#110400 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 7:32 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? philofillet Hi Pt (and Ken towards the end) > pt: I see where you're coming from. I guess for me, there's kusala and then there's kusala. Metta and samatha are great, they can condition a lot of kusala in the future, but I think anatta is the main message of a Buddha. And I think understanding of anatta is probably the most potent in reducing unwholesome tendencies that you describe. And thankfully, such understanding can arise anywhere, anytime. At least, to me it doesn't seem it's tied down to any sort of particular practice, method or place. I mean, anger is anger, and when it's known as anatta, it has no more hold over you at the time, no matter where and when that anger arose. Ph: Hmm, speaking as someone who listened to hundreds and hundreds of hours of talks with A.S obsessively, for a couple of years, I came to feel that understanding of anatta was being used by me as a kind of mind candy, just the way panna was. I didn't have understanding of anatta, I didn't have panna that saw into characteristics, but just thinking that everything was anatta was somehow kind of comforting. Even know it is at times. The other day I had a miserable failure of a day off where I spent most of the time online either looking at porn or baseball. It was comforting to think "anatta", just accumulated tendencies playing out, but that was a kind of balm, there are better and stronger teachings that could have helped prevent that sort of day from happening if they ahd arisen to my attention, alas they didn't. (One of my favourites is a sutta that says something about indulging in sense objects as an inferior way, for inferior people, not superior people this is not for you. Good luck finding an appreciation of anatta in that passage, the Buddha clearly appeals to self image for a purpose there.) I think if there is truly insight into anatta it's earth shattering and upsetting, not something that should make me feel good, that's very suspect, I think it's just making use of deep teachings in order to cling to pleasant mental feelings rooted in lobha, that's how I came to see what it was for me, at least. I guess this has to do with your other question, so I'll add it here: > > > Phil: Is there more likely to be awareness of the arising and falling away of mental factors, of the mutability of the mind, fleet moments, the first slight stirrings of defilements at the arising level, when one is a) sitting in a quiet room with one's eyes shut and attention on the breath, or b) when moving around > the house with attention on this on that, or walking down a city street with attention on this and that. > > pt: For me, a few years back while I was reading mostly modern meditation books - the answer would have been (a). But since I've been reading abhidhamma stuff and sort of sitting on the fence between dsg meditators and non-meditators, I have to say that now the correct answer seems to be (b), though I kind of still hope (a) might have something to it. But, since those who're sitting on the fence are most likely to get caught in the crossfire, I'll stop here. Thanks for the discussion, always good to hear alternate POVs. OK, I don't know how you can say b) in all honesty, I don't know how there can be the kind of sensitiving to stirrings of defilements that even a halfassed meditator like me can have when one is walking around a city, the mind is (as Herman said to Ken) caught up in conventional conceptual activities, I don't know how there can be any more than a few odd occurences of awareness of a reality, I would guess that it would just be thinking about awareness of realities, in my case anyways. But the meditator, whether following a modernly created object like the Mahasi abdomen or not, there is less control involved. I find much less effort to control in just watching what comes and goes than in identifying things as nama and rupa, that seems like complete attempt to impose order on things. Ken, thanks, I guess this will have answered you as well, as best as I can. If you are walking around saying "namas and rupas" there is not actually awareness of namas and rupas, there is you designating things as namas and rupas, a kind of imperialistic attitude where you impose Dhamma Understanding on your experience in a way that is way out of line with the actual experiential understanding that you would report if you were more honest, it seems to me. Then again, Ken, you may indeed have awareness of namas and rupas in daily life, I certainly don't, again. Certainly many moments of thinking about namas and rupas, and that is a pleasant kind of thinking! So I have my answer, AS students and even those sitting on the fence next to the AS camp will say b), it still feels dishonest to me... Metta, Phil #110401 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 7:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? nilovg Hi Phil (and Lukas), Op 1-okt-2010, om 16:32 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I don't know how there can be any more than a few odd occurences of > awareness of a reality, I would guess that it would just be > thinking about awareness of realities, in my case anyways. ------- N: But that is good. Little by little, that is the way it accumulates. There cannot be any hurry, and no wish to have long moments of sati. Even right thinking can be a condition for the arising of a moment of true awareness. The late Ven. Dhammadharo would have said: rich man, very righ man. That is the way it works. As to a lost day: It is conditioned that way, but akusala citta can be understood as just a reality. It is not a matter of balm for the mind but a matter of understanding. Understanding, understanding. It takes perseverance to continue developing it. Nina. #110402 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 5:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Who am I?