cannot be eliminated at all. However, a clever wise person can do everything to minimize the fearfulness of infinite rebirths ahead. This can only be achieved by maximizing the frequency at which this collection of Chitta generated within. In order for them to be generated, one should stick to "Dasa Punya Kriya" at all possible times in his/her life. Studying these Chitta completely is crucial for the maximum return on wholesome investments that you do wishing Nirvana or anything below. Amazingly, these are the most heavy weight collection of Chitta with respect to number of Chethasika ( 38 through 36) associated with any given chitta in the collection. The lowest number 36 happen again only in Prathama Dyana Lokoththara (Super Mundane) Chitta that I will explain in a later lesson. Even though number of Chethasika is very high, remembering details is very easy if you consider following 1. Please refer 52 Chethasika image in http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xott3Oav2Qg/S7R_1RxWurI/AAAAAAAAAEs/ypMgjSbKNLg/s1600/\ 6-Depanas+Chaithisika.bmp 2. 14 Chethasika grouped as "Akusala Raashiya 14" in a circle are the ones that can never happen in this collection, so you can cut off all of them cleanly 3. When you deduct 14 from total 52, you get the maximum number of Chethasika possible with the strongest Chitta of this collection, pls find leaf node marked in green cloud in the image in this post 4. From total 38, Peethi Chethasika can associate only with happy Chitta (therefore it associate only with 4 Somanassa Chitta), pls find these from the image in this post 5. From total 38, Pranna Chethasika can associate only with smart Chitta (therefore it associate only with 4 Knaana Samprayuktha Chitta), pls find these from the image in this post 6. The most weak Chitta does not have both Peethi Chethasika and Pranna Chethasika, so the count become 36 for that , pls check right most leaf node of the image in this post The highlighting done using green clouds show the criteria to find the strength of kusal Chitta in this collection. The 10 wholesome deeds ("Dasa Punya Kriya") that result in these Chitta are illustrated in the same image. Pure Buddhism is all about highlighting the importance/value of this collection of Chitta until you reach the immortal Nirvana through Super Mundane (Lokoththara) Chitta. Everyone should make a strong pledge to their own selves to stick to "Dasa Punya Kriya" further detailed in? dharma pathrika available at http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xott3Oav2Qg/TDK71hJcoiI/AAAAAAAAAPk/V10KB7hM9zU/s1600/\ image001.gif All the above information is also available at http://sinhaladharmastore.blogspot.com/2010/05/lesson-12-chethasika-samprayoga-o\ f-8.html All the previous lessons can be found under posted months?available in site home. ?May the Triple Gem Bless You! May You Attain Nirvana through a wishing Bodhi in This Very Life! Visit http://sinhaladharmastore.blogspot.com/ for freely downloadable Dharma content. #108343 From: A T Date: Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:25 pm Subject: Only Nibbana is Paramattha sacca (Ultimate Truth) truth_aerator Hello All, "Monk, this is the highest noble truth (paramam. ariyasaccam.), namely nibba-na. -MN140 M III 245 Dha-tuvibhan.gasutta. “Undeceptive by nature is Nibba-na: that the noble ones know as true (sacca). They, through breaking through to the truth, free from hunger, are totally unbound.” The name & form (na-maru-pa, also called cetasika and ru-pa) is deceptive by nature – it is not ultimate truth! It is mosadhamma, deceptive by nature while only Nibba-na is Amosadhamma. “Entrenched in name & form, they conceive that 'This is true.' In whatever terms they conceive it it turns into something other than that, and that's what's false about it: changing, it's deceptive by nature. ‘” - Snp 3.12 There is also (SN 22.95), where the Buddha says that 5 aggregates (also classified as citta, cetasika and ru-pa) are: “Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately.” – SN22.95 So 5 aggregates are seen as existing empty & void (Rittakam. tucchakam. hoti,) for those who see them rightly (yo nam. passati yoniso). They aren’t ultimate! As na-maru-pa they are mosadhamma, deceptive by nature. Only nibba-na is paramam. ariyasaccam.! Even consciousness is "a magic trick" - nothing absolute there. Quotes: Etañhi, bhikkhu, paramam. ariyasaccam. yadidam. – amosadhammam. nibba-nam.. M III 245, Dha-tuvibhan.gasutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html Dvayatanupassana Sutta, Snp 3.12 PTS: vv. 724-765 ‘‘Amosadhammam. nibba-nam., tadariya- saccato vidu-; Te ve sacca-bhisamaya-, niccha-ta- parinibbuta-’’ti. Entrenched in name & form, they conceive that 'This is true.' Nivit.t.ham. na-maru-pasmim., idam. saccanti maññati. In whatever terms they conceive it it turns into something other than that, and that's what's false about it: changing, it's deceptive by nature. ‘‘Yena yena hi maññanti, tato tam. hoti aññatha-; Tañhi tassa musa- hoti, mosadhammañhi ittaram.. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.3.12.than.html Phen.apin.d.u-pamam. ru-pam., vedana- bubbul.u-pama- [bubbulu-pama- (si-.), pubbul.opama- (ka.)]; Mari-ciku-pama- sañña-, san.kha-ra- kadalu-pama-;Ma-yu-pamañca viñña-n.am., desita-diccabandhuna-. ‘‘Yatha- yatha- nijjha-yati, yoniso upaparikkhati; Rittakam. tucchakam. hoti, yo nam. passati yoniso. ritta= devoid; empty; rid of. Tuccha= empty; vain; deserted. Kam. = from interrogative pron. kim. who; what; which. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html Yours in Dhamma, Alex #108344 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:31 am Subject: Re: Only Nibbana is Paramattha sacca (Ultimate Truth) kenhowardau Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, A T wrote: > > Hello All, > > "Monk, this is the highest noble truth (paramam. ariyasaccam.), namely nibba-na. -MN140 M III 245 Dha-tuvibhan.gasutta. > -------------------------------------- KH: The quote is saying that the highest noble truth is nibbana. It is not saying nibbana is the only truth. The three other noble truths are dukkha, tanha and magga. ---- A: > "Undeceptive by nature is Nibbāna: that the noble ones know as true (sacca). They, through breaking through to the truth, free from hunger, are totally unbound." ---- Here, another meaning of truth is being added. Nibbana is true - undeceptive by nature - in that it doesn't go away. That is quite a common usage of the word. A true friend, for example, is one who stays regardless of circumstances. Unlike a true friend, all conditioned dhammas are anicca; they deceive us into thinking they will stay, but they don't - not even for one moment. So the truth is, conditioned dhammas are real; they do exist. But they are not true; they are deceptive. ----------------------- A: > The name & form (nāmarūpa, also called cetasika and rūpa) is deceptive by nature ? it is not ultimate truth! It is mosadhamma, deceptive by nature while only Nibbāna is Amosadhamma. "Entrenched in name & form, they conceive that 'This is true.' In whatever terms they conceive it it turns into something other than that, and that's what's false about it: changing, it's deceptive by nature. `" - Snp 3.12 ------------------------ Not knowing the one unconditioned reality, people are misled into seeing conditioned things as permanent. ------------------------------ A: > There is also (SN 22.95), where the Buddha says that 5 aggregates (also classified as citta, cetasika and rūpa) are: "Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick ? this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately." ? SN22.95 -------------------------------- They are realities (dhammas), and so their existence is a truth (sacca). But they are also anicca (unenduring) and therefore deceptive (untrue) by nature. ----------------------------------------------- A: > So 5 aggregates are seen as existing empty & void (Rittakaṃ tucchakaṃ hoti,) for those who see them rightly (yo naṃ passati yoniso). They aren't ultimate! As nāmarūpa they are mosadhamma, deceptive by nature. Only nibbāna is paramaṃ ariyasaccaṃ! Even consciousness is "a magic trick" - nothing absolute there. ------------------------------------------------ Consciousness is a magic trick in the sense that it gives the appearance of sukkha when it is actually dukkha. But there certainly is something absolute about it! It is absolutely real (paramattha dhamma) absolutely impermanent (anicca) absolutely untrustworthy (dukkha) and abslutely devoid of anything more (anatta). Having understood dhammas as absolute in those ways, how could anyone say they were unreal or non-existent? How could anyone agree with those who, after the great schism, have interpreted suttas to be saying that conditioned dhammas do not really exist? Surely there could never be any right understanding with that sort of interpretation! Ken H #108345 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:26 am Subject: Re: Only Nibbana is Paramattha sacca (Ultimate Truth) ptaus1 Hi Alex, Interesting quotes. > A: "Monk, this is the highest noble truth (paramam. ariyasaccam.), namely nibba-na. -MN140 M III 245 Dha-tuvibhan.gasutta. > > “Undeceptive by nature is Nibba-na: that the noble ones know as true (sacca). They, through breaking through to the truth, free from hunger, are totally unbound.” pt: That one seems pretty straight-forward. > A: “Entrenched in name & form, they conceive that 'This is true.' In whatever terms they conceive it it turns into something other than that, and that's what's false about it: changing, it's deceptive by nature. ‘” - Snp 3.12 pt: This one is interesting - is it trying to say that name&form don't arise and cease? Or is it trying to say that the problem is in conceiving which leads to change/deceptiveness (and which I guess would have to do with craving and clinging arising in relation to arising name&form)? I would think that when conceiving doesn't happen, name&form would still arise and cease? > A: “Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick ?" this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately.” ?" SN22.95 pt: There are at least 2 things that are interesting in this quote. Firstly, it says "like" a glob, bubble, etc. Which to me says that it's not really trying to refute the arising and ceasing of the aggregates, but rather to point towards how this arising and ceasing should be considered wisely. Secondly, when it says "empty, void" is it trying to refute the arising and ceasing of the aggregates? Or is it trying to point towards the anatta characteristic of their arising? I would think that "empty, void" has more of a theravadin meaning of anatta - meaning arising and ceasing which are beyond control of a self, rather than the more mahayanist meaning of non-existence and illusion of the aggregates. So, I guess that considering wisely the arising and ceasing of the aggregates would have to do with recognising their anatta nature, rather than thinking that arising and casing is an illusion. Anyway, that's now I understand the quotes atm, hopefully others will also give their understanding. Best wishes pt #108346 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:52 am Subject: Re: 5 Hindrances the Cause of Dukkha? ptaus1 Hi Antony and jc, > A: Are the five hindrances (nivarana: sensual desire, ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, sceptical doubt) the same as the 2nd