#108400 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna ptaus1 Hi Kevin, Ok, thanks. I think what I read here before was that at a certain stage of insight (before sotapanna), one can clearly discern between different dhammas and know their differences. I probably misunderstood something. Best wishes pt > K: 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. #108401 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Dear Pt, Pt: Ok, thanks. I think what I read here before was that at a certain stage of insight (before sotapanna), one can clearly discern between different dhammas and know their differences. I probably misunderstood something. Kevin: Hi Pt. You might be thinking of the first stage, knowledge of the difference between nama and rupa. At that stage panna can understand the difference of nama and rupa and know about that distinction, but I don't think that means that one begins to know about the differences between specific dhammas any better than one did before as far as I understand. Perhaps others will be able to add and help us out. Thanks for your message. I appreciate them very much. Yours, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108402 From: "James" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:45 am Subject: Re: Interesting book buddhatrue Hi Kelvin, Nice to hear from you! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > 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. James: Yeah, everything in the book is pretty spot on. The author isn't a bozo. The amount of angst the "Dark Nights" caused him was an interesting read. James: The Dark Night is exactly what I have been stuck in for the past 10 years or so! Everything he describes is, again, spot on! 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. > James: Yes, I think it is a courageous book...and the dhamma loneliness is quite accurate also. > 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. > James: I don't know much about that. > 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. James: But the problem with Theravada dogma is that it is unreasonable. There are just some things I don't agree with: like an arahant has to become a monk within 7 days or he will die. Now, that is just ridiculous! There is nothing magical about putting on a monk's robes. And that a sotapanna cannot tell a lie. Oh please! Even the Buddha told a lie to the woman about the mustard seed bringing her dead child back to life. I don't like the paths of enlightenment described like one becoming a superhero! It is just unreasonable and discouraging. 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? James: Yes, there are many examples in the suttas where arahants and the Buddha are described as having human traits, not being just superheroes. 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. > James: I don't think it would matter to an arahant if he had a wife/kids or not. They live in a sense of detachment where there is no subject/object duality. Having a wife/kids or not having a wife/kids would be the same. I think that what Daniel Ingram writes is quite reasonable. But, I realize it is very difficult for traditional Theravada Buddhists to accept. Thankfully, I am not a traditional Theravada Buddhist. :-) > - Kelvin > Metta, James #108403 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: > > Dear Pt, > > Pt: Ok, thanks. I think what I read here before was that at a certain stage of > insight (before sotapanna), one can clearly discern between different dhammas > and know their differences. I probably misunderstood something. > > Kevin: Hi Pt. You might be thinking of the first stage, knowledge of the > difference between nama and rupa. At that stage panna can understand the > difference of nama and rupa and know about that distinction, but I don't think > that means that one begins to know about the differences between specific > dhammas any better than one did before as far as I understand. Perhaps others > will be able to add and help us out. > > Dear Kevin and pt at the first stage of tender insight the difference between nama and rupa is clearly known. And also surely at least the door through which this insight into the sense door /minddoor occurs must be clear? Sure at moment of satipatthana whcih are not at the strength of vipassana the objects might still be vague but I don't think that could be the case when viapssana occurs. robert #108404 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:31 am Subject: Abhidhamma Series, no 22. The Four Planes of Consciousness (part 2). nilovg Dear friends, The Four Planes of Consciousness (part 2). As we have seen, there are four planes of citta: the sensuous plane of consciousness, the plane of ruupa-jhaana, the plane of aruupa- jhaana, and the plane of lokuttara citta, supramundane citta. When enlightenment is attained lokuttara cittas arise which directly experience nibbaana. The lokuttara citta is the highest plane of consciousness. There are four stages of enlightenment: the stages of the sotaapanna (streamwinner), the sakadaagaamii (once-returner), the anaagaamii (no- returner) and the arahat. At each of these stages the lokuttara kusala citta, the magga-citta, arises which experiences nibbaana and eradicates defilements. Wrong view has to be eradicated first. So long as one takes realities for self there cannot be the eradication of any defilement. The sotaapanna, the ariyan who has attained the first stage of enlightenment, has eradicated di.t.thi completely, so that it can never arise again, but he has not eradicated all defilements. Defilements are eradicated stage by stage and only when arahatship has been attained all defilements have been eradicated. Only the right Path, the eightfold Path, can lead to enlightenment. The eightfold Path is developed by being mindful of the n?ma and r?pa which appear in daily life, such as seeing, visible object, hearing, sound, thinking, feeling, attachment, anger or the other defilements which arise. This is actually the development of vipassanaa, insight wisdom. There are several stages of insight-wisdom. The characteristics of naama and ruupa have to be investigated over and over again until they are clearly understood as they are and there is no more wrong view about them. The realization of the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa, their impermanence, is a higher stage of insight which cannot be attained so long as the characteristic of naama cannot be distinguished from the characteristic of ruupa. All the different stages of insight have to be attained in the right order. Pa~n~naa should continue to investigate the characteristics of realities as they appear through the six doors so that the three characteristics of conditioned realities, namely: impermanence (anicca), dukkha and non-self (anattaa), can be penetrated more and more. When pa~n~naa has clearly understood these three characteristics enlightenment can be attained. Pa~n~naa which has become lokuttara pa~n~naa experiences nibbaana, the unconditioned reality. Nibbaana does not arise and fall away and it is therefore the end of the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa, the end of birth, old age, sickness and death. Nibbaana is the end to dukkha. When one has attained the first stage of enlightenment, the stage of the sotaapanna, it is certain that there will eventually be an end to the cycle of birth and death, an end to dukkha. When the person who is not an arahat dies, the last citta of his life, the cuti-citta (dying-consciousness) is succeeded by the pa.tisandhi-citta (rebirth-consciousness) of the next life and thus life goes on. So long as there are defilements life has to continue. The fact that we are here in the human plane is conditioned by defilements. Even if there is birth in a heavenly plane, in a ruupa- brahma plane or in an aruupa-brahma plane, it is conditioned by defilements. The arahat has no more defilements, he does not have to be reborn in any plane. For him there will not be the arising of naama and ruupa in a new life any more, and this means the end to the cycle of birth and death. We read in the Kindred Sayings (IV, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Third Fifty, Chapter 5, ?152, Is there a Method?), that the Buddha spoke to the monks about the method to realize through direct experience the end of dukkha: ?Herein, monks, a monk, seeing visible object with the eye, either recognizes within him the existence of lust, malice and illusion, thus: ?I have lust, malice and illusion,? or recognizes the non- existence of these qualities within him, thus: ?I have not lust, malice and illusion.? Now as to that recognition of their existence or non-existence within him, are these conditions, I ask, to be understood by belief, or inclination, or hearsay, or argument as to method, or reflection on reasons, or delight in speculation?? ?Surely not, lord.? ?Are not these states to be understood by seeing them with the eye of wisdom?? ?Surely, lord.? ?Then, monks, this is the method by following which, apart from belief? a monk could affirm insight thus: ?Ended is birth, lived is the righteous life, done is the task, for life in these conditions there is no hereafter.?? We then read that the same is said with regard to the experiences through the doorways of the ears, nose, tongue, bodysense and mind. The development of understanding of all that is real, also of one?s defilements, is the way leading to the eradication of defilements, to the end of rebirth. This is the end of dukkha. ------------ Nina. #108405 From: "Christine" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:37 am Subject: Re: Interesting book christine_fo... Hello all, An animated discussion of just this book for eight pages or so, on Dhamma Wheel: Daniel M. Ingram - Dhamma book written by arahat? http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3717&sid=ad37f939f57ca2e9bd16b2b0d0a\ 85984 with metta Chris #108406 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:51 am Subject: Re: Interesting book kelvin_lwin Hi James, I'm going to write this reply as a very proud (conceited) Theravada Buddhist. I personally see nothing to fear with the dark nights or the potential to be stuck in them. In fact, I would welcome them as a way of growing disenchantment with the experience itself. My problem is quite the opposite that I still enjoy too much in the face of much *evidence* that nothing lasts. Can't quite seem to internalize this wisdom! I find two things in the western mindset to cause the scenario voiced by him: too much doubt/skepticism and too little panna starting with sutta-maya panna. I won't go so far as to say wrong view but there's a bit of it too. As the result, the required equanimity is lacking and everything is very shocking. People seem to want to fight their way through rather than learning to go with the flow. Too many are just trying to dig themselves out of apparent miseries, how can their minds be ready? My observation is most are far from ready and get blindsided by some glimpses (not even the real thing). It's a high spiritual path, not just trying to make sense out of experiences as a 15 year old kid. As for arahant just viewing everything without duality of subject/object, I find it going extreme. Basics of 8-fold noble path has right and wrong. It's not as if everything is the same, they just merely have the same characteristics. Suttas are fairly clear about the basic definition of a holy life and renouncing sensual pleasures. "Household life is crowded, a realm of dust, while going forth is the open air." Come on! - Kelvin #108407 From: chao vang Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:55 am Subject: Have anyone read the Book ...... maixiong_vg have anyone read the Book "How to become a Buddha in 5 weeks" What do you think of this it? #108408 From: chao vang Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:58 am Subject: Re: Have anyone read the Book ...... maixiong_vg www.Zoosiab.com www.hmongza.com www.hmongmusic.org --- On Thu, 7/15/10, chao vang wrote: From: chao vang Subject: Have anyone read the Book ...... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, July 15, 2010, 2:55 PM have anyone read the Book "How to become a Buddha in 5 weeks" What do you think of this it? #108409 From: "colette" Date: Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:46 pm Subject: Re: kunjed gyalpo tantra ksheri3 Hi Christine, Yes, I've tried once to see about the availability of that book thru the Chicago public library and my first search was negative, I'm sure I'll find ways to possibly read this book. I know that the 3 states of a "person's" "engergies" are part of the Dzogchen discourse I was looking to contact a person that may have a better definition for me thru their personal experiences. No matter, I'll just have to plod along reading the THEORY in two dimensional format and translating it to reality on my own. Thank you. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" wrote: > > > > Hello colette, > > This Dzogchen text might be helpful: > > The Supreme Source > http://www.snowlionpub.com/html/product_731.html <....> #108410 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:46 am Subject: Re: Have anyone read the Book ...... sarahprocter... Dear Chao Vang (and all newcomers*), Welcome to DSG! Many thx for your qu. I haven't read the book and I have to say the title doesn't inspire me! I think the point of the path is to develop more wisdom about what can be known at this moment, not about trying to become a Buddha or anything/anyone else. Others may be able to offer further comments. May I ask where you live and encourage you to give us an introduction? (*Also, pls make it clear if you're addressing everyone or anyone in particular and we'd appreciate it if you'd sign off with your (real) name, so we know how to address you! Thx in advance. Any problems with this - pls ask pt, Jon or myself off-list) Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, chao vang wrote: > > > www.Zoosiab.com > > www.hmongza.com > > www.hmongmusic.org > > --- On Thu, 7/15/10, chao vang wrote: > > From: chao vang > Subject: Have anyone read the Book ...... > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Date: Thursday, July 15, 2010, 2:55 PM > > have anyone read the Book > > "How to become a Buddha in 5 weeks" > > What do you think of this it? > #108411 From: "Christine" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:56 am Subject: Re: kunjed gyalpo tantra christine_fo... Hello Connie, Why not contact/join a local group of those who have been instructed by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. Worldwide list and websites http://www.dzogchen.it/communities-worldwide with metta Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hi Christine, > > Yes, I've tried once to see about the availability of that book thru the Chicago public library and my first search was negative, I'm sure I'll find ways to possibly read this book. I know that the 3 states of a "person's" "engergies" are part of the Dzogchen discourse I was looking to contact a person that may have a better definition for me thru their personal experiences. No matter, I'll just have to plod along reading the THEORY in two dimensional format and translating it to reality on my own. > > Thank you. > > toodles, > colette > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello colette, > > > > This Dzogchen text might be helpful: > > > > The Supreme Source > > http://www.snowlionpub.com/html/product_731.html > <....> > #108412 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:58 am Subject: Sangiitisutta, the Sixes, sutta 14 and commentary. nilovg Dear friends, sutta: DN 33.2.2(14) 'Six things conducive to communal living (saaraa.niiyaa dhammaa): *1101 As long as monks both in public and in private show loving-kindness to their fellows in acts of body, speech and thought, ...share with their virtuous fellows whatever they receive as a rightful gift, including the contents of their alms-bowls, which they do not keep to themselves, ...keep consistently, unbroken and unaltered those rules of conduct that are spotless, leading to liberation, praised by the wise, unstained and conducive to concentration, and persist therein with their fellows both in public and in private, ...continue in that noble view that leads to liberation, to the utter destruction of suffering, remaining in such awareness with their fellows both in public and in private. ' -------- The co. points to the Kosambiyasutta (M. I, no 48). We read that the Buddha exhorted the monks of Kosambii who were quarreling and reminded them of the same six points as stated in the sutta of the Diigha Nikaaya, quoted above. Saaraa.niiya means: what should be reminded of. We read about mettaa, both in public and in private. Also when the other person is not present one can have thoughts of goodwill and kindness about him. We read about caaga, generosity, siila, right view. What we read here can also be applied by layfollowers. We can share with others what we have, we can perform siila in helping others, in being respectful. Right understanding conditions above all kusala citta. The commentary explains that the words 'endowed with right view' (di.t.thisaama~n~nagato) used in the Kosambiyasutta refer to the first Path, the Path of the sotaapanna, but that it refers here, in this sutta, to all four Paths. The ariyans of the four stages of enlightenment are endowed with right understanding of different degrees, according to the stage of enlightenment that has been attained. We read in the Kosambiyasutta that of the six things to be remembered, right view is the topmost: <...this is the topmost, this the roof-plate, this the dome, that is to say whatever view is ariyan, leading onwards, leading him who acts according to it to the complete destruction of anguish...> We read further on in the Kosambiyasutta about strength (bala) someone is possessed of who is endowed with right view. Here listening to the dhamma is emphasized: By listening to the Dhamma with thorough attention right understanding develops and this is right understanding of the reality appearing at this very moment, be it seeing, hearing, kusala citta or akusala citta. This kind of right understanding is the condition for all the other good qualities we read about in this sutta. It promotes harmonious living in society. When others speak in a disagreeable way we can understand that hearing is merely vipaakacitta, result of kamma, and our aversion is akusala citta conditioned by the latent tendency of aversion. We come to understand more that both we and others are naama and ruupa arising because of conditions. ******* Nina. #108413 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process chandrafabian Dear friends, Allow me to share opinion among us to avoid accumulating bad kamma. in previous post I say I support Kevin wholeheartedly, because I realise it is harder to state our own achievement, and it is easier to keep silent. We live in jungle of skeptics, on which I am one of them. So why I support Kevin? That's because I didn't see Kevin did something wrong which against the sriptures definition of a Sotapanna. I once involved in a heated debate about a Monk claimed to be an Arahant, while he behave differently with the scripture descriptions about an Arahant (he laugh showing his teeth, also crying) I don't believe him as an Arahant not because only that. In an open speech to support his claim, he describe his achievement, which somewhat looks like Magga-Phala achievement, but only once, so my conclusion he must be a Sotapanna at most, because an Arahant must struggle 4 series of progressive insight from Uddayabaya nana to Magga-Phala nana (correct me if I am wrong). I Support Kevin because as far what he did still inline with what written in the scriptures. And I know many Western people more open of telling about their achievements, different with Asians who tends to cover their own achievement, not able to bear the consequences of many "attacks. There are dilemmas among Buddhists, in one side they believe Sotapanna can be attain, on the other side they reject a person's claim of Sotapanna achievement, because they thought Ariya doesn't exist anymore, or Ariya must be a Monk, or Ariya must be according to their perceptions. It is a simple truth to accept we don't know whether Kevin Sotapanna or not, therefore accepting fifty-fifty about the statement is a safe bet, no harms done, harm would only occur to the person who claim Ariya, if they lie. Postive side of Kevin's statement is, it encourages people to pursue the "Deathless State" and share the experience of ultimate peace, not thinking the "Deathless State" as fairy tale. mettacittena #108414 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna chandrafabian 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 Dear Sarah, I thought I have replied your message but it seems not delivered. I am surprised you still remember me...? I rarely post, but this time I would participate more frequently. Mettacittena #108415 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Vince, > 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 ) Why do you think this Mahasi Sayadaw is a noble one and a wise person? A fool is known by his words. When this Mahasi Sayadaw says "it is only the religious imposter who calls himself a noble one or an Arahant", he has shot himself in the foot. By this statement, he is saying that the Tathagatha who is perfectly self-awakened is a religious impostor by virtue of the Tathagatha declaring his attainment of the Deathless to the Five Ascetics. From what I know, this foolish Mahasi Sayadaw even invented an "Abdomen Meditation" method. A disciple of the Tathagatha does not excel the Tathagatha. Yet, this fool thinks he can excel the Tathagatha. This fool thinks the teachings of the Tathagatha is incomplete and he can fill it in with his invented method. > 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!! As far as I know, public declaration of stream-entry does not violate any of the eight precepts for lay disciples. It was never prohibited by the Buddha. Does that lay your concerns to rest? Or do you want to pick a bone in a chicken egg? :-) Swee Boon #108416 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Kevin, > 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. Thank you for your reply. I am now thoroughly convinced that you are NOT a sotapanna. You have overestimated yourself. Swee Boon #108417 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 3:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Alex, > I am wondering about the suttas where a *lay* follower publicly declared his attainment to other lay people. There would not be any such sutta because most likely, no member of the noble sangha would be physically present to hear such a declaration. As we all known, the suttas are remembered and preserved by the early noble sangha after having heard them with their ears. Since no member of the noble sangha would be present physically to hear such a declaration, the possibility of the existence of such a sutta is very likely nil. Swee Boon #108418 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:01 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi Sayadaw truth_aerator Hello Swee Boon, all interested, >SB: A fool is known by his words. Mahasi "Started training age 6, novice age 12, full ordination 19 under Sumedha Sayadaw Ashin Nimmala. By age 22 had passed 3 grades of Pali examinations, studying under a number of important monks." http://www.buddhanet.net/masters/mahasi.htm Mahasi Sayadaw was an expert on Abhidhamma and he was at Sanghanayaka Executive Board at the Sixth Buddhist Council. He sat for and passed with distinction the Government-held Dhammacariya (Teacher of the Dhamma) examination in June 1941. He helped establish meditation centers all over Burma as well as in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand, and by 1972 the centers under his guidance had trained more than 700,000 meditators. The Mahasi Sayadaw published nearly seventy volumes of Buddhist literature in Burmese, many of these transcribed from talks. He completed a Burmese translation of the Visuddhimagga, ("The Path of Purification") a lengthy treatise on meditation by the 5th century Indian Theravadin Buddhist commentator and scholar Buddhaghosa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasi_Sayadaw ================================== With metta, Alex #108419 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:17 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi Sayadaw nidive Hi Alex, > Mahasi "Started training age 6, novice age 12, full ordination 19 under Sumedha Sayadaw Ashin Nimmala. By age 22 had passed 3 grades of Pali examinations, studying under a number of important monks." > http://www.buddhanet.net/masters/mahasi.htm > > Mahasi Sayadaw was an expert on Abhidhamma and he was at Sanghanayaka Executive Board at the Sixth Buddhist Council. He sat for and passed with distinction the Government-held Dhammacariya (Teacher of the Dhamma) examination in June 1941. He helped establish meditation centers all over Burma as well as in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand, and by 1972 the centers under his guidance had trained more than 700,000 meditators. > > The Mahasi Sayadaw published nearly seventy volumes of Buddhist literature in Burmese, many of these transcribed from talks. He completed a Burmese translation of the Visuddhimagga, ("The Path of Purification") a lengthy treatise on meditation by the 5th century Indian Theravadin Buddhist commentator and scholar Buddhaghosa. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasi_Sayadaw > ================================== Passing examinations doesn't mean anything in the dispensation of the Tathagatha. A person is not wise by virtue of passing examinations. Also, I have come to see the Abhidhamma and Visuddhimagga as non-Buddha teachings. A person is not wise by virtue of publishing volumes of literature. As for the meditation centres, I suppose they give emphasis on his invented abdominal meditation method. Swee Boon #108420 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process truth_aerator Hello Swee Boon, > Hi Alex, > >>I am wondering about the suttas where a *lay* follower publicly >declared his attainment to other lay people. > >There would not be any such sutta because most likely, no member of >the noble sangha would be physically present to hear such a >declaration. As we all known, the suttas are remembered and >preserved >by the early noble sangha after having heard them with >their ears. >Since no member of the noble sangha would be present >physically to >hear such a declaration, the possibility of the >existence of such a >sutta is very likely nil. > > Swee Boon Ananda (or other Monks) on his Alms round could over hear it. They did hear a lot of what sectarians taught so why not the rumors about their own teaching? The monks on Alms round may have been asked by laity about such and such a layperson. But here, think about it Swee. Why would someone publicly declare his attainment? I can understand the reason for the Buddha to declare it out of compassion for lost people and to start Dhamma Sassana that was non-existent prior to Him. But even the Buddha didn't want to teach Dhamma in the first place and had to be begged by a Brahma Sahampati. With metta, Alex #108422 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Dear Robert, Hi Robert. Robert: at the first stage of tender insight the difference between nama and rupa is clearly known. And also surely at least the door through which this insight into the sense door /minddoor occurs must be clear? Sure at moment of satipatthana whcih are not at the strength of vipassana the objects might still be vague but I don't think that could be the case when viapssana occurs. robert Kevin: In my experience, I am always aware of wether the object was nama or rupa after a moment of satipatthana, but usually not of the specific object. As I stated in my last post, I know that there no doubt during satipatthana and that the individual characterstic of the dhamma which is inisghted is known. But that is such a quick moment. When the thinking process kicks in, what the individual dhamma was may not be known to the individual. What leaves an "impression" is the understanding of the not-self aspect, dukkha, or anicca, aspect having been known. Likewise, eye sense sees color all the time but we do not always know what color has been seen because each moment is so brief and followed by other moments. ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# ________________________________ #108423 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process farrellkevin80 Hi Swee Boon, Swee Boon: Thank you for your reply. I am now thoroughly convinced that you are NOT a sotapanna. You have overestimated yourself. Kevin: Well, thank you for your message. Is it because I have strong opinions? Thanks, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108424 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna truth_aerator Dear Kevin, 1) Through which vimokkha (signless, desireless, void) did you reach stream-entry? 2) When you make minor transgressions how do you react to it afterwards? Do you make up for it, if so how? 3) Can you enter into calm (samatha) and experience cooling/nibbana? With best wishes, Alex #108425 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hello Alex, Alex: Through which vimokkha (signless, desireless, void) did you reach stream-entry? Kevin: The last one. Alex: 2) When you make minor transgressions how do you react to it afterwards? Do you make up for it, if so how? Kevin: I do not/ cannot transgress the five precepts. I can commit minor unwholesome actions. I view them similarly to the way I did before sotapanna and I don't try to make up for them specifically by I try to remember that the deal bears bad fruit and I try not to commit them so often. Alex: 3) Can you enter into calm (samatha) and experience cooling/nibbana? Kevin: I cannot. Be well, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108426 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:50 pm Subject: Re: A Sotapanna - study q's truth_aerator Hello Kevin, 1)How much did you study prior to your attainment? 2)What Dhamma books do you regularly read? 3)How is sutta study different after your attainment? a) Do you understand more? b)Can you experience joy, bliss, & temporary calming the defilements when reading the suttas? Thank you for answering my questions. With metta, Alex #108427 From: Kevin F Date: Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna - study q's farrellkevin80 Hi again Alex, =) Alex: 1)How much did you study prior to your attainment? Kevin: I studied quite a bit, but I think the studying and accumulation of understanding that I accumulated and performed in past lifetimes has helped me most. Alex: 2)What Dhamma books do you regularly read? Kevin: My favorite book is Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Ajahn Sujin. I think it is the most important Dhamma book written in modern times by far because it is so complete. I think living life and not reading that book while it is available is almost like a waste of a lifetime. Alex: 3)How is sutta study different after your attainment? Kevin: It is much the same. a) Do you understand more? Kevin: I do understand more and understand more clearly, I feel. Alex: b)Can you experience joy, bliss, & temporary calming the defilements when reading the suttas? Kevin: The suttas bring me joy and it makes me happy to hear about the Buddha and his great Arahant disciples, the true Kings among men. Alex: Thank you for answering my questions. It is my pleasure to, Alex. With metta, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108428 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process kenhowardau Hi Kevin, In my old age I am only just beginning to have a little tolerance for people on the political right. I can occasionally remind myself that there is good and bad in all of us - even conservatives can't be all bad. Therefore, I was able to forgive you when you promoted the fascist anthem that you called your favourite song. Likewise the black firebird and the eagle painted on it - more lamentable, fascist symbolism that I was able to forgive you for. But this latest tirade of yours really has ruffled my feathers: ---- Kevin: > 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 their 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 and their Commentaries <. . .> ---- I share you views about the modern-Theravada Buddhists, but why would you call them "left wing?" Haven't we all read about the parallels between Marxism and Buddhism (e.g., Marxism in a Buddhist Perspective by V.A.Gunasekara)? I thought left-wingers were the good guys! :-) Why would you call those despoilers of the original texts "progressive" (favouring reform: advocating social, economic, or political reform (Encarta))? Isn't that also the sort of thing that good people approve of? And why would you call them "liberal" (progressive politically or socially: favouring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual)? Isn't that another good quality? To cap it off you implied that true Theravadins were politically conservative. (!!!) Now that really makes my blood boil. :-) By wanting to turn back the clock (to the way things were before the Buddha taught) "modern-Tehravadins" are showing themselves to be the ultimate reactionaries. In your country, I'll bet some of them even vote Republican! No, sorry, I have gone too far: I wouldn't accuse anyone at DSG of doing that! :-) Ken H #108429 From: Kevin F Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process farrellkevin80 Hi Ken, I'm going to reply to this post point by point. Your intention is probably to get me uspset so I appear mad in my messages. But that just won't happen. Ken:In my old age I am only just beginning to have a little tolerance for people on the political right. I can occasionally remind myself that there is good and bad in all of us - even conservatives can't be all bad. Therefore, I was able to forgive you when you promoted the fascist anthem that you called your favourite song. Likewise the black firebird and the eagle painted on it - more lamentable, fascist symbolism that I was able to forgive you for. Kevin: You would call the eagle, the symbol of the American Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence fascist. Ken: I share you views about the modern-Theravada Buddhists, but why would you call them "left wing?" Haven't we all read about the parallels between Marxism and Buddhism (e.g., Marxism in a Buddhist Perspective by V.A.Gunasekara)? I thought left-wingers were the good guys! :-) Kevin: My post wasn't political at all. I used the left and right wing views metaphor to get across a trend in Buddhism-- there are people on the far "left" that don't care at all what the original texts say or represent and just believe and do what they want willy-nilly, preaching whatever they feel as Buddhism, just as there are left-wing Americans that repeatedly, time and again, disregard the Constitution. And there are Buddhists who are more conservative and respect what the texts say, every time, staying true to the ideals of the founders of our religion, the Buddha, and his Disciples. Ken: I share you views about the modern-Theravada Buddhists, but why would you call them "left wing?" Haven't we all read about the parallels between Marxism and Buddhism (e.g., Marxism in a Buddhist Perspective by V.A.Gunasekara)? I thought left-wingers were the good guys! :-) Kevin: I see a lot more parallels between Marxist thought and modern left-wing American thought, but I don't see many between Buddhism and Marxism. Ken: Why would you call those despoilers of the original texts "progressive" (favouring reform: advocating social, economic, or political reform (Encarta))? Isn't that also the sort of thing that good people approve of? Kevin: Because they don't give a rat's ass what the original texts say, that's way. Ken: To cap it off you implied that true Theravadins were politically conservative. (!!!) Now that really makes my blood boil. :-) By wanting to turn back the clock (to the way things were before the Buddha taught) "modern-Tehravadins" are showing themselves to be the ultimate reactionaries. In your country, I'll bet some of them even vote Republican! Kevin: The Buddha founded our religion. The conservatives of His time listened to him, compiled his teachings without changing them, and took pains to preserve them. The "conservatives" of our time try to stay as true to them as possible. This is the analogy I was making. Ken: . In your country, I'll bet some of them even vote Republican! Kevin: I don't have a clue where you're from, but you don't have a clue about American politics. It is not your arena. If you can tell me right now what the US Constitution says, what branches of government it sets forth, what their respective roles are, how it is amended, and what the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) are, I will have a little bit of respect for you in this conversation. Not until then. I did not start this talk on politics and I do not wish to continue it. As I said, when I used "left-wing" and the other statements it was to provide an analogy, only to prove a point. I do not really care what your political views are, mostly because they are probably not well thought out at all (no disrespect intended). Be well, (P.S. I put a little tune in the signature for ya') ______________________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EflVJA6kKf0 ________________________________ #108430 From: "Sadhu Chew" Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Mahasi Sayadaw chewsadhu Hi Swee Boon, This is the first time I heard people, which is You "Swee Boon", call Mahasi Sayadaw [a fool] in the public. May I know, is it your own thinking? or did you hear that from someone? If you heard that from someone, can you please tell us where did you hear from? Don't mind, Swee Boon, can you please tell us which Buddhist center do you from? It is good that if you also can tell us who is your Dhamma teacher? I am so sorry to ask you all these questions, because I need to know who should responsible for telling that [this foolish Mahasi Sayadaw ...]