/ Sarah upasaka_howard Hi, Ari - In a message dated 10/1/2010 9:33:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, whinney@... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ari (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 9/30/2010 11:13:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > whinney@... writes: > > I'm still confused. Who is doing the thinking? Where does the thinking > come from? > =============================== > Here is perhaps a way of thinking about this, Ari: > I look out the window and see that "it is raining." What is the "it" > that is raining? ;-) I see your point, but I would then say it comes from the clouds which are formed in various ways in different areas of the world. ---------------------------------------------- Oh, sure! There is a variety of conditions for the raining. My point is only that there is no agent, no "rainer," no thing that is "rain agent/actor". --------------------------------------------- That's actually a silly question, right? There is no > thing that is doing an action called "raining." OK. There is just the event, the > process. It's a bit like a farmer telling a city guy that a seed has the > power to sprout, and the city guy asking where in the seed the power can be > found, on the surface or the interior. The farmer, of course, would just > look at him as if he were crazy. The farmer didn't mean that there is some > "sprouting-power" thing to be found anywhere in the seed. But it does have a genetic code to grow. ----------------------------------------------- There are many conditions together resulting in the sprouting. But there is no "sprouter," no force-entity or spout-power. It is simply the case of the occurrence of certain conditions always resulting in the occurrence of other conditions. (What the Buddha called "this/that-conditionality".) -------------------------------------------- Likewise, when I say > "I'm thinking," there is actually no thing called "I" or "the thinker," an > agent that is carrying out an action called "thinking." There is just the > event - the process of thinking. No doer of the deed. OK. I can conceptualize that. You know the other thing I was "thinking" is how in Mindfulness Way Through Depression simply reminds us that something is "just" thinking. So, when I get depressed, and think it's going to go on forever, I think the thought "this is going to go on forever" is just a thought, and put into that perspective is far less distressing than accepting the thought as reality. --------------------------------------------- Yes, good. --------------------------------------------- Pema Chodren goes over this same concept as well. > Now, on the other hand, one can say that the thinking, feeling, > touching, hearing, etc, etc that is "mine" is different from that which is > "yours." Right. Now what is that about? The answer to that, as far as I can understand, > is that there is legitimate distinguishing (though not strict separating) > that can be made between streams of experience, the elements of each stream, > due to kamma and memory, being interrelated. Right. I think there would be inward aspects and outward aspects. It is then a convention to > think of this aggregate of interrelated mental and physical phenomena as a > unity, an entity. YES! That's my problem in thinking here! -------------------------------------------- We all do that. It is a convenient convention so long as it isn't taken too seriously. ----------------------------------------- The thinking that is part of one stream, conditioned,as it > is most directly by the other elements of that stream, identifies all the > elements as forming a being called "me". The same is the case within every > stream. But there is no "self," no lasting core of identity, that is part of > or underlies any psycho-physical aggregate. Uh, OK. What is there, then? And does Mindfulness and Mahayana have a different answer? ---------------------------------------------- Mindfulness isn't a school of Buddhism. It is a wholesome and helpful mental trait. As for what there "is", prepackaged answers aren't so helpful. It IS good to keep in mind that all that we are aware of is 1) inconstant, 2) not a source of lasting satisfaction (and even a source of grief if it or it's absence is craved), and 3) not an independent reality. It is good to study the teachings and also carry out the practice instructions. From these the direct wisdom-realization of reality will eventually occur. Nothing comes from nothing. ---------------------------------------- The seeming of a self is a > matter of particular thinking arising as one process among the various > interconnected processes of a stream. OK. If a wave in the ocean were sentient, "it" > would think in terms of "my self," imagining "itself" to be a one > wave-entity living together with