Noble Truth (kama tanha, bhava tanha, vibhava tanha) as the only cause of dukkha? I used to think that the hindrances were just obstacles prior to starting the "real" meditation. > jc: i wouldn't think they are causes of dukkha as much as they are results of lobha, dosa, moha. pt: Hopefully others will say more. I find it helpful to consider the hindrances in terms of cetasikas (mental factors) which accompany an akusala (unwholesome) citta. Every unwholesome citta will have at least one unwholesome root cetasika - ignorance. In addition it might also have an additional unwholesome root cetasika of lobha (greed) or dosa (aversion), which are directly related to the hindrances of sensual desire and ill-will. If I'm not mistaken, restlessness as a cetasika accompanies every unwholesome citta. Sloth and torpor and doubt are also unwholesome cetasikas, which might accompany an unwholesome citta (I think doubt can arise only with a citta, which has ignorance as the only root). > A: And what about the ten fetters? Are these just different ways of categorizing the same problem? pt: I think every fetter can be classified as a certain mental factor. And the same applies to 7 anusayas, 5 floods, etc. All these are classified as a specific mental factor in A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hxopJgv85y4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+compre\ hensive+manual+of+abhidhamma&lr=&as_brr=1&ei=rlOVSZfeNJDMlQTussnmCQ#v=onepage&q&\ f=false See chapter VII, and in particular paragraph 8 for hindrances and paragraphs 10-11 for fetters. Best wishes pt #108347 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:56 am Subject: Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt? ptaus1 Hi Sarah, Thanks for your reply. Best wishes pt > S: Yes, I've agreed with Ken H's comments on this topic. Not necessarily any panna at all whilst doing a scientific calculation - lots of sanna, vitakka as mentioned and also lots of (akusala) chanda and lobha usually, as in most tasks in which one has an interest. #108348 From: Kevin F Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Dear Robert, Thank you very much for providing the accounts of experiences in the lives of these great Ariyas, With metta, Kevin F Robert wrote:Dear Kevin the story about the daugher of Anathapindika is in Book 1, 13 (trans. burlingame PTS edition p.242. It is about the youngest daughter of Anathapindika, Sumana. She was already a sakagami (her father was only a sotapanna) but she had been unable to find a husband. She was gradually overwhemeld with disapointment over this and refusing to eat [or unable to eat] she lay in her bed, ill. Anathapindika visited her and she called him "younger brother" and then died. Anathapindika (sotapanna) went to the Buddha. "Although the treasurer had obtained the Fruit of conversion(sotapan) he was unable to bear the grief that arose within him. Accordingly when he funeral rites over his daughters body he went weeping to the teacher. said the teacher 'householder how is it that you come to me sad and sorrowful, with tears in your eyes weeping?'" endquote. Anathapindika explained that what worried him most of all was that his daughter "died raving incoherently" [called him 'younger brother']. the Buddha explained that this was because she was already sakadagami while anathapindika was sotapanna . Naturally anathapindika was relieved knowing that his daughter was thus now reborn in a better world etc. Perhaps what is interesting here is that a sotapanna did not even know that his own daughter was already enlightened - and even believed that she temporarily deranged. If we judge people from their behaviour we can say "he looks always calm " But looks can be deceiving. Mahanama was the name of the sakyan prince who was a sakadagamii (sorry about my mistake: he was not a king). For the elephant story: (from Dict of PPN) Mah?n?ma the S?kyan visits the Buddha at N?grodh?r?ma and confesses his worry as to where he would be reborn if he were to meet with an accident while passing through the crowded streets of Kapilavatthu! The Buddha assures him that he need not distress himself as he has for long practised faith and virtue, learning, renunciation and insight. His mind will soar aloft like a jar of butter or of oil, broken in a deep pool of water, where the fragments of the jar will sink but the butter and the oil float. S.v.370. Mahanama was defeated by King Vidudabha http://www.archive.org/stream/buddhistlegends02burluoft/buddhistlegends02burluof\ t_djvu.txt Vidudabha was brought up in princely state. When he was seven years old, observing that the other princes received presents of toy elephants, horses, and the like from their maternal grandfathers, he asked his mother, "Mother, the other princes [347] receive presents from their maternal grandfathers, but no one ever sends me any. Have you no mother and father?" She replied, "Dear son, your grandparents are Sakiya kings, and they live a long way off; that is why they never send you anything." Thus did she deceive him. Again when he was sixteen years old, he said to her, "Dear mother, I should like to go and see your family, that of my maternal grand- father." But she put him off, saying, "Nay, my dear son, what would you do there?" However, in spite of her refusals, he repeated his request several times. Finally his mother gave her consent, saying, "Very well, you may go." He informed his father and set out with a large retinue. Vasabha- khattiya sent a letter ahead of him, saying, "I am living here happily. Let not my lords make any difference in their treatment of him." When the Sakiyas learned that Vidudabha was [coming, they said to themselves, "It is impossible for us to pay obeisance to him." Accord- ingly they sent the younger princes to the country, and when he arrived 38 Book b, Story S. Dhammapada 47 [N.i.347is- at the city of Kapila, they assembled in the royal rest-house. Vidu- dabha arrived at the rest-house and stopped there. They said to him, "Friend, this is your maternal grandfather and this is your uncle." As he went about, paying obeisance to all, he noticed that not a single one paid obeisance to him. So he asked, "How is it there are none that pay obeisance to me?" The Sakiyas replied, "Friend, the younger princes have gone to the country." [348] However, they showed him every hospitality. After remaining there a few days, he departed with his large retinue. Now a certain slave-woman washed with milk and water the seat in the royal rest-house on which Vidudabha had sat; and as she did so, she remarked contemptuously, "This is the seat on which sat the son of the slave- woman Vasabhakhattiya!" A certain man who had forgotten his sword went back for it, and as he took it, overheard the slave-woman's contemptuous remark about the prince Vidudabha. Inquiring into the matter, he learned that Vasabhakhattiya was the daughter of a slave-woman of Mahanama the Sakiya. And he went and informed the army, "Vasabhakhattiya, I am told, is the daughter of a slave- woman." Immediately there was a great uproar. When Vidudabha learned of the incident, he made the following vow, "These Sakiyas now wash the seat whereon I sat with milk and water; when I am established in my kingdom, I will wash my seat with the blood of their throats." - x When Vidudabha became king, he remembered his grudge. And saying to himself, "I will slay all the Sakiyas," he set out with a large army. On that day, as the Teacher surveyed the world at dawn, he saw the impending destruction of his kinsfolk. And thinking, "I must protect my kinsfolk," he went on his round for alms in the morn- ing; and returning from his alms-pilgrimage, lay down lion-like on his right side in the Perfumed Chamber; and in the evening went through the air and sat down at the foot of a tree with scanty shade in the vicinity of Kapilavatthu. Not far from there, on the boundary of Vidudabha's kingdom, stood a great banyan-tree giving dense shade. Vidudabha, seeing the Teacher, approached him, paid obeisance to him, and said, "Reverend Sir, why do you sit at the foot of this tree with scanty shade when it is so hot? Sit at the foot of this banyan- tree which gives dense shade, Reverend Sir." "Be not concerned, great king. The shade of my kinsmen keeps me cool." "The Teacher must have come for the purpose of protecting his kinsfolk," thought 1 Majjhima, 89: ii. 118-125. 44 Book h Story S. Dhammapada Jfl [N. 1.35715- Vidudabha, and having paid obeisance to the Teacher, he turned and went back to Savatthi. The Teacher rose into the air and returned to Jetavana. The king remembered his hatred of the Sakiyas and went forth the second time, but seeing the Teacher in the same place, turned back. Again the third time he went forth, but seeing the Teacher in the same place, turned back. But when he went forth the fourth time, the Teacher, surveying the former deeds of the Sakiyas and realizing the impossibility of averting the consequences of the evil deed they committed by throwing poison into the river, refrained from going the fourth time. Vidudabha therefore went forth with a large force, saying, "I will slay the Sakiyas." [358] Now the kinsmen of the Supremely Enlightened One do not slay their enemies, but are willing to die rather than take the lives of others. Therefore they said to themselves, "We are trained and skillful; we are expert archers and adepts with the long bow. Since it is unlawful for us to take the lives of others, we will put them to flight by a display of our skill." So they put on their armor and went forth and began battle. The arrows they shot sped through the ranks of Vidudabha's men, passing between their shields and through the holes for the ears, without hitting a man. When Vidudabha saw the arrows fly, he said, "I have understood it to be a boast of the Sakiyas that they do not kill their enemies; but they are now killing my men." One of his men asked him, "Master, why do you turn and look about you?" "The Sakiyas are killing my men." "Not one of your men is dead; pray have them counted." He had them counted and perceived that he had not lost one. As Vidudabha turned back, he said to his men, "I direct you to kill all those who say, 'We are Sakiyas,' but to spare the lives of those who follow Mahanama the Sakiya." The Sakiyas stood their ground, and having no other resources, some took blades of grass in their teeth, while others held reeds. Now the Sakiyas would rather die than utter an untruth. So when they were asked, "Are you Sakiyas or not?" those who held blades of grass in their teeth said, "Not sdka, 'potherb,' [359] but 'grass';" while those who held reeds said, "Not sdka, 'potherb,' but 'reed.'" The lives of those who followed Mahanama were spared. Those of the Sakiyas who held blades of grass in their teeth came to be known as Grass Sakiyas, and those who held reeds as Reed Sakiyas. Vidudabha slew all the rest, sparing not even infants at the breast. And when he had set flowing a river of blood, he -N. i.360i2] Vidudabha wreaks vengeance on the Sakiyas 45 washed his seat with the blood of their throats. Thus was the stock of the Sakiyas uprooted by Vidudabha. Vidudabha captured Mahanama the Sakiya and set out to return. When it was time for breakfast, he stopped at a certain place and thought to himself, "I will now have breakfast." When the food was brought to him, he said to himself, "I will eat with my grandfather," and sent for him. Now members of the Warrior caste would rather give up their lives than eat with the sons of slave- women. Therefore Mahanama, seeing a certain lake, said, "Dear grandson, my limbs are dirty. I wish to go and bathe." "Very well, grandfather, go and bathe." Mahanama thought to himself, "If I refuse to eat with him, he will kill me. That being the case, it is better for me to die by my own hand." So taking down his hair, he knotted it at the end, thrust his great toes into his hair, and plunged into the water. By the power of his merit the abode of the Nagas manifested signs of heat. The king of the Nagas, considering within himself, "What does this mean?" went to him, caused him to sit within his hood, and carried him to the abode of the Nagas. There he dwelt for twelve years. Vidudabha sat down and thought, "Now my grandfather will come; now my grandfather will come." Finally, after his grand- father had, as he thought, tarried an excessively long time, he caused the lake to be searched by lamplight, even examining the insides of his followers' clothing. Seeing him nowhere, he made up his mind, "He must have gone," and departed. Robert ________________________________ #108349 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:09 am Subject: Re: 5 Hindrances the Cause of Dukkha? ptaus1 Hi Antony and jc, Sorry I forgot to mention that you can also find previous posts on these topics in the Useful Posts file: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts.htm For example, check out these topics - Fetters, Hindrances, Noble truths, etc. Best wishes pt #108350 From: Kevin F Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Alex, Alex: it is very unlikely that a sotapanna would give much attention to starting new relationships, new worldly acquisitions etc. Kevin: Alex, is that why I am going to buy a 1983 Firebird like the one in the picture below, with a nice new V8 engine, brand new transmission, and paint it gloss black with a giant firebird logo on the hood? #108352 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Here is the photo sarahprocter... Hi Kevin, You'll have to put the pic in the "Significant Others" photo album on the homepage:-) Drive carefully and wisely after all that painting! Metta Sarah --- On Tue, 13/7/10, Kevin F wrote: >picture below, with a nice new V8 engine, brand new transmission, and paint it gloss black with a giant firebird logo on the hood? #108353 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Discrimination sarahprocter... Hi pt & Santacitto, --- On Sun, 11/7/10, ptaus1 wrote: >This is a shortcut to Useful Posts file: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts.htm The topic that interests you is under the heading: Female, Women, also see 'Bhikkhunis', 'Love' ... S: See "Sisters - Theriigatha" (1-5) as well. This is the series Connie posted from the commentary to the Theriigatha, full of inspiring accounts of many female arahats. None of them showed any concern about being women - there is a path for all, that of developing the eightfold path:). Metta Sarah ====== #108354 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:11 am Subject: Christine's question on sotapanna. nilovg Dear Christine and all, Kh Sujin gave once a cool and realistic answer when people were wondering: is he/she a sotapanna or not. Only when one has attained this state oneself will one know about someone else. A monk asked her whether she was a sotapanna and then she was very determined in pointing to the Path only. We have to be an island to ourselves, we have to develop the Path ourselves. Enlightenment can be attained and many attained it. So, let us not talk about persons but about the understanding of the present reality. This is the Path, this is the only way to reach the goal. For now, sotapanna is only a word, we do not really know what it means, at least as far as I am concerned. Therefore, with Ken H I am just interested to understand the present reality. Ken H wrote on feeling: < Ken H: To tell the truth I don't know where I stand on this issue. According to the Abhidhamma, vedana and other cetasikas can become objects of consciousness. However, I don't understand the significance of that. I don't know if that is how we get our impressions of pleasant and unpleasant feeling, or if it is only through thinking that we get such impressions. I suppose that is one of the benefits of Dhamma discussion, isn't it? It requires us to test our own understanding. Or lack thereof! :-) > N: Yes, it is difficult to know the reality of feeling, we mix naama and ruupa. When there is bodily unpleasant feeling and aversion, there are many different naama s and ruupas. Only one at a time can be object of awareness, and when sati arises there is no doubt which reality presents itself to sati. If there is doubt there is no satipa.t.thaana. Nina. #108355 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:42 am Subject: Concepts and reality nilovg Dear Alex, Kevin already answered and gave a very good explanation of kalapas. I try to add something. Alex: A.: Could you please explain a basis for classifying something as concept, vs reality? To me personally it seems that analysis (breaking wholes into parts) is a conceptual work of the mind just like synthesis (making wholes out of parts). It seems to me that what you say is that whatever is whole is a concept. According to this definition each citta* would be a whole and thus conventional. Each rupa kalapa* would also be a whole and thus conventional. *citta always comes with at least (usually much more) 7 universal cetasikas. None of the cetasikas can ever arise singly. Each inseparable rupakalapa is made at least of 8 parts. None of those qualities can ever occur alone. Thus another "whole". Only Nibbana, like mathematical Zero, cannot be divided as it is not made of any parts. ------- N: It does not matter that citta is accompanied by several cetasikas and that ruupas arise in kalapas. The characteristic of just one reality at a time can be object of awareness, not more than one. And if we think that many realities appear at the same time, it is merely thinking, not awareness. Seeing sees only visible object, it does not see the other ruupas that accompany visible object in one kalapa. When we perceive people, it is thinking on account of what has been seen and this arises at a moment different from seeing. When we believe that we see people we are actually clinging to a whole of impressions. This is explained in the suttas as clinging to the outward appearance and details of things. It is clinging to a concept of a whole. Nina. #108356 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna truth_aerator Hi Kevin, Where is the picture? I don't see it. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > Alex: it is very unlikely that a sotapanna would give much attention to > starting new relationships, new worldly acquisitions etc. > > > Kevin: Alex, is that why I am going to buy a 1983 Firebird like the one in the > picture below, with a nice new V8 engine, brand new transmission, and paint it > gloss black with a giant firebird logo on the hood? > With metta, Alex #108357 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:02 pm Subject: Re: Only Nibbana is Paramattha sacca (Ultimate Truth) truth_aerator Hello KenH, Pt, all, Thank you for your replies. >[cut] >KH: Consciousness is a magic trick in the sense that it gives the >appearance of sukkha when it is actually dukkha. But there certainly >is something absolute about it! It is absolutely real (paramattha >dhamma) absolutely impermanent (anicca) absolutely untrustworthy >(dukkha) and abslutely devoid of anything more (anatta). > >Having understood dhammas as absolute in those ways, how could >anyone say they were unreal or non-existent? How could anyone agree >with those who, after the great schism, have interpreted suttas to >be saying that conditioned dhammas do not really exist? Surely there >could never be any right understanding with that sort of >interpretation! The thing is that the specific [such and such consciousness, cetasika or rupa] is an abstraction. Since the present moment is so short, one can't really catch and hold it. It slips away every moment by ceasing ("past"). Not only that, mind can quickly alter its qualities (one moment it likes something, another moment it dislikes something). One can certainly invent a concept, recognition, perception that lasts a lot longer, and remember that. But what one can remember is something that no longer is, one remembers only a memory/sanna. Classifications, etc, are devoid of experiential present reality as nothing can be frozen into static categories - which btw the Buddha called papanca (mn18). And in MN1 the Buddha has told not to reify things. IMHO. With metta, Alex #108358 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 3:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Kevin, > Kevin: Yes. And I declare that hell is ended, states of woe are ended. This beings mind has cooled. The deathless state, beyond the arising of the great elements has been known. The work is done. Turmoil is ended. Truth is known. Peace has been known. This world with it's "beings", "situations" and "things" is empty, utterly empty of any being or "self". May I know why do you say that the "mind has cooled", "the work is done" and "the turmoil is ended"? Is it not the case that only an arahant has cooled the mind, done the work and ended the turmoil? As it is, you are not yet an arahant. > Kevin: Yes, my friend, you may. The method is to understand conceptually about nama and rupa and to know conceptually with Right Understanding that there is not a person or self, but just conditioned dhammas arising and falling away. Right View must be won. Listening to Ajahn Sujin and her students such as Nina Van Gorkom is of great benefit. Their teachings are precise and accurate. Since this is the way you have ferreted out the noble method, may I know why is it the case that you have won the stream and such distinguished students of Ajahn Sujin as Nina Van Gorkom and Sarah Abbott have not won the stream? What is the cause? What is the reason? (I could be wrong, but as far as I know while I was in DSG, neither Nina nor Sarah has declared they are stream-winners.) > Kevin: Yes, Swee Boon. It felt as if a great burden had been lifted. I felt like I had broken the back of the enemy, broken his spine, and utterly destroyed him. May I know who is the enemy that you are referring to, that you had "broken the spine and utterly destroyed"? Swee Boon #108359 From: Kevin F Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Here is the photo farrellkevin80 Hello Sarah, Sarah: Hi Kevin, You'll have to put the pic in the "Significant Others" photo album on the homepage:-) Drive carefully and wisely after all that painting! Metta Sarah Kevin: Sarah, I got a real laugh out of that one! Ha ha. Thanks, Kevin #108360 From: Kevin F Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Alex, Alex: Hi Kevin, Where is the picture? I don't see it. Kevin: Hi Alex. It looks like it didn't attach properly. Sorry about that. I uploaded an update to the attachment program when prompted, and the browser may have to be closed and/or computer re-started before it would work right. Let me try again with this message. It should be attached now. Kevin #108361 From: Kevin F Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process farrellkevin80 Hello Swee Boon, Swee Boon: May I know why do you say that the "mind has cooled", "the work is done" and "the turmoil is ended"? Is it not the case that only an arahant has cooled the mind, done the work and ended the turmoil? As it is, you are not yet an arahant. Kevin: The mind becomes cool when nibbana is attained because defilements (which are "hot" because they are passionate) are uprooted. The mind becomes fully cooled only when one is an Arahant. I did say "the work is done" because the lineage has changed (to a noble lineage). Now, even if I didn't want to - for whatever reason - I would still become an Arahant within a certain number of lifetimes. This is because of conditions. Also doubt about the path is gone. I don't have to search any more for answers about the Right Path and the wrong path in future lives. In that sense only "the work is done". Swee Boon: Since this is the way you have ferreted out the noble method, may I know why is it the case that you have won the stream and such distinguished students of Ajahn Sujin as Nina Van Gorkom and Sarah Abbott have not won the stream? What is the cause? What is the reason? (I could be wrong, but as far as I know while I was in DSG, neither Nina nor Sarah has declared they are stream-winners.) Kevin: The reason is that attainment depends on accumulations, and more specifically the accumulation of the Ten Perfection, or Parami, over an incredibly long time. There is no method to win the truth. When Panna-parami has become developed to the point that it penetrates, one can change lineages. Panna-parami is greatly supported by Sacca-parami (which is about probing for and respecting the truth of the way things really are in important matters; it goes much deeper than trying not to tell lies), and the other Perfections. It is only when they are accumulated to the right degree that penetration happens. Sarah, Nina, and many others are certainly on the Right Path, and they have accumulated much wisdom. It just takes a long time. Swee Boon: May I know who is the enemy that you are referring to, that you had "broken the spine and utterly destroyed"? Kevin: That enemy is self-view. He is like a general in the army of delusion. He is a great leader. When he is killed, his Commanders in the army, the other fetters, are forced to start to retreat. They know they will be utterly destroyed too. Kevin ________________________________ #108362 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna upasaka_howard Hi, Kevin - In a message dated 7/13/2010 12:50:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, farrellkevin80@... writes: Hi Alex, Alex: Hi Kevin, Where is the picture? I don't see it. Kevin: Hi Alex. It looks like it didn't attach properly. Sorry about that. I uploaded an update to the attachment program when prompted, and the browser may have to be closed and/or computer re-started before it would work right. Let me try again with this message. It should be attached now. Kevin ===================================== As far as I know, Yahoo groups, like the Dhamma ;-), doesn't permit attachments. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #108363 From: Kevin F Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:47 pm Subject: Re: Photo farrellkevin80 Dear Howard, Thanks a lot for the information. Here is a link to an '83 Firebird online. http://imcdb.org/images/027/901.jpg Kevin #108364 From: "colette" Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:24 pm Subject: kunjed gyalpo tantra ksheri3 Hi Group, It's been a while and I'm still up to my usual playfulness of going into "places where angels fear to tred". My problem today is a lack of cognition of THE ENERGIES that every sentient being is energizes with. I'm specifically focusing on the concepts of: - Dang - rolpa - tsal as energies in this massive amount of CONTRADICTIONS that we must persavere. Any help would be appreciated. thank you toodles, colette #108365 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 4:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Photo upasaka_howard Hi, Kevin - In a message dated 7/13/2010 2:56:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, farrellkevin80@... writes: Dear Howard, Thanks a lot for the information. Here is a link to an '83 Firebird online. http://imcdb.org/images/027/901.jpg Kevin =============================== A macho car for sure!! Take it all apart, though, and where does that "chariot" go? ;-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #108366 From: Vince Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process cerovzt@... Swee Boon wrote: > As the Buddha had said, there is nothing wrong about declaring your noble achievement. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.092.than.html > "When, for a disciple of the noble ones, these five forms [...]I am > a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, > headed for self-awakening!'" I have read about Anathapindika and I wonder about your interpretation of the Sutta. Sutta shows when the stream-winner knows and understand all these things and the proper time to state of himself "I'm an stream-winner". But even in such case, we cannot read inside the Sutta a clear recommendation for a public announce to the world. Context of this Sutta is a private conversation between Buddha and the Anathapindika. There is not more people involved. We read "he may state about himself:" but not "he may declare it to the world". One can understand the meaning of "he can say to himself". Why should we understand in a sense of "he may declare it to the world"?. Also, according this review of his life: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel334.html it seems it was after years of practice after his awakening, when Anathapindika was encouraged by Buddha to think in that way. Buddha said: "when he is endowed with the four factors of stream-entry; and when, through discernment, he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out the noble method, then if he wants he may state about himself.." So there are two requeriments: (1)endowed with the four factors of stream-entry (2)rightly seen & rightly ferreted out the noble method Four factors are an instant and logical consequence but the understanding of the noble method is another thing. I thought this natural comtemption showed by Anathapindika across many years arise precisely because the eradicated defilements of a sotapanna. Although maybe I'm wrong. I'm not sure. Maybe there is another Sutta showing another thing, best, #108367 From: "Christine" Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:58 pm Subject: Re: kunjed gyalpo tantra christine_fo... Hello colette, This Dzogchen text might be helpful: The Supreme Source http://www.snowlionpub.com/html/product_731.html with metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Group, > > It's been a while and I'm still up to my usual playfulness of going into "places where angels fear to tred". > > My problem today is a lack of cognition of THE ENERGIES that every sentient being is energizes with. I'm specifically focusing on the concepts of: > > - Dang > > - rolpa > > - tsal > > as energies in this massive amount of CONTRADICTIONS that we must persavere. > > Any help would be appreciated. > > thank you > > toodles, > colette > #108368 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process truth_aerator Hello Swee Boon, Vince, all interested, I don't remember any sutta where the Buddha has stated that a stream-enterer can (or should) publicly declare his attainment. From what I remember (please correct me if I am wrong) all valid declarations of stream entry were made to the Buddha or by the Buddha. The Anathapindikia & his daughter's story is also interesting (Thank you Robert for the story). He didn't know her attainment, even though she was his daughter. Wouldn't she tell at least her father, one of her closest people to her about her attainments? With metta, Alex #108369 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Photo farrellkevin80 Hi Howard, Howard wrote: A macho car for sure!! Take it all apart, though, and where does that "chariot" go? ;-) Kevin: Even if the car is all put together and all there parts are there and working, it is all conceptual. A "thing" doesn't go anywhere then either. Thanks for your message. Kevin f #108370 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Swee Boon, Vince, all interested, > > > I don't remember any sutta where the Buddha has stated that a stream-enterer can (or should) publicly declare his attainment. From what I remember (please correct me if I am wrong) all valid declarations of stream entry were made to the Buddha or by the Buddha. > > The Anathapindikia & his daughter's story is also interesting (Thank you Robert for the story). He didn't know her attainment, even though she was his daughter. Wouldn't she tell at least her father, one of her closest people to her about her attainments? > ------- Hi Alex, I am having the opposite thought. I am wondering why anyone *would* tell. The world is just one citta following on from another, and it is the same for all of us. There is no person who is an ariyan, just as there is no person who is a worldling. So what could the sakadagami woman have told her sotapanna father that he didn't already know? Ken H #108371 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Swee Boon, Vince, all interested, > > > I don't remember any sutta where the Buddha has stated that a stream-enterer can (or should) publicly declare his attainment. From what I remember (please correct me if I am wrong) all valid declarations of stream entry were made to the Buddha or by the Buddha. > \ Dear Alex many cases of sotapannas and more declaring their attainments to other monks. robert #108372 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna rjkjp1 Dear Kevin thanks for that. Some more questions on this: Could you explain the difference between moments with insight at the level of vipassana and that at a more basic level of satipatthana. Do you recall moments of vipassana before (maybe long before)the process where you believed you attained? Since this time have there been moments of satipattana or vipassana and what were the objects? thanks robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: > > > > > Robert: Anyway, if you dont mind, could I ask you some questions: > > The first one is what object/s (in the process/processess preceeding what you > believe was magga and phala citta) was experiecned? > > Robert > > Kevin: Hi Rob. Of course. As to your questions about the object or objects in > the process preceeding the experience, I have to say that is an excellent > question; it is hard to answer though. Many times during satipatthana one does > not know what object is insighted. This is because the process happens so > quickly. Sati simply arises along with the citta and panna and other > cetasikas. What the ?ramma?a is isn't always known. Many times one may not > even be aware that a moment of satipatthana has occurred since the moments can > be very sublte and the process happens quickly. At other times one is aware > that there is a moment of satipatthana but perhaps only sometimes is it known > what the actual object was. In this case it may have been seeing, or it may > have been some other nama. I am not sure. What I am sure about in the > experience was when the citta contacted nibbana. If you have any questions > about that I would be more than happy to answer them, Robert. > > Thanks again for your great and valuable questions. > > Kevin > #108373 From: Vince Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process cerovzt@... yes, declarations to Buddha or to senior monks are common but also I don't know about episodes declaring that to worldly people. best, truth_aerator wrote: > I don't remember any sutta where the Buddha has stated that a > stream-enterer can (or should) publicly declare his attainment. From > what I remember (please correct me if I am wrong) all valid > declarations of stream entry were made to the Buddha or by the Buddha. #108374 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 6:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Robert, Robert: Dear Kevin thanks for that. Some more questions on this: Could you explain the difference between moments with insight at the level of vipassana and that at a more basic level of satipatthana. Do you recall moments of vipassana before (maybe long before)the process where you believed you attained? Since this time have there been moments of satipattana or vipassana and what were the objects? thanks robert Kevin: Hi Robert. Thanks for your message. In my personal experience it is not easy to categorize ones experiences into the individual vipassana nanas. That isn't to say they aren't correct. I think they are. What it means is that what happens is that one just keeps having insight. In my experience, it simply feels like it gets "deeper" and "deeper" with more clarity about the aspect as more moments occur. It feels like it is penetrating deeper into the anatta aspect and that there is more clarity about it. One becomes very sure. At the deeper levels, even though there is no fear during the moments of satipatthana (as we discussed recently), during the moments afterwards, there can be a bit of shock or surprise (more intense than at the lower levels) at just how simply selfless and anatta things are and at the fact of how things are perceived so drastically differently during ones normal more deluded experience. I recall many moments of satipatthana. In Thailand I had them frequently. This was especially so in the last two months or so there. Some days I had many moments of satipatthana. There have been times when vipassana insight occurred a number of times within a matter of minutes. Since sotapanna attainment there have been moments of satipatthana. It's not always easy to say what the objects of the moments are. During the moment, there is not any doubt. It cannot arise. But the moment happens faster than lightning. It is not easy to pinpoint what the object was even though doubt isn't present during the moment of satipatthana and even though panna has strong focus on one particular single object. Things are anatta. The moment happens and it is gone. Again it happens lightning fast. Although one may not know the object, one usually becomes very aware that the not-self aspect of an object has been known. The truth about the aspect leaves more of an impression on the mind than what the particular dhamma was. What that dhamma was doesn't always leave an impression that causes sanna to perceive an impression of it in a conceptual process afterwards. The particular dhamma doesn't really matter to be honest. It is of no consequence. After all, all dhammas are the same, except for nibbana. That one is very different. This is what has been known. Please forgive my inherent inability to express myself well. Kevin #108375 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: pain nilovg Dear Andrew, Enjoying your useful questions. Op 12-jul-2010, om 18:10 heeft lawstu_uk het volgende geschreven: > So, even aversion, which is akusala, is conditioned? And it > (aversion) is conditioned by former moments of aversion that are > accumulated in the citta from moment to moment. -------- N: It is conditioned by the latent tendency of aversion, pa.tigha. There are three levels of defilements: the latent tendencies, anusaya, which are accumulated in the citta but which do not arise, but condition the arising of akusala citta; the akusala citta, pariyutthaana kilesa, which arises with the akusala citta; the akusala kamma, which arises in the form of transgressions, viitikkama kilesa. Since each citta that arises and falls away is immediately succeeded by the next citta, unwholesome and wholesome behaviour and inclinations are accumulated from moment to moment and from life to life. The latent tendencies are unwholesome inclinations that are accumulated. They are the following: sense-desire (k?ma-r?ga), aversion (pa?igha), conceit (m?na), wrong view (di??hi), doubt (vicikicch?), desire for becoming (continued existence, bhavar?ga), and ignorance (avijj?). Quoting something I wrote before: -------- > A: Am I right to say that current/present aversion accumulated in > the citta will become future conditioned aversion? ------- N: Yes. The latent tendency conditions the arising of aversion now, it arises and then falls away, but it is accumulated as latent tendency. ------- > A: In this case, is it possible to 'break' the chain? -------- N: Sure, by pa~n~naa that has been developed to the degree that it has become lokuttara pa~n~naa. There are four stages of enlightenment and eradication of latent tendencies occurs stage by stage, until at the stage of arahatship all latent tendencies have been eliminated. ***** Nina. #108376 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:50 am Subject: How to induce right effort? nilovg Dear Lukas, I was away for a week and could not react anymore to your last post. --------- Lukas: I am not listening to the Dhamma recently, and I've noticed forgetfullness prevails. But maybe tomorrow I can start reading your Conditions. ----------- N: Also forgetfulness and not being inclined to listen are dhammas. They are conditioned and they can be understood as such. No aversion about what is conditioned already. I heard on a recording that Kh Sujin said that she appreciated it (anumodana) when someone listens to the Dhamma so difficult to understand. Former moments of listening condition listening today. She said three times; we listen and forget again, because we are not yet familiar with what we hear. We listen until we are familiar with the Dhamma. Lodewijk liked these phrases very much, because he complains that he always forgets what he hears. How often we heard about seeing and visible object, but we are always forgetful. We notice trees and green grass and we are forgetful of visible object. If there were no colours experienced by seeing, how could we notice trees and grass. We have to hear often about seeing and visible object. Seeing is conditioned, if there were no conditions for seeing it could not arise, and when it arises nobody can change it. When seeing appears there is also visible object, but sati can be aware of only one object at a time. However, we mix seeing and visible object. When the first stage of tender insight arises, naama and ruupa are clearly distinguished as they are appearing to sati one at a time. Then there is no doubt what naama is and what ruupa. This is very difficult and I think it is good to discuss this stage of insight very often. Nina. #108377 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Photo upasaka_howard Hi, Kevin - In a message dated 7/13/2010 10:28:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, farrellkevin80@... writes: Hi Howard, Howard wrote: A macho car for sure!! Take it all apart, though, and where does that "chariot" go? ;-) Kevin: Even if the car is all put together and all there parts are there and working, it is all conceptual. A "thing" doesn't go anywhere then either. ---------------------------------------------- Yes, I know. :-) [The technique, of course, is that of mentally disassembling it.] ---------------------------------------------- Thanks for your message. Kevin f ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #108379 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:05 pm Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process truth_aerator Dear Robert, KenH, Vince, Swee Boon, all interested, > A: I don't remember any sutta where the Buddha has stated that a >stream-enterer can (or should) publicly declare his attainment. From >what I remember (please correct me if I am wrong) all valid >declarations of stream entry were made to the Buddha or by the >Buddha. >=================================================== >R: Dear Alex-many cases of sotapannas and more declaring their >attainments to other monks. > > robert As I remember, they were made to the Buddha. Perhaps monk to monk (in rare cases) as well. Perhaps because the daughter of Anathandipika didn't tell her father her attainment is the reason why he didn't know her status and had to ask the Buddha. Please provide the suttas about laypeople to laypeople. Also I agree with this part of KenH's message: >KH: I am wondering why anyone *would* tell. I understand it may be possible to force one to say it. One could declare it to save someone's life or to convince someone of something. Again, I wonder as to the suttas where one layperson declares to other layperson her or his attainment. While I remember plenty of suttas where a layperson was convinced and declared his faith to the Buddha. With metta, Alex #108380 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Vince, > I have read about Anathapindika and I wonder about your interpretation of the Sutta. Sutta shows when the stream-winner knows and understand all these things and the proper time to state of himself "I'm an stream-winner". But even in such case, we cannot read inside the Sutta a clear recommendation for a public announce to the world. > Context of this Sutta is a private conversation between Buddha and the Anathapindika. There is not more people involved. We read "he may state about himself:" but not "he may declare it to the world". One can understand the meaning of "he can say to himself". Why should we understand in a sense of "he may declare it to the world"?. Tell me, Vince, are you a disciple of the noble ones? Do you have faith in the Buddha, faith in the Dhamma and faith in the Sangha? If you do, then you are a lay disciple of the noble ones. As far as I know, Kevin had only declared his noble achievement in DhammaWheel. And is it not the case that DhammaWheel is an online place of congregation for those who have faith in the Buddha, faith in the Dhamma and faith in the Sangha? It is not as if Kevin had declared his noble achievement in a Jewish forum, in a Muslim forum, in a Christian forum, in a Catholic forum or in a Taoist forum. No, Kevin had not announced his noble achievement to the whole wide world as you put it. Also, having declared his noble achievement in an appropriate place, wouldn't that inspire those who are newly come to this doctrine and discipline, not to say of those who have long taken refuge in the Triple Gem? So, why begrudge another's noble achievement? Sharing in the joy of another's noble achievement is not in any way detrimental to your mental well-being. In fact, it promotes your mental well-being. Now, if Kevin were to have overestimated himself, then he alone suffers for that overestimation. As for those who had shared in his joy previously, his overestimation does not in any way affect their mental well-being. Now, if Kevin were to have overestimated himself and were to lead others astray with a perverted Dhamma, then he alone suffers for that. As for those who were lead astray, they can only blame themselves for having placed their faith in Kevin, who is neither the Buddha nor the Dhamma nor the Noble Sangha. In this way, I do not see anything wrong with a lay disciple declaring his noble achievement amongst other lay disciples or to the Noble Sangha. Swee Boon #108381 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Alex, > From what I remember (please correct me if I am wrong) all valid declarations of stream entry were made to the Buddha or by the Buddha. Then tell me, is Venerable Channa's declaration of stream-entry to Venerable Ananda valid or invalid? ------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.090.than.html "That's how it is, friend Ananda, for those who have friends in the holy life like Ven. Ananda ? sympathetic, helpful, exhorting, & teaching. Just now, for me, listening to Ven. Ananda's Dhamma-teaching, has the Dhamma been penetrated." ------------------------- Swee Boon #108382 From: "James" Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:34 pm Subject: Interesting book buddhatrue Hi All, I just finished an interesting book that is offered for free by the author. It is titled 'Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha', available at this site: http://www.interactivebuddha.com/mctb.shtml The author claims to be an arahant, and he very well could be. But he doesn't meet the traditional Theravada definition of arahant and he explains why in detail. Interesting book. Metta, James #108383 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Kevin, > Kevin: The mind becomes cool when nibbana is attained because defilements (which are "hot" because they are passionate) are uprooted. The mind becomes fully cooled only when one is an Arahant. I did say "the work is done" because the lineage has changed (to a noble lineage). Now, even if I didn't want to - for whatever reason - I would still become an Arahant within a certain number of lifetimes. This is because of conditions. Also doubt about the path is gone. I don't have to search any more for answers about the Right Path and the wrong path in future lives. In that sense only "the work is done". There are many points of disagreement that I have here, mainly because I have a different understanding of what the Buddha really taught. I understand that in the dispensation of the Tathagatha, the work is only done when one attains arahantship in this very life. Anything else is not. Also, I am of the view that Siddhattha Gotama was a sotapanna before his Awakening. The proof is in MN 4. As such, the Buddha did not teach the Bodhisatta Path or the ten paramis. Also, I am of the view that the attainment of the first jhana is necessary for the attainment of the three higher noble achievements. The proof is in MN 14. Since a sotapanna need not have any knowledge or the experience of the jhanas, it is very likely that in his last rebirth, he has to go around searching for the way to the first jhana. This was what happened to Siddhattha Gotama. Had he attained a higher noble attainment as Jotipala in Buddha Kassapa's dispensation, we would not have heard the Dhamma today. But since he found the way back to the first jhana on his own, we say that the Tathagatha is perfectly self-awakened. An interesting description of the sotapanna in the suttas is that the sotapanna is often described as being "headed for self-awakening". Also, by the fact that he found the way back on his own, he became an expert in the way. He is like the pathfinder (likened to scouts in the army) who knows the territories of the jungle and we are like the night troops who follow the little florescent lights littered on the jungle floor by the scouts. Those little florescent lights are the lifeline to the target. (At least, this was the context in my country's army training.) > Kevin: The reason is that attainment depends on accumulations, and more specifically the accumulation of the Ten Perfection, or Parami, over an incredibly long time. There is no method to win the truth. When Panna-parami has become developed to the point that it penetrates, one can change lineages. > Panna-parami is greatly supported by Sacca-parami (which is about probing for and respecting the truth of the way things really are in important matters; it goes much deeper than trying not to tell lies), and the other Perfections. It is only when they are accumulated to the right degree that penetration happens. Such topics as accumulations over numerous lifetimes has been discussed so much previously that it smells like fermented beancurd now. It smells nice to those who believe it and is foul to those who don't. > Kevin: That enemy is self-view. He is like a general in the army of delusion. He is a great leader. When he is killed, his Commanders in the army, the other fetters, are forced to start to retreat. They know they will be utterly destroyed too. As far as I know, the one thing that should be killed is anger. I don't disagree with you that the remaining fetters will be destroyed too, though not without effort. Swee Boon #108384 From: "connie" Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:36 pm Subject: Sangiitisutta Sixes, 324 cont. nichiconn Dear Friends, DN33 324 continued, 6.14) saara.niiyaa dhammaa: Walshe notes: < The meaning of saaraa.niyaa dhamma is not quite certain. At DN 16.1.11, RD has 'conditions of welfare', which is a slip for the preceding aparihaaniya dhammaa. > Olds: Six things of concord ... RD: Six occasions of fraternal living. ... cscd: 6.14) Cha saara.niiyaa dhammaa. Idhaavuso, bhikkhuno metta.m kaayakamma.m paccupa.t.thita.m hoti sabrahmacaariisu aavi [aavii (ka. sii. pii. ka.)] ceva raho ca. Ayampi dhammo saara.niiyo piyakara.no garukara.no sa'ngahaaya avivaadaaya saamaggiyaa ekiibhaavaaya sa.mvattati. <>ti ettha yaaya di.t.thiyaa puggalo di.t.thisaama~n~na.m gato vutto, saa pa.thamamaggasammaadi.t.thi kosambakasutte adhippetoti aaha <>ti. Idhaati imasmi.m sutte. Catuusupi maggesu sammaadi.t.thi di.t.thiggaha.nena gahitaati aaha <>ti. peace, connie #108385 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:17 pm Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process kenhowardau Hi Swee Boon, Vince and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Swee Boon" wrote: > <. . .> > > Tell me, Vince, are you a disciple of the noble ones? Do you have faith in the Buddha, faith in the Dhamma and faith in the Sangha? If you do, then you are a lay disciple of the noble ones. > > As far as I know, Kevin had only declared his noble achievement in DhammaWheel. And is it not the case that DhammaWheel is an online place of congregation for those who have faith in the Buddha, faith in the Dhamma and faith in the Sangha? > > It is not as if Kevin had declared his noble achievement in a Jewish forum, in a Muslim forum, in a Christian forum, in a Catholic forum or in a Taoist forum. No, Kevin had not announced his noble achievement to the whole wide world as you put it. > > Also, having declared his noble achievement in an appropriate place, wouldn't that inspire those who are newly come to this doctrine and discipline, not to say of those who have long taken refuge in the Triple Gem? > > So, why begrudge another's noble achievement? Sharing in the joy of another's noble achievement is not in any way detrimental to your mental well-being. In fact, it promotes your mental well-being. ---------------------------------- KH: It's been a long while since I last visited any Buddhist discussion group other than DSG, and I don't know anything about DhammaWheel. I do know, however, that there are a lot of 'religious people' (people firmly attached to escapist fantasies) on the internet. There are many people who, for *various* reasons, believe they are practising jhana when they aren't, or believe they are practising vipassana when they aren't. I was one of them once. Some of those people are genuinely mistaken and would be glad to learn the truth. Some others, however, simply don't care and just want to indulge in their fantasies. (I have no ill feelings towards the fantasists BTW, but nor do I seek their company. I am happy to see them involved in DSG discussions, but it is the other people - not them - who attract me here.) Anyway, to get to the point, I think it would be a good thing if *no one* - regardless of whether they were genuine seekers or religious fantasists - announced themselves to be sotapannas on DSG. I think that sort of announcement and the associated messages of congratulations only detract from the quality of discussion here. That's just my opinion, of course. After all, the Dhamma is not about personalities. It is about impersonal, conditioned, mental and physical phenomena. Ken H #108386 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process farrellkevin80 Hello Swee Boon, Left-wing progressive liberal extremist "Modern Theravada" Buddhists that believe in only the scriptures that they wish to and only the ideas they like, adding thier own views whenever necessary, and supporting each other even when their views differ from each others because they wish to align against the conservative Theravadins that respect that Pali Tipitaka including all three Pitikas, even the Vinaya, and their Commentaries and who live unknowingly for the detriment of the Sasana by do so should simply leave me alone unless they are interested in learning the dhamma - instead of arguing - because they will only accumulate negative kamma with their reactions to my responses to them. Discussion with them becomes fertile soil for their wrong speech and unwholesome thoughts not only againt the true Dhamma but against, I, a sotapanna two and a half-millennia after the passing of the Buddha. Their foolish views lead them on circling ever more. Their inevitable disrespectful responses and reactions to my inherently conservative and strongly opinionated Buddhist leanings lead them to create bad kamma. Therefore, they are best to simply stay back and not engage with me at all unless they are very open minded to discovering the real truth beneath things. It has been a pleasure engaging with you. Thanks for your messages. Please keep what I said above in mind before writing any more responses to me, though I welcome any responses that you might write, of course. Kevin Swee Boon wrote: There are many points of disagreement that I have here, mainly because I have a different understanding of what the Buddha really taught. I understand that in the dispensation of the Tathagatha, the work is only done when one attains arahantship in this very life. Anything else is not. Also, I am of the view that Siddhattha Gotama was a sotapanna before his Awakening. The proof is in MN 4. As such, the Buddha did not teach the Bodhisatta Path or the ten paramis. Also, I am of the view that the attainment of the first jhana is necessary for the attainment of the three higher noble achievements. The proof is in MN 14. Since a sotapanna need not have any knowledge or the experience of the jhanas, it is very likely that in his last rebirth, he has to go around searching for the way to the first jhana. This was what happened to Siddhattha Gotama. Had he attained a higher noble attainment as Jotipala in Buddha Kassapa's dispensation, we would not have heard the Dhamma today. But since he found the way back to the first jhana on his own, we say that the Tathagatha is perfectly self-awakened. An interesting description of the