. May all beings be well and happy. With respect, Chew --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Swee Boon" wrote: > > Hi Vince, > > > 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 ) > > Why do you think this Mahasi Sayadaw is a noble one and a wise person? > > A fool is known by his words. When this Mahasi Sayadaw says "it is only the religious imposter who calls himself a noble one or an Arahant", he has shot himself in the foot. By this statement, he is saying that the Tathagatha who is perfectly self-awakened is a religious impostor by virtue of the Tathagatha declaring his attainment of the Deathless to the Five Ascetics. > > From what I know, this foolish Mahasi Sayadaw even invented an "Abdomen Meditation" method. A disciple of the Tathagatha does not excel the Tathagatha. Yet, this fool thinks he can excel the Tathagatha. This fool thinks the teachings of the Tathagatha is incomplete and he can fill it in with his invented method. > > > > 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!! > > As far as I know, public declaration of stream-entry does not violate any of the eight precepts for lay disciples. It was never prohibited by the Buddha. Does that lay your concerns to rest? Or do you want to pick a bone in a chicken egg? :-) > > > Swee Boon > #108431 From: Vince Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process cerovzt@... Swee Boon wrote: > As far as I know, public declaration of stream-entry does not > violate any of the eight precepts for lay disciples. It was never > prohibited by the Buddha. Does that lay your concerns to rest? Or do > you want to pick a bone in a chicken egg? :-) not directly, you are right. Although sure you knows that one of these precepts is avoid wrong speech. A sotapanna still is under wrong speech, and also he lacks of the knowledge of right moment and right place. Then a consequence of that declaration to the worldly people unknown to him. Probably it can cause problems, and I think quite logical this possibility. When the sotapanna talks, only the wiser people can recognize him. The worldly people can believe him or reject him, distorted by their own attachments or expectations. This can start a chain of gossip and wrong speech to end in disputes. In anyway, note there is certain absurdity in the appropriation of the understanding with a label applied to the self. It is by our attachment that we forget the kammic chain of our understanding is not limited into this present existence. So there is the case of people who they think they are not sotapanna but they are good practitioners and their understanding is very high. And also there is the case of somebody reaching sotapanna in this life but soon he can fall in attachment, and then the brightness of that moment of truth soon can decay, and although the sun arose for him, soon the panorama become cloudy. In the Tipitaka there are cases of people who reached arhanthood, even without any practice. This is quite spectacular: http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=348 we know little about kamma. And one can wonder if the first type of people they practice so well because they have been sotapanna or other noble condition in former lifes. But in this present life maybe it happens that today is not the moment to get more fruits. So, What can be the real utility of these declarations?. Dhamma teaches that we must put faith in the Dhamma instead persons. The only exception is the same Buddha, because according himself, somebody who keeps faith in Buddha also he keep faith in Dhamma. And the inverse. Well, I think all these can be more reasons to consider the utility and also the difficulty to find more public declarations of sotapanna to the wordly. best, #108432 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:02 am Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process kenhowardau Hi Kevin, ------------- <. . .> Kevin: > Your intention is probably to get me upset so I appear mad in my messages. But that just won't happen. -------------- No, I only wanted to defend my fellow left-wingers. :-) I wanted to say that we were not the ones who were undermining the Dhamma. BTW, I don't want you to appear mad at all. For several reasons. ------------------ <. . .> Kevin: > You would call the eagle, the symbol of the American Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence fascist. ----------------- When you put it like that, no, it isn't. I won't try to explain any further because I can see I would make no headway. And DSG is not the place for talking politics, anyway. -------------------------- <. . .> Kevin: > My post wasn't political at all. -------------------------- OK, you say it wasn't, and I say it was. We'll leave it that. -------------------- <. . .> Kevin: > The Buddha founded our religion. The conservatives of His time listened to him, compiled his teachings without changing them, and took pains to preserve them. The "conservatives" of our time try to stay as true to them as possible. This is the analogy I was making. --------------------- Ha, isn't it funny how we can construe things in completely opposite ways! To my mind, the conservatives in the Buddha's day were the ones who rejected his totally new, revolutionary, way of seeing the world. They stubbornly held on to the old ways - the two extremes. Just as they are continuing to hold onto them today. But, as we both agree, there is no point in political arguments - here or anywhere else. I don't think anyone has ever changed his/her political views as a result of being defeated in a debate. ------------ <. . .> Kevin: > I did not start this talk on politics and I do not wish to continue it. As I said, when I used "left-wing" and the other statements it was to provide an analogy, only to prove a point. I do not really care what your political views are, mostly because they are probably not well thought out at all (no disrespect intended). Be well, (P.S. I put a little tune in the signature for ya') ------------ Thanks, but the youtube link wouldn't open in my country "on copyright grounds." The other linked opened a Mark Levin Show site, but I couldn't see what particular part of it you wanted me to go to, so I left it. Who is ML? Some kind of right-wing shock-jock? Ken H #108433 From: Kevin F Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process farrellkevin80 Dear Ken, Ken: No, I only wanted to defend my fellow left-wingers. :-) I wanted to say that we were not the ones who were undermining the Dhamma. BTW, I don't want you to appear mad at all. For several reasons. Kevin: Political views don't really have much to do with dhamma at all. Thank you for not wanting me to appear mad. I appreciate it. Ken: When you put it like that, no, it isn't. I won't try to explain any further because I can see I would make no headway. And DSG is not the place for talking politics, anyway. Kevin: I agree and you and I both don't wish to pursue political conversations here. Ken: OK, you say it wasn't, and I say it was. We'll leave it that. Kevin: OK. But I still say it wasn't. Ken: Ha, isn't it funny how we can construe things in completely opposite ways! To my mind, the conservatives in the Buddha's day were the ones who rejected his totally new, revolutionary, way of seeing the world. They stubbornly held on to the old ways - the two extremes. Just as they are continuing to hold onto them today. Kevin: I was speaking solely about the group of people that ascribed to the Buddhas teachings. Within that group we can see conservatives, and those that were progressive, like the ones that made up their own Dhamma eventually. Ken: But, as we both agree, there is no point in political arguments - here or anywhere else. I don't think anyone has ever changed his/her political views as a result of being defeated in a debate. Kevin: Unfortunately, not enough people change their political views from being defeated in debate (this is no reflection on our conversation, just so you know. It is simply a wide and very general statement). Ken: Thanks, but the youtube link wouldn't open in my country "on copyright grounds." Kevin: It was just a link to a Gretchen Wilson song, for fun. This one might work better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAtXO8r4Epc (live performance, no copyright). Ken: Thanks, but the youtube link wouldn't open in my country "on copyright grounds." The other linked opened a Mark Levin Show site, but I couldn't see what particular part of it you wanted me to go to, so I left it. Who is ML? Some kind of right-wing shock-jock? Kevin: Mark Levin is an constitutional lawyer. He worked for the Reagan administration years ago, but now he works in the private sector and heads up the Landmark Legal Foundation in D.C. He is an author (his best-seller Liberty and Tyranny has sold over 1.2 million copies here and abroad) and has a talk show from 6-9 pm on weekdays on am radio in the States (and on satellite). You can listen to his talks on the site I linked to (should you be interested in American politics). Thanks for your messages. All the best, Kevin #108434 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process chandrafabian Oh my goodness bro, How far do you know Mahasi Sayadaw, to make such a harsh remarks? Is there any Mahasi Sayadaw's book that you read reflecting or supporting your assumption? Mettacittena fabian Swee boon: Why do you think this Mahasi Sayadaw is a noble one and a wise person? A fool is known by his words. When this Mahasi Sayadaw says "it is only the religious imposter who calls himself a noble one or an Arahant", he has shot himself in the foot. By this statement, he is saying that the Tathagatha who is perfectly self-awakened is a religious impostor by virtue of the Tathagatha declaring his attainment of the Deathless to the Five Ascetics. From what I know, this foolish Mahasi Sayadaw even invented an "Abdomen Meditation" method. A disciple of the Tathagatha does not excel the Tathagatha. Yet, this fool thinks he can excel the Tathagatha. This fool thinks the teachings of the Tathagatha is incomplete and he can fill it in with his invented method. > 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!! As far as I know, public declaration of stream-entry does not violate any of the eight precepts for lay disciples. It was never prohibited by the Buddha. Does that lay your concerns to rest? Or do you want to pick a bone in a chicken egg? :-) Swee Boon #108435 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna chandrafabian Dear Kevin, Alex and all, I think this is a very good example, on how to react to a person's statement of achievement, by cross examine whether he is really attain Magga-Phala or not. Even though after cross examine it turns out Kevin was proved to be wrong, please don't take this mistake in a negative way, after all I believe many of us know, even in the past, mistakes sometimes do really occur. I believe many of us would not dare to tell a deliberate lie about attainment right? I have a question to Kevin, May I know have you experience Nibbana? If you do, how long..? Please tell us your experience of achievement, did you going through series of progressive insight...?. Thank you. Mettacitenna, fabian Hello Alex, Alex: Through which vimokkha (signless, desireless, void) did you reach stream-entry? Kevin: The last one. Alex: 2) When you make minor transgressions how do you react to it afterwards? Do you make up for it, if so how? Kevin: I do not/ cannot transgress the five precepts. I can commit minor unwholesome actions. I view them similarly to the way I did before sotapanna and I don't try to make up for them specifically by I try to remember that the deal bears bad fruit and I try not to commit them so often. Alex: 3) Can you enter into calm (samatha) and experience cooling/nibbana? Kevin: I cannot. Be well, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin #108436 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:54 pm Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Vince, > When the sotapanna talks, only the wiser people can recognize him. The worldly people can believe him or reject him, distorted by their own attachments or expectations. This can start a chain of gossip and wrong speech to end in disputes. To parrot you: "When the Tathagatha talks, only the wiser people can recognize him. The worldly people can believe him or reject him, distorted by their own attachments or expectations. This can start a chain of gossip and wrong speech to end in disputes." I simply do not understand what your concern is all about. The situation that you described above had happened ever since the Tathagatha started teaching the Dhamma. The evidence is all in the suttas. > In the Tipitaka there are cases of people who reached arhanthood, > even without any practice. This is quite spectacular: > http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=348 I am sorry. I don't believe in the story of Uggasena. This story was probably made up by some ignorant people with nothing to do. Anyone can make up a story about that verse in the Dhammapada. ???????The Buddha "willed that the audience should turn their attention to him instead of applauding Uggasena for his acrobatic feats"??????? Come on, do you take me for a kid? This is just so childish!!!!!!! > So, What can be the real utility of these declarations?. As inspiration to those who are wise and to arrest the trend of the four fruits of contemplation becoming a myth. Swee Boon #108437 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Kevin, > Kevin: Well, thank you for your message. Is it because I have strong opinions? Yes. A sotapanna who has ferreted out the noble method would no longer hold to such a strong view like yours. Also, when I questioned you on how did you ferret out the noble method, you did not give me a detailed explanation of how you personally and actually ferreted out dependent co-arising. These are signs that you are not a sotapanna. Swee Boon #108438 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mahasi Sayadaw nidive Hi Chew, > This is the first time I heard people, which is You "Swee Boon", call Mahasi Sayadaw [a fool] in the public. May I know, is it your own thinking? Yes, it is my own thinking. > Don't mind, Swee Boon, can you please tell us which Buddhist center do you from? I don't come from any Buddhist center. I am on my own. > It is good that if you also can tell us who is your Dhamma teacher? The Tathagatha in the suttas is my Dhamma teacher. > I am so sorry to ask you all these questions, because I need to know who should responsible for telling that [this foolish Mahasi Sayadaw ...]. No need to be sorry. :-) Swee Boon #108439 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Fabian, > Oh my goodness bro, > How far do you know Mahasi Sayadaw, to make such a harsh remarks? > Is there any Mahasi Sayadaw's book that you read reflecting or supporting your assumption? It is better not to know too much about a foolish person who invents an abdomen meditation method that is no where described in DN 22 and MN 119. Associating with a fool makes one a fool in the long run. Swee Boon #108440 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Alex, [This reply was re-posted because the first did not appear.] > Ananda (or other Monks) on his Alms round could over hear it. They did hear a lot of what sectarians taught so why not the rumors about their own teaching? The monks on Alms round may have been asked by laity about such and such a layperson. Why should the monks remember and recite a rumor? Unless the Buddha verified the rumor, I don't see why a rumor is worth remembering and reciting. Considering that in those times, the number of lay people who were sotapannas are probably in the hundreds or thousands, I don't see why a monk should be concerned about a lay disciple who proclaims stream-entry. It probably was such a normal thing that the monks did not think it was anything strange. > But here, think about it Swee. Why would someone publicly declare his attainment? I can understand the reason for the Buddha to declare it out of compassion for lost people and to start Dhamma Sassana that was non-existent prior to Him. Out of compassion for those who believe that it is no longer possible to attain the four fruits of contemplation in this day and age and as inspiration for those who are wise and desiring of the fruits. It's all in the mind ... if one's mind is pure, his declaration of attainment is pure. Swee Boon #108441 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro ptaus1 Hi Swee Boon, Could you please tone down the rhetoric a bit. Speaking about a member of the ordained Sangha in derogatory terms helps no one. It's ok to disagree on some issues, even regarding a monastic, but remaining respectuful while doing so helps to foster wholesomeness on all sides. Thanks for your assistance. Best wishes pt > It is better not to know too much about a foolish person who invents an abdomen meditation method that is no where described in DN 22 and MN 119. > > Associating with a fool makes one a fool in the long run. > > Swee Boon > #108442 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro nidive Hi pt, > Could you please tone down the rhetoric a bit. Speaking about a member of the ordained Sangha in derogatory terms helps no one. It's ok to disagree on some issues, even regarding a monastic, but remaining respectuful while doing so helps to foster wholesomeness on all sides. It is not derogatory to call him a fool when in fact he is a fool. Definition of a fool by The Free Dictionary: 1. One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding. 2. One who acts unwisely on a given occasion. 3. One who has been tricked or made to appear ridiculous; a dupe. 4. Informal A person with a talent or enthusiasm for a certain activity: a dancing fool; a fool for skiing. 5. A member of a royal or noble household who provided entertainment, as with jokes or antics; a jester. 6. One who subverts convention or orthodoxy or varies from social conformity in order to reveal spiritual or moral truth: a holy fool. 7. A dessert made of stewed or pur?ed fruit mixed with cream or custard and served cold. 8. Archaic A mentally deficient person; an idiot. Definition No. 1 definitely applies to him. Definition No. 6 may apply to him. All other definitions do not apply to him. How is it derogatory to say that he is deficient in judgment, sense and understanding when in fact it is evidenced that he is deficient in judgment, sense and understanding? Swee Boon #108443 From: Kevin F Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Dear Fabian, Not that I am highly invested in everyone's opinions here, but simply to try to clear up any confusion that is here because it is probably better to do so than to just leave it alone, I will respond to your statement. Fabian: Even though after cross examine it turns out Kevin was proved to be wrong, please don't take this mistake in a negative way, after all I believe many of us know, even in the past, mistakes sometimes do really occur. Kevin: With all due respect, what fantasy are you living in? Please direct us to where, "even ... after cross examine it turns out Kevin was proved to be wrong"? Are you talking about a bunch of people that have a pet belief that a lay soptanna would only announce his attainment to monks or something along those lines and taking that as proof? If so, please reexamine things. Please do tell. Thank you, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108444 From: Kevin F Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process farrellkevin80 Hi Swee Boon, Again, I am not terribly invested of the opinions of all the members here, but to address your concern out of respect for you and because it is probably better to do so than to just leave it alone... Swee Boon: Yes. A sotapanna who has ferreted out the noble method would no longer hold to such a strong view like yours. Kevin: Where did you derive this notion and what gives you the right to directly state it as the truth about how the Noble Ones act when it is not stated in the teachings of the Buddha? Swee Boon: Also, when I questioned you on how did you ferret out the noble method, you did not give me a detailed explanation of how you personally and actually ferreted out dependent co-arising. Kevin: The conditions for the arising of wisdom are hearing the dhamma and wise attention to it (reflecting on it). So all you need to do is hear the dhamma and try to understand it and consider it. I thought I had explained that already. Sorry if I had not. I did, however, state that Ajan Sujin and Nina Van Gorkoms teachings are complete, and the above is what they say (and what the Buddha said of course). Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108445 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:34 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi pt (and Nina), ------------- <. . .> pt: > Perhaps 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. --------------- OK, that sounds fine to me, although I am probably missing the full importance of it. Before you go on to the next chunk, could you perhaps say a little more on why this one is "very important" to you? But if you have already said it in previous posts don't bother trying to explain again. I don't want to make a big deal (again) about my inability to retain these things in my memory. BTW, thank you, Nina (and Lodewijk) for your encouraging words on having to listen to the Dhamma repeatedly until we are familiar to it. Ken H #108446 From: Gemunu Rohana Date: Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:25 am Subject: Fw: Ahina Sutta: By a Snake translated to English from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu gemunu.rohana The forwarded message contains an article from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ The non-doing of any evil, the performance of what's skillful, the cleansing of one's own mind: this is the teaching of the Awakened. • This site has sermons by famous ven. Thero • Ajahn Chah and many useful resorces for an English Therawada Buddhist <...> to accumulate resources useful for international Buddhist community. Please go through the message forwarded. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Sam Samarakoon Sent: Thu, July 15, 2010 5:32:13 PM Subject: meth sithin....sukhii diighayuko bhava! AN 4.67 PTS: A ii 72 Ahina Sutta: By a Snake translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 1998–2010 Alternate translation: Piyadassi Translator's note: This is one of the few protective charms mentioned in the Pali canon and specifically allowed by the Buddha for monks to use (another charm, also allowed to the monks, is contained in DN 32). Note that the power of the charm is said to come, not from the words, but from the mind of good will with which they are said. It thus differs from charms taught in later forms of Buddhism, where the words themselves are said to contain power. On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now, at that time in Savatthi a certain monk had died after having been bitten by a snake. Then a large number of monks went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there they said to him, "Lord, just now in Savatthi a certain monk died after having been bitten by a snake." "Then it's certain, monks, that that monk didn't suffuse the four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will. For if he had suffused the four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will, he would not have died after having been bitten by a snake. Which four? The Virupakkha royal snake lineage,[1] the Erapatha royal snake lineage, the Chabyaputta royal snake lineage, the Dark Gotamaka royal snake lineage. It's certain that that monk didn't suffuse these four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will. For if he had suffused these four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will, he would not have died after having been bitten by a snake. I allow you, monks, to suffuse these four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will for the sake of self-protection, self-guarding, self-preservation." I have good will for the Virupakkhas, good will for the Erapathas, good will for the Chabyaputtas, good will for the Dark Gotamakas. I have good will for footless beings, good will for two-footed beings, good will for four-footed beings, good will for many-footed beings. May footless beings do me no harm. May two-footed beings do me no harm. May four-footed beings do me no harm. May many-footed beings do me no harm. May all creatures, all breathing things, all beings — each & every one — meet with good fortune. May none of them come to any evil. Limitless is the Buddha, limitless the Dhamma, limitless the Sangha. There is a limit to creeping things: snakes, scorpions, centipedes, spiders, lizards, & rats. I have made this safeguard, I have made this protection. May the beings depart. I pay homage to the Blessed One, homage to the seven rightly self-awakened ones.[2] Notes 1. The Virupakkhas are the chiefs of the nagas, associated with the western quarter (see DN 20). The other royal lineages of snakes are nowhere else mentioned in the Pali canon. The commentary to this discourse does not identify them. 2. The seven most recent Buddhas, including "our" Buddha, are mentioned in DN 14 & DN 32: Vipassi, Sikhi, Vessabhu, Kakusandha, Konagamana, Kassapa, and Gotama. It's noteworthy that the concept of the seven Buddhas is associated with protective charms. For example, the heart of the charm given in DN 32 is this: Homage to Vipassi, possessed of vision & splendor. Homage to Sikhi, sympathetic to all beings. Homage to Vessabhu, cleansed, austere. Homage to Kakusandha, crusher of Mara's host. Homage to Konagamana, the Brahman who lived the life perfected. Homage to Kassapa, entirely released. Homage to Angirasa [Gotama], splendid son of the Sakyans, who taught this Dhamma: the dispelling of all stress & pain. Those unbound in the world, who have seen things as they are, great ones of gentle speech, thoroughly mature, even they pay homage to Gotama, the benefit of human & heavenly beings, consummate in knowledge & conduct, the great one, thoroughly mature. We revere the Buddha Gotama, consummate in knowledge & conduct. Provenance: ©1998 Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Transcribed from a file provided by the translator. This Access to Insight edition is ©1998–2010. Terms of use: You may copy, reformat, reprint, republish, and redistribute this work in any medium whatsoever, provided that: (1) you only make such copies, etc. available free of charge; (2) you clearly indicate that any derivatives of this work (including translations) are derived from this source document; and (3) you include the full text of this license in any copies or derivatives of this work. Otherwise, all rights reserved. For additional information about this license, see the FAQ. How to cite this document (one suggested style): "Ahina Sutta: By a Snake"(AN 4.67), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, July 3, 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.067.than.html. <....> #108447 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process chandrafabian Dear Swee Boon, Correct me if I am wrong, it seems you never read any Mahasi Sayadaw's book? And never investigate how is the method? It seems your assumption is based on other people's assumption, repeating something from hearing other people's say. You are prejudiced like our friends in other religion, They think exactly like you, "don't read Buddhist scriptures, it is born from the power of the darkness. You'll go to hell if you read Buddhist books" Now I want to asked you bro, what do you think if someone do activities in daily life with mindfulness, very attentive and with full awareness could he achieved concentration? Mettacittena. Hi Fabian, It is better not to know too much about a foolish person who invents an abdomen meditation method that is no where described in DN 22 and MN 119. Associating with a fool makes one a fool in the long run. Swee Boon #108448 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna chandrafabian Dear kevin, Sincerely I am not against you or other people who say they have achieved Magga-Phala, I even happy for them, I support them, because they have achieved something hard to attain. We know from Abhidhamma and Sutta, that the attainment of Sotapanna come gradually, not spontaneously, even Arahat Bahiya The fastest attainer, still gradual (but very fast). We know from Abhidhamma, the process of attainment Magga-Phala started from Nama-rupa pariccheda nana, Paccaya parigaha nana...... and so forth up to Sankharupekkha nana and Magga-Phala. My question is, do you make it through this succesive stages of knowledge? In your meditation, are you able to see the very beginning of thoughts when it is arising...? I asked you before, have you ever experience Nibbana...? Metta Fabian Dear Fabian, Not that I am highly invested in everyone's opinions here, but simply to try to clear up any confusion that is here because it is probably better to do so than to just leave it alone, I will respond to your statement. Fabian: Even though after cross examine it turns out Kevin was proved to be wrong, please don't take this mistake in a negative way, after all I believe many of us know, even in the past, mistakes sometimes do really occur. Kevin: With all due respect, what fantasy are you living in? Please direct us to where, "even ... after cross examine it turns out Kevin was proved to be wrong"? Are you talking about a bunch of people that have a pet belief that a lay soptanna would only announce his attainment to monks or something along those lines and taking that as proof? If so, please reexamine things. Please do tell. Thank you, Kevin #108449 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? chandrafabian Dear Ken, Kevin and all, I somewhat agree with Kevin, The Theravada concepts is not like concepts of illusion or dream in Hindu (Maya concept). Theravada concepts of reality in my opinion rooted in these three sentences: sabbe SANKHARA anicca sabbe SANKHARA dukkha sabbe DHAMMA anatta. See the difference of the third sentence, it doesn't only say sankhara as anatta, but whole Dhamma. This three sentences, are Theravada standing points. It never say all sankhara or Dhamma as illusion or dream. The notion fleeting, insubstancial or empty is because the intrinsic nature of everything is according to this three sentences. All sankhara is anicca, all sankhara is dukkha, but everything (all Dhamma) is anatta. From here we know only Nibbana is devoid of sankhara, therefore only Nibbana devoid of anicca and dukkha. But even Nibbana is Anatta. Are we real? certainly, but we are not permanent (nicca), therefore unsatisfactory (dukkha). Everything is no soul, no permanent substance (including us), whether animate or inanimate, living being or non-living being, even Nibbana too. All conditioned phenomena like us are only conglomeration of process arising and passing away (uppada, thiti, bhanga) like bubbles or foam therefore empty of ultimate substance.. So this is why Theravada standpoints does not hold the view everything exist or everything not-exist. Metta, fabian 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 #108450 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hello Fabian, As to your questions: Fabian: We know from Abhidhamma, the process of attainment Magga-Phala started from Nama-rupa pariccheda nana, Paccaya parigaha nana...... and so forth up to Sankharupekkha nana and Magga-Phala. My question is, do you make it through this succesive stages of knowledge? Kevin: Yes, absolutely. Fabian: In your meditation, are you able to see the very beginning of thoughts when it is arising...? Kevin: No. I do not see thoughts as they are arising. Fabian: I asked you before, have you ever experience Nibbana...? Kevin: Yes, panna has, not a being or a person. Thanks for your questions. With metta, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# ________________________________ #108451 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna chandrafabian Dear Kevin, Thank you for your answer, however I still have some question in mind, would you tell me how and why the knowledges arise? If you do not see thoughts as they arises, how do you see the arising and ceasing of phenomena? We know thoughts are also phenomena. About Nibbana, I'm still not understand, you said panna has experience Nibbana, I don't understand, could you be more detail about your experience? How do you perceives Nibbana? Mettacittena, fabian #108452 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Dear Fabian, Kevin: These are excellent questions. They are more specific and allow me to give more complex answers. Nina, Sarah, and many others here are better qualified to answer them than I am, because they are very learned in Dhamma and posses Right View. In fact, some of the people in this group (Ajahn Sujins students) are literally experts in Dhamma and know much more than I do. They are very wise and have studied dhamma for years. They are in possession of Right Understanding. They also have more life wisdom than I do. I am only 30 years of age. I am like a child compared to them and they are like my parents when it comes to understanding Dhamma. I have penetrated the dhamma in this lifetime and it is due in part to the study that I have done in this lifetime, no doubt, but it is mostly due to the study I have committed myself to in past lifetimes. In fact, I have probably studied the dhamma many times, during the dispensations of many Buddhas, and possibly under many Buddhas, who knows. Fabian: would you tell me how and why the knowledges arise? Kevin: Knowledge, or wisdom, only arises when there are specific conditions for its arising. It does not arise for no reason. The conditions for wisdom developing are hearing the dhamma and wise reflection upon that Dhamma. When one hears about nama and rupa and it's impersonal nature, one can develop Right Understanding on the conceptual level. This should not be underestimated at all because it is the heart of the path. When Right Understanding is accumulated, moments of vipassana can eventually naturally occur in daily life. Wisdom is not born of concentration or sila, though concentration and sila are very wholesome and praised by the Buddha. The Buddha praised all types of wholesomeness because all types of wholesomeness bring benefit. If the arising of true wisdom was due only to concentration and sila then many people who attained jhanas but died with self view would have attained nibbana. That has not been the case. Many people who attained jhanas (and had excellent sila in order to do so) only accumulated more wrong views, such as the Buddhas teachers, Alara Kalama, and Udaka Ramaputta. The Buddha lamented after they passed away that if only they had heard the Dhamma they could have penetrated it. So wisdom slowly develops, based on Right Understanding of the impersonal nature of things. The more details we have, the more it helps. Fabian: If you do not see thoughts as they arises, how do you see the arising and ceasing of phenomena? We know thoughts are also phenomena Kevin: Thoughts are phenomena but they are only true on the conceptual level. They are concepts. They are not paramattha dhammas. Wisdom always kows paramattha dhammas at the higher levels. They are what is insighted by the individual. The thinking process has impersonal elements such as citta and cetasikas. They are what can be known. Fabian: you said panna has experience Nibbana, I don't understand, could you be more detail about your experience? How do you perceives Nibbana? Kevin: There is not a being or a self, just impersonal elements that arise and fall away. Panna is the cetasika of wisdom. It is what knows anicca, anatta, and dukkha, the three characteristics of all conditioned phenomena. That is one of its functions. It arises and passes away. It is the citta, along with panna and other cetasikas that know nibbana, not a person. I am not a person. Arising here are impersonal moments that arise due to conditions. They are beyond control. I hope this helps. Please continue to ask questions. I am more than open to answering your questions, but I have much study to do to really be qualified. Nina Van Gorkom, Sarah, Jon, and others are more suited to answer your questions than I am because they are more learned and therefore I defer to them no. Of course, I am glad to try and answer your questions as well, and I look forward to doing it. Have I answered your questions? Please continue to ask. Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108453 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:00 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? ptaus1 Hi KenH, > pt: 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." > KenH: OK, that sounds fine to me, although I am probably missing the full importance of it. Before you go on to the next chunk, could you perhaps say a little more on why this one is "very important" to you? pt: It seems important because the main objections I've encountered from people regarding the "existence" of a dhamma (sabhava, individual characterisitcs, etc) is that it somehow defies anicca, or that it assumes that time is not a concept (due to the 3 sub-moments), or that presence sub-moment of a dhamma defies both anicca and anatta, or even defies conditionality, etc. So, I think the quote above is saying is that a dhamma is simply seen in insight as an arising and falling - so exactly the same thing when it's said in the suttas that an aggregate arises and falls. Except that in the commentaries the "falling" part would comprise "aging and dissolution". That's also the reason why I prefer the wording "aging", which kind of associates with anicca, rather than "presence" which is often associated with some sort of atta. So, imo, an instance of being aware of an arising and falling as per the suttas is the same thing as experiencing a dhamma, sabhava, individual characteristics, 3 sub-moments, "existence", and other terms used in the commentaries in that regard. They both point to the same experience, rather than talking about something different. Best wishes pt #108454 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Dear Fabian, Again, there are many experts on Dhamma that frequent this site such as Nina Van Gorkom, Sarah, Jon, Sukiner, and so forth (the list is much longer than these few names). You would be wise to ask them questions. Don't let this make you think that I will not or cannnot answer your questions. I am keen to and I am capable of answering some of them; however, though I have known the Dhamma for myself, I am not an expert on Dhamma like the Great Mahinda, or like the other experts here. You should associate with wise people. I tell you that these people are wise people and are more than qualified to answer your questions. I am a mere sotapanna, and still practically just a boy. I do not have the specific accumulations to know the many details thoroughly like these ones do. All I can do is implore you to live under the Dhamma, and to trust the ancient Commentaries and the Abhidhamma as much as you can. Have a wonderful day. Sincerely, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108455 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro ptaus1 Hi Swee Boon, > S: It is not derogatory to call him a fool when in fact he is a fool. > > Definition of a fool by The Free Dictionary: > > 1. One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding. ... > How is it derogatory to say that he is deficient in judgment, sense and understanding when in fact it is evidenced that he is deficient in judgment, sense and understanding? pt: My thoughts on this: 1. There are places in the suttas where the Buddha calls someone a foolish man and it usually indicates that the person has gravely misunderstood the Dhamma. Afaik, "foolish man" is the harshest scolding someone can get directly from the Buddha. So, on a Buddhist discussion group, such words carry an extra weight. 2. None of us here is the Buddha who actually has the power of discerning others abilities, inclinations, etc, which means that our opinions are not based on discerning the truth, but rather on speculation, which is subject to error, misjudgment, taking things out of context, etc. 3. For those of us who mostly have to use speculation rather direct discernment, I don't think it's possible to call someone a "fool" without involving unwholesome mental states based on pride and hate. So, it's not good for the poster, and then it's not good for those who reply since they are likely to respond in an unwholesome way as well. On the other hand, if we disagree, but remain respectful, then there's a chance for wholesomeness since respect is based on kindness and generosity. 4. By showing respect towards members of the ordained Sangha, we're engaging in wholesome mental states - basically showing respect towards the Triple Gem. And the same goes for disrespect. I think it's ok to disagree with statements by some monastics, but that's no reason to engage in disrespect. E.g. saying things like "I disagree with Venerable X because of Y and Z" seems like a reasonable discussion that will allow sharing Dhamma, whereas using words that might be perceived as disrespectful personal remarks will most probably not allow sharing Dhamma. 5. This being a Buddhist forum, members are encouraged to self-moderate as per one's understanding of right speech, sharing dhamma, etc. 6. There's the code of practice dsg members are asked to follow on joining, which includes "1. Stay friendly and pleasant when writing to the list. Please avoid any sarcasm, discourtesy or overly personal remarks." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/DSG%20Guidelines.htm Sorry, but I find that calling a monastic a fool is very discourteous, and so ask to please tone down a bit. Thanks. Best wishes pt #108456 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro farrellkevin80 Hi Pt, all, I certainly agree that respect should be shown. I do not disagree. But to be sure, the bhikhu in question was no expert on dhamma and gravely misunderstood abhidhamma. His "method" which he lived and breathed to promote, is based on "seeing" concepts and thinking they are (ie. mistaking them fore) realities. It shows he has not understood abhidhamma. In that way, he was foolish. Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108457 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna ptaus1 Hi Robert and Kevin, Thanks for your replies. So Robert, if I understand corectly, you are saying that during vipassana of the strength of mature insight knowledges (beyond the first tender insight), one can tell the difference between different nama dhammas clearly? In addition, is it possible that due to different accumulations, some would have this ability to tell the difference between nama dhammas, while some would not be able, even though they are on the same insight knowledge level? I think this is what Kevin is suggesting and it seems an interesting possibility, kind of like that some may be able to attain jhana, and some not, due to different accumulations. Further, for sotapanna to anagami, when vipassana occurs for them, would they still be able to experience various insight knowledges afterwards (before arahatship), or would it always involve experiencing nibbana? I.e. at the moment it seems that sotapannas and above have only two levels of insight accessible - either satipatthana which is not of the strength of vipassana, or nibbana. So, I'm wondering if there's anything in between. Best wishes pt > R: at the first stage of tender insight the difference between nama and rupa is clearly known. And also surely at least the door through which this insight into the sense door /minddoor occurs must be clear? > > Sure at moment of satipatthana whcih are not at the strength of vipassana the objects might still be vague but I don't think that could be the case when viapssana occurs. #108458 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro ptaus1 Hi Kevin, > I certainly agree that respect should be shown. I do not disagree. But to be > sure, the bhikhu in question was no expert on dhamma and gravely misunderstood > abhidhamma. His "method" which he lived and breathed to promote, is based on > "seeing" concepts and thinking they are (ie. mistaking them fore) realities. It > shows he has not understood abhidhamma. In that way, he was foolish. pt: :) Ok, in that case I'd like to ask you the same thing I'm asking Swee Boon. I mean, aside from being discourteous, "he was foolish" is a personal remark, don't you agree? It's not discussing Dhamma, is it? Sure, let's discuss our understanding of the Dhamma, and what others are saying about Dhamma, but I don't see the point of making personal remarks, discussing our personalities, etc. I mean, our personalities are flawed to being with, so I doubt that discussing them can ever lead to any good... Best wishes pt #108459 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:18 am Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro kelvin_lwin Hi Kevin, For someone who has a high opinion of people here: Sarah, Jon and Nina etc to have the guts to claim Mahasi Sayadaw has no knowledge of Abhidamma and Dhamma in general is rather shocking. I'm quite sure you haven't read his original work in Burmese to even have the slightest idea. I would consider EVERYONE here knowledge pooled together cannot even begin to rival someone of Mahasi Sayadaw's stature. - Kel > abhidhamma. His "method" which he lived and breathed to promote, is based on > "seeing" concepts and thinking they are (ie. mistaking them fore) realities. It > shows he has not understood abhidhamma. In that way, he was foolish. #108460 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro farrellkevin80 Pt, do not be so lackadaisical. He was foolish to push so forcefully his views when he did not verify them himself. Pt wrote: pt: :) Ok, in that case I'd like to ask you the same thing I'm asking Swee Boon. I mean, aside from being discourteous, "he was foolish" is a personal remark, don't you agree? It's not discussing Dhamma, is it? Sure, let's discuss our understanding of the Dhamma, and what others are saying about Dhamma, but I don't see the point of making personal remarks, discussing our personalities, etc. I mean, our personalities are flawed to being with, so I doubt that discussing them can ever lead to any good... ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108461 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro farrellkevin80 Hi Kelwin, Kelwin wrote: For someone who has a high opinion of people here: Sarah, Jon and Nina etc to have the guts to claim Mahasi Sayadaw has no knowledge of Abhidamma and Dhamma in general is rather shocking. I'm quite sure you haven't read his original work in Burmese to even have the slightest idea. I would consider EVERYONE here knowledge pooled together cannot even begin to rival someone of Mahasi Sayadaw's stature. - Kel Kevin: When did I claim he had no knowledge of Abhidhamma and Dhamma??? That is news to me. I have not read any of his original works in Burmese, however I have read nearly all of his works translated into English. I had the file from Mahasi.org, I believe it was that had all of his available translated works. I read many if not all of them. I have also read the works of Ledi Sayadaw and of Sayadaw U Pandita, who was one of his foremost disciples. I have read many, almost all of Bhikkhu Pesalas works, an author and proponent of his system. I have also read books and meditation manuals concerning the Thai adaption of his meditation system written by Thais. I have practiced his system in retreats under three separate teachers. I have done a one month meditation retreat on his system and a shorter retreat as well. I also ran a website promoting his works. I know all about his understanding of dhamma. ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108462 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro kelvin_lwin Hi Kevin, > Kevin: When did I claim he had no knowledge of Abhidhamma and Dhamma??? That > is news to me. > You claim he misunderstood Abhidhamma, so isn't it the same thing? Despite everything that was available to him, he missed the very basics of it, no? That is the same as having no knowledge of Abhidhamma dn Dhamma in general. That's how i read your comment. > I have not read any of his original works in Burmese, however I have read nearly > all of his works translated into English. I had the file from Mahasi.org, I > believe it was that had all of his available translated works. I read many if > not all of them. I have also read the works of Ledi Sayadaw and of Sayadaw U > Pandita, who was one of his foremost disciples. I have read many, almost all of > Bhikkhu Pesalas works, an author and proponent of his system. I have also read > books and meditation manuals concerning the Thai adaption of his meditation > system written by Thais. I have practiced his system in retreats under three > separate teachers. I have done a one month meditation retreat on his system and > a shorter retreat as well. I also ran a website promoting his works. I know > all about his understanding of dhamma. So you got second source information at best. And very little personal experience, 1 month retreat suppose to mean anything? To make a sweeping judgement and claim to "know all about his understanding of dhamma". What does Ledi Sadayaw have to do with Mahasi? Have you had even a long exposure to someone like Sayadaw U Pandita? We can debate about technical merits of his "system" and how it falls under Buddha's teachings. But to make a personal claim of his knowledge is something else. Unless you got psychic powers and being able to read deceased people minds. I got a question then. If i said my "system" is taking a piece of white cloth and repeatedly rub it. Then I'm just going to "contemplate" on this "concept" of white cloth. Is mine totally off-based too? - Kelvin #108463 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:50 am Subject: Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro ptaus1 Hi Kevin and all*, > K: Pt, do not be so lackadaisical. He was foolish to push so forcefully his views > when he did not verify them himself. pt: And that would now be personal remarks or discussing Dhamma? To me it seems like more personal remarks, so what I'm trying to say is let's please avoid making these, and please move on towards discussing the actual Dhamma issues. E.g. in this case it would be: ---- Ven.Mahasi Sayadaw said: "...quote..." and I disagree because it seems to contradict this particular passage from the texts: "...quote..." So, in my understanding the two appear to be speaking about different things because... ---- *Sorry, but as a technical moderator I'm supposed to make sure that the discussion here runs smoothly, and personal remarks most often tend to spoil it. So, again, please, let's avoid personal remarks. Thanks. Best wishes pt #108464 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro nilovg Hi Kelvin, Op 17-jul-2010, om 7:18 heeft kelvin_lwin het volgende geschreven: > For someone who has a high opinion of people here: Sarah, Jon and > Nina etc to have the guts to claim Mahasi Sayadaw has no knowledge > of Abhidamma and Dhamma in general is rather shocking. ------- N: I never said anything about Mahasi Sayadaw. I am not so interested in persons, and prefer to discuss just Dhamma. Nina. #108465 From: "Mike" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro mikenz66 Dear Nina, I'm sure Kelvin can speak for himself, but I interpreted his post to mean that someone who had a high opinion of you would surely follow your example and NOT make disparaging comments about anyone. As you say, you always stick to discussing Dhamma. Metta Mike #108466 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:57 am Subject: Re: A Sotapanna chandrafabian Fabian: Dear Kevin, thank you for allowing me to ask more questions. I appreciate that. Would you tell me how and why the knowledges arise? ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin: Knowledge, or wisdom, only arises when there are specific conditions for its arising. It does not arise for no reason. The conditions for wisdom developing are hearing the dhamma and wise reflection upon that Dhamma. When one hears about nama and rupa and it's impersonal nature, one can develop Right Understanding on the conceptual level. This should not be underestimated at all because it is the heart of the path. When Right Understanding is accumulated, moments of vipassana can eventually naturally occur in daily life. Wisdom is not born of concentration or sila, though concentration and sila are very wholesome and praised by the Buddha. The Buddha praised all types of wholesomeness because all types of wholesomeness bring benefit. If the arising of true wisdom was due only to concentration and sila then many people who attained jhanas but died with self view would have attained nibbana. That has not been the case. Many people who attained jhanas (and had excellent sila in order to do so) only accumulated more wrong views, such as the Buddhas teachers, Alara Kalama, and Udaka Ramaputta. THE BUDDHA LAMENTED after they passed away that if only they had heard the Dhamma they could have penetrated it. So wisdom slowly develops, based on Right Understanding of the impersonal nature of things. The more details we have, the more it helps. -------------------------------------------- Fabian: Dear Kevin, - you said "THE BUDDHA LAMENTED" after hearing Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta passed away, where did you read about this? - Kevin, do you mean, you penetrated the Noble Dhamma only by pondering and thinking without concentration? ------------------------------------------ Fabian: If you do not see thoughts as they arises, how do you see the arising and ceasing of phenomena? We know thoughts are also phenomena Kevin: Thoughts are phenomena but they are only true on the conceptual level. They are concepts. They are not paramattha dhammas. Wisdom always knows paramattha dhammas at the higher levels. They are what is insighted by the individual. The thinking process has impersonal elements such as citta and cetasikas. They are what can be known. -------------------------------------------- Fabian: So you do not penetrate the intrinsic nature of all phenomena, that is arising, and ceasing (uppada, thiti, bhanga)? Have you ever heard "seeing" the complete process of arising and ceasing, is the basic condition for higher insight knowledges to Magga-Phala to arise? ---------------------------------------------- Fabian: you said panna has experience Nibbana, I don't understand, could you be more detail about your experience? How do you perceives Nibbana? Kevin: There is not a being or a self, just impersonal elements that arise and fall away. Panna is the cetasika of wisdom. It is what knows anicca, anatta, and dukkha, the three characteristics of all conditioned phenomena. That is one of its functions. It arises and passes away. It is the citta, along with panna and other cetasikas that know nibbana, not a person. I am not a person. Arising here are impersonal moments that arise due to conditions. They are beyond control. I hope this helps. Please continue to ask questions. I am more than open to answering your questions, but I have much study to do to really be qualified. Nina Van Gorkom, Sarah, Jon, and others are more suited to answer your questions than I am because they are more learned and therefore I defer to them no. Of course, I am glad to try and answer your questions as well, and I look forward to doing it. Have I answered your questions? Please continue to ask. Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Fabian: I am sorry Kevin I'm still confused, again I have to ask a straight question, have you actually experienced Nibbana or not? Thank you for your time, Mettacittena, fabian #108467 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna chandrafabian Dear Kevin, I agree with you, I knew Nina for very long time (but she didn't know me, she know me only from this group, because we met only once almost thirty years ago). She taught me Abhidhamma at that time. I join this group only few years, but on and off, I am happy to learn Abhidhamma from many experts here including Sarah, Jon and many more. Actually I am asking you because I am interested the experience of attaining Magga-Phala. Please share more of your experience. Mettacittena, fabian #108468 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro nilovg Dear Mike, thanks for the correction. I misread Kelvin's post, sorry. Nina. Op 17-jul-2010, om 8:54 heeft Mike het volgende geschreven: > I'm sure Kelvin can speak for himself, but I interpreted his post > to mean that someone who had a high opinion of you would surely > follow your example and NOT make disparaging comments about anyone. #108469 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chandrafabian" wrote: > > > > Dear Ken, Kevin and all, ------------- Hi Fabian, I think you might have noticed the name Howard in my email address and thought I was the same Howard who was engaged in this conversation with Kevin. But no, I am Ken H. (Howard is my second given name and the one my family calls me by.) However, now that you have brought me into the conversation, I am only too glad to continue. :-) --------------- F: > I somewhat agree with Kevin, The Theravada concepts is not like concepts of illusion or dream in Hindu (Maya concept). Theravada concepts of reality in my opinion rooted in these three sentences: sabbe SANKHARA anicca sabbe SANKHARA dukkha sabbe DHAMMA anatta. ---------------- Yes, for sure, the words "sankhara" and "dhamma" are the concepts (names) of realities. Elsewhere, however, the texts also talk about "pannatti." Pannatti translates as "concepts" in the broadest sense. Pannatti refers to all *commonly known* objects such as sentient beings, plants, rocks, planets, football matches, names, and so on. -------------------------- F: > See the difference of the third sentence, it doesn't only say sankhara as anatta, but whole Dhamma. -------------------------- I agree, it is saying (1) that all conditioned dhammas (sankhara) are anicca and dukkha, and (2) that all dhammas (including all the conditioned dhammas and the one unconditioned dhamma) are anatta. ---------------------------------- F: > This three sentences, are Theravada standing points. It never say all sankhara or Dhamma as illusion or dream. The notion fleeting, insubstancial or empty is because the intrinsic nature of everything is according to this three sentences. All sankhara is anicca, all sankhara is dukkha, but everything (all Dhamma) is anatta. From here we know only Nibbana is devoid of sankhara, therefore only Nibbana devoid of anicca and dukkha. ---------------------------------- Again, I agree with all of that. Nibbana is "asankhara" - uncompounded, unconditioned. ---------------------------------------- F: > But even Nibbana is Anatta. Are we real? certainly, but we are not permanent (nicca), therefore unsatisfactory (dukkha). Everything is no soul, no permanent substance (including us), whether animate or inanimate, living being or non-living being, even Nibbana too. All conditioned phenomena like us are only conglomeration of process arising and passing away (uppada, thiti, bhanga) like bubbles or foam therefore empty of ultimate substance.. ----------------------------------------- This is where we need to consider the word "pannatti." Sentient beings, plants, rocks and so on, are not conditioned dhammas (sankhara) they are just concepts. They don't have savhava. Unlike sankhara and nibbana, they don't bear characteristics. They are not anicca dukkha or anatta - they aren't anything. They are not ultimately real. Therefore, I would not use the words "all conditioned phenomena like us" as you have done. I agree that we are *in the ultimate sense* just the presently arisen conditioned phenomena (one citta, a few cetasikas and their rupa base) but we as *sentient beings* (in the conventional sense of existence) are not conditioned phenomena. There are no dhammas called Fabian or Ken H, or rock, or tree, etc. --------------- F: > So this is why Theravada standpoints does not hold the view everything exist or everything not-exist. --------------- More precisely (as I understand it) the Theravada standpoint is to say, not that everything exists or does not exist, but rather that *the presently arisen conditioned dhammas* exist. And they exist because of the previously arisen conditioned dhammas (as described in Paticcasamuppada (dependent origination)). Ken H #108470 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Only Nibbana is Paramattha sacca (Ultimate Truth) sarahprocter... Hi pt, Good qus.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > 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)? .... S: Yes, panna arising with the javana cittas in that process. (Bhavanga cittas are process-freed, so don't qualify as a mind-door process). ... > 2. panna would be present during that entire mind-door process? ... S: In that mind-door process, the first citta, mind-door adverting consciousness (manodvaravajjana citta) is an ahetuka kiriya ('rootless, inoperative') citta and the last tadarammana cittas are vipaka cittas, so panna would arise with the 7 javana cittas between the manodvaravajjana and tadarammana cittas. (The full process is 8 or 10 cittas, depending on whether the tadarammana cittas arise). .... > 3. would the object of that very first mind-door process be classed as a dhamma or also as navattabba (not-so-classifiable)? .... S:?This relates to the discussion you were having with Ken H about whether dhamma and the dhamma lakkhana are the same. The object of this first mind-door process is classified as dhamma, although strictly speaking the dhamma (e.g. calm) has completely fallen away. It is the lakkhana or the sabhava of that dhamma which is experienced by way of navattabba. If the object is a nama, as in this example, in fact the arammana can never be a nama arising in the same process, therefore the arammana (the object, such as calm) must have arisen in a process preceding it. In brief, the chracteristic experienced is still considered paramattha even if it is no longer there. ... > 4. the second mind-door process would have what as the object of cittas? ... S: According to the commentaries, a sense door object, a paramattha dhamma, is experienced by *at least* the first mind door process. So we can't pin-point more than this, except to say that later mind-door processes experience a concept, more and more removed from the paramattha dhamma. I would think the same applies to mind door objects if experienced by numerous mind-door processes. .... > 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. ... S: There can be reality by way of navattabba for more than one process and then concept by way of navattabba. ... >So I was wondering about what happens when the whole thing is purely in the nama domain. Thanks.? ... S: See above. I think the same applies. The texts give the example of nibbana as experienced by mind-door processes following the magga and phala cittas. These reviewing processes directly know that nibbana was experienced, the nature of the lokuttara cittas and the defilements eradicated. It's not by thinking, but the characteristics of the dhammas are known by way of navattabba.?As I recall, usually one reviewing process has each of these as object, i.e one reviewing process which experiences the characteristic of nibbana and so on. Of course, in the case of those who experienced nibbana with jhana cittas as basis, subsequently there can be numerous experiences of the characteristic of nibbana (all by way of navattabba). So, it would be a matter of word-usage as to whether we say nibbana or the characteristic of nibbana or the sabhava of nibbana is experienced at such a time. I believe the texts use all of these*. Metta Sarah * still no texts to hand, but shipment delivery next Thurs! ======================= ? #108471 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna nilovg Dear Fabian, Op 17-jul-2010, om 10:19 heeft chandrafabian het volgende geschreven: Fabian to Kevin: > Actually I am asking you because I am interested the experience of > attaining Magga-Phala. Please share more of your experience. ---------- N: This reminds me of Lodewijk's question: 'what is nibbaana, I do not understand nibbaana'. Kh Sujin said that nibbaana, the unconditioned dhamma, cannot be understood so long as we do not clearly understand conditioned dhammas, naamas and ruupas. Lodewijk was not quite satisfied with her answer. We discussed this matter more during our vacation. We should have the patience and courage to investigate seeing, visible object, feeling and whatever dhamma arises at this very moment, in daily life. If we keep on thinking of nibbaana which is far away there may be attachment to wishing to attain it, and this does not help at all. Why not pay attention to what can be experienced at this moment? Thinking of the future is mere speculation. There are so many dhammas arising at this moment to be investigated and understood. This leaves us no time to think of the future nor worry about it. Lodewijk said that he is often discouraged, that satipa.t.thaana is too difficult. I quoted Kh Sujin's words: to investigate dhammas with courage and cheerfulness. These words are used in the sutta 'the Bowl' in Samyutta Nikaaya I, Sagaathavagga. The monks were listening to the Buddha with all their attention. We cannot receive more understanding of the Dhamma than we are able to and we should be grateful with the understanding we gained, even if it is very little. We should not become disheartened and strive for more than we are able to. Nina. #108472 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mahasi farrellkevin80 Hi everyone, Listen, someone called Mahasi Sayadaw a fool. Someone else retorted and put the Sayadaw on a pedestal. All I said was that I felt he had misunderstood things and it showed that his understanding of Abhidhamma and of Dhamma was not fully correct, basically.. I also said that, in that way he was "foolish". I said that within the context of the conversation about him being a fool. I never called the Mahasi Sayadaw a fool myself. I said some of his actions were "foolish" (as in like those of a fool). I am sure he had great sila and was a very good and compassionate man. If people want to focus on the error in his views, that is fine. But it is an old debate. I want talk about Mahasi Sayadaw anymore and try not to make any "personal" remarks ( though harsh speech used wisely can be Right Speech). Thanks, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# ________________________________ #108473 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hello Fabian, Very good questions. Let me attempt to answer them as best I can. Fabian: "THE BUDDHA LAMENTED" after hearing Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta passed away, where did you read about this? Kevin: Maybe my wording was not the best. He did not so much lament as just have the thought, "Alara Kalama was wise. He could have understood this Dhamma". From the Ariyapariyesana Sutta: "Then, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world. Just as in a pond of blue or red or white lotuses, some lotuses — born & growing in the water — might flourish while immersed in the water, without rising up from the water; some might stand at an even level with the water; while some might rise up from the water and stand without being smeared by the water — so too, surveying the world with the eye of an Awakened One, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world. "Having seen this, I answered Brahma Sahampati in verse: 'Open are the doors to the Deathless to those with ears. Let them show their conviction. Perceiving trouble, O Brahma, I did not tell people the refined, sublime Dhamma.' "Then Brahma Sahampati, thinking, 'The Blessed One has given his consent to teach the Dhamma,' bowed down to me and, circling me on the right, disappeared right there. "Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Alara Kalama is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this Dhamma.' Then devas came to me and said, 'Lord, Alara Kalama died seven days ago.' And knowledge & vision arose within me: 'Alara Kalama died seven days ago.' The thought occurred to me, 'A great loss has Alara Kalama suffered. If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have quickly understood it.' "Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Uddaka Ramaputta is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this Dhamma.' Then devas came to me and said, 'Lord, Uddaka Ramaputta died last night.' And knowledge & vision arose within me: 'Uddaka Ramaputta died last night.' The thought occurred to me, 'A great loss has Uddaka Ramaputta suffered. If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have quickly understood it.' Fabian: So you do not penetrate the intrinsic nature of all phenomena, that is arising, and ceasing (uppada, thiti, bhanga)? Have you ever heard "seeing" the complete process of arising and ceasing, is the basic condition for higher insight knowledges to Magga-Phala to arise? Kevin: I liked Ken's answers to this question that he already provided to you. Panatti is much different from paramattha dhamma. Understanding the distinction is very important, fundamental actually to understanding dhamma. I would highly recommend Concepts and Realities by Ajahn Sujin which explains panatti vs. paramattha dhammas very well and is only a few short pages long. It is available to read free online (Or read the whole Survey of Paramattha Dhammas which contains that same section). That should be able to help clear up any misunderstanding you have about concepts at all. Fabian: I am sorry Kevin I'm still confused, again I have to ask a straight question, have you actually experienced Nibbana or not? Kevin: I can't really say that "I" have experience nibbana. Within the citta, in the mind-stream of the being referred to as "Kevin", panna arose to the degree that it averted from conditioned dhammas and was finally was able to see what they call "nibanna", the deathless, cool element that does not arise or fall away. This experience occurred, but it did not occur to a being or a person. I hope this is clearer. I hope this helps. If anything is not clear please ask for clarification. Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108474 From: Ken O Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna ashkenn2k Dear Kevin Kevin: I liked Ken's answers to this question that he already provided to you. Panatti is much different from paramattha dhamma. Understanding the distinction is very important, fundamental actually to understanding dhamma. KO:? Understanding the difference in concepts and dhamma is not impt.?? Understanding dhamma is the importance, without dhamma there is no pannati, without dhamma there is no like or dislike?or?Ken O?or hearing or seeing It is dhamma that make us go round in samasara, it is not concepts.? It is dhamma that makes one thinks. act, read dhamma and understand its meaning.?? What condition next life is dhamma cheers Ken O #108475 From: Ken O Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making pro ashkenn2k Dear all an interesting ding dong over mahasi sayadaw. It does not matter what is said, what matters is what your panna or vittaka is performing their functions at the very moment. Is one aware of it isnt that wonderful, dhamma at work, vittaka, dosa etc. Remember whatever you think or understand or say, it is just dhamma. Dont be disturb by words, just understand your very own dhamma that arise in the presence cheers Ken O #108476 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:40 pm Subject: Sabhava is just an Annihilationist Atta view applied to micro scale truth_aerator Hi Pt, KenH, all interested, > > pt: The first seems very important to me: > > "The individual essence of any formed dhamma ... > pt: It seems important because the main objections I've encountered from people regarding the "existence" of a dhamma (sabhava, individual characterisitcs, etc) is that it somehow defies anicca, or that it assumes that time is not a concept (due to the 3 sub-moments), or that presence sub-moment of a dhamma defies both anicca and anatta, or even defies conditionality, etc. > the thing is that sabhava business seems to be like making little wholes out of dhammas that exist like an Atta and get annihilated. The point in disasembling the whole into parts is to show the sankhata (and anicca & anatta) nature of that whole. However some make little wholes out of dhammas and as such only move the atta belief on a more micro scale. How isn't annihilation of self-existent dhamma a wrong (annihilationist) view ? The difference is only in the size of the thing. Generally Atta is big and exists for long period of time (if one is ucchedavadin) and dhammas are tiny particles that exist momentary. The difference is only in the size and length of time! Furthermore the whole ontology thing may not be what the Buddha intended to teach. His emphasis was Dukkha and its cessation. Dukkha is experiential and thus its solution has to lie within the EXPERIENTIAL. ""'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 note: "Everything is manyness" is suggestive of the ontological view that the reality is made of discreet entities, the wholes do not exist, etc etc. "It is within this fathom-long body itself, with its perception and conception, that I declare there is the world, the beginning of the world, the end of the world and the way leading to the end of the world." - SN 2.26 and AN 4.45 ========================================== In short, sabhava (as it seems to be interpreted) is just an annihilationist Atta view applied to micro scale and to moments. With metta, Alex #108477 From: Ken O Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Clinging to names. ashkenn2k Dear Nina names are just names, they are not the clinging, they could condition clinging to arise but not clinging itself. It is clinging that clings It is not names that conceal paramatha dhamma, it is moha cheers Ken O --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > I heard on a Thai recording that someone said that he saw people and > things all the time. He did not see visible object through the > eyesense, but he thought immediately of concepts like people and things. > Kh Sujin explained that we are taken in by the names of what we see > and perceive, and she quoted S I, 39, 'Name', Naamasutta. Ven. > Bodhi's translation: > > What is most extensive? > What is the one thing that has > All under its control? > > Name has weighed down everything; > Nothing is more extensive than name. > Name is the one thing that has > All under its control. > > > Kh Sujin explained that there is the world of names and the world of > paramattha dhammas. We cling to names. Names conceal paramattha > dhammas. When we are thinking of people and specific things there is > the world of names. It seems that we 'see' a person and we think of a > story about him. > > Nina. > € #108478 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:11 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi truth_aerator Hello Kelwin, Swee Boon, all, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" > wrote: > > Hi Kevin, >I would consider EVERYONE here knowledge pooled together cannot even >begin to rival someone of Mahasi Sayadaw's stature. > > - Kel I do not have omniscient knowledge, but from what I've read, Mahasi WAS has quite an impressive background. "Over the course of decades of study, he passed the rigorous series of government examinations in the Theravada Buddhist texts, gaining the newly-introduced Dhammacariya (dhamma teacher) degree in 1941." "The Mahasi Sayadaw was a questioner and final editor at the Sixth Buddhist Council on May 17, 1954. " The Mahasi Sayadaw published nearly seventy volumes of Buddhist literature in Burmese, many of these transcribed from talks. He completed a Burmese translation of the Visuddhimagga, ("The Path of Purification") a lengthy treatise on meditation by the 5th century Indian Theravadin Buddhist commentator and scholar Buddhaghosa. He also wrote a monumental original volume entitled Manual of Vipassana Meditation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasi_Sayadaw "At one time, Mahasi Sayadaw was severely criticised in certain quarters for his advocacy of the allegedly unorthodox method of noting the rising and falling of the abdomen in vipassana meditation. It was mistakenly assumed that this method was an innovation of the Sayadaw's, whereas the truth is that it had been approved several years before Mahasi Sayadaw adopted it, by no less an authority than the mula (original) Mingun Jetavan Sayadaw, and that it is in no way contrary to the Buddha's teaching on the subject. The reason for Mahasi Sayadaw's preference for this method is that the average meditator finds it easier to note this manifestation of the element of motion (vayodhatu)." http://www.buddhanet.net/mahabio.htm With metta, Alex #108479 From: Ken O Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Sotapanna ashkenn2k Hi Kevin it does not matter what object is insighted at satipatthana,? what is impt,? whether panna arise to understand the dhamma that arise with the objects.?? It also does not matter whether the citta is very fast.? What matter is the dhamma we understand at the moment of our of level of understanding thanks Ken O > > #108480 From: Ken O Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sabhava is just an Annihilationist Atta view applied to micro scale ashkenn2k Dear Alex Sabhava is not atta.? Sabhava is just describing the nature of a dhamma.? If dhamma has no distinct nature, one will not be able to differentiate the meaning of moha and panna.?? The characeristic of dukka, anatta and anicca is in every condition dhamma.? So it does not affects the nature of the dhamma that arise.? When heat arise, even though it is dukkha, anicca and anatta, body citta could experience the heat.? And heat is different from hardness If there is no such distinction, dhamma could not be explained, no one could get out of samasara as it is all mixed up cheers Ken O #108481 From: Ken O Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? ashkenn2k Dear pt atta is the meaning of a self, or an eternal point of view, got nothing to do with presence. There must be a presence, if there is no presence, there is no experiencing of dhamma. We cannot understand dhamma during arising sub moments because it is too weak, or its ceasing because it is already degrading. Only the presence of a dhamma could one understand it. cheers Ken O #108482 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:34 pm Subject: Sabhava, an Annihilationist Atta view applied to microscale truth_aerator Dear KenO, all, >KO: Sabhava is not atta.?The characeristic of dukka, anatta and >anicca is in every condition dhamma. I am glad to hear that. >Sabhava is just describing the nature of a dhamma.? If dhamma has >no distinct nature, one will not be able to differentiate the >meaning of moha and panna.?So it does not affects the nature of the >dhamma that arise.?When heat arise, even though it is dukkha, anicca >and anatta, body citta could experience the heat.? And heat is >different from hardness Various aspects of experience are different and mentally differentiated, sure. Differentiation is mental only, by its meaning it cannot be all in itself. If we are to believe that any sense-object that appears to the sense-organ is Kamma vipaka, then it makes more sense to reject the self-existent things with their own characteristics (even as dhammas). For example, if any pain in the body is akusala kamma vipaka, then what makes the object that is going to be the source of akusala vipaka be placed in such and such a place? Is the external world with its 5 sense projects made all by itself (then how did kamma place all the required objects for the corresponding vipaka of dvipancavinnana) or is external world with all its differences a product of kamma? =============================================================== It is pure speculation to go beyond what is experienced (such as to posit "the ground of being", made from many discreet particles or to posit a ground of being made from one "thing"). It still appears to me that some in their pursuit of breaking self existent wholes apart end up with mini wholes. Thank you for your reply, With metta, Alex #108483 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sabhava, an Annihilationist Atta view applied to microscale farrellkevin80 Dear Alex, Have you read Concepts and Realities yet? Have you studied the Tipitaka aside from the suttas? Have you read works like Survey? If not, you still don't know what you are arguing against. Also, if you believe that the 4 or 8 jhanas is the way to deliverance, then with _all due respect_, why are are you not in a desolate area practicing jhana? Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108484 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sabhava, an Annihilationist Atta view applied to microscale truth_aerator Dear Kevin, > Dear Alex, > >Have you read Concepts and Realities yet? Have you studied the >Tipitaka aside > from the suttas? Have you read works like Survey? Yes (Survey, ADL, perfections, taking refuge in Buddhism,) , though I need and will re-read some of those works. I've also read portions of some commentaries (for satipatthana sutta) and other stuff. It will be a good idea for me to re-read "concepts & realities". > Also, if you believe that the 4 or 8 jhanas is the way to >deliverance, then with > _all due respect_, why are are you not in a desolate area >practicing jhana? > > Kevin Very poor health, and lots of health problems. This is the biggest reason why I haven't ordained yet. Pain, headaches, drowsiness often wrecks concentration and I am not good as Ajahn Brahm (for example) to be able to bliss out even when seriously sick. So unfortunately (or fortunately) I spend a lot of time reading. With metta, Alex #108485 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna chandrafabian Dear Nina, Thanks you for your explanation, I believe a little knowledge about Nibbana useful only to motivate and encourage us to attain it, and should not dream about it. Mettacittena, fabian #108486 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna chandrafabian Hello Fabian, Very good questions. Let me attempt to answer them as best I can. Fabian: "THE BUDDHA LAMENTED" after hearing Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta passed away, where did you read about this? Kevin: Maybe my wording was not the best. He did not so much lament as just have the thought, "Alara Kalama was wise. He could have understood this Dhamma". From the Ariyapariyesana Sutta: ------------------------------------ Dear kevin, I believe we both agree, The Buddha and Arahants never lamented or sad. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fabian: So you do not penetrate the intrinsic nature of all phenomena, that is arising, and ceasing (uppada, thiti, bhanga)? Have you ever heard "seeing" the complete process of arising and ceasing, is the basic condition for higher insight knowledges to Magga-Phala to arise? Kevin: I liked Ken's answers to this question that he already provided to you. Panatti is much different from paramattha dhamma. Understanding the distinction is very important, fundamental actually to understanding dhamma. I would highly recommend Concepts and Realities by Ajahn Sujin which explains panatti vs. paramattha dhammas very well and is only a few short pages long. It is available to read free online (Or read the whole Survey of Paramattha Dhammas which contains that same section). That should be able to help clear up any misunderstanding you have about concepts at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In my opinion wisdom and understanding grows with the right view to see things as they really are. Without seeing things as they really are how wisdom and understanding grows? Isn't it like understanding about manggo without actually tasting them? ----------------------------------------- Fabian: I am sorry Kevin I'm still confused, again I have to ask a straight question, have you actually experienced Nibbana or not? Kevin: I can't really say that "I" have experience nibbana. Within the citta, in the mind-stream of the being referred to as "Kevin", panna arose to the degree that it averted from conditioned dhammas and was finally was able to see what they call "nibanna", the deathless, cool element that does not arise or fall away. This experience occurred, but it did not occur to a being or a person. I hope this is clearer. I hope this helps. If anything is not clear please ask for clarification. Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin ------------------------------------------------------------- Correct me if I'm wrong, from your explanation it seems you are "seeing Nibbana" at that time, but you are not actually "experiencing Nibbana" Mettacittena, fabian #108487 From: Vince Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Sotapanna cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Dear Kevin you wrote: > From the Ariyapariyesana Sutta: > "Then, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, I > surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. How do you understand the presence of Brahma and his invitation? Also, you says the true Dhamma is only the Tipitaka, although not all the Tipitaka but only some sections of the Tipitaka (in example, you says the sections teaching jhanas are not valid). Then I wonder about Buddha, who also was a master for the devas. Do you know if devas also have our same Tipitaka?. Perhaps the Siamese or the Burmese edition?. They prefer Abhidhamma?. Theravada or Mahayana? What is the basis to claim that "this" is the only Dhamma and the rest is not valid? Vince, #108488 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? chandrafabian Hi Fabian, I think you might have noticed the name Howard in my email address and thought I was the same Howard who was engaged in this conversation with Kevin. But no, I am Ken H. (Howard is my second given name and the one my family calls me by.) However, now that you have brought me into the conversation, I am only too glad to continue. :-) ------------------------------ Hi Ken, I am sorry, I mistaken you with Upasaka Howard, cause you both have the same last name. But I am happy with that mistake, cause I got another great knowledge person involved in this discussion :) --------------- This is where we need to consider the word "pannatti." Sentient beings, plants, rocks and so on, are not conditioned dhammas (sankhara) they are just concepts. They don't have savhava. Unlike sankhara and nibbana, they don't bear characteristics. They are not anicca dukkha or anatta - they aren't anything. They are not ultimately real. Therefore, I would not use the words "all conditioned phenomena like us" as you have done. I agree that we are *in the ultimate sense* just the presently arisen conditioned phenomena (one citta, a few cetasikas and their rupa base) but we as *sentient beings* (in the conventional sense of existence) are not conditioned phenomena. There are no dhammas called Fabian or Ken H, or rock, or tree, etc. --------------- Dear Ken you're right. Plants, rocks etc have no dukkha, because dukkha is connected with feelings, plants, rocks etc have no feeling. But are they not anicca? how come? In my opinion even the most subtle substances would cease, are they (plants, rocks etc) not under the impermanency characteristic? arising and ceasing under right condition? What do you think Ken, plants, rocks, you and I real or not real? ------------------------------------------------------------ F: > So this is why Theravada standpoints does not hold the view everything exist or everything not-exist. More precisely (as I understand it) the Theravada standpoint is to say, not that everything exists or does not exist, but rather that *the presently arisen conditioned dhammas* exist. And they exist because of the previously arisen conditioned dhammas (as described in Paticcasamuppada (dependent origination)). Ken H ------------------------------------------------- I agree with you Ken, this is what I mean, Something arise with condition and it is cease again. What we are and everything conditioned, is conglomeration of arising and ceasing, therefore we can not say they are not exist, because when they arise they exist. But they are ceasing again very fast one after another countless times in a second, that is why we can not rightly say it is exist, because by the time you finish reading, this they already cease to exist. Mettacittena, fabian #108489 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:38 am Subject: Re: Mahasi chandrafabian Dear Alex and all, I heard in Myanmar many Bhikkhus are educated in Dhamma since their early days as Samanera (age 10 to 19) And something shocking to me, they said The first Dhamma they taught is Abhidhamma, not Sutta Does anyone can clarify about this? Is that true? Mettacittena, fabian #108490 From: Ken O Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sabhava, an Annihilationist Atta view applied to microscale ashkenn2k Dear Alex >Various aspects of experience are different and mentally differentiated, sure. >Differentiation is mental only, by its meaning it cannot be all in itself. KO:? Differentiation is not mental only.? Mental only is for those in the arupa plane where there is no rupa.? These beings cannot see, hear, touch, taste or smell.? Since they cannot see or hear that is why Buddha cannot teach them dhamma. > > >If we are to believe that any sense-object that appears to the sense-organ is >Kamma vipaka, then it makes more sense to reject the self-existent things with >their own characteristics (even as dhammas). For example, if any pain in the >body is akusala kamma vipaka, then what makes the object that is going to be the > >source of akusala vipaka be placed in such and such a place? KO:? This is an interesting question.? It involved DO.? If you read the sutta, dhamma could only arise when appriopriate conditions for it to arise.? Pain could only be experienced when there is something of it to arise, for eg a cut in the finger.? If there is no cut in the finger, will there??be pain to arise experience by bodily citta which is a kamma vipaka.? In the same way, if there is no visible object, visible citta, will there be seeing.? If there is no visible citta,?one would not be able to see even though there is visible object,? This visible citta is just kamma?vipaka (the result of past kamma) while visible object is not.? Visible object is a rupa.? Is the external world with its 5 sense projects made all by itself (then how did kamma place all >the required objects for the corresponding vipaka of dvipancavinnana) or is >external world with all its differences a product of kamma? KO:? Whether we have the sense cittas or not (kamma vipaka), rupa will exist in the external world.??The existing external rupas are caused by temperature.? Only when we have the a appropriate corresponding citta to the external rupas, then we could experience seeing or the other?sense cognition.?? Kind regards Ken O #108491 From: Ken O Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? ashkenn2k Dear Fabian >What we are and everything conditioned, is conglomeration of arising and >ceasing, therefore we can not say they are not exist, because when they arise >they exist. >But they are ceasing again very fast one after another countless times in a >second, that is why we can not rightly say it is exist, because by the time you >finish reading, this they already cease to exist. > KO:? that is not the meaning of not existing.??The non-existing is to eradicate annhilistic point of view, not because they?cease very fast.? Cease very fast is a nature of conditioned dhamma.???if there is non existence, why do we see, hear etc, why we keep going round in samasara. cheers Ken O #108492 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Clinging to names. nilovg Dear Ken O, Op 17-jul-2010, om 20:00 heeft Ken O het volgende geschreven: > names are just names, they are not the clinging, they could > condition clinging > to arise but not clinging itself. It is clinging that clings > It is not names that conceal paramatha dhamma, it is moha -------- N: Sure, names condition clinging. There is a beloved person and I call him Lodewijk. We just celebrated our fifty-eighth wedding day. I cling to this name and connect a lot of stories with the name Lodewijk. His health goes up and down all the time. There is also worry. That is, at those moments I forget that what I call Lodewijk are only fleeting moments. Clinging is a hard thing. At that moment there is also moha, ignorance. I find the naama-sutta a helpful reminder that we often cling to names and labels instead of attending to the characteristics of realities that appear at this moment. Nina. #108493 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] . sickness and pain. nilovg Dear Alex, Op 17-jul-2010, om 22:49 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Very poor health, and lots of health problems. This is the biggest > reason why I haven't ordained yet. Pain, headaches, drowsiness > often wrecks concentration.. ------- N: I am so sorry to hear this. I admire your courage, seeing how active you always are, and how much you read. courage and good cheer, Nina. #108494 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma in Myanmar. Attention to Han. nilovg Dear Fabian and Han, Op 18-jul-2010, om 5:38 heeft chandrafabian het volgende geschreven: > And something shocking to me, they said The first Dhamma they > taught is Abhidhamma, not Sutta > > Does anyone can clarify about this? Is that true? ------ N: It would be so helpful if Han comes in as well. I think it is very wise to teach Abhidhamma first, before the suttas. Yes, the Abhidhamma is greatly respected in Myanmar. Sutta reading is not easy and we cannot understand the suttas deeply without the Abhidhamma. After all, the suttas point all the time to paramattha dhammas. The Buddha spoke in the suttas very often in conventional language, out of compassion, to help many people. When the time was ripe he would teach paramattha dhammas, for example the four noble Truths. These pertain to naama and ruupa. Dukkha: what is dukkha in truth? The arising and falling away of naama and ruupa, this is sa.nkhaara dukkha. Dukkha inherent in all conditioned realities that arise and fall away. It is dukkha in the deepest sense. The cause of the arising of dukkha: clinging. Clinging is a cetasika. The ceasing of dukkha: nibbaana, the unconditioned dhamma. The Way leading to the ceasing of dukkha, the eightfold Path. This consists of eight factors and these are cetasikas. With the Abhidhamma we can appreciate the suttas all the more and profit from the excellent exhortations of the suttas. The Abhidhamma points all the time to understanding the reality appearing now, it points to its anattaness. Evenso the suttas, but without the help of the Abhidhamma it is at times harder to see this. -------- Nina. #108495 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:44 am Subject: seeing 'my cat'. nilovg Dear Andrew, This is a good point for all of us, I think. Op 15-jul-2010, om 14:18 heeft Andrew Lai het volgende geschreven: > surprisingly, when seeing 'my' cat, I already start to see the > physical phenomena in him... This is so strange.. (I can only > understand 50% so far.) ------ N: You begin to understand that when you see 'my cat' there are are physical phenomena. Yes, there are only naama and ruupa not 'my cat', and not this or that person. Gradually we can learn that through eyes only visible object, a ruupa, appears, through touch only tangible object, such as softness of his coat. But at the moment of experiencing softness we do not think of a cat at the same time. Thinking of a cat occurs later on, by cittas arising in amind-door processes. When your cat purrs, sound appears, and later on attachment to the cat is bound to arise. We can learn that the objects appearing through the sense-doors and mind-door do so at different moments, not at the same time. But we think of a whole of a cat, dog or person, and then concepts, not realities, are objects of thinking. I was reading to Lodewijk Kh Sujin's Survey, Ch 34 and I quote: (end quote) Nina. #108496 From: Ken O Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Clinging to names. ashkenn2k Dear Nina It is not name that matters, it is clinging that we should look at.??Names change,?characteristics of dhamma remain the same?.? What you cling about Lodewijk is the clinging that clings and not because the person is Lodewijk.? Because if this is not understood,?clinging will continue to cling to different people or being who?we will be attached?to in future planes and lives. When one clings to whatever, be it names or label or concepts, it is just clinging that matters, clinging that condition the next bhavana.?? Understand the clinging and not the names and labels,?and also?in the three characteristics, investigate the?source, the?nature,?that will make you easier to cope with whatever happen in your life.? It is just dhamma and dhamma is meant to be investigated and understood, and not worrying whether it is thinking or not because citta and vittaka will continue to perform its function.? But understanding will the one that make one free from dukkha. cheers Ken O #108497 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Clinging to names. nilovg Dear Ken O, Op 18-jul-2010, om 11:16 heeft Ken O het volgende geschreven: > It is just dhamma and dhamma is > meant to be investigated and understood, and not worrying whether > it is thinking > or not because citta and vittaka will continue to perform its > function. But > understanding will the one that make one free from dukkha. ------- N: Thanks for your answer. Good to be reminded always (never enough) that it is just dhamma! Nina. #108498 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chandrafabian" wrote: > <. . .> > > Dear Ken you're right. Plants, rocks etc have no dukkha, because dukkha is connected with feelings, plants, rocks etc have no feeling. <. . .> ----------------------------- Hi Fabian, It can be either valid or invalid to say to say that plants and rocks "have no dukkha." The difference depends on how we understand plants and rocks. The two ways are, (1) to understand that plants and rocks are ultimately real, and (2) to understand that only namas and rupas are ultimately real. If we have the first understanding, then our view that plants and rocks have no dukkha is wrong view. If we have the second understanding, then our view that plants and rocks have no dukkha is right view. That is because, in ultimate truth and reality, there are no plants or rocks. I cannot agree with your reasoning that they are not dukkha "because dukkha is connected with feelings." And I think this might be a good example of why Dhamma-study is easiest when it begins with the Abhidhamma discourses. Ideally, we shouldn't attempt to understand the other Sutta-pitaka discourses until we have a firm understanding of the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma says, for example, that all sankhara (all conditioned dhammas) are dukkha. So it doesn't matter if they are nama-sankhara or rupa-sankhara; they are *all* dukkha. Rupa doesn't experience anything, but it definitely does have the dukkha characteristic. If we begin Dhamma-study with the conventional-language discourses (as most of us do) then we can easily get the impression that the Buddha was describing conventional realities (pannatti) when he said "all things are anicca, dukkha and anatta." --------------------- F: > But are they not anicca? how come? In my opinion even the most subtle substances would cease, are they (plants, rocks etc) not under the impermanency characteristic? arising and ceasing under right condition? ---------------------- This goes back to what I have just been saying. Only dhammas have the three characteristics (tilakkhana). And there are no dhammas called "plant" "rock" "person" "Ken H" etc. ----------------------------- F: > What do you think Ken, plants, rocks, you and I real or not real? ------------------------------ In the ultimate reality described by the Buddha there are no plants or rocks or people. There are only dhammas. Only dhammas are real. Only dhammas bear the anicca, dukkha and anatta characteristics. ---------------------------------------- <. . .> F: > Something arise with condition and it is cease again. What we are and everything conditioned, is conglomeration of arising and ceasing, therefore we can not say they are not exist, because when they arise they exist. But they are ceasing again very fast one after another countless times in a second, that is why we can not rightly say it is exist, because by the time you finish reading, this they already cease to exist. ----------------------------------------- It is not necessary to think about conglomerations. As far as I know, the Abhidhamma does not contain any reference to them. And there are definitely no namas or rupas by that name. :-) Ken H #108499 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Kevin, > Kevin: Where did you derive this notion and what gives you the right to directly state it as the truth about how the Noble Ones act when it is not stated in the teachings of the Buddha? In one who has ferreted out the noble method, he is internally assured of his view. If someone were to challenge his view, he would not be internally provoked. But that is not the case with you. You perceive that you would be internally provoked if someone were to challenge your view, which is why you warn people to "leave you alone" and "to stay back and not engage with you at all". > Kevin: The conditions for the arising of wisdom are hearing the dhamma and wise attention to it (reflecting on it). So all you need to do is hear the dhamma and try to understand it and consider it. I thought I had explained that already. Sorry if I had not. I did, however, state that Ajan Sujin and Nina Van Gorkoms teachings are complete, and the above is what they say (and what the Buddha said of course). Firstly, this is still not the answer that I am looking for. And secondly, I do not agree that what Sujin and Nina teach are the same as what the Buddha taught. But I will accept a degraded answer: Have you understood and comprehended all of what Sujin and Nina taught? If you had, why aren't you an arahant? If you hadn't, which parts of Sujin and Nina's teachings have you understood and comprehended in order to reach stream-entry? Swee Boon #108500 From: han tun Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:34 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma in Myanmar. Attention to Han. hantun1 Dear Nina, Nina wrote: Dear Fabian and Han, Op 18-jul-2010, om 5:38 heeft chandrafabian het volgende geschreven: > And something shocking to me, they said The first Dhamma they taught is Abhidhamma, not Sutta > Does anyone can clarify about this? Is that true? ------ N: It would be so helpful if Han comes in as well. I think it is very wise to teach Abhidhamma first, before the suttas. Yes, the Abhidhamma is greatly respected in Myanmar. ---------- Han: Yes, the Abhidhamma is greatly respected and widely studied in Myanmar. We have Abhidhamma Associations in almost every town and they are conducting regular Abhidhamma study courses for every interested people. Furthermore, the Fullmoon Day of Thadingyut (in October) is designated as "Abhidhamma Day" country-wide. However, I do not know about the curriculum of teaching for the young monks. If you like, I will enquire and come back to you when I have the information. Meanwhile, you can read the following: The Historical Background of the Abhidhamma Studies in Myanmar http://atbu.org/node/12 The Study of the Abhidhamma: Amongst the Laity in Myanmar By Daw Yujana???? Tutor, Department of Abhidhamma, Faculty of Pariyatti, ITBM University, Myanmar http://atbu.org/node/10 with metta and respect, Han #108501 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:19 am Subject: Re: Mahasi nidive Hi Alex and all interested in Mahasi Sayadaw, > "At one time, Mahasi Sayadaw was severely criticised in certain quarters for his advocacy of the allegedly unorthodox method of noting the rising and falling of the abdomen in vipassana meditation. It was mistakenly assumed that this method was an innovation of the Sayadaw's, whereas the truth is that it had been approved several years before Mahasi Sayadaw adopted it, by no less an authority than the mula (original) Mingun Jetavan Sayadaw, and that it is in no way contrary to the Buddha's teaching on the subject. The reason for Mahasi Sayadaw's preference for this method is that the average meditator finds it easier to note this manifestation of the element of motion (vayodhatu)." > http://www.buddhanet.net/mahabio.htm I find the explanation totally absurd whether the method is invented by Mahasi or Mingun Jetavan. Where is the proof that "the average meditator finds it easier to note this manifestation of the element of motion"? If the average meditator really finds it easier to note this manifestation of the element of motion, would not the Buddha have known it? If the Buddha had known it, would he not teach it in DN 22 and MN 119? And he has the guts to claim that his method is easier to practice for the masses than what the Buddha taught. Where is the common sense everyone? Gone down the drain? And not to say that the element of motion is only one of four. Is insight into only one element enough? Obviously, the Buddha disagrees in DN 22 and MN 119. If Mahasi Sayadaw was severely criticized in the past, he still is severely criticized right now. ---------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.119.than.html "Furthermore, the monk contemplates this very body ? however it stands, however it is disposed ? in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' Just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body ? however it stands, however it is disposed ? in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body. ---------------------------------- Notice what the Buddha says: contemplates this very body - however it stands, however it is disposed - in terms of properties. It is not about the rising and falling of the abdomen, but about how the whole body stands and is disposed in terms of properties. The two descriptions are vastly different. Swee Boon #108502 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sabhava, an Annihilationist Atta view applied to microscale nidive Hi Alex, > Very poor health, and lots of health problems. This is the biggest reason why I haven't ordained yet. Pain, headaches, drowsiness often wrecks concentration and I am not good as Ajahn Brahm (for example) to be able to bliss out even when seriously sick. So unfortunately (or fortunately) I spend a lot of time reading. I suffer from scalp psoriasis and for over 2 weeks I have applied my own fresh mid-stream urine to the affected areas. To my surprise, the flakes are now gone even without the application of coal tar shampoo. The coal tar shampoo is not even as effective as my own fresh urine. I am now left with some red patches that I believe will go away if I continue the external urine therapy. I have tasted drops of urine from time to time and at one time, I gulped down mouthfuls of it. It wasn't so bad when you taste drops of it but feels a little bit vomiting if you gulped down mouthfuls of it which I have only tried once. So, maybe you can consider exploring urine therapy as a way to remedy your health problems, which I have no idea what they are. PS: Are you a "fan" of Ajahn Brahmavamso? I am. His book on the jhanas is an inspiration for me. Swee Boon #108503 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma in Myanmar. Attention to Han. nilovg Dear Han, Thank you very much. Op 18-jul-2010, om 11:34 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > However, I do not know about the curriculum of teaching for the > young monks. > If you like, I will enquire and come back to you when I have the > information. > > Meanwhile, you can read the following: > > The Historical Background of the Abhidhamma Studies in Myanmar > http://atbu.org/node/12 > > The Study of the Abhidhamma: Amongst the Laity in Myanmar > By Daw Yujana???? Tutor, Department of Abhidhamma, Faculty of > Pariyatti, ITBM University, Myanmar > http://atbu.org/node/10 -------- N: Most useful links. I am really impressed. I especially like this: Yes please, if you can add more I will like it. Nina. #108504 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing 'my cat'. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/18/2010 4:44:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: You begin to understand that when you see 'my cat' there are are physical phenomena. Yes, there are only naama and ruupa not 'my cat', and not this or that person. Gradually we can learn that through eyes only visible object, a ruupa, appears, through touch only tangible object, such as softness of his coat. But at the moment of experiencing softness we do not think of a cat at the same time. Thinking of a cat occurs later on, by cittas arising in amind-door processes. When your cat purrs, sound appears, and later on attachment to the cat is bound to arise. =================================== I agree with all that you write here, Nina, but I would add a couple points with which I don't expect any agreement on your part, especially with my second point: 1) The phenomena that you write of here - the sights (and visual perceptions) of "the cat", the "purring" sounds, the felt softness of "the cat's fur", and so on, do not constitute a random grab bag of phenomena, but are interrelated, pertaining to the kamma and vipaka within at least two namarupic streams ("the cat's" and "yours"). We should not forget the importance of relationships among phenomena. 2) Not only is "the cat" a concept concocted from a relational complex of phenomena, but so is the purring, and so is the perceived "cat form," and so is the felt softness, which is composed of a multitude of moments of varying qualities of softness - varying in time and circumstance. Any apparently isolated "sound" is itself a complex, a cross-temporal group of "sound phenomena" all varying in quality (of timbre, register, etc) and hence also, as an individual, concept-only, likewise for softness sensation and so on. The stream of experience is an up and down, multi-layered, flowing stream of ever-changing quality that our conceptual faculty parses into various finer and finer elements, then recombining these into gross conceptual segments to enable us to navigate the stream in samsaric mode. Our perceptual-conceptual apparatus works both analytically and synthetically, de-structively breaking apart the experiential stream and also con-structively glomming together the carved out pieces. Our samsaric world of carved-out and placed-together jigsaw-puzzle pieces is our own creation, not entirely cut from whole cloth (due to the reality of interrelationships), but our creation nonetheless and a matter of convention. The little pieces called "paramattha dhammas" are part of this creation. Reality is encountered not in trying to grasp and characterize them but in seeing through them and through the aviija-based, creational activity of mind. With metta, Howard /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) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /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) #108505 From: Ken O Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sabhava, an Annihilationist Atta view applied to microscale ashkenn2k Dear Alex > >Very poor health, and lots of health problems. This is the biggest reason why I >haven't ordained yet. Pain, headaches, drowsiness often wrecks concentration and > >I am not good as Ajahn Brahm (for example) to be able to bliss out even when >seriously sick. So unfortunately (or fortunately) I spend a lot of time reading. > KO:? do such matters prevent you from understanding dhamma.? I am not being cynical.? I like to say dhamma is in the present and not where you are or what you are or who you are going to be.? Being ordained or not, depends also on dhamma.? If the conditions are not right, dont go and think about it because it only conditions more dosa.? Focus on what is in with us and not what we wish for.? If you could be ordained, I am very happy for you.? If not, lets get to understand dhamma more.? And jhanas are also comprised of dhammas. cheers Ken O #108506 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? chandrafabian Dear Ken O, In that case, what is the meaning of non-existent nor existent in your view? Mettacittena, fabian --------------------------------------------- KO: that is not the meaning of not existing. The non-existing is to eradicate annhilistic point of view, not because they cease very fast. Cease very fast is a nature of conditioned dhamma. if there is non existence, why do we see, hear etc, why we keep going round in samasara. cheers Ken O #108507 From: Ken O Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? ashkenn2k Dear Fabin non-existence means nothing exist after this life or in this life.? In this life, there is seeing, hearing etc, so there is dhamma that is condition to exist.? In future life as long as kamma does not cease, there will be future?life. thanks Ken O #108508 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:55 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? chandrafabian Hi Fabian, It can be either valid or invalid to say to say that plants and rocks "have no dukkha." The difference depends on how we understand plants and rocks. The two ways are, (1) to understand that plants and rocks are ultimately real, and (2) to understand that only namas and rupas are ultimately real. If we have the first understanding, then our view that plants and rocks have no dukkha is wrong view. If we have the second understanding, then our view that plants and rocks have no dukkha is right view. That is because, in ultimate truth and reality, there are no plants or rocks. I cannot agree with your reasoning that they are not dukkha "because dukkha is connected with feelings." And I think this might be a good example of why Dhamma-study is easiest when it begins with the Abhidhamma discourses. Ideally, we shouldn't attempt to understand the other Sutta-pitaka discourses until we have a firm understanding of the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma says, for example, that all sankhara (all conditioned dhammas) are dukkha. So it doesn't matter if they are nama-sankhara or rupa-sankhara; they are *all* dukkha. Rupa doesn't experience anything, but it definitely does have the dukkha characteristic. If we begin Dhamma-study with the conventional-language discourses (as most of us do) then we can easily get the impression that the Buddha was describing conventional realities (pannatti) when he said "all things are anicca, dukkha and anatta." ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Ken, According to Sutta everything exist that is wrong view, everything does not exist this is also wrong view. To say rocks, plants not exist or exist is wrong view. IMHO because rocks and plants are in continual process of change every moment due to impermanency. Therefore we can't say it exist or it doesn't exist. Could you explain why rocks are dukkha on its own? please Tell what is dukkha in your understanding? Again IMO rocks, plants etc are dukkha if connected with us, if no connection no dukkha. Dukkha is connected with attachment, if no attachment there's no dukkha. I know my body is dukkha to me. I don't see a rock like Temple rock in Arizona is dukkha to me, do you? --------------------- F: > But are they not anicca? how come? In my opinion even the most subtle substances would cease, are they (plants, rocks etc) not under the impermanency characteristic? arising and ceasing under right condition? KH: This goes back to what I have just been saying. Only dhammas have the three characteristics (tilakkhana). And there are no dhammas called "plant" "rock" "person" "Ken H" etc. ----------------------------- So What is dhamma to you? ---------------------------------------------------------- F: What do you think Ken, plants, rocks, you and I real or not real? KH: In the ultimate reality described by the Buddha there are no plants or rocks or people. There are only dhammas. Only dhammas are real. Only dhammas bear the anicca, dukkha and anatta characteristics. ---------------------------------------- So which dhamma that you say is real? Please tell me. ---------------------------------------------------------- F: > Something arise with condition and it is cease again. What we are and everything conditioned, is conglomeration of arising and ceasing, therefore we can not say they are not exist, because when they arise they exist. But they are ceasing again very fast one after another countless times in a second, that is why we can not rightly say it is exist, because by the time you finish reading, this they already cease to exist. KH: It is not necessary to think about conglomerations. As far as I know, the Abhidhamma does not contain any reference to them. And there are definitely no namas or rupas by that name. :-) Ken H --------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Ken, Do you know how many times cittakkhana arise and cease in a second? do you know how long does it last? How many rupa's produced following citta arise and cease in a second? and do you know how long does it last? Mettacittena, fabian #108509 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? chandrafabian Dear Ken O Does rocks, plants, your house, exit or not exist? Mettacittena, fabian --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Fabin > > non-existence means nothing exist after this life or in this life.? In this > life, there is seeing, hearing etc, so there is dhamma that is condition to > exist.? In future life as long as kamma does not cease, there will be > future?life. > > thanks > Ken O > #108510 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:01 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi truth_aerator Dear Fabian, all >dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chandrafabian" wrote: > > Dear Alex and all, > > I heard in Myanmar many Bhikkhus are educated in Dhamma since their early days as Samanera (age 10 to 19) > > And something shocking to me, they said The first Dhamma they taught is Abhidhamma, not Sutta > > Does anyone can clarify about this? Is that true? > > Mettacittena, > fabian I have read from one Buddhologist (Rozenberg, If I remember correctly) who wrote in early 20th century something similar to "Abhidhamma is the original teaching of the Buddha" and suttas are pop Buddhism for the laity. Few comments: 1) It is yet to be determined which Abhidhamma is meant. Sarvastivadins for example have attributed at least some of their books to Ven. Sariputta and MahaMoggallana. I wouldn't be surprised if some other early schools claimed the same. 2) While early schools had approximately the same set of suttas (sarvastivadins for example do quote suttas found in pali canon) they had different Abhidhamma. This suggests that suttas are the common core, and thus more original than Abhidhamma Literature (which perhaps grew as a interpretation of the suttas according to the beliefs of that particular school). IMHO. With metta, Alex #108511 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] . sickness and pain. truth_aerator Dear Nina, > Dear Alex, > >Op 17-jul-2010, om 22:49 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > > > Very poor health, and lots of health problems. This is the >biggest > > reason why I haven't ordained yet. Pain, headaches, drowsiness > > often wrecks concentration.. > ------- > N: I am so sorry to hear this. I admire your courage, seeing how > active you always are, and how much you read. > courage and good cheer, > > Nina. Thank you very much for your kind words, With metta, Alex #108512 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process chandrafabian Dear Swee Boon, I still interested to know though, what do you think, if a person performing daily activities with mindfullness, very attentive and full awareness. Would they be able to achieve concentration? Mettacittena, fabian #108513 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:15 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi truth_aerator Hi Swee Boon, all, > Hi Alex and all interested in Mahasi Sayadaw, >Where is the proof that "the average meditator finds it easier to >note this manifestation of the element of motion"? It may be easier to feel the bigger motion (and larger sensitive area) of the abdomen vs air going in-out of nostrils. For example if you sit in a windy place it is very hard to feel the point where breath touches the nose as most of the body is being touched by external air. With abdomen it is not a problem, and it is not the only area of observation! >If the average meditator really finds it easier to note this >manifestation of the element of motion, would not the Buddha have >known it? If the Buddha had known it, would he not teach it in DN 22 >and MN 119? Observation of the motion of the abdomen is part of observing the air-element. Mahasi system has far more than the abdomen watching and deals in its own way with contemplation of namarupa, postures, mindfulness & clear awareness part, and 4 elements. I did have a good (except for health) 28 day retreat doing Mahasi like system in 2008. With metta, Alex #108514 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:22 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma in Myanmar. Attention to Han. chandrafabian Dear Han, Thank you for your information. And yes I appreciated more for your trouble to obtain the information on curriculum for young Samanera. Thanks Nina. mettacittena, fabian -------------------------------------------------- #108515 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:27 pm Subject: Re: pain truth_aerator Dear KenO, all interested, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Alex > > > > >Very poor health, and lots of health problems. This is the biggest reason why I > > >haven't ordained yet. Pain, headaches, drowsiness often wrecks concentration and > > > >I am not good as Ajahn Brahm (for example) to be able to bliss out even when > >seriously sick. So unfortunately (or fortunately) I spend a lot of time > reading. > > > > KO:? do such matters prevent you from understanding dhamma. No (or at least not always. Sometimes I am almost semi-conscious and it is hard to think at that time). But the health does put a difficulty in reaching and holding tranquility, something that I believe could be a good basis for even more understanding AND to suppress unwholesome tendencies which I have plenty. Unfortunately I very often react to pain in an unwholesome way (ex: irritation, lack of sense restraint), and that is not good. With metta, Alex #108516 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:50 pm Subject: Re:on kamma and external world truth_aerator Dear KenO, Nina, all, > A: If we are to believe that any sense-object that appears to the >sense-organ is Kamma vipaka, then it makes more sense to reject the >>self-existent things with their own characteristics (even as >dhammas). For example, if any pain in the > >body is akusala kamma vipaka, then what makes the object that is >going to be the ource of akusala vipaka be placed in such and such a >place? > > KO:? This is an interesting question.? It involved DO.? If you read >the sutta, dhamma could only arise when appriopriate conditions for >it to arise.? Pain could only be experienced when there is something >of it to arise, for eg a cut in the finger.? If there is no cut in >the finger, will there??be pain to arise experience by bodily citta >which is a kamma vipaka. Here is the problem rephrased. If encounter with external undesireble or desireble objects is due to past Kamma - then how does past kamma put all those external rupas? Ex: If I accidentally hit my little toy against a rock or a chair. Then how was Kamma responsible for akusalavipaka perceived in "body door"? Some people experience pleasant or unpleasant objects (vipaka) due to kusala/akusala kamma being done in the past. How does kamma has put all desirable or undesirable objects out there to be encountered by the sense organs of a particular person? On the other hand if we assume that dhammas do not have their own characteristics and that the characteristics are perceived through the mind - then it is easier to believe that kusala/akusala results and various characteristics of "external objects" are mentally distinguished as a result of previous mental intention. With metta, Alex #108517 From: Ken O Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? ashkenn2k Dear Fabian Yes they exist because citta thinks of it. If citta does not think of the concepts, it woud not exist. Trees and house exist because of appropriate conditions arise due to seeing and thinking. But do such concepts have distinct characteristic - No :-). We must differentiate between exist and distinct nature. Exist does not mean it has distinct nature. One thing is for sure, dhamma is real, exist by causes and it has distinct characteristics. cheers Ken O > > >Dear Ken O > >Does rocks, plants, your house, exit or not exist? > >> #108518 From: Ken O Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: pain ashkenn2k Dear Alex tranquilly is just another dhamma,? tranquility cannot arise without kusala or panna.? tranquility cannot be maintain without sati.? tranquility cannot be strengthen without virtue, tranquility cannot be develop without panna.? When panna arise, unwholesome tendecies decrease, suppressed and slowly being eradicated.? It is not tranquility that eradicates defilements.?? ? If you keep brooding over your sickness did not bring tranquility, that only conditoin dosa.? Tranquility will never arise if one keep having such dosa or it must arise because I do this or not.? Tranquility can arise through other matters like comtemplation of 32 parts, studying dhamma or while walking one investigate dhamma Your question on kamma I will answer hopefully by tomorrow.? I am tired now need to rest.? Cheers Ken O? > > #108519 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:16 pm Subject: correction re: question on Kamma truth_aerator Small correction > Ex: If I accidentally hit my little toy against a rock or a chair. >Then how was Kamma responsible for akusalavipaka perceived in "body >door"? Should be Ex: If I accidentally hit my little toe against a rock or a chair. Then how was Kamma responsible for akusalavipaka perceived in "body door"? How did kamma place that (or any other) object in my way so that I would experience it as vipaka for previously done Kamma? With metta, Alex #108520 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: pain nilovg Dear Alex, Op 18-jul-2010, om 18:27 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > But the health does put a difficulty in reaching and holding > tranquility, something that I believe could be a good basis for > even more understanding AND to suppress unwholesome tendencies > which I have plenty. Unfortunately I very often react to pain in an > unwholesome way (ex: irritation, lack of sense restraint), and that > is not good. ------- N: Perhaps it can help not to take it to heart too much when your reactions are negative. All such moments are dhammas, they are conditioned. We never know the next moment, kusala and akusala alternate. Understanding that all such moments arise because of conditions may be of help to you. Everybody has plenty of unwholesome tendencies, the anusayas, you know. Understanding is better and more effective than suppressing, I believe. As to your question how kamma would put an object in your way, when hitting a rock with your toe, I think this is hard to answer. Here we mix conventional language and ultimate truth. We just know that the experience of hardness through the bodysense, thus, not the ruupa of hardness, is vipaaka. All the things pertaining to situations, stories about rocks, toe, etc. will not help us to understand kamma as cause of vipaaka. It is mere thinking of concepts, and thinking is natural, it is not to be prevented. But by thinking we will not understand kamma and vipaaka. Only at the first stage of insight and all further stages there is true, direct understanding of kamma and vipaaka. Nina. #108521 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing 'my cat'. nilovg Hi Howard, glad to see you after some time, I was just thinking of you, assuming you had a summer break. I have to do some hard thinking to asnwer your mail, I find it not easy to grasp. I have a try later on. We both have a different way of thinking and expressing ourselves in language, different trends of thought. Nina. Op 18-jul-2010, om 16:04 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I agree with all that you write here, Nina, but I would add a couple > points with which I don't expect any agreement on your part, > especially with > my second point: #108522 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing 'my cat'. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/18/2010 3:01:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, glad to see you after some time, I was just thinking of you, assuming you had a summer break. -------------------------------------------------- Nice to be talking with you, Nina! :-) No, no summer break, just busy with "everyday life" - including some real progress with the helping-the-homeless organization, Family Promise, I'm doing volunteer work for, and also serving as occasional cantor at the reform Jewish temple Rita & I belong to, and, of course, my regular Dhamma practice - so I've been engaging in only a drop of posting. Much of the recent "excitement" on DSG has involved a matter - an assertion, to be precise - with respect to which I have no knowledge of the facts and no firm opinion at all, and have thus thought it prudent, as have numerous others as well, apparently, to remain entirely silent about. ------------------------------------------------ I have to do some hard thinking to asnwer your mail, I find it not easy to grasp. ------------------------------------------------ As regards what I wrote to you, I think you may find my first point fairly clear and not overly controversial, but I suspect that is far from the case with regard to my second point. To put my second point more straightforwardly, I believe that human conceptualizing and conventions go far further than you do, applying even to all conditioned namas and rupas, with only nibbana being a true, concept-free reality. I know this is not what is suggested in Abhidhamma and is radically far from the commentarial teachings and your perspective. I think, though, that there is a foundation to be found for it in several suttas, two of which I quoted from in my post to you, and another of which appears at the end of this post. In any case, I simply wanted to "lay this perspective out there" to be looked at. I suspect it will be looked at by many with mild disgust - mild if I'm lucky, LOL!. I'm not looking to defend the position or to engage in "combat" with regard to it. I just think it is useful for friends not to keep their thinking hidden - so I have not. :-) ------------------------------------------------- I have a try later on. We both have a different way of thinking and expressing ourselves in language, different trends of thought. -------------------------------------------------- I suspect that on this issue, our differing goes deeper than our mere manner of thought and expression, but c'est la vie! ;-) ---------------------------------------------- Nina. ============================ With metta, Howard P. S. My very best to Lodewijk! :-) The Real /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) #108523 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:15 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi pt, Thanks for answering my question: --------- pt: > It seems important because the main objections I've encountered from people regarding the "existence" of a dhamma (sabhava, individual characterisitcs, etc) is that it somehow defies anicca, or that it assumes that time is not a concept (due to the 3 sub-moments), or that presence sub-moment of a dhamma defies both anicca and anatta, or even defies conditionality, etc. So, I think the quote above is saying is that a dhamma is simply seen in insight as an arising and falling - so exactly the same thing when it's said in the suttas that an aggregate arises and falls. Except that in the commentaries the "falling" part would comprise "aging and dissolution". That's also the reason why I prefer the wording "aging", which kind of associates with anicca, rather than "presence" which is often associated with some sort of atta. --------- That sounds fair enough, although I am not so bothered by the use of "presence" - or even of "persistence." The anicca characteristic is always present in every conditioned dhamma, and so there is never any permanence in the sense of something that continues on from one experience to another. Or, in the case of rupa, there is never any continuing on from one *non-experience* to another. :-) --------------- pt: > So, imo, an instance of being aware of an arising and falling as per the suttas is the same thing as experiencing a dhamma, sabhava, individual characteristics, 3 sub-moments, "existence", and other terms used in the commentaries in that regard. They both point to the same experience, rather than talking about something different. ---------------- Yes, nicely put! I am beginning to get the picture. Ken H #108524 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi Fabian, -------------- <. . .> F: > According to Sutta everything exist that is wrong view, everything does not exist this is also wrong view. To say rocks, plants not exist or exist is wrong view. --------------- I have already tried to explain how I understood those suttas. So perhaps you could tell me how you understand them: do rocks and plants exist, or do they not exist? ------------------------ F: > IMHO because rocks and plants are in continual process of change every moment due to impermanency. Therefore we can't say it exist or it doesn't exist. ------------------------ Are you saying we should not have an opinion on the matter? ---------------------------------- F: > Could you explain why rocks are dukkha on its own? please Tell what is dukkha in your understanding? ----------------------------------- I actually said that rocks were *not* dukkha. Rocks are only concepts (pannatti) and the Buddha did not teach the nature of concepts. He only taught the nature of conditioned dhammas - all of which he said were dukkha. Therefore, when we are talking about rocks, we need to remember it is *rupas* (not rocks) that are dukkha. Rupas are conditioned dhammas, and they are the only things that are actually experienced at any of the five sense-doors. We might think that we can can see, hear, taste, smell or touch a rock, but actually we only see visible rupa, hear audible rupa, . . . and so on. The concept of a rock is created in separate moments of mind-door consciousness. ------------------------------------------------- F: > Again IMO rocks, plants etc are dukkha if connected with us, if no connection no dukkha. Dukkha is connected with attachment, if no attachment there's no dukkha. -------------------------------------------------- The word "dukkha" is sometimes used to mean painful feeling (vedana). But it mainly refers to the second of the three universal characteristics, anicca, dukkha and anatta. In that case, dukkha refers to the unsatisfactoriness of dhammas due to their anicca nature. Because they immediately fall away they are incapable of being used as a refuge from suffering (painful vedana). In that way, all conditioned dhammas are inevitably linked to suffering. --------------- F: > I know my body is dukkha to me. I don't see a rock like Temple rock in Arizona is dukkha to me, do you? ---------------- External rupas are anicca dukkha and anatta just as much as the internal ones are. And that applies whether or not they are experienced as objects of consciousness. --------------------- <. . .> F: > So What is dhamma to you? <. . .> > So which dhamma that you say is real? ---------------------- Dhammas are mental and physical phenomena that are absolutely real (paramattha dhamma). The mental ones are called namas and the physical ones are called rupas. Namas include cittas and cetasikas. (Nibbana is also classified as a nama but for particular reasons.) There are 52 cetasikas and 26 rupas. And there about 89 cittas (depending on how you classify them). Just for the record, I should add that Dhamma (spelt with a capital D) is also the name given to the teaching of the Buddha and means 'the way things are.' -------------------- <. . .> F: > Do you know how many times cittakkhana arise and cease in a second? do you know how long does it last? How many rupa's produced following citta arise and cease in a second? and do you know how long does it last? -------------------- I am not sure if you are asking for rhetorical reasons or if you really want an answer. In case it's the second, my answers are as follows. There are approximately one trillion citta moments in every second. Each citta lasts for three sub-moments. (A sub-moment of citta is the shortest period of time there can possibly be.) A rupa lasts seventeen times as long as a citta. We know this because a rupa that arises at a sense door can be experienced by as many as seventeen consecutive cittas. Why do you ask? Ken H #108525 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:38 am Subject: alone-ness gazita2002 Hallo friends, I am currently 'on the road' and often feel vry alone, not bec of travel but bec it is impossible to talk to most people re the Buddhist teachings. Am travelling with someone for a while but that person has no interest in discussing Dhamma, and of course, I dont expect that, however, it does make for kind of a lonely time. Sometimes I think I am jst lazy and selfish and dont want to pursue any debate bec I think its a waste of time. Really at this point, I think I have too much kilesa to be kind and gentle, would prefer to be silent otherwise I get impatient. Its all nama and rupa and no me and totally impermanent anyway. Its always good to 'pop into' dsg occasionally and read some helpful, beneficial info instead of hearing about the plight of thai elephants!!! altho that could be a condition for metta, or even satipatthana :-) patience, courage and good cheer, azita #108526 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] alone-ness nilovg Dear Azita, Op 19-jul-2010, om 6:38 heeft gazita2002 het volgende geschreven: > Its all nama and rupa and no me and totally impermanent anyway. Its > always good to 'pop into' dsg occasionally and read some helpful, > beneficial info instead of hearing about the plight of thai > elephants!!! altho that could be a condition for metta, or even > satipatthana :-) -------- N:And at the moment of mettaa there is kindness with the citta and you are not lonely. I remember Kh Sujin saying something about feeling lonely, having no friends. Mettaa is with the citta and at that moment there is friendship. We are inclined to think of situations, having people around. That is not mettaa, mettaa is a reality and it can arise with the citta at any time. It is right understanding of naama and ruupa that conditions mettaa, without selfish motives. Nina. #108527 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing 'my cat'. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 18-jul-2010, om 22:45 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I suspect it will be looked at by many with > mild disgust - mild if I'm lucky, LOL!. I'm not looking to defend > the position > or to engage in "combat" with regard to it. I just think it is > useful for > friends not to keep their thinking hidden - so I have not. :-) ------- N: Of course no disgust, not even mild. I agree that combat is not useful, why combat? Anyway, your post made me consider more sound, what sound is. See, an exchange is always useful, and it is not necessary to 'convert' the other person. I take some points now from your previous post. ------- 1) The phenomena that you write of here - the sights (and visual perceptions) of "the cat", the "purring" sounds, the felt softness of "the cat's fur", and so on, do not constitute a random grab bag of phenomena, but are interrelated, pertaining to the kamma and vipaka within at least two namarupic streams ("the cat's" and "yours"). We should not forget the importance of relationships among phenomena. ------- N: I do not see kamma and vipaaka in mindstreams. Kamma and vipaaka are ultimate realities. Kamma is cetanaa cetasika that is cause and it can produce result later on in the form of the experience of pleasant or unpleasant ruupas through the senses. When you speak of two mindstreams, is there not the story of the cat and me? As to relationship, I am thinking of the Patthaana. Naama can condition other naamas and ruupa, and ruupa can condition naama and other ruupas in different ways. I think it not helpful to mix concepts and paramattha dhammas. -------- H: 2) Not only is "the cat" a concept concocted from a relational complex of phenomena, but so is the purring, and so is the perceived "cat form," and so is the felt softness, which is composed of a multitude of moments of varying qualities of softness - varying in time and circumstance. Any apparently isolated "sound" is itself a complex, a cross-temporal group of "sound phenomena" all varying in quality (of timbre, register, etc) and hence also, as an individual, concept-only, likewise for softness sensation and so on. ----------- N: The purring is just an example, but thinking of the cat's purring is not the experience of sound, that what can be heard. In the Dhammasangani (621) we find examples of sound: sound of drums, ...noise of people, of wind, of water... This shows that sounds are not neutral, they are all different. But when investigating its characteristic, we do not think of its source, no selection, no preference. It is just what can be heard. It has a characteristic that can be directly experienced, without having to think about it. A cat may be purring, but there are so many sounds and who knows what sati will be aware of? We never know what will happen. We do not have to think of a multitude of moments that are varied. Sound is not a concept, it is a ruupa. ---------- H: The stream of experience is an up and down, multi-layered, flowing stream of ever-changing quality that our conceptual faculty parses into various finer and finer elements, then recombining these into gross conceptual segments to enable us to navigate the stream in samsaric mode. Our perceptual-conceptual apparatus works both analytically and synthetically, de-structively breaking apart the experiential stream and also con- structively glomming together the carved out pieces. Our samsaric world of carved- out and placed-together jigsaw-puzzle pieces is our own creation, not entirely cut from whole cloth (due to the reality of interrelationships), but our creation nonetheless and a matter of convention. The little pieces called "paramattha dhammas" are part of this creation. Reality is encountered not in trying to grasp and characterize them but in seeing through them and through the aviija-based, creational activity of mind. -------- N: Jigsaw puzzles, sounds complicated to me, a lot of thinking involved. Without the dhamma I would be inclined to do so. I find it more direct to learn to view phenomena as just naama and ruupa, paramattha dhammas which are real. All else is just a dream. The voidness spoken about in the Phena sutta: no core, no substance, void of an attaa. -------- Nina. #108528 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:13 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? chandrafabian Hi Fabian, F: > According to Sutta everything exist that is wrong view, everything does not exist this is also wrong view. To say rocks, plants not exist or exist is wrong view. KH: I have already tried to explain how I understood those suttas. So perhaps you could tell me how you understand them: do rocks and plants exist, or do they not exist? F: > IMHO because rocks and plants are in continual process of change every moment due to impermanency. Therefore we can't say it exist or it doesn't exist. KH: Are you saying we should not have an opinion on the matter? ---------------------------------- Dear Ken, of course everyone can have opinion, but we should differentiate our opinion and Tipitaka's opinion. ----------------------------------------------------- F: > Could you explain why rocks are dukkha on its own? please Tell me what is dukkha in your understanding? KH: I actually said that rocks were *not* dukkha. Rocks are only concepts (pannatti)and the Buddha did not teach the nature of concepts. He only taught the nature of conditioned dhammas - all of which he said were dukkha. Therefore, when we are talking about rocks, we need to remember it is *rupas* (not rocks) that are dukkha. Rupas are conditioned dhammas, and they are the only things that are actually experienced at any of the five sense-doors. We might think that we can can see, hear, taste, smell or touch a rock, but actually we only see visible rupa, hear audible rupa, . . . and so on. The concept of a rock is created in separate moments of mind-door consciousness. ------------------------------------------------- Dear Ken your answer is ambiguous you said rocks were *not* dukkha and then you said rock is rupa and again you said rupa is dukkha? Do you have more straight explanation? ------------------------------------------------------------ F: > Again IMO rocks, plants etc are dukkha if connected with us, if no connection no dukkha. Dukkha is connected with attachment, if no attachment there's no dukkha. KH: The word "dukkha" is sometimes used to mean painful feeling (vedana). But it mainly refers to the second of the three universal characteristics, anicca, dukkha and anatta. In that case, dukkha refers to the unsatisfactoriness of dhammas due to their anicca nature. Because they immediately fall away they are incapable of being used as a refuge from suffering (painful vedana). In that way, all conditioned dhammas are inevitably linked to suffering. --------------------------------------------------------- That in accordance with what I said, rupa around us are dukkha it it is connected to us, or it is a condition or could be a condition. If rupa around which not function as a condition to us, it is not dukkha, because dukkha as far as I know connected with feeling, in this case our feeling. for example: if I smash your car windows it is a condition of dukkha to arise, (your dukkha), in this case your car is dukkha (source of dukkha), but that smashed car windows of yours is not dukkha for Nina, Kevin, or our friends here, especially if they don't know anything about the incident. --------------------------------------------------------------- F: > I know my body is dukkha to me. I don't see a rock like Temple rock in Arizona is dukkha to me, do you? KH: External rupas are anicca dukkha and anatta just as much as the internal ones are. And that applies whether or not they are experienced as objects of consciousness. ---------------------------------------------------- I think I already answer your question, your car is external rupa. ------------------------------------------------------------------ F: > So What is dhamma to you? > So which dhamma that you say is real? KH: Dhammas are mental and physical phenomena that are absolutely real (paramattha dhamma). The mental ones are called namas and the physical ones are called rupas. Namas include cittas and cetasikas. (Nibbana is also classified as a nama but for particular reasons.) There are 52 cetasikas and 26 rupas. And there about 89 cittas (depending on how you classify them). Just for the record, I should add that Dhamma (spelt with a capital D) is also the name given to the teaching of the Buddha and means 'the way things are.' ---------------------------------- Again, which of those Dhamma real? Are they all real? what about rocks, plants etc, are they real or not real? ---------------------------------------------------- F: > Do you know how many times cittakkhana arise and cease in a second? do you know how long does it last? How many rupa's produced following citta arise and cease in a second? and do you know how long does it last? KH: I am not sure if you are asking for rhetorical reasons or if you really want an answer. In case it's the second, my answers are as follows. There are approximately one trillion citta moments in every second. Each citta lasts for three sub-moments. (A sub-moment of citta is the shortest period of time there can possibly be.) A rupa lasts seventeen times as long as a citta. We know this because a rupa that arises at a sense door can be experienced by as many as seventeen consecutive cittas. Why do you ask? Ken H --------------------------------------------- Yes Ken I asked because I need answer to explain further my opinion. We know rupa and citta arises (uppada), mature (thiti) I prefer the word mature for thiti, and cease (bhanga) trillion times per second or per eye wink to be exact, right? Rupa and citta exist when it arises, mature and before completely ceases. After completely ceases it doesn,t exist anymore. Because Citta and rupa arises and ceases so fast, could you point out which rupa exist or didn't exist at certain time? It is impossible right? That is the reason why we can not really say nama and rupa exist or not exist. Because it arises and ceases so fast. Mettacittena, fabian #108529 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing 'my cat'. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/19/2010 2:21:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 18-jul-2010, om 22:45 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I suspect it will be looked at by many with > mild disgust - mild if I'm lucky, LOL!. I'm not looking to defend > the position > or to engage in "combat" with regard to it. I just think it is > useful for > friends not to keep their thinking hidden - so I have not. :-) ------- N: Of course no disgust, not even mild. I agree that combat is not useful, why combat? Anyway, your post made me consider more sound, what sound is. See, an exchange is always useful, and it is not necessary to 'convert' the other person. I take some points now from your previous post. ------- 1) The phenomena that you write of here - the sights (and visual perceptions) of "the cat", the "purring" sounds, the felt softness of "the cat's fur", and so on, do not constitute a random grab bag of phenomena, but are interrelated, pertaining to the kamma and vipaka within at least two namarupic streams ("the cat's" and "yours"). We should not forget the importance of relationships among phenomena. ------- N: I do not see kamma and vipaaka in mindstreams. ------------------------------------------------ I have no idea where else they occur. The streams of mental activities that we call "the cat" and "Nina" and "Howard" are not without basis, even though conventions. When the Buddha spoke of one inheriting one's own kamma, he wasn't speaking nonsense. ----------------------------------------------- Kamma and vipaaka are ultimate realities. ------------------------------------------ I don't use "ultimate reality" language for anything but nibbana. ----------------------------------------- Kamma is cetanaa cetasika that is cause and it can produce result later on in the form of the experience of pleasant or unpleasant ruupas through the senses. When you speak of two mindstreams, is there not the story of the cat and me? ------------------------------------------ See what I wrote, please, a couple paragraphs above. ----------------------------------------- As to relationship, I am thinking of the Patthaana. Naama can condition other naamas and ruupa, and ruupa can condition naama and other ruupas in different ways. I think it not helpful to mix concepts and paramattha dhammas. ----------------------------------------- When one speaks of the Buddha and the Ariya Sangha and how they differ from worldlings, one must speak on many levels. And that aside, I don't countenance anything as "paramattha" except for nibbana. All else is a matter of convention and is quite empty and ultimately unreal. ---------------------------------------- -------- H: 2) Not only is "the cat" a concept concocted from a relational complex of phenomena, but so is the purring, and so is the perceived "cat form," and so is the felt softness, which is composed of a multitude of moments of varying qualities of softness - varying in time and circumstance. Any apparently isolated "sound" is itself a complex, a cross-temporal group of "sound phenomena" all varying in quality (of timbre, register, etc) and hence also, as an individual, concept-only, likewise for softness sensation and so on. ----------- N: The purring is just an example, but thinking of the cat's purring is not the experience of sound, that what can be heard. ------------------------------------------ The (purring) sound itself, i.e., not our characterization of it as "purring", exists across time, contantly changing. To consider it and speak of it as a single, unchanging, momentary "thing" is mere convention. ------------------------------------------ In the Dhammasangani (621) we find examples of sound: sound of drums, ...noise of people, of wind, of water... This shows that sounds are not neutral, they are all different. ---------------------------------------- Yes, of course. Quality of experience is variable and is categorized in many ways. ---------------------------------------- But when investigating its characteristic, we do not think of its source, no selection, no preference. It is just what can be heard. ------------------------------------------ No argument on that. But the parsing of our experience is a matter of convention, and what is considered an "individual sound" is clearly so. ------------------------------------------- It has a characteristic that can be directly experienced, without having to think about it. A cat may be purring, but there are so many sounds and who knows what sati will be aware of? We never know what will happen. We do not have to think of a multitude of moments that are varied. Sound is not a concept, it is a ruupa. ------------------------------------------- It is a conventional category of rupa. Sound-in-general is concept, and any particular sound occurs across a period of time, changing while in effect, and considering it as a single "ultimate reality" is a perfect example of convention. ------------------------------------------ ---------- H: The stream of experience is an up and down, multi-layered, flowing stream of ever-changing quality that our conceptual faculty parses into various finer and finer elements, then recombining these into gross conceptual segments to enable us to navigate the stream in samsaric mode. Our perceptual-conceptual apparatus works both analytically and synthetically, de-structively breaking apart the experiential stream and also con- structively glomming together the carved out pieces. Our samsaric world of carved- out and placed-together jigsaw-puzzle pieces is our own creation, not entirely cut from whole cloth (due to the reality of interrelationships), but our creation nonetheless and a matter of convention. The little pieces called "paramattha dhammas" are part of this creation. Reality is encountered not in trying to grasp and characterize them but in seeing through them and through the aviija-based, creational activity of mind. -------- N: Jigsaw puzzles, sounds complicated to me, a lot of thinking involved. ----------------------------------------- There's nothing simple about the way things are. ------------------------------------------- Without the dhamma I would be inclined to do so. I find it more direct to learn to view phenomena as just naama and ruupa, paramattha dhammas which are real. All else is just a dream. The voidness spoken about in the Phena sutta: no core, no substance, void of an attaa. -------- Nina. ============================= With metta, Howard /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) #108530 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:34 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi chandrafabian I have read from one Buddhologist (Rozenberg, If I remember correctly) who wrote in early 20th century something similar to "Abhidhamma is the original teaching of the Buddha" and suttas are pop Buddhism for the laity. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Alex, I don't understand what you're trying to say, more direct please.. -------------------------------------------------------- Few comments: 1) It is yet to be determined which Abhidhamma is meant. Sarvastivadins for example have attributed at least some of their books to Ven. Sariputta and MahaMoggallana. I wouldn't be surprised if some other early schools claimed the same. ------------------------------------------------------------- Sarvastivadins have their own version of Sutta (Dirghagama, Madhyagama etc...) Some of these Sutta are exactly the same, while other Suttas are different, the number Sutta are different in each Agama/Nikaya. While Abhidharmakosa probably almost totally different with Abhidhamma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agamas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidharmakosa ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2) While early schools had approximately the same set of suttas (sarvastivadins for example do quote suttas found in pali canon) they had different Abhidhamma. This suggests that suttas are the common core, and thus more original than Abhidhamma Literature (which perhaps grew as a interpretation of the suttas according to the beliefs of that particular school). IMHO. With metta, Alex ----------------------------------------------------------------- In my opinion the Sutta's are the same before Sangha divided into Theravada and Mahasanghika. After the break-up, same of the Sutta still the same, but other Suttas are totally different. Mettacittena, fabian #108531 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Fabian, > I still interested to know though, what do you think, if a person performing daily activities with mindfulness, very attentive and full awareness. Would they be able to achieve concentration? It depends on what those daily activities are. If a housewife prepares a delicious meal for her husband with mindfulness, mindful of the amount of salt, sugar and spices to be added, mindful of when to turn up the heat and when to turn down the heat, do you think this housewife would be able to attain the first jhana? But if those daily activities are the ones prescribed in MN 119 (mindfulness of breathing etc), then it is possible that one would be able to attain the first jhana. Why is that so? Because: ----------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.119.than.html "And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. ---------------------- Swee Boon #108532 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:26 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi nidive Hi Alex, > I did have a good (except for health) 28 day retreat doing Mahasi like system in 2008. I see that you have confidence in Mahasi's method. Now, I just want to know if Mahasi teaches the way to the first jhana. Or his method stops at mindfulness only. Swee Boon #108533 From: Kevin F Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sabhava, an Annihilationist Atta view applied to microscale farrellkevin80 Hi Alex, Alex: It will be a good idea for me to re-read "concepts & realities". Kevin: Um... yeah. It's like a key to many important things. Without it, you will stay locked up, imo. Alex: Very poor health, and lots of health problems. This is the biggest reason why I haven't ordained yet. Pain, headaches, drowsiness often wrecks concentration and I am not good as Ajahn Brahm (for example) to be able to bliss out even when seriously sick. So unfortunately (or fortunately) I spend a lot of time reading. With metta, Kevin: I am very, very sorry to hear that Alex! I hope all your problems clear up! With metta, Kevin _______ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108534 From: Kevin F Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] alone-ness farrellkevin80 Dear Azita, Azita: Hallo friends, I am currently 'on the road' and often feel vry alone, not bec of travel but bec it is impossible to talk to most people re the Buddhist teachings. Am travelling with someone for a while but that person has no interest in discussing Dhamma, and of course, I dont expect that, however, it does make for kind of a lonely time. Sometimes I think I am jst lazy and selfish and dont want to pursue any debate bec I think its a waste of time. Really at this point, I think I have too much kilesa to be kind and gentle, would prefer to be silent otherwise I get impatient. Its all nama and rupa and no me and totally impermanent anyway. Its always good to 'pop into' dsg occasionally and read some helpful, beneficial info instead of hearing about the plight of thai elephants!!! altho that could be a condition for metta, or even satipatthana :-) patience, courage and good cheer, azita Kevin: So sorry to hear that. I feel the same way so often. I live in the States now, far away from anyone with correct understanding. It can be difficult at times. I know how it feels to be lonely. Patience, courage, and good cheer, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# #108535 From: Ken O Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:on kamma and external world ashkenn2k Dear Alex > >Here is the problem rephrased. If encounter with external undesireble or >desireble objects is due to past Kamma - then how does past kamma put all those >external rupas? > >Some people experience pleasant or unpleasant objects (vipaka) due to >kusala/akusala kamma being done in the past. How does kamma has put all >desirable or undesirable objects out there to be encountered by the sense organs > >of a particular person? KO:? Kamma vipaka is the result;?? So what you experience desirable or undesirable is kamma vipaka where your sense citta experence the sense rupa.?? Kamma does not cause external rupa.? External rupa is the result of temperature.? There are two different matter.? Kamma does not put them together.? Kamma just condition the sense cittas while external rupa is conditioned by temperature.? Seeing is kamma vipaka but?visible rupa is not kamma vipaka.?? the meeting is contact, the experiencing is citta. Past kamma condition present kamma vipaka, so whatever you enjoy now through your senses, is just kamma vipaka that reaps the result.? Similarliy. those lower realms being experience the unpleasant senses because of kamma vipaka.? the actual working how does kamma effect the result of one?senses experience or encounter by a particular person?is only in the realm of Buddha.?? I could only explain the what is experienced by sense cittas due to kamma vipaka, > Ex: If I accidentally hit my little toe against a rock or a chair. Then how was Kamma responsible for akusalavipaka perceived in "body door"? How did kamma place that (or any other) object in my way so that I would experience it as vipaka for previously done Kamma? KO:? We have to be clear what we meant by kamma as volition and what is kamma vipaka;?? Kamma vipaka is a result of past kamma and it does not generate any new ones.? When you experience pain, it is the result of kamma vipaka.? If you accidentally knock your toe, it is kamma? of that action that move the toe together with body intimation rupa?while your body door is kamma vipaka that experience the pain.? There are different seperate sense door or mind door process.? > >On the other hand if we assume that dhammas do not have their own >characteristics and that the characteristics are perceived through the mind - >then it is easier to believe that kusala/akusala results and various >characteristics of "external objects" are mentally distinguished as a result of >previous mental intention. KO:? No that would mean determinism.? that is why dhamma has? distinct characteristics.? When kamma is vipaka, it is result.? When kamma is volition it is the cause of action that will reap result in this life or future lives.??? Cheers Ken O #108536 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:45 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi truth_aerator Hello Swee Boon, all interested, > Now, I just want to know if Mahasi teaches the way to the first >jhana. Or his method stops at mindfulness only. It may occur during the practice. The maggaphala could itself be somewhat like Jhana moment that takes Nibbana for the object. Of course it may be preferable to reach Jhana first and then do Mahasi. But not everyone has the required conditions. It also depends on what you mean by 1st Jhana, some interpretations of it may allow it to occur during intensive Vipassana practice. With metta, Alex #108537 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:31 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi, Fabian, ----- <. . .> F: > Dear Ken, of course everyone can have opinion, but we should differentiate our opinion and Tipitaka's opinion. ------ Yes, of course. In fact, I am only interested in the Tipitaka's opinion, not in anybody else's. But it is not always easy to know what the Tipitaka's opinion is. And so I am always interested to learn other people's opinion - of what the Tipitaka's opinion is. :-) In this particular case, the Tipitaka is saying that "everything does not exist" is wrong view. You and I both agree with that, but we have different opinions on what it means. The Tipitaka has said in other places that *any* view that is not insight into the true nature of nama and rupa is wrong view. Therefore, a person can hold the view "I have no self" and be wrong, while another person can hold the view "I have no self" and be right. The first person is thinking of a self that has no self. The second person is thinking of a nama or rupa that has no self. -------------------- <. . .> F: > your answer is ambiguous you said rocks were *not* dukkha and then you said rock is rupa and again you said rupa is dukkha? Do you have more straight explanation? --------------------- I know this can be confusing, but if you go back and read my answer again you will see that I did not say "rock is rupa," I said "rock is pannatti." ---------------- <. . .> F: > for example: if I smash your car windows it is a condition of dukkha to arise, (your dukkha), in this case your car is dukkha (source of dukkha), but that smashed car windows of yours is not dukkha for Nina, Kevin, or our friends here, especially if they don't know anything about the incident. ----------------- That is true only if you are using the word dukkha to mean painful feeling. As I tried to explain before, the texts do occasionally use it that way, but the most important way they use it is to denote the characteristic, dukkha, that belongs to all conditioned dhammas. Please look it up in the Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary and you will see what I am trying to say. ------------------- <. . .> F: > Again, which of those Dhamma real? Are they all real? what about rocks, plants etc, are they real or not real? ------------------- I have already answered that more than once. It will become clear to you when you read an introductory Abhidhamma book (for example, Concepts and Realities by Sujin Boriharnwanaket). ----------------------------------------- <. . .> F: > It is impossible right? That is the reason why we can not really say nama and rupa exist or not exist. Because it arises and ceases so fast. ------------------------------------------ It is very hard, but not impossible. The way to verify the existence of nama and rupa is to study the Dhamma, in which the Buddha has described them in detail. The more we develop our right understanding of the Buddha's teaching, the more we know for ourselves that nama and rupa definitely do exist. Ken H #108538 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:36 am Subject: Re: Mahasi nidive Hi Alex, > It may occur during the practice. The maggaphala could itself be somewhat like Jhana moment that takes Nibbana for the object. Of course it may be preferable to reach Jhana first and then do Mahasi. But not everyone has the required conditions. It also depends on what you mean by 1st Jhana, some interpretations of it may allow it to occur during intensive Vipassana practice. What I mean by the first jhana is this: ------------------ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/jhana.html "There is the case where a monk ? quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities ? enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. "Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder ? saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without ? would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal... ------------------ Does Mahasi teach the way to this first jhana, which was rediscovered by Gotama as the path to Awakening? Swee Boon #108539 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:24 am Subject: Re: Mahasi truth_aerator Hello Swee Boon, >SB: What I mean by the first jhana is this: Well it could be interpreted in number of ways. > > ------------------ > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/jhana.html > > "There is the case where a monk ? quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities ? enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. > > "Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder ? saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without ? would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal... > ------------------ > > Does Mahasi teach the way to this first jhana, which was rediscovered by Gotama as the path to Awakening? > > Swee Boon > During intensive vipassana practice many phenomena may arise. Some of them are called "corruptions of insight" that do involve lots of pleasant feelings, rapture, happiness, etc (perhaps due to samadhi). The reason they are called corruption is not because they are evil, but because their pleasantness may divert the attention of the meditator from seeing realities as anicca, dukkha, anatta to indulging in pleasure for its own sake. Some may think that they are awakened and drop intense practice. But ultimately it is wisdom (not concentration in and of itself) that uproots the fetters and brings forth the path, and that is on what the system focuses. With metta, Alex #108540 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process chandrafabian Hi Fabian, F: > I still interested to know though, what do you think, if a person performing daily activities with mindfulness, very attentive and full awareness. Would they be able to achieve concentration? SB: It depends on what those daily activities are. If a housewife prepares a delicious meal for her husband with mindfulness, mindful of the amount of salt, sugar and spices to be added, mindful of when to turn up the heat and when to turn down the heat, do you think this housewife would be able to attain the first jhana? But if those daily activities are the ones prescribed in MN 119 (mindfulness of breathing etc), then it is possible that one would be able to attain the first jhana. -------------------------------------------------------- F: Dear Swee Boon, It seems you have learned many subjects in Dhamma, What are we discussing about? are we discussing household life or discusssing meditation? Do you think in intensive meditation retreat, if practicing meditation they asked you to cook, and serve food? Did they asked you to be a housewife? I asked you, in meditation retreat Theravada style, did the DAILY ACTIVITIES like the link you gave? or different than that? ---------------------------------------------------------- SB: Why is that so? Because: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.119.than.html "And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. Swee Boon ----------------------------------------------------------- F: Dear Swee Boon, it seems you quote only too little, let me quote again, so that you understand what is the purpose of doing meditation on daily activities, and also walking meditation. (MN 119): "Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns that he is walking. When standing, he discerns that he is standing. When sitting, he discerns that he is sitting. When lying down, he discerns that he is lying down. Or however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body." "Furthermore, when going forward & returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward & looking away... when bending & extending his limbs... when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe & his bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & savoring... when urinating & defecating... when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, he makes himself fully alert. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body." Now you understand by doing walking meditation and daily activities meditation your mind concentrated right? do you know what did they observed when they did those activities? Mettacittena, fabian #108541 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:36 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? chandrafabian -Hi, Fabian, F: > Dear Ken, of course everyone can have opinion, but we should differentiate our opinion and Tipitaka's opinion. KH: Yes, of course. In fact, I am only interested in the Tipitaka's opinion, not in anybody else's. But it is not always easy to know what the Tipitaka's opinion is. And so I am always interested to learn other people's opinion - of what the Tipitaka's opinion is. :-) In this particular case, the Tipitaka is saying that "everything does not exist" is wrong view. You and I both agree with that, but we have different opinions on what it means. The Tipitaka has said in other places that *any* view that is not insight into the true nature of nama and rupa is wrong view. Therefore, a person can hold the view "I have no self" and be wrong, while another person can hold the view "I have no self" and be right. The first person is thinking of a self that has no self. The second person is thinking of a nama or rupa that has no self. -------------------- F: Dear Ken, I agreed what the Tipitaka said, because only a person with deep concentration and insight can see the real nature of nama-rupa, depends on whether a person have insight to true nature or not, for a person who has no insight saying "I have no self is wrong. For a person with insight, they have realised by themselves there's no atta, there occur only proces arising and ceasing/passing away of nama-rupa, therefore a person with insight is right. ----------------------------------------------------- F: > your answer is ambiguous you said rocks were *not* dukkha and then you said rock is rupa and again you said rupa is dukkha? Do you have more straight explanation? KH: I know this can be confusing, but if you go back and read my answer again you will see that I did not say "rock is rupa," I said "rock is pannatti." ---------------- Dear Ken, have you ever read The Buddha once saying about connection of us with the world? "In this fathom long body, we can see the creation of the world, and in this fathom long body we can see the end of the world." Please read this passage over and over and try to understand the meaning of it. -------------------------------------------------- F: > for example: if I smash your car windows it is a condition of dukkha to arise, (your dukkha), in this case your car is dukkha (source of dukkha), but that smashed car windows of yours is not dukkha for Nina, Kevin, or our friends here, especially if they don't know anything about the incident. KH: That is true only if you are using the word dukkha to mean painful feeling. As I tried to explain before, the texts do occasionally use it that way, but the most important way they use it is to denote the characteristic, dukkha, that belongs to all conditioned dhammas. Please look it up in the Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary and you will see what I am trying to say. ------------------------------------------------------ I have read Nyatiloka's Buddhist dictionary about dukkha, I don't see it is different with my view, The world is unsatisfactory, therefore dukkha, and therefore we should not attached to it. -------------------------------------------------- F: > Again, which of those Dhamma real? Are they all real? what about rocks, plants etc, are they real or not real? KH: I have already answered that more than once. It will become clear to you when you read an introductory Abhidhamma book (for example, Concepts and Realities by Sujin Boriharnwanaket). ----------------------------------------- I don't have Acharn Sujin's book, what is dukkha to you? What is definition of dukkha? ----------------------------------------------------- F: > It is impossible right? That is the reason why we can not really say nama and rupa exist or not exist. Because it arises and ceases so fast. It is very hard, but not impossible. The way to verify the existence of nama and rupa is to study the Dhamma, in which the Buddha has described them in detail. The more we develop our right understanding of the Buddha's teaching, the more we know for ourselves that nama and rupa definitely do exist. Ken H ------------------------------------------------------------ In my understanding of what you are saying, you exist, but your laptop only pannati doesn,t exist? doesn't real, Is that true? Mettacittena, fabian #108542 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? chandrafabian Dear Ken O, I agree, with you everything around us exist because we think of it, and it doesn't exist if we don't think about it. But exist for other people, whot hinks about it. Whether anyone think of it or not think of it, the rocks still there and continually change. Mettacittena, fabian ------------------------------------------------------------ KO: Dear Fabian Yes they exist because citta thinks of it.? If citta does not think of the concepts, it woud not exist.? Trees and house exist because of appropriate conditions arise due to seeing and thinking.? ? But do such concepts have distinct characteristic - No :-).? We must differentiate between exist and distinct nature.? Exist does not mean it has distinct nature.? One thing is for sure, dhamma is real, exist by causes and it has distinct characteristics. cheers Ken O #108543 From: "gazita2002" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] alone-ness gazita2002 hallo Nina and Kevin. thanks for both yr replies. I/we get so caught up in our stories about this and that but the moment has gone already, gone already, and we cling onto our stories - seems a little pointless clinging onto something that's gone, never to return. You mention mettaa, Nina. I was listening to some dhamma recording this morning where Lodewijk was praising the Buddha's mettaa and compassion. I like to think mettaa arises however, there seems to be little in 'my' life adn therefore give myself a hard time about being unfriendly; It seems like the more one studies the dhamma the more one sees how much kilesa there is. We cant do anything about this, and knowing this sometimes causes worry and jst sometimes its a condition for some wisdom to arise, knowing that that is truly the situation - no one to change conditions. More listening, more contemplation, but this will only happen when conditions are right, when even weak wisdom can see the benefits of listening. patience, courage and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Azita, > Op 19-jul-2010, om 6:38 heeft gazita2002 het volgende geschreven: > > > Its all nama and rupa and no me and totally impermanent anyway. Its > > always good to 'pop into' dsg occasionally and read some helpful, > > beneficial info instead of hearing about the plight of thai > > elephants!!! altho that could be a condition for metta, or even > > satipatthana :-) > -------- > N:And at the moment of mettaa there is kindness with the citta and > you are not lonely. I remember Kh Sujin saying something about > feeling lonely, having no friends. Mettaa is with the citta and at > that moment there is friendship. We are inclined to think of > situations, having people around. That is not mettaa, mettaa is a > reality and it can arise with the citta at any time. It is right > understanding of naama and ruupa that conditions mettaa, without > selfish motives. > > Nina. #108544 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:47 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi Fabian, ------ <. . .> KH: > > KH: I know this can be confusing, but if you go back and read my answer again you will see that I did not say "rock is rupa," I said "rock is pannatti." > > F: > Dear Ken, have you ever read The Buddha once saying about connection of us with the world? > "In this fathom long body, we can see the creation of the world, and in this fathom long body we can see the end of the world." > Please read this passage over and over and try to understand the meaning of it. --------- I can see the meaning of it, but not by reading it over and over. The way I see the meaning of any extract from the Tipitaka is to see how it fits in with the Tipitaka as a whole. But why have you quoted that particular extract? In what way do you see it as relevant to our discussion? -------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > Please look it up in the Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary and you will see what I am trying to say. > > F: > I have read Nyatiloka's Buddhist dictionary about dukkha, I don't see it is different with my view, The world is unsatisfactory, therefore dukkha, and therefore we should not attached to it. --------------------------- Yes, and it is unsatisfactory *by its own inherent nature.* So you shouldn't think the world is dukkha only when it is experienced (and not dukkha when it is not experienced). -------------------- <. . .> F: > what is dukkha to you? What is definition of dukkha? --------------------- The definition that you found in The Buddhist Dictionary seems right to me. ----------------------------- <. . .> KH: > The way to verify the existence of nama and rupa is to study the Dhamma, in which the Buddha has described them in detail. The more we develop our right understanding of the Buddha's teaching, the more we know for ourselves that nama and rupa definitely do exist. > > F: > In my understanding of what you are saying, you exist, but your laptop only pannati doesn,t exist? doesn't real, Is that true? ------------------------------ I'm sorry if I gave that impression; I certainly didn't mean to. A human being is a concept just as much as a laptop is a concept. Only dhammas exist, and there is no dhamma called Ken H or Fabian. There is no dhamma called "the Buddha" either: "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found."(Yamaka Sutta) Ken H #108545 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing 'my cat'. nilovg Hi Howard, Thank you for your good wishes to Lodewijk. Op 19-jul-2010, om 15:30 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > N: I do not see kamma and vipaaka in mindstreams. > ------------------------------------------------ > H: I have no idea where else they occur. The streams of mental > activities > that we call "the cat" and "Nina" and "Howard" are not without > basis, even > though conventions. When the Buddha spoke of one inheriting one's own > kamma, he wasn't speaking nonsense. > ----------------------------------------------- > N: I find the wording mindstream difficult. The force of kamma one > performed, even long ago, is accumulated from one citta to the > next, even from life to life and can thus produce result later on. > As you say: inheriting one's own kamma. Thus, kamma and vipaaka in > the 'mindstream' of one individual has nothing to to with someone > else's mindstream. Everyone inherits his own kamma. Kamma-condiiton is not the only condition, everything is more intricate. There is accumulation of good and bad qualities and these condition one's behaviour. The way you react to akusala vipaaka through the senses has nothing to do with me. But when you stress interaction, I know what you mean. You want to say: we are only naama and ruupa, but do not forget that we are living in a society and are influenced by other people. Very true. But it is citta and cetasikas that condition an individual to react in such or such way. More understanding of the details of the Abhidhamma, such as of the latent tendencies certainly helps to be patient, it conduces to the harmony in society. I am just reading a commentary to the Sangiitisutta and that deals with this subject of interaction. It is very interesting and daily life. < When two bhikkhus have fallen into a dispute their pupils in their dwelling places also dispute, the members of the community who exhort them dispute, their followers also dispute. The protector devas of humans are also in two parties, namely speakers of dhamma and speakers of adhamma. The earth devas who are friends of the protector devas are broken up into two parties. The Co. explains that those who proclaim adhamma are greater in number than those who proclaim dhamma. Those who esteem and proclaim adhamma are reborn in unhappy planes (apaayesu nibbattanti). It is thus that a dispute between two bhikkhus leads to misfortune and sorrow for devas and humans. > This happens not only in the community of bhikkhus. -------------- > N:Kamma and vipaaka > are ultimate realities. > ------------------------------------------ > H: I don't use "ultimate reality" language for anything but nibbana. > > When one speaks of the Buddha and the Ariya Sangha and how they differ > from worldlings, one must speak on many levels. And that aside, I > don't > countenance anything as "paramattha" except for nibbana. All else > is a matter > of convention and is quite empty and ultimately unreal. > ---------------------------------------- > N: Yes, we differ here. When we read in the texts about the > voidness of conditioned dhammas, and nibbaana as being the real, > the difference is shown between conditioned dhammas and the > unconditioned dhamma, but this does not mean that seeing, hearing > etc. are mere conventional truth. They are cittas arising and > falling away, not staying for a moment, but real, not a dream. Are > you not seeing now? You do not have to name seeing, it has a > characteristic, it is reality. Lobha and dosa, generosity and > pa~n~naa are real, and we should come to understand them as they are. Nina. #108546 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? nilovg Dear Fabian and Ken, Op 20-jul-2010, om 10:47 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > F: > Dear Ken, have you ever read The Buddha once saying about > connection of us with the world? > > > "In this fathom long body, we can see the creation of the world, > and in this fathom long body we can see the end of the world." > > > Please read this passage over and over and try to understand the > meaning of it. ------- N: It is often explained in the commentaries that the 'world' stands for the five khandhas. Nina. #108547 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:56 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? chandrafabian Dear Ken, our discussion is going nowhere, that's why I try to go back to more simple question, because you make me confuse with your ambiguous answer. Now my question is: why do you think rock and plant is dukkha? Could you explain it to me...? Forget about the scriptures, I want your opinion, does it make sense to you...? Why do you think rock is not real... please explain it to me, forget about the scriptures. Does it make sense to you..? Mettacittena, fabian #108548 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:21 am Subject: My questions to Ajahn Sujin szmicio Dear Nina, Sarah Do you still have my first questions to Acharn Sujin? I had it on my disk, but I cant find it. Can you send it to me/group? Best wishes Lucas #108549 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] My questions to Ajahn Sujin nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 20-jul-2010, om 13:21 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > Do you still have my first questions to Acharn Sujin? > I had it on my disk, but I cant find it. Can you send it to me/group? ------- N: Do you want them of this year? you had a Q. on mettaa, but I did not keep the papers. Before that, a year or so ago, you had many q. and I have them all on computer, and posted these in three parts on dsg. Do you want these? I can post them again in parts, they are always good. Just tell me. Nina. #108550 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:22 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? szmicio Dear Fabian, Ken > Now my question is: why do you think rock and plant is dukkha? L: As Khun Sujin mentioned, there are 3 kinds of dukkha. dukkha-dukkha, viparinama-dukkha and sankhara-dukkha. As I understand dukkha-dukkha is painful feeling, viparinama-dukkha is dukkha cause all is feelting, doesnt last so even it brings dukkha. sankhara-dukkha is dukkha of reaction. Like dukkha of dosa that reacts in its own way, and also dukkha of metta, it is only a reaction, cause this brings dukkha also. Only nibbana doesnt bring dukkha Best wishes Lukas #108551 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] My questions to Ajahn Sujin szmicio Dear Nina, > > Do you still have my first questions to Acharn Sujin? > > I had it on my disk, but I cant find it. Can you send it to me/group? > ------- > N: Do you want them of this year? you had a Q. on mettaa, but I did > not keep the papers. L: I think I havent seen them. > Before that, a year or so ago, you had many q. and I have them all on > computer, and posted these in three parts on dsg. Do you want these? > I can post them again in parts, they are always good. Just tell me. L: Yes, I meant these. Best wishes Lukas #108552 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Lukas' questions to Ajahn Sujin, part 1. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 20-jul-2010, om 14:30 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > I can post them again in parts, they are always good. Just tell me. > > L: Yes, I meant these. ------ N: Lukas' Questions and dialogues about it. Lukas Q. Can you say more about present moment? I'll find it the only way to develop more understanding. -------- Kh S: That is so true. It is now. N: We never hear enough, we have to continue to listen in order to accumulate more understanding. That is a condition for sati but we should not wish for it. Ann: I think that many people just think of wanting to have sati. What about right understanding? That is much more important. Kh S: Now there is a reality and there can be awareness when there are the right conditions for its arising. But what about the understanding? That is more important. For example, now everyone can experience hardness, but what about the understanding of hardness as just a reality. It is not different from daily life or from this moment. The reality now is exactly the same when there is no understanding or when there is understanding. The same reality is experienced. N: But there is always some idea of the hardness of my body, my hardness. Kh S: That is why it is not enough to think about awareness; we should have more and more understanding of realities in order to become detached from them, detached from seeing them as mine or something permanent. N: It is so hard to get rid of that idea. Kh S: Desire hinders the progress of understanding. If we realize how much ignorance has been accumulated from past lives up till now, we see that there cannot be suddenly strong understanding. N: We cling to self with tanhaa, di.t.thi or maana (conceit). It is very difficult to know these different ways of clinging when I have the feeling that it is my hardness. Kh S: I think that there is not di.t.thi every moment. Who can know whether there is clinging with or without wrong view? It can be known when there is awareness and right understanding. We should start correctly, we should just speak about realities as dhammas. They should be seen as just dhammas. One thinks without understanding about the Dependent Origination or any other subject. (to be continued). ---------- Nina. #108553 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:09 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? chandrafabian Dear Lukas, Thank you and I appreciated your answer, this is the answer I can agree with, a non living being somewhere in the desert is not dukkha or dukkha depends whether we have connection or not. An unknown rock in the middle of the desert is impermanent but not dukkha for us who has no connection at all with it. Only if we have connection, it becomes a condition of dukkha to arise but this is our dukkha to arise, not the rock's dukkha. Afterall the the rock itself is nowhere fit to the definition of dukkha. The rock can be the source of sadness, sorrow lamentation etc. But the rock itself can not sad, sorrow or lament. The rock becomes viparinama dukkha if we are connected to it, or come to our senses and we are cling to it. Mettacittena, fabian ----------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Fabian, Ken > > > > Now my question is: why do you think rock and plant is dukkha? > > L: As Khun Sujin mentioned, there are 3 kinds of dukkha. dukkha-dukkha, viparinama-dukkha and sankhara-dukkha. > > As I understand dukkha-dukkha is painful feeling, viparinama-dukkha is dukkha cause all is feelting, doesnt last so even it brings dukkha. sankhara-dukkha is dukkha of reaction. Like dukkha of dosa that reacts in its own way, and also dukkha of metta, it is only a reaction, cause this brings dukkha also. Only nibbana doesnt bring dukkha > > Best wishes > Lukas > #108554 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Fabian, > I asked you, in meditation retreat Theravada style, did the DAILY ACTIVITIES like the link you gave? or different than that? Well, you never specified in your question to me what "daily activities" means. How am I supposed to know what do you mean by "daily activities"? Hence, this is the way I answer you. > do you know what did they observed when they did those activities? They observe the body in and of itself. Swee Boon #108555 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:25 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? truth_aerator Dear Fabian, all, > Now my question is: why do you think rock and plant is dukkha? >Could >you explain it to me...? Forget about the scriptures, I want >your >opinion, does it make sense to you...? > > Why do you think rock is not real... please explain it to me, >forget >about the scriptures. Does it make sense to you..? IMHO the Dhamma focuses on Dukkha and its cessation. Suffering is experiential and and thus its cause and cessation are found in the experiential. IMHO the Buddha has focused more on experiential truths, rather than ontological. Remember "the parable of being shot with the arrow" remember the simsipa leaves simile? The issue of (existence or non-existence) of external world beyond experience isn't really relevant to experience of Dukkha and its cessation. It can be speculative at best, and harmful at worst. There is Dhamma and there is ontological Philosophy. ======================================================== ""It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html#poison What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?" "The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous." "In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them. "And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html With metta, Alex #108556 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Lukas' questions to Ajahn Sujin, part 1. chandrafabian Dear Nina, I enjoy your conversation with Acharn Sujin, I agreed with what she said, if we really see the nature of realities, we will understand a lot of thing even we never studied theory about it. Dear Nina I want to ask your opinion, in my experience seeing the realities as they are comes together with detachment almost hand in hand (more detached, more clear), is Abhidhamma / and /or Sutta mention about it? Mettacitena, fabian ------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Lukas, > > Op 20-jul-2010, om 14:30 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > > > I can post them again in parts, they are always good. Just tell me. > > > > L: Yes, I meant these. > ------ > N: Lukas' Questions and dialogues about it. > Lukas Q. Can you say more about present moment? I'll find it the > only way to develop more understanding. > -------- > Kh S: That is so true. It is now. > N: We never hear enough, we have to continue to listen in order to > accumulate more understanding. That is a condition for sati but we > should not wish for it. > Ann: I think that many people just think of wanting to have sati. > What about right understanding? That is much more important. > Kh S: Now there is a reality and there can be awareness when there > are the right conditions for its arising. But what about the > understanding? That is more important. For example, now everyone can > experience hardness, but what about the understanding of hardness as > just a reality. It is not different from daily life or from this > moment. The reality now is exactly the same when there is no > understanding or when there is understanding. The same reality is > experienced. > N: But there is always some idea of the hardness of my body, my > hardness. > Kh S: That is why it is not enough to think about awareness; we > should have more and more understanding of realities in order to > become detached from them, detached from seeing them as mine or > something permanent. > N: It is so hard to get rid of that idea. > Kh S: Desire hinders the progress of understanding. If we realize how > much ignorance has been accumulated from past lives up till now, we > see that there cannot be suddenly strong understanding. > N: We cling to self with tanhaa, di.t.thi or maana (conceit). It is > very difficult to know these different ways of clinging when I have > the feeling that it is my hardness. > Kh S: I think that there is not di.t.thi every moment. Who can know > whether there is clinging with or without wrong view? It can be known > when there is awareness and right understanding. > We should start correctly, we should just speak about realities as > dhammas. They should be seen as just dhammas. One thinks without > understanding about the Dependent Origination or any other subject. > (to be continued). > ---------- > Nina. > > #108557 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:48 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi nidive Hi Alex, > During intensive vipassana practice many phenomena may arise. Some of them are called "corruptions of insight" that do involve lots of pleasant feelings, rapture, happiness, etc (perhaps due to samadhi). The reason they are called corruption is not because they are evil, but because their pleasantness may divert the attention of the meditator from seeing realities as anicca, dukkha, anatta to indulging in pleasure for its own sake. Some may think that they are awakened and drop intense practice. I do not understand why pleasant feelings, rapture and happiness of the first jhana can be corruptions of insight. The Buddha says that the pleasure of the four jhanas should be pursued and developed. He calls that pleasure "self-awakening pleasure". Ajahn Brahmavamso says that this pleasure is born of letting-go. You cannot be attached to something that is born of letting-go. In his book The Jhanas, Ajahn Brahmavamso says that: It should be pointed out that the Buddha's word for attachment, upadana, only refers to attachment to the comfort and pleasure of the five-sense world or to attachment to various forms of wrong view (such as a view of a self). It never means attachment to wholesome things like Jhana. Simply put, Jhana states are stages of letting go. One cannot be attached to letting go. Just as one cannot be imprisoned by freedom. > But ultimately it is wisdom (not concentration in and of itself) that uproots the fetters and brings forth the path, and that is on what the system focuses. Without focusing on the jhanas (which is Right Concentration as defined by the Buddha), how can there be wisdom that uproots the seven higher fetters. I understand that if you are striving for stream-entry, there isn't a need to focus on the jhanas. There is sutta evidence for this. But if you are striving to eradicate sensuality, you definitely need to taste the bliss of the jhanas. Only when you have tasted the bliss of the jhanas can you make a comparison between the refined pleasure of the jhanas and the base pleasure of sensuality. This kind of comparison is necessary for wisdom to arise to eradicate sensuality. Shall I take it that Mahasi does not teach the way to the first jhana? Not only does he not teach that, he also discourages it. Am I correct, or does my conclusion need correction? Swee Boon #108558 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process chandrafabian Dear Swee Boon, ----------------- Hi Fabian, > I asked you, in meditation retreat Theravada style, did the DAILY ACTIVITIES like the link you gave? or different than that? Well, you never specified in your question to me what "daily activities" means. How am I supposed to know what do you mean by "daily activities"? Hence, this is the way I answer you. ------------------------------------------------ Dear Swee Boon, I hope you understand we are talking about meditation here. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > do you know what did they observed when they did those activities? They observe the body in and of itself. Swee Boon -------------------------------------------------------------------- How did they know when the foot walking, or the mouth chewing...? Did they see the movement with their eyes..? Mettacittena, fabian #108559 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:02 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? chandrafabian Dear Alex and all, I agree with you, I must repeat again what I wrote before. All sankhara impermanent All sankhara unsatisfactory All Dhamma no soul (I prefer the word soul, because it is more direct). The Buddha doesn't say all Dhamma impermanent/permanent He also doesn't say all Dhamma unsatisfactory/satisfactory The Buddha say sankhara, only all sankhara impermanent (anicca) and unsatisfactory (dukkha). This is what we should see in practice. Mettacittena, fabian --------------------------------------------------> #108560 From: "Jessica" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:03 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi jessicamui Dear Swee Boon, I have practiced the Mahasi technique for quite a few years. To the best of my knowledge - by practicing with his disciples - Sayadaw U Pandita, Chanmyay sayadaw and others, as well as reading from his own writings, I don't think the vipassan techinque that 'teaches the way to the first jhana'. On the other hand, Sayadaw U Pandita wrote something in his book "In this Very Life" mentioning about Vipassana jhana in which the mental factors & states are similar to the jhana states. Mahasi Sayadaw's disciples also instruct practitioners to attain jhana using metta. Hope this helps. With Metta, Jessica. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Swee Boon" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > I did have a good (except for health) 28 day retreat doing Mahasi like system in 2008. > > I see that you have confidence in Mahasi's method. > > Now, I just want to know if Mahasi teaches the way to the first jhana. Or his method stops at mindfulness only. > > Swee Boon > #108561 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Fabian, > How did they know when the foot walking, or the mouth chewing...? Did they see the movement with their eyes..? What about you? Do you see it with your eyes? Swee Boon #108562 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:25 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? szmicio Dear Fabian, > Thank you and I appreciated your answer, this is the answer I can agree with, a non living being somewhere in the desert is not dukkha or dukkha depends whether we have connection or not. An unknown rock in the middle of the desert is impermanent but not dukkha for us who has no connection at all with it. L: Yes I agree. Buddha said tesam tesam sattanam, speaking of dukkha. of such and such beings. This means uncountable amount of beings. This is from commentaries to Vibhanga, from the section on 4 Noble Truths. Commentaries states on jati(birth)and jati is dukkha.(Jati pi dukkha) >F: Only if we have connection, it becomes a condition of dukkha to arise but this is our dukkha to arise, not the rock's dukkha. > > Afterall the the rock itself is nowhere fit to the definition of dukkha. The rock can be the source of sadness, sorrow lamentation etc. > But the rock itself can not sad, sorrow or lament. L: Yes. Dispeller of delusion also states on different kinds of dukkha: Then dispeller states that exposed suffering can be suffering caused by 32 kinds of tortures. Best wishes Lukas #108563 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:58 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? nidive Hi Alex, > IMHO the Dhamma focuses on Dukkha and its cessation. Suffering is experiential and and thus its cause and cessation are found in the experiential. IMHO the Buddha has focused more on experiential truths, rather than ontological. Remember "the parable of being shot with the arrow" remember the simsipa leaves simile? > The issue of (existence or non-existence) of external world beyond experience isn't really relevant to experience of Dukkha and its cessation. It can be speculative at best, and harmful at worst. I think it is far more advantageous to regard the unexperienced external world as inconstant, unsatisfactory and not-self. It is a far safer bet than to ignore it. If we regard the unexperienced external world as inconstant, unsatisfactory and not-self, then this thought "Is there anything in the unexperienced external world that is constant, satisfactory and of the self?" is allayed. Or the thought "It may be the case that the self exists in the unexperienced external world." is allayed. Or the thought "It is by means of the unexperienced external world that I perceive the self." is allayed. Swee Boon #108564 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:14 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi nidive Hi Jessica, > I have practiced the Mahasi technique for quite a few years. To the best of my knowledge - by practicing with his disciples - Sayadaw U Pandita, Chanmyay sayadaw and others, as well as reading from his own writings, I don't think the vipassan techinque that 'teaches the way to the first jhana'. On the other hand, Sayadaw U Pandita wrote something in his book "In this Very Life" mentioning about Vipassana jhana in which the mental factors & states are similar to the jhana states. Thank you for your information. I found a wiki page on vipassana jhanas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassana_jhanas It is funny how teachings evolve. Pandita merges both vipassana and samatha into one set of jhanas. Buddhaghosa says samatha jhanas is separate from vipassana wherein vipassana is practiced after emerging from samatha jhanas where one's mind becomes absorbed in fixed concentration on the object. If we read the suttas, it is very clear how the Buddha achieved Awakening. He attained the four [samatha] jhanas first before attaining the three special powers, the last of which is vipassana. It is also clear in the suttas that although one's mind becomes absorbed in the pleasure of the [samatha] jhanas, however, there is no object of concentration in the [samatha] jhanas. Swee Boon #108565 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:25 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? truth_aerator Hello Swee Boon, Of course all things must be regarded as anicca, dukkha, anatta. All I was saying was to be careful not to fall into ditthi, mana and tanha. With metta, Alex #108566 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:32 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi truth_aerator Hello Swee Boon, > I do not understand why pleasant feelings, rapture and happiness of >the first jhana can be corruptions of insight. They may make an unwise person to become distracted (from observing anicca, dukkha, anatta) stop practicing and indulge in them. Some people may interpret the first blissful experience to be nibbana and stop striving. Some even become gurus and teach what they think they know... As for Jhana, again it depends on the level of absorbtion it has. Suttas are not 100% clear, though the Jhana sounds like Vipassana Jhana rather than fall-into-black-hole sort of trance. Some Mahasi like systems (taught by Sayadaw U Pandita, if I remember correctly) do teach Jhana (though it is called Vipassana Jhana). In any case one must focus on understanding, and other factors will fall into place. Ultimately as the Buddha has said to Asaji, concentration is not the essence of Dhamma. With metta, Alex #108567 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:35 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi truth_aerator Dear Swee Boon, If one reads the suttas, the Jhanas there sound to be less concentration states than what was later taught by Brahmins who became Buddhists (and perhaps unknowingly brought their ideas and biases into the teaching). The mind is not so one-pointed that it cannot comprehend what is happening as it is happening. The 5 senses do not go until Aruppa, and even then they can occasionally arise and interfere in the base of infinite space. With metta, Alex #108568 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process chandrafabian Dear Swee Boon, If they don't see with their eyes, how did they know? I repeat again the question :"How did they know when the foot walking, or the mouth chewing...?" Mettacittena, fabian ------------------------------------------ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Swee Boon" wrote: > > Hi Fabian, > > > How did they know when the foot walking, or the mouth chewing...? Did they see the movement with their eyes..? > > What about you? Do you see it with your eyes? > > Swee Boon > #108569 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:31 am Subject: Re: Mahasi chandrafabian Dear Swee Boon, Jessica and all, Allow me to participate in your discussion, I want to ask Swee Boon, what do you think Swee Boon, should we practice Samatha first until Jhana before we may practice Vipassana? Mettacittena. fabian --------------------------------------------------> #108570 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:57 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi Fabian, ---- F: > Dear Ken, our discussion is going nowhere, that's why I try to go back to more simple question, because you make me confuse with your ambiguous answer. > Now my question is: why do you think rock and plant is dukkha? Could you explain it to me...? Forget about the scriptures, I want your opinion, does it make sense to you...? ----- I have repeatedly said that rock was a mere concept. A concept is not a reality. Only realities can have characteristics, and so rock definitely *does not have* the characteristic known as dukkha. ------------------ F: > Why do you think rock is not real... please explain it to me, forget about the scriptures. Does it make sense to you..? ------------------ It makes perfect sense that rock is not ultimately real. Even without the scriptures, scientists will tell you that rock is just a concept. According to scientists, the only ultimate realities are tiny, sub-atomic particles surrounded by vast volumes of empty space. Concepts of rocks and people are formed by theorising about the past and the future. If you take away that theorising, and consider only the present moment, you will agree there are ultimately just those sub-atomic particles and empty space. Needless to say, the Buddha's cosmology is different from modern science. But there are obvious similarities, don't you think? Ken H #108571 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:59 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? chandrafabian Dear Ken, What you said today is not in accordance with what you've said previously, in reply #108498 Jul 18, 2;23 Therefore I copy paste your previous post for you to compare. --------------------------- previous post: ------------------------- Hi Fabian, It can be either valid or invalid to say to say that plants and rocks "have no dukkha." The difference depends on how we understand plants and rocks. The two ways are, (1) to understand that plants and rocks are ultimately real, and (2) to understand that only namas and rupas are ultimately real. If we have the first understanding, then our view that plants and rocks have no dukkha is wrong view. If we have the second understanding, then our view that plants and rocks have no dukkha is right view. That is because, in ultimate truth and reality, there are no plants or rocks. I cannot agree with your reasoning that they are not dukkha "because dukkha is connected with feelings." And I think this might be a good example of why Dhamma-study is easiest when it begins with the Abhidhamma discourses. Ideally, we shouldn't attempt to understand the other Sutta-pitaka discourses until we have a firm understanding of the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma says, for example, that all sankhara (all conditioned dhammas) are dukkha. So it doesn't matter if they are nama-sankhara or rupa-sankhara; they are *all* dukkha. Rupa doesn't experience anything, but it definitely does have the dukkha characteristic. If we begin Dhamma-study with the conventional-language discourses (as most of us do) then we can easily get the impression that the Buddha was describing conventional realities (pannatti) when he said "all things are anicca, dukkha and anatta." ---------------------- End of previous post. ------------------------ Talk to you in other thread Ken. Mettacittena, fabian --------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Fabian, > > ---- > F: > Dear Ken, our discussion is going nowhere, that's why I try to go back to more simple question, because you make me confuse with your ambiguous answer. > > > Now my question is: why do you think rock and plant is dukkha? Could you explain it to me...? Forget about the scriptures, I want your opinion, does it make sense to you...? > ----- > > I have repeatedly said that rock was a mere concept. A concept is not a reality. Only realities can have characteristics, and so rock definitely *does not have* the characteristic known as dukkha. > > ------------------ > F: > Why do you think rock is not real... please explain it to me, forget about the scriptures. Does it make sense to you..? > ------------------ > > It makes perfect sense that rock is not ultimately real. Even without the scriptures, scientists will tell you that rock is just a concept. According to scientists, the only ultimate realities are tiny, sub-atomic particles surrounded by vast volumes of empty space. Concepts of rocks and people are formed by theorising about the past and the future. If you take away that theorising, and consider only the present moment, you will agree there are ultimately just those sub-atomic particles and empty space. > > Needless to say, the Buddha's cosmology is different from modern science. But there are obvious similarities, don't you think? > > Ken H > #108572 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 20-jul-2010, om 14:22 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > sankhara-dukkha is dukkha of reaction. Like dukkha of dosa that > reacts in its own way, and also dukkha of metta, it is only a > reaction, cause this brings dukkha also. Only nibbana doesnt bring > dukkha ------- N: As I understand, sa"nkhaara dukkha is the fact that conditioned realities do not last, fall away. This is inherent in all conditioned dhammas that arise and fall away. They are not a refuge. Nina. #108573 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lukas' questions to Ajahn Sujin, part 1. nilovg Dear Fabian, Op 20-jul-2010, om 16:26 heeft chandrafabian het volgende geschreven: > I want to ask your opinion, in my experience seeing the realities > as they are comes together with detachment almost hand in hand > (more detached, more clear), is Abhidhamma / and /or Sutta mention > about it? -------- N: Yes all the teachings lead to detachment, from the beginning to the end. Countless suttas, for example SIV, IV, 15: Abandoning: 'I will teach you a teaching, monks, for the abandoning of the all by fully knowing, by comprehending it... ' S IV, 32: Comprehension: The purpose of the enumeration of all realities in the Abhidhamma is to see them as they really are: not a person or self, to detach from them. In the Vibhanga, the Book of Analysis, 1031: As is explained re the stages of insight, abandoning is later on, when dhammas are more fully known and comprehended. This leads to abandoning, to detachment. We are always ready to cling to pleasant objects (piya ruupa, sata ruupa), but see the Book on Elements, Dhaatu Kathaa. Page after page we are reminded that there are only elements. The Abhidhamma points to the practice all the time. We learn to see through the outward appearance of things. ------- Nina. #108574 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] alone-ness nilovg Dear Azita, Op 20-jul-2010, om 9:50 heeft gazita2002 het volgende geschreven: > I like to think mettaa arises however, there seems to be little in > 'my' life adn therefore give myself a hard time about being > unfriendly; It seems like the more one studies the dhamma the more > one sees how much kilesa there is. ------ N: This is a good sign, and we would not know this without the Buddha's teachings. ------- > A: We cant do anything about this, and knowing this sometimes > causes worry and jst sometimes its a condition for some wisdom to > arise, knowing that that is truly the situation - no one to change > conditions. > More listening, more contemplation, but this will only happen when > conditions are right, when even weak wisdom can see the benefits of > listening. ------ N: That is true, no person to change conditions, but there are conditions for more understanding. As you say, even weak wisdom can see the benefit of listening. Even wanting to listen is conditioned. Sometimes one may not even want to listen. Ups and downs. Nina. #108575 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:50 am Subject: [dsg] Lukas' questions to Ajahn Sujin, part 2. nilovg Dear Lukas, (continuation Q about present moment): N: I still keep on wondering about the difference between sati and thinking. They seem so close. Kh S: That is why there needs to be more understanding about non- self. Right now one can begin to understand the reality which appears, such as hardness. Understanding can become detached from thinking about it as ?some thing?. Hardness cannot be anything else but hardness. One can begin to understand it as a reality. Nobody can control it, it has arisen and then fallen away. When there is understanding of a characteristic as a dhamma, understanding can grow. Sound appears and when we do not think much about it, it is just sound as usual. Sound is experienced by hearing, but there is no understanding of it as just a dhamma. One is not familiar with the characteristic of a dhamma. In order to understand what a dhamma is, we should remember that this is not merely a word, but a characteristic which appears. Without hearing, sound cannot appear. There must be a reality which experiences sound. Naama has no shape or form, but it can experience something, just like now. Just beginning to experience realities is better than reading a great deal about Dhamma subjects. Realities that are appearing now should be understood. If one has not heard Dhamma, one is blind from birth, one lives without any understanding. ------- Nina. #108576 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:08 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? szmicio Dear Nina, > > sankhara-dukkha is dukkha of reaction. Like dukkha of dosa that > > reacts in its own way, and also dukkha of metta, it is only a > > reaction, cause this brings dukkha also. Only nibbana doesnt bring > > dukkha > ------- > N: As I understand, sa"nkhaara dukkha is the fact that conditioned > realities do not last, fall away. This is inherent in all conditioned > dhammas that arise and fall away. They are not a refuge. L: So I feel it like even metta is not a refuge, it does not last. Do I reflect it correctly? Does sankhara dukkha refers to conditioned dhammas or to sankhara khandha? Best wishes Lukas #108577 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dukkha. Was: What is the ALL actually? nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 21-jul-2010, om 11:08 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > realities do not last, fall away. This is inherent in all conditioned > > dhammas that arise and fall away. They are not a refuge. > > L: So I feel it like even metta is not a refuge, it does not last. > Do I reflect it correctly? ------ N: Yes, right. ------- > > L: Does sankhara dukkha refers to conditioned dhammas or to > sankhara khandha? ------ N: To all sa"nkhaara dhammas. ------ Nina. #108579 From: A T Date: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? truth_aerator Hello KenH, all interested, >KH:to understand that only namas and rupas are ultimately real. 1)The na-maru-pa is false (musa-), and is deceptive by nature (mosadhamma), and becomes otherwise (aññatha-) – it is not ultimate truth which is only Nibbana. So when it comes to mentality & materiality. It is ultimately false and deceptive. There isn't Real (ultimate, true) Name&Form Vs unreal (ie concepts). 2)Only Nibba-na is Undeceptive (amosadhamma) and Highest Truth (paramam. ariyasaccam.). - Snp 3.12 and M III 245, Dha-tuvibhan.gasutta. 3)The 5 Aggregates are said to be empty and void. Nothing ultimate there. “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 (yo nam. passati yoniso), they're empty, void (Rittakam. tucchakam. hoti) to whoever sees them appropriately.” – SN22.95 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html ======== Monk, this is the highest noble truth (paramam. ariyasaccam.), namely nibba-na. Etañhi, bhikkhu, paramam. ariyasaccam. yadidam. – amosadhammam. nibba-nam.. M III 245, Dha-tuvibhan.gasutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html “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.” ‘Amosadhammam. nibba-nam., tadariya- saccato vidu-; Te ve sacca-bhisamaya-, niccha-ta- parinibbuta-’’ti. “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."‘ Nivit.t.ham. na-maru-pasmim., idam. saccanti maññati. ‘‘Yena yena hi maññanti, tato tam. hoti aññatha-; Tañhi tassa musa- hoti, mosadhammañhi ittaram.. Dvayatanupassana Sutta, Snp 3.12 PTS: vv. 724-765 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.3.12.than.html ================================================================= With metta, Alex #108580 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:20 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi Alex, --------- KH: > >to understand that only namas and rupas are ultimately real. > > A: > 1)The nāmarūpa is false (musā), and is deceptive by nature (mosadhamma), and becomes otherwise (a??athā) ? it is not ultimate truth which is only Nibbana. --------- Yes, that is true, of course. (We were discussing this with Howard just recently.) -------------------------- A: > So when it comes to mentality & materiality. It is ultimately false and deceptive. There isn't Real (ultimate, true) Name&Form Vs unreal (ie concepts). --------------------------- I don't know why you would say conditioned dhammas were not real. They are false friends, but they are still real, aren't they. If you had a girlfriend who let you down you wouldn't say she didn't exist. You would say she existed, but she was a false friend. --------------------------------------------- A: > 2)Only Nibbāna is Undeceptive (amosadhamma) and Highest Truth (paramaṃariyasaccaṃ). - Snp 3.12 and M III 245, Dhātuvibhaṅgasutta. > 3)The 5 Aggregates are said to be empty and void. Nothing ultimate there. --------------------------------------------- Ultimate means "in the highest sense." It doesn't mean real. Dhamma means real. A paramattha dhamma is an ultimate reality. It is real in the highest sense of "real." ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 (yo naṃ passati yoniso), they're empty, void (Rittakaṃ tucchakaṃ hoti) to whoever sees them appropriately." ? SN22.95 ---------------------------------------------------------- Correct me if I am wrong, but that is a Theravada sutta, not a Mahayana one. Therefore, it is to be understood in accordance with Theravada doctrine. I think it is saying that form is devoid of self. Even though form gives the impression of being nicca, sukha and atta, it is in fact anicca, dukkha and anatta. --------------------- A: > Monk, this is the highest noble truth (paramaṃ ariyasaccaṃ), namely nibbāna. Eta?hi, bhikkhu, paramaṃ ariyasaccaṃ yadidaṃ ? amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ. M III 245, Dhātuvibhaṅgasutta. ---------------------- Can you see that the sutta is saying that the cessation of dukkha (Nibbana) is the highest ariyan truth? Not the only ariyan truth, but the highest. ---------------------------- 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." `Amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ, tadariyā saccato vidū; Te vesaccābhisamayā, nicchātā parinibbutā''ti. > "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."` Niviṭṭhaṃ nāmarūpasmiṃ, idaṃ saccanti ma??ati. ``Yena yena hi ma??anti, tato taṃ hoti a??athā; Ta?hi tassa musā hoti, mosadhamma?hi ittaraṃ. Dvayatanupassana Sutta, Snp 3.12 PTS: vv. 724-765 ------------------------------ Please read your quotes in accordance with the Theravada teaching, which tells that, despite any appearances to the contrary, conditioned dhammas are neither lasting nor satisfactory. Ken H #108582 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:20 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? + truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, >In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Alex, > > --------- > KH: > >to understand that only namas and rupas are ultimately real. > > > > > A: > 1)The nāmarūpa is false (musā), and is deceptive by nature (mosadhamma), and becomes otherwise (a??athā) ? it is not ultimate truth which is only Nibbana. > --------- > >KH1: Yes, that is true, of course. (We were discussing this with Howard just recently.) > > -------------------------- > A: > So when it comes to mentality & materiality. It is ultimately >false and deceptive. There isn't Real (ultimate, true) Name&Form Vs >unreal (ie concepts). > --------------------------- > >KH2:I don't know why you would say conditioned dhammas were not >real. Well because the Buddha said that they were false (musa) and mosadhamma. Please don't complain to me, I didn't invent it. The Buddha did. I am ultra-orthodox Dinosaur in this regard. >They are false friends, but they are still real, aren't they. How can something that is "false" be still real? Maybe there is still Atta in anatta ? Of course not. mosadhamma and amosadhamma are mutually exclusive. Either one or the other. The first is namarupa the second is nibbana. > If you had a girlfriend who let you down you wouldn't say she >didn't exist. Wow, haven;t you been saying that only namarupa are real? Haven't you been saying before that wholes (such as cars, trees, people) do not exist? > You would say she existed, but she was a false friend. Some would say that only namas and rupas existed and "girlfriend" is a concept (that is great at developing a parami of renunciation. Renunciation from your money! And parami of patience as well. :) ) > --------------------------------------------- > A: > 2)Only Nibbāna is Undeceptive (amosadhamma) and Highest Truth (paramaṃariyasaccaṃ). - Snp 3.12 and M III 245, Dhātuvibhaṅgasutta. > > > > 3)The 5 Aggregates are said to be empty and void. Nothing ultimate there. > --------------------------------------------- > >KH: Ultimate means "in the highest sense." It doesn't mean real. >Dhamma >means real. A paramattha dhamma is an ultimate reality. It >is real in >the highest sense of "real." Right. Only Nibbana is said to be paramattha ariya sacca! > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > 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 (yo naṃ passati yoniso), they're empty, void (Rittakaṃ tucchakaṃ hoti) to whoever sees them appropriately." ? SN22.95 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > >KH: Correct me if I am wrong, but that is a Theravada sutta, not a >Mahayana one. Therefore, it is to be understood in accordance with >Theravada doctrine. Right and the orthodox teaching is that namarupa is musa and mosadhamma. False and of the deceptive by nature. >I think it is saying that form is devoid of self. Even though form >gives the impression of being nicca, sukha and atta, it is in fact >anicca, dukkha and anatta. That is also true. > > --------------------- > A: > Monk, this is the highest noble truth (paramaṃ ariyasaccaṃ), namely nibbāna. Eta?hi, bhikkhu, paramaṃ ariyasaccaṃ yadidaṃ ? amosadhammaṃ nibbānaṃ. M III 245, Dhātuvibhaṅgasutta. > ---------------------- > > Can you see that the sutta is saying that the cessation of dukkha >(Nibbana) is the highest ariyan truth? Not the only ariyan truth, >but the highest. Please give me a sutta which mentions other paramatthasacca. Unless there is something other than Nibbana and namarupa - there will not be even a possibility of such sutta. Nibbana = paramatthasacca and amosadhamma namarupa = musa and mosadhamma With metta, Alex #108583 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:01 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? + kenhowardau Hi Alex, ---- > >KH2:I don't know why you would say conditioned dhammas were not >real. A: > Well because the Buddha said that they were false (musa) and mosadhamma. Please don't complain to me, I didn't invent it. The Buddha did. ----- How many different ways do I have to say the same thing before you will take one scrap of notice? A mosadhamma is an absolute reality that is deceitful by nature. "Mosa (?-- ) (adj.-- nt.) [the gu?a (compn) form of musa] belonging to or untruth, false--; only in cpds. -- dhamma of a deceitful nature, false, A v.84 (kama); Sn 739, 757; & -- vajja [fr. musa-- vada]" (Pali Text Society Dictionary) I know your computer is set to auto-argue, Alex, but I would have thought even you could concede one point occasionally. :-) ------------------------- <. . .> KH: > If you had a girlfriend who let you down you wouldn't say she >didn't exist. A: > Wow, haven't you been saying that only namarupa are real? Haven't you been saying before that wholes (such as cars, trees, people) do not exist? -------------------------- Switch the auto-argue off, Alex, this is impossible! ---------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > A paramattha dhamma is an ultimate reality. It is real in >the highest sense of "real." A: > Right. Only Nibbana is said to be paramattha ariya sacca! ------------------------------------------ Right. And those are two separate issues, aren't they: (1) paramattha dhamma and (2) paramattha ariya sacca. ---------------- <. . .> KH: > I think it is saying that form is devoid of self. Even though form gives the impression of being nicca, sukha and atta, it is in fact anicca, dukkha and anatta. A: > That is also true. ---------------- Thanks, but they can't both be true. You can't say something is non-existent *and* has characteristics. 'No existence' means 'no characteristics.' ------------------------ KH: > > Can you see the sutta is saying that the cessation of dukkha (Nibbana) is the highest ariyan truth? Not the only ariyan truth, but the highest. A: > Please give me a sutta which mentions other paramatthasacca. ------------------------ ####! The sutta is saying that nibbana is the highest of the four noble truths. There can only be one highest. Who said anything about *other* highest noble truths? -------------------------------- A: > Unless there is something other than Nibbana and namarupa - there will not be even a possibility of such sutta. Nibbana = paramatthasacca and amosadhamma namarupa = musa and mosadhamma -------------------------------- Can I take that as an agreement? Do we agree that there are both conditioned dhammas (nama and rupa) and the unconditioned dhamma (nibbana)? Thanks in advance. And mind out for the conditioned ones, they are deceitful by nature. :-) Ken H #108584 From: "gazita2002" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:41 am Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? gazita2002 Hallo pt and others, > Hi KenH, > > > pt: 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." > > > KenH: OK, that sounds fine to me, although I am probably missing the full importance of it. Before you go on to the next chunk, could you perhaps say a little more on why this one is "very important" to you? > > > pt: It seems important because the main objections I've encountered from people regarding the "existence" of a dhamma (sabhava, individual characterisitcs, etc) is that it somehow defies anicca, or that it assumes that time is not a concept (due to the 3 sub-moments), or that presence sub-moment of a dhamma defies both anicca and anatta, or even defies conditionality, etc. > azita: IMO you've hit the nail on the head, pt. I often wonder why many people deny the existence of a dhamma, be it only for a very short moment in time. I understand that to actually experience, with developed understanding, the falling away of a dhamma really shows anicca clearly. I cant remember what the Pali words are for this, but it is one of the vipassana nanas, no? and unless these stages are experienced by panna, its all jst conceptual, eg we may know it intellectually but not on that deep level which really knows. these dhammas have to arise to fall away, they are conditioned that way, and while they have arisen they are very real - for an instant!! Can be known, need to be known to undrstand what conditioned dhammas really mean. > So, I think the quote above is saying is that a dhamma is simply seen in insight as an arising and falling - so exactly the same thing when it's said in the suttas that an aggregate arises and falls. Except that in the commentaries the "falling" part would comprise "aging and dissolution". That's also the reason why I prefer the wording "aging", which kind of associates with anicca, rather than "presence" which is often associated with some sort of atta. > > So, imo, an instance of being aware of an arising and falling as per the suttas is the same thing as experiencing a dhamma, sabhava, individual characteristics, 3 sub-moments, "existence", and other terms used in the commentaries in that regard. They both point to the same experience, rather than talking about something different. may all beings be happy azita #108585 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Lukas' questions to Ajahn Sujin, part 3. nilovg Dear Lukas, Lukas' questions. part 3. Lukas: Why is it that akusala arises so often? Kh S:Without conditions nothing can arise. Nina: Akusala arises because of ignorance. Kh S: Before thinking about ignorance one should know that there must be conditions for anything to arise. N: Lukas worries about akusala. Kh S: All conditions are not known yet. Even the reality that has arisen is not known yet. We have to begin at the beginning and know that what appears now is a characteristic of a reality. N: For some people it may be hard to see akusala as just a dhamma. People have aversion. Kh S: I think that although someone may say that akusala is a dhamma, he may not understand why it is a dhamma. Is there now a characteristic appearing? We can call that a dhamma. Akusala has conditions to arise, we can call it a dhamma. It is not yours, it does not belong to anyone at all. N: You often say that we cling so much to names, instead of understanding realities. Kh S: We do not have to name what is appearing now, we do not need to call it by any name. Instead of trying to know whether it is called by this or that name we can have more understanding of the characteristic that is appearing. -------------- Lukas: Can you say more about doubts. What is the characteristic of doubt? Kh S: At that very moment nobody else can know this better than oneself. There are not enough words to explain when it is there. Jon: What is the condition for doubt to arise? Even someone who has a good intellectual understanding may have doubt. Kh S: Whenever there is doubt there is ignorance, avijjaa. -------- Nina. #108586 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:51 pm Subject: Letters from NIna. In Time of grief (part 1). nilovg Dear friends, I will post some old letters I wrote a long time ago. They are also a good reminder for myself. -------- The Hague, March '79. Dear Maud, You asked me whether the Buddha's teachings could console our friend Ina, who lost her husband and who has to bring up her children all by herself. The Buddha's teachings can help us to have right understanding about life and death. What is life? Why must we die? We make ourselves believe that life is pleasant, but there are many moments of pain and sickness, sorrow and grief. And inevitably there is death. Everything which arises must fall away, it cannot stay. We are born and therefore we have to die. The body does not disintegrate only at the moment of death, there is decay each moment. We notice that we have become older when we see a photograph taken some time ago. But the change which is noticeable after some time proves that there is change at each moment. There are many phenomena taking place in our body and they change each moment. Temperature changes: we feel sometimes hot, sometimes cold. We feel motion or pressure in our body time and again. What we take for 'our body' are many different elements which arise and than fall away, but we are so ignorant that we do not notice it. The Buddha reminds us that our body is like a corpse, because it is disintegrating, decaying each moment. Our body does not belong to us but we cling to it, we are ignorant of the truth. We may understand intellectually that the body does not really exist and that it is only physical elements which change all the time. However, intellectual understanding is thinking, and thinking, even if it is right thinking, cannot eradicate wrong understanding of reality. We should learn to experience the truth directly. Can we experience the body as it really is? Let us for a while forget about our theoretical knowledge of the body and ask ourselves whether there is not a bodily phenomenon now, which we can experience directly, without having to think about it. While we are sitting or walking, is there no hardness? Can it be experienced now? Is there no heat or cold? Can it be experienced now, just for a moment, without having to think about it? These are physical elements which can be directly experienced, one at a time, through the bodysense. There are many different kinds of elements. The element which is solidity can be directly experienced as hardness or softness, when it appears through the bodysense. Bodysense is all over the body. In order to experience hardness and softness, we do not have to think of the place where they appear. Temperature is another physical phenomenon, an element which can be directly experienced. It can be experienced as heat or cold when it appears through the bodysense. There is change of temperature time and again. Is there not sometimes heat, sometimes cold? We do not have to think about it in order to experience it. ******** Nina. #108587 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is the ALL actually? upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 7/21/2010 6:25:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: 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 (yo naṃ passati yoniso), they're empty, void (Rittakaṃ tucchakaṃ hoti) to whoever sees them appropriately." – SN22.95 ---------------------------------------------------------- Correct me if I am wrong, but that is a Theravada sutta, not a Mahayana one. Therefore, it is to be understood in accordance with Theravada doctrine. I think it is saying that form is devoid of self. Even though form gives the impression of being nicca, sukha and atta, it is in fact anicca, dukkha and anatta. ================================== Theravada, with its Abhidhamma Pitaka and commentaries, is a close descendant of one of the original 18 Buddhist schools. The sutta SN 22.95 is not a "Theravada sutta" owned by that tradition. It is a "Buddhist sutta." It is a sutta directly spoken by the Buddha. Most Mahayana schools, BTW, not only Theravada, also accept the original suttas as Buddha word, mostly in the form of the Agamas. Nagarjuna certainly knew the original suttas, and in our time, Ven Thich Nhat Hanh, for example, considers the Pali suttas to be Buddha word and venerates them. This sutta is to be understood in accordance with the teachings given throughout the Sutta Pitaka, and not judged in cart-before-the-horse fashion by Theravada or Mahayana or any other after-the-fact tradition. The matter is just the opposite: The various traditions are to be judged by, and in accordance with their faithfulness to the direct teachings of the Buddha during the 45 years of giving the gift of Dhamma to people as he and his followers wandered across the land. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #108588 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:48 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi nidive Hi Fabian, > Allow me to participate in your discussion, I want to ask Swee Boon, what do you think Swee Boon, should we practice Samatha first until Jhana before we may practice Vipassana? If you are practicing for stream-entry, you may practice vipassana alone without attaining samatha jhanas. But if you are practicing for the higher fruits, you need to attain samatha jhanas to gain a perfect strong concentration to carry out vipassana. This is evident in sutta description of the special power of vipassana after the fourth jhana is attained. ----------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' ----------------------- The fermentation of sensuality, becoming and ignorace relates to the fetters that are eradicated by the three higher fruits. Swee Boon #108589 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process nidive Hi Fabian, > I repeat again the question :"How did they know when the foot walking, or the mouth chewing...?" I do not know what do you want to elicit from me by this grammatically incorrect question. If you could elaborate your question, maybe I can understand a little bit more. It helps to lessen misunderstandings that we had the last time. Thank you. Swee Boon #108590 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:48 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi nidive Hi Alex, > In any case one must focus on understanding, and other factors will fall into place. Ultimately as the Buddha has said to Asaji, concentration is not the essence of Dhamma. True, concentration is not the essence of Dhamma. But the essence of Dhamma is not reached without concentration of the jhanas. Going back to the abdominal meditation method, I question the need for such a method to 'insight' the element of motion. In my opinion, the element of motion is evident even without meditation. Anyone who has farted knows the element of motion. ------------------ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html "And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Whatever internal, belonging to oneself, is wind, windy, & sustained: up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the stomach, winds in the intestines, winds that course through the body, in-&-out breathing, or whatever else internal, within oneself, is wind, windy, & sustained: This is called the internal wind property. Now both the internal wind property and the external wind property are simply wind property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the wind property and makes the mind dispassionate toward the wind property. "Now there comes a time, friends, when the external wind property is provoked and blows away village, town, city, district, & country. There comes a time when, in the last month of the hot season, people try to start a breeze with a fan or bellows, and even the grass at the fringe of a thatch roof doesn't stir. "So when even in the external wind property ? so vast ? inconstancy will be discerned, destructibility will be discerned, a tendency to decay will be discerned, changeability will be discerned, then what in this short-lasting body, sustained by clinging, is 'I' or 'mine' or 'what I am'? It has here only a 'no.' ------------------ Swee Boon #108591 From: "Swee Boon" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:01 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi nidive Hi Alex, > If one reads the suttas, the Jhanas there sound to be less concentration states than what was later taught by Brahmins who became Buddhists (and perhaps unknowingly brought their ideas and biases into the teaching). The mind is not so one-pointed that it cannot comprehend what is happening as it is happening. To my understanding currently, in the first three jhanas, the mind is absorbed in the bliss of the jhanas. It comprehends and is aware of the bliss as it is happening. In the fourth jhana, the mind is no longer absorbed in the bliss of the previous jhanas but enters into a pure, bright awareness. This pure, bright awareness is the basis for all the supernormal powers, including the last of which is vipassana. Swee Boon #108592 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:14 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? + truth_aerator Hello KenH, all interested, Well I do agree that nama & rupas are conditioned. Sure. Though I have to consider how mosadhamma and musa can be ultimate *reality*. Maybe fundamental units of deception, but not reality! Not "sacca"! With metta, Alex #108593 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:28 pm Subject: Re: Mahasi truth_aerator Hello Swee Boon, all, > Hi Alex, > > Going back to the abdominal meditation method, I question the need >for such a method to 'insight' the element of motion. Ven. Mahasi and his predecessor knows. The point is to develop more and more understanding until wisdom arises and cuts of fetters Permanently and not just suppress them.. Matter and its position is not connected with ethics or any wholesome/unwholesome roots. It is rootless, the solution is in the mind and developing wisdom. Exactly what one does with the body to develop more wisdom and understanding may vary. If some method works, it works. Don't believe in rites and rituals that such and such posture in and of itself helps or hinders the progress. With metta, Alex #108594 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:36 pm Subject: Re: Letters from NIna. In Time of grief (part 1). szmicio Dear Nina, this is very good reminder, I think that Buddha teachings give one thing, less and less dukkha. All the people have their problems. Some people fear this , another have other issues, but Buddha teachings go in one direction, eradiction of dukkha. Dukkha is very hard word to grasp. My uncle asked what is this buddhism for. I said do you feel uncomfortable? Do you have problems? This is dukkha, so less dukkha this is the goal. I've heard also Acharn recordings today, she said that we have all now, there's seeing, hearing all we wised for so much. Se mentioned also bhava-tanha, she explained this is craving for seeing and hearin. And this brings jati. So no end of becoming, no end of craving, only understanding can stop it. This also reminds me that we all are so attached to some ideas of reincarnation etc. but patticasamupada looks much more simples, it can be experienced. Best wishes Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > I will post some old letters I wrote a long time ago. They are also a > good reminder for myself. > -------- > The Hague, March '79. > > Dear Maud, > [Parrotted portions of this and other messages have been removed... c] #108595 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:25 pm Subject: Re: Letters from NIna. In Time of grief (part 1). truth_aerator Dear Nina, Thank you very much for this important reminder. I do have to consider something that I was reading in your various excellent writings: 1) a) From one angle, one must have wise attention (yoniso manasikaro) b) From another angle, one can't force it. and 2) a) From one angle one must study, consider and have theoretical understanding. b) From another angle, mere studying/thinking and theoretical understanding will not work - only direct experience will. With metta, Alex #108596 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:27 pm Subject: awareness of 4 elements within one's body truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, What do you think about searching and being intentionally aware of "heaviness, lightness, hardness, softness, roughness, smootheness, heat or cold, motion, pressure, supporting, flowing, cohesion" within one's own body? For example one Venerable teaches such: ===== "To learn this meditation, you must begin by learning how to discern each of the twelve qualities or characteristics of the four elements one at a time. Usually the beginner must be taught the characteristics which are easier to discern first, and the more difficult ones later. They are usually taught in this order: pushing, hardness, roughness, heaviness, supporting, softness, smoothness, lightness, heat, coldness, flowing, cohesion. Each characteristic must be discerned first in one place in the body, and then one must try discern it throughout the body." 1. To discern pushing, you may begin by being aware, through the sense of touch, of the pushing in the centre of the head as you breathe in and breathe out. When you can discern the characteristic of pushing, you should concentrate on it until it becomes clear to your mind. Then you should move your awareness to another part of the body nearby, and look for pushing there. In this way you will slowly be able to discern pushing first in the head, then the neck, the trunk of the body, the arms, and the legs and feet. You must do this again and again, many times, until wherever you place your awareness in the body you can easily see pushing. If the pushing of the breath in the centre of the head is not easy to discern, then try being aware of pushing as the chest expands when breathing, or as the abdomen moves. If these are not clear, try to discern the pulse beat as the heart pumps, or any other obvious form of pushing. Wherever there is movement there is also pushing. Wherever you begin, you must continue to slowly develop your understanding so that you can discern pushing throughout the body. In some places it will be obvious, and in other places subtle, but it is present everywhere throughout the body. 2. When you are satisfied that you can do this, try to discern hardness. Begin by discerning hardness in the teeth. Bite your teeth together and feel how hard they are. Then relax your bite and feel the hardness of the teeth. When you can feel this, try to discern hardness throughout the body in a systematic way from head to feet, in the same way as you did to discern pushing. Care should be taken to not deliberately tense the body. When you can discern hardness throughout the body, again look for pushing throughout the body. Alternate between these two, pushing and hardness, again and again, discerning pushing throughout the body, and then hardness throughout the body, from head to feet. Repeat this process many times until you are satisfied that you can do it. 3. When you can discern pushing and hardness, try to discern roughness. Rub your tongue over the edge of your teeth, or brush your hand over the skin of your arm, and feel roughness. Now try to discern roughness throughout the body in a systematic way as before. If you cannot feel roughness, try looking at pushing and hardness again, and you may discern it with them. When you can discern roughness, continue to discern pushing, hardness, roughness, one at a time, again and again, throughout the body from head to feet. 4. When you are satisfied that you can discern those three characteristics, look for heaviness throughout the body. Begin by placing one hand on top of the other in your lap, and feel that the top hand is heavy, or feel the heaviness of the head by bending it forward. Practise systematically until you can discern heaviness throughout the body. Then continue to look for the four characteristics: pushing, hardness, roughness, and heaviness, in turn throughout the body. 5. When you are satisfied that you can discern those four characteristics, look for supporting throughout the body. Begin by relaxing your back so that your body bends forward. Then straighten your body and keep it straight and erect. The force which keeps the body straight, still, and erect is supporting. Practise systematically until you can discern supporting throughout the body from head to feet. If you have difficulty in doing this, you can try to discern supporting together with hardness as this can make it easier to discern supporting. Then when you can discern supporting easily, you should look for pushing, hardness, roughness, heaviness, and supporting throughout the body. 6. When you can discern these five, look for softness by pressing your tongue against the inside of your lip to feel its softness. Then relax your body and practise systematically until you can discern softness throughout the body. You can now look for pushing, hardness, roughness, heaviness, supporting, and softness throughout the body. 7. Next look for smoothness by wetting your lips and rubbing your tongue over them from side to side. Practise as above until you can discern smoothness throughout the body. Then look for the seven characteristics throughout the body, one at a time. 8. Next look for lightness by wagging a single finger up and down, and feeling its lightness. Practise until you can discern lightness throughout the body, and then look for the eight characteristics as explained before. 9. Next look for heat (or warmth) throughout the body. This is usually very easy to do. You can now discern nine characteristics. 10. Next look for coldness by feeling the coldness of the breath as it enters the nostrils, and then discern it systematically throughout the body. You can now discern ten characteristics. Note: The above ten characteristics are all known directly through the sense of touch, but the last two characteristics, flowing and cohesion, are known by inference based upon the other ten characteristics. That is a good reason to teach them last. 11. To discern cohesion, be aware of how the body is being held together by the skin, flesh, and sinews. The blood is being held in by the skin, like water in a balloon. Without cohesion the body would fall into separate pieces and particles. The force of gravity which keeps the body stuck to the earth is also cohesion. Develop it as before. 12. To discern flowing begin by being aware of the flowing of saliva into the mouth, the flowing of blood through the blood vessels, the flowing of air into the lungs, or the flowing of heat throughout the body. Develop it as before. If you experience difficulty in trying to discern flowing or cohesion, you should discern the previous ten qualities again and again, one at a time throughout the body. When you have become skilled in this, you will find that the quality of cohesion also becomes clear. If cohesion still does not become clear, then pay attention again and again to just the qualities of pushing and hardness. Eventually you should feel as if the whole body is wrapped up in the coils of a rope. Discern this as the quality of cohesion. If the quality of flowing does not become clear, then look at it with the quality of coldness, heat, or pushing, and you should then be able to discern the quality of flowing. When you can discern all twelve characteristics clearly throughout the body, from head to feet, you should continue to discern them again and again in this same order. When you are satisfied that you can do this, you should rearrange the order to the one first given above, which was: hardness, roughness, heaviness, softness, smoothness, lightness, flowing, cohesion, heat, coldness, supporting, and pushing. In that order try to discern each characteristic, one at a time from head to feet. You should try to develop this until you can do it quite quickly, at least three rounds in a minute. ====================================================== With metta, Alex #108597 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:40 pm Subject: Re: What is the ALL actually? kenhowardau Hi Howard, I have something of a split personality when it comes to historical Buddhism. On the one hand I don't want to know about it, I only want to know the Dhamma that is found in the Pali Canon. But on the other hand, I can't help being interested. -------------------- H: >Theravada, with its Abhidhamma Pitaka and commentaries, is a close descendant of one of the original 18 Buddhist schools. The sutta SN 22.95is not a "Theravada sutta" owned by that tradition. It is a "Buddhist sutta." It is a sutta directly spoken by the Buddha. --------------------- When you say 'the original 18 schools' are you saying there were literally 18 schools to begin with (which seems unlikely)? Or are you referring to the first eighteen schools (after seventeen schisms)? --------------------------- H: > Most Mahayana schools, BTW, not only Theravada, also accept the original suttas as Buddha word, mostly in the form of the Agamas. Nagarjuna certainly knew the original suttas, and in our time, Ven Thich Nhat Hanh, for example, considers the Pali suttas to be Buddha word and venerates them. --------------------------- I suppose every school must claim to be the original one, mustn't it? Otherwise it would lose credibility. Whenever there has been a schism, I imagine each side has claimed to be the original, and called the other the offshoot. ------------------------- H: > This sutta is to be understood in accordance with the teachings given throughout the Sutta Pitaka, and not judged in cart-before-the-horse fashion by Theravada or Mahayana or any other after-the-fact tradition. -------------------------- Ah! I think I see where you are going with this. ---------------------------------- H: > The matter is just the opposite: The various traditions are to be judged by, and in accordance with their faithfulness to the direct teachings of the Buddha during the 45 years of giving the gift of Dhamma to people as he and his followers wandered across the land. ----------------------------------- Now that *is* what I call putting the cart before the horse. In effect you are saying we have to attain enlightenment and *then* decide which school to follow. I would say choosing the right school was an essential first step. Otherwise, you will have just a book of suttas and your own interpretation of them. So you will have created your own school. And it's bound to be a wrong'n. The lineage just isn't there. :-) Ken H #108598 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On the intricacies of a Sotapannas mind-stream and decision making process chandrafabian Dear Swee Boon, I sorry my question is not clear enough for you to understand. Have you ever meditate Swee Boon? Anapanasati? How do you know air is entering and coming out of your nostril when you meditate Anapanasati? Mettacittena, fabian --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Swee Boon" wrote: > > Hi Fabian, > > > I repeat again the question :"How did they know when the foot walking, or the mouth chewing...?" > > I do not know what do you want to elicit from me by this grammatically incorrect question. If you could elaborate your question, maybe I can understand a little bit more. It helps to lessen misunderstandings that we had the last time. Thank you. > > Swee Boon > #108599 From: "chandrafabian" Date: Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:11 am Subject: Re: Mahasi chandrafabian Dear Swee Boon, I agreed with you, fourth Jhana, is excellent basis for developing Vipassana, Where did you read, if we are practicing for higher fruits, we need to attain Samatha jhanas? Mettacittena, fabian --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Swee Boon" wrote: > > Hi Fabian, > > > Allow me to participate in your discussion, I want to ask Swee Boon, what do you think Swee Boon, should we practice Samatha first until Jhana before we may practice Vipassana? > > If you are practicing for stream-entry, you may practice vipassana alone without attaining samatha jhanas. > > But if you are practicing for the higher fruits, you need to attain samatha jhanas to gain a perfect strong concentration to carry out vipassana. > > This is evident in sutta description of the special power of vipassana after the fourth jhana is attained. > > ----------------------- > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html > > My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' > ----------------------- > > The fermentation of sensuality, becoming and ignorace relates to the fetters that are eradicated by the three higher fruits. > > Swee Boon >