a host of other separate, wave-entities. > > With metta, > Howard OK, thank you Howard. I think my main problem is that I study with a Swami who is Advaita Vedanta and in that system, there is Atman, and that is the core. ------------------------------------------ And 'anatta', the centerpiece of the Buddhadhamma, is exactly the denial of core. ------------------------------------------- However, when I meditate, I meditate mostly in Buddhist style, because this Swami is getting elderly, does not teach any more and so I switched over to the nearest cousin. Anyway, I do have to say that at the level I am at, the actual Mindfulness meditation it is working out wonderfully, but I think I am having trouble philisophically. ------------------------------------------ Since none of us knows from direct experience much of what he/she is talking about, we should, I think, let the philosophers do most of the philosophizing, and let ourselves just keep on keepin' on with the practice that was taught. Maintaining mindfulness; i.e., staying attentive to what is actually occuring in the moment and monitoring the mind to avoid getting lost in thought and in sloth & torpor is the main practice, built, of course, upon a foundation of understanding the teaching and sila (ethical living). The sila, BTW, is further enhanced by contemplation of the teachings and by ongoing mindfulness - with guarding of the senses (i.e., the 4 right efforts) serving to increase moral mentality and action. ------------------------------------------ But you know what? I'm too philosophical, almost everyone thinks that I think too much, and why don't I just do my meditation and see where it goes? ------------------------------------------- We all think too much! LOL! ------------------------------------------ Best, Ari ========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110403 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 10:48 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? truth_aerator Hi Pt, all, > > Alex: In any case, a proper effort must be made to flow against the streams of defilements. If one takes it easy and doesn't apply right effort, then one will drift along the path of least resistence (for the kilesas). > > pt: Sure, but that's not disputed at all. The argument seems to be regarding differentiating between a/kusala. So, for your example, between what's wrong effort and what's right effort. > > > Alex: See the suttas. Right effort has 4 parts. It can and DOES coexist with other akusala qualities. See its 2nd part. > > > > Generate desire, endeavor, arouse persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of > > > > 2)abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen > > pt: Hm, not sure what you're saying above - right effort can arise >together with aksuala cittas? You probably remember that the other >interpretation of this that's often mentioned here on dsg is that >abandoning of akusala (like in the 2nd part of the sutta you quote) >happens by the arising of kusala. Is that any different from your >understanding? Right Effort (RE) has 4 parts. One of its parts is "abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen" as opposed to preventing them from arising in the first place. The wording does suggest that RE#2 can arise when there are at that moment other akusala qualites, otherwise it would not make sense. > > Alex: Either one "generates desire, endeavors, arouses >persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the >non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet >arisen[etc]" > > > > Or one indulges in wrong effort with its consequences. Letting >unwholesome states be unopposed IS WRONG EFFORT. > > pt: I think that's a bit of a strawman. Nobody yet suggested that >we should indulge in akusala. But some have said that one shouldn't do any intentional or "unnatural" effort to develop something. You are well aware of anti-method bias of some people. >So, I'm just trying to understand your position, are you saying that: > > 1. right effort arises together with akusala cittas? > 2. akusala is abandoned by engaging in more akusala? > 3. akusala is abandoned by engaging in something in between kusala >and aksuala? > 4. akusala is abandoned by the arising of kusala? R.E. can arise at the moment of other kindakusala citta and remove it. Otherwise how can RE ever remove arisen, ***ARISEN*** akusala? Example: one has greed/lust for something and at that moment one notices that and counteracts that greed with some skillful considering (asubha, anicca, resolving into elements, etc). If we take a discreet model of cittas, where only one citta of present and only one jati exists, then it would mean that only one citta (either kusala, akusala, kiriya or vipaka) can arise. But how can kusala citta remove arisen akusala citta that no longer is? How can one abandon what no longer exist (has ceased a mind moment before)? Right effort is also of the type of "arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... " (ex: proper considering to counteract lust, for example), and this is what I also would like to emphasize. That one should try one's best to step-by-step remove greed, anger and delusion - not only when they are absent, but when they arise as well. It goes without saying that most will make errors at first, just like a little child who falls often while trying to learn to walk. But the trick is to get