sotapanna in the suttas is that the sotapanna is often described as being "headed for self-awakening". Also, by the fact that he found the way back on his own, he became an expert in the way. He is like the pathfinder (likened to scouts in the army) who knows the territories of the jungle and we are like the night troops who follow the little florescent lights littered on the jungle floor by the scouts. Those little florescent lights are the lifeline to the target. (At least, this was the context in my country's army training.) Such topics as accumulations over numerous lifetimes has been discussed so much previously that it smells like fermented beancurd now. It smells nice to those who believe it and is foul to those who don't. As far as I know, the one thing that should be killed is anger. I don't disagree with you that the remaining fetters will be destroyed too, though not without effort. Swee Boon --- #108387 From: Vince Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process cerovzt@... Dear Swee Boon you wrote: > Also, having declared his noble achievement in an appropriate > place, wouldn't that inspire those who are newly come to this > doctrine and discipline, not to say of those who have long taken > refuge in the Triple Gem? I was focused only in the Sutta, not in any person. Although is truth the thread was born from my intervention in your conversation. However, my intervention was about this Sutta, not Kevin. I don't have any intention to talk about the attainments of anyone, only about Dhamma. If you or other person feels disturbed we can recover the topic in the future. To me that's ok. > So, why begrudge another's noble achievement? Sharing in the joy of > another's noble achievement is not in any way detrimental to your > mental well-being. In fact, it promotes your mental well-being. well, it depends of the hearer. On my side I'm happy to see Kevin or any person following Dhamma. Not only Buddha-dhamma but any other way to search the truth. We are 6 billion people, and probably less of 0,1% are interested in what is really important. With this panorama, even if somebody interested in Dhamma some day he claims to be an Arhant, Jesucrist or Spiderman, this is of second order at all. We all made mistakes and strange things. My real interest is this: you wrote about the noble ones, and this is what one can read from the noble ones and wiser people about the declarations of spiritual attainments: "A true follower of the Buddha should have few desires. He should be content with what he has and he should try to lessen his defilements. He should have little desire for material possessions or attendants. He should not want to speak of his accomplishments in the study of scriptures or in the practice of meditation. He should keep the depth of his learning or his spiritual attainments to himself. A true noble one does not reveal his spiritual insight although he wants to share it with other people. It is only the religious impostor who calls himself a noble one or an Arahant." * The Sallekha Sutta,Introduction. Mahayi Sayadaw. (a nice pdf: http://www.aimwell.org/assets/sallekhasutta.pdf ) However, I doubt if what M.Sayadaw says here can sounds a little strict. The doubt is knowing if this contention is a natural thing because the eradicated fetters. Or if this is an observance. Or a mixture of both things. Maybe it's a natural thing but also it can be also the product of some accommodation. Both things toghether. But I don`t know about a Sutta with a public declaration of a sotapanna besides to Buddha or to bhikkhus. And maybe there is someone, I don't know!! Regarding the people of this list or any other place, I think not a good thing talking about the realizations of anyone. Avoid making comparatives, speculations, etc.. That's not polite neither it can drive to benefit. Everyone know by himself when he is able to understand other people or not and about his own experience. In my case I cannot understand enough people and for that reason I'm a subscriber. Also I don't understand Kevin when he cites many things of the Abhidhamma because I don't understand enough Abhidhamma. I don't say nothing about the Kevin claim of sotapanna. When somebody says that he still is learning this is a very good thing, and if that person says he is sotapanna or sadakagami, I don't know. Well, if you think it's better avoid this thread to avoid that association then we can finish now and rescue this in some future. On my side there is not any problem. :) best, Vince, #108388 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process truth_aerator Hello Swee Boon, all interested, > Then tell me, is Venerable Channa's declaration of stream-entry to >Venerable Ananda valid or invalid? > > ------------------------- > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.090.than.html > > "That's how it is, friend Ananda, for those who have friends in the holy life like Ven. Ananda ? sympathetic, helpful, exhorting, & teaching. Just now, for me, listening to Ven. Ananda's Dhamma-teaching, has the Dhamma been penetrated." > ------------------------- > > Swee Boon > Thank you for the sutta. Well it talks about monk declaring his attainment to Ven. Ananda. I am wondering about the suttas where a *lay* follower publicly declared his attainment to other lay people. With metta, Alex #108389 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process farrellkevin80 Hi Ken, Ken: Anyway, to get to the point, I think it would be a good thing if *no one* - regardless of whether they were genuine seekers or religious fantasists - announced themselves to be sotapannas on DSG. I think that sort of announcement and the associated messages of congratulations only detract from the quality of discussion here. Kevin: Hi Ken. That is fine of course. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and are welcome to express it here. People express different opinions and different views here. However, other *members* may disagree and have a right to say these things if they wish to. Just a simple reminder that you are also another *member* here and not a member of a governing body that can enact and enforce such rules. However, you can certainly submit your idea since there is a governing body here. I personally don't think it would be a good rule to enact myself. I think if a genuine sotapanna does want to announce himself or herself and share with others here, that they should be allowed to. I don't think it detracts from the discussions at all. We can have multiple discussion here at once, so nothing is lost from discussions that are simply about individual dhammas. Furthermore, there is no need to engage in any discussion which you do not wish to. Please keep in mind that this is a community with individual members who may have different ideas, views, and needs than your own and that they have a right to express them here until such time that the administration here deems it unfit (by whatever processes they do so). Kevin #108390 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process farrellkevin80 Alex: Thank you for the sutta. Well it talks about monk declaring his attainment to Ven. Ananda. I am wondering about the suttas where a *lay* follower publicly declared his attainment to other lay people. With metta, Alex Kevin: Sariputta announced his attainment of Sotapanna to Maha Mogallana before they were monks (when they were named Uptatissa and Kolita) and before either of them ever met the Buddha (Sariputta after winning Sotapanna after hearing two lines of a four line verse from a monk). Then Sariputta went and told his non-Buddhist teacher Sañjaya that he had found the deathless in order to try and convert him and get him and his other followers to come with them to follow the Buddha. He did not go but many of his followers did (hundreds of them). I presume it was announced to all of those followers as well otherwise I can't see them leaving their teacher and going along with Sariputta and Mogallana to find and follow the Buddha, do you? Keivn From: truth_aerator To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, July 14, 2010 7:28:41 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process Hello Swee Boon, all interested, > Then tell me, is Venerable Channa's declaration of stream-entry to >Venerable >Ananda valid or invalid? > > ------------------------- > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.090.than.html > > "That's how it is, friend Ananda, for those who have friends in the holy life >like Ven. Ananda — sympathetic, helpful, exhorting, & teaching. Just now, for >me, listening to Ven. Ananda's Dhamma-teaching, has the Dhamma been penetrated." > ------------------------- > > Swee Boon > Thank you for the sutta. Well it talks about monk declaring his attainment to Ven. Ananda. I am wondering about the suttas where a *lay* follower publicly declared his attainment to other lay people. With metta, Alex #108391 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process truth_aerator > Kevin: Sariputta announced his attainment of Sotapanna to Maha Mogallana > before they were monks (when they were named Uptatissa and Kolita) and before > either of them ever met the Buddha (Sariputta after winning Sotapanna after > hearing two lines of a four line verse from a monk). Then Sariputta went and > told his non-Buddhist teacher Sañjaya that he had found the deathless in order > to try and convert him and get him and his other followers to come with them to > follow the Buddha. He did not go but many of his followers did (hundreds of > them). I presume it was announced to all of those followers as well otherwise I > can't see them leaving their teacher and going along with Sariputta and > Mogallana to find and follow the Buddha, do you? > > Keivn > Thanks, Kevin. The only thing is that the sutta doesn't state that Ven. Sariputta tell many people, only his closest friend and fellow wanderer Ven. Mogallana. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/mv/mv.01.23.01-10.than.html With metta, Alex #108392 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process farrellkevin80 Hi Alex, Alex: Thanks, Kevin. The only thing is that the sutta doesn't state that Ven. Sariputta tell many people, only his closest friend and fellow wanderer Ven. Mogallana. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/mv/mv.01.23.01-10.than.html With metta, Alex Kevin: Right, but then they told Sa?jaya and I presume all of his hundreds of disciples who followed them to see the Buddha. With metta,, Kevin #108393 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process truth_aerator Hello Kevin, all interested, > Alex: Thanks, Kevin. The only thing is that the sutta doesn't state that Ven. > Sariputta tell many people, only his closest friend and fellow wanderer Ven. > Mogallana. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/mv/mv.01.23.01-10.than.html > > With metta, > > Alex > > Kevin: Right, but then they told Sa?jaya and I presume all of his hundreds of > disciples who followed them to see the Buddha. > > With metta,, > > Kevin He may have simply told him something politely that "I don't want to be your disciple" and leave it at that. BTW, even at that stage Ven. Sariputta and Ven. MahaMoggalana were wanderers. Not ordained in Buddha's teaching, but ascetics nevertheless. With best wishes, Alex #108394 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process farrellkevin80 Hi Alex, Alex: He may have simply told him something politely that "I don't want to be your disciple" and leave it at that. Kevin: Alex, if you read The Life of Sariputta by Nyanaponika Thera you will see that they did tell him that they found the deathless (according to Nyanaponika Thera) and get a better picture of the story. Alex: BTW, even at that stage Ven. Sariputta and Ven. MahaMoggalana were wanderers. Not ordained in Buddha's teaching, but ascetics nevertheless. Kevin. Are you trying to make excuses that they were less worldly and more like monks so it was OK for them but not for people who are "more lay" or something like that. Be a thinker son, not a drone. All the best, Kevin #108395 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 1:40 am Subject: Re: Interesting book kelvin_lwin Hi James, I also read the book last week, what a great coincidence Dhamma Brother. I searched DSG for it and saw the posts from 2005. It made me miss Htoo (wonder what he's up to) but i mostly agreed with his comment that the author gets most everything right. The amount of angst the "Dark Nights" caused him was an interesting read. Overall, I'm glad I read it and nice to see someone with the guts to write it. The dhamma loneliness he described resonates with me. I was curious about statements referring to Sayadaw U Pandita and his lineage/teachings. I'll have to go confirm myself and see where the actual source is. From my experience, they tend to be meditation center rumor mill. I know DSG is flooded with talk about Sotapanna/Arahant/Ariya with personal experience vs the texts. I rather go with the ideals ascribed to Theravada's dogma than get what i feel is a watered down version. It did remind me of a sutta that I've wondered about before. An arahant was entrapped by a woman overnight but he overcame her seductions. Buddha praised him whereas I felt like it should be second nature to monkhood, much less an arahant? Anyway, no matter what, to me an arahant would prefer soltiude over having wife/kids. Everything starts in the mind and the purification must be reflected in even mundane thought patterns. - Kelvin #108396 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:33 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? ptaus1 Hi KenH, Mike and all, Continuing with the Visuddhimagga VIII,246, note 68: "The individual essence of any formed dhamma is manifested in the three instants of its existence (atthita-, vijjama-nata-), namely, arising, presence (= ageing) and dissolution. It comes from nowhere and goes nowhere (Ch. XV,15) and is borne by the mind. Dhammas without individual essence (asabha-va-dhamma) include the attainment of cessation (see Ch. XXIII,n.l8) and some concepts. Space and time belong to the last-mentioned. Of space (aka-sa) the Tika to the Majjhima Nikaya says: 'Space, which is quite devoid of individual essence, is called empty' (commenting on M. Sutta 106), while of time (ka-la) the Mula TikA says: Though time is determined by the kind of consciousness [e.g. as specified in the first paragraph of the Dhammasangani-] and is non-existent (avijjama-na) as to individual essence, yet as the non-entity (abha-va) before and after the moment in which those [conascent and co-present] dhammas occur, it is called the "container (adhikarana)"; it is perceived (symbolized) only as the state of a receptacle (a-dha-ra-bha-va) (DhsAA. 62). Of nibbana (for which see Ch. XVI,46ff.), which has its own individual essence, the Mula Tika says: 'Nibbana is not like other dhammas; because of its extreme profundity it cannot be made an object of consciousness (a-lambitum) by one who has not realized it. That is why it has to be realized by change-of-lineage. It has profundity surpassing any individual essence belonging to the three periods of time' (VbhAA. 38)." ------- end quote I find this passage quite difficult, maybe because it draws from other sources. Perhpas we can discuss this passage in chunks. The first seems very important to me: "The individual essence of any formed dhamma is manifested in the three instants of its existence (atthita-, vijjama-nata-), namely, arising, presence (= ageing) and dissolution. It comes from nowhere and goes nowhere (Ch. XV,15) and is borne by the mind." So, as I understand it - this means that at the moment of insight, a dhamma is known to arise, age, and disolve - these three in essence are equivalent to the "individual essence", and thus, equivalent to what's called a dhamma and it's "existence", when the term "exist" is used in that sense. Best wishes pt #108397 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:15 am Subject: Re: A Sotapanna ptaus1 Hi Kevin, > K: It's not always easy to say what the objects of the moments are. During the moment, there is not any doubt. It cannot arise. But the moment happens faster than lightning. It is not easy to pinpoint what the object was even though doubt isn't present during the moment of satipatthana and even though panna has strong focus on one particular single object. Things are anatta. The moment happens and it is gone. Again it happens lightning fast. Although one may not know the object, one usually becomes very aware that the not-self aspect of an object has been known. The truth about the aspect leaves more of an impression on the mind than what the particular dhamma was. What that dhamma was doesn't always leave an impression that causes sanna to perceive an impression of it in a conceptual process afterwards. The particular dhamma doesn't really matter to be honest. It is of no consequence. After all, all dhammas are the same, except for nibbana. That one is very different. This is what has been known. pt: I find it interesting that your description of how insight happens seems much closer to modern interpretations which emphasize the three general characteristics and play down the individual ones (some even declaring them to be nothing more than concepts). Afaik, the commentarial position is that individual characteristics of a dhamma are clearly known at the moment of insight. Or, the way I often heard it said on dsg: "when sati arises there is no doubt which reality presents itself to sati." Any thoughts on this discrepancy between your experiences and commentarial descriptions? And in general, are you able now to clearly distinguish one dhamma from another, e.g. the differences between calm, concentration, lightness, piti, zeal and pliancy? I can't really tell one from another, so am wondering how would you describe the difference between say piti and zeal (chanda) for example? Or between calm and concentration and equanimity? Or pliancy and lightness and piti? Thanks. Best wishes pt #108398 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Dear Pt, Helllo. Pt: I find it interesting that your description of how insight happens seems much closer to modern interpretations which emphasize the three general characteristics and play down the individual ones (some even declaring them to be nothing more than concepts). Afaik, the commentarial position is that individual characteristics of a dhamma are clearly known at the moment of insight. Or, the way I often heard it said on dsg: "when sati arises there is no doubt which reality presents itself to sati." Any thoughts on this discrepancy between your experiences and commentarial descriptions? Kevin: Hi Pt. I think modern interpretations, at least those connected with techniques, emphasize seeing things as anicca, anatta, and dukkha but that they are lost in concepts about realities. What I have described is quite different. I describe actual moments of satipatthana but my point was that the general characteristics leave a much clearer impression on the mind than the individual characteristic does. This doesn't mean that the individual characteristic isn't known during the precise moment of satipatthana, or that there is any doubt at all, but it simply means that although the individual characteristic is known, it is known extremely briefly during a flash of satipatthana and what is usually "remembered" are generally just the general characteristics. Just because there is no doubt during the moment of satipatthana doesn't mean there can't be doubt about what the object was afterwards, or that there is even any rememberance of what the object was afterwards. It happens so fast. You have to understand there is a difference between what cetasikas arise in a lightning fast moment of satipatthana and what arises in the thought process directly afterwards that usually recalls such a moment. Pt: And in general, are you able now to clearly distinguish one dhamma from another, e.g. the differences between calm, concentration, lightness, piti, zeal and pliancy? I can't really tell one from another, so am wondering how would you describe the difference between say piti and zeal (chanda) for example? Or between calm and concentration and equanimity? Or pliancy and lightness and piti? Thanks. Kevin: Just conceptually. Kevin Best wishes #108399 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:53 am Subject: Re: Only Nibbana is Paramattha sacca (Ultimate Truth) ptaus1 Hi Alex (and Sarah), Thanks for your reply. > A: The thing is that the specific [such and such consciousness, cetasika or rupa] is an abstraction. Since the present moment is so short, one can't really catch and hold it. It slips away every moment by ceasing ("past"). Not only that, mind can quickly alter its qualities (one moment it likes something, another moment it dislikes something). pt: Well, I don't really know. I think commentaries are clearly saying that at the moment of insight (as in the stages of insight knowledges) - there's an experience of an individual dhamma in the sense that it's experienced to arise, age and fall. This is then further processed by consequent mind-door processes that think about what was experienced, but the main thing is that the experience was there in the first place - so not just imagined, or analised, or conceptualised about. Further, I don't think insight is about catching and holding onto the present moment. I don't really know, but I don't think it's possible that one can know many cittas in succession separately one after another for a certain period of time. Rather, what seems to be described to happen is that an awareness (insight) accompanies an arising of certain dhamma - and that is in fact insight already. Sure, then follow many mind-door processes which think about what happened in order to make sense of it, but it's all based on the original moment of arising of awareness. So, I think it's not an issue of catching and holding onto a dhamma. Sarah, one thing I forgot to ask when we were discussing nimitta - when the object of citta is a nama dhamma (e.g. calm), and there's also panna at the time, then: 1. calm would be the object of all cittas of the first mind-door process (excluding bhavanga cittas)? 2. panna would be present during that entire mind-door process? 3. would the object of that very first mind-door process be classed as a dhamma or also as navattabba (not-so-classifiable)? 4. the second mind-door process would have what as the object of cittas? Usually, the examples are given for sense-door process, which is then followed by mind-door process, where the first one would have navattabba as object, and the following ones would have concepts as objects. So I was wondering about what happens when the whole thing is purely in the nama domain. Thanks. Best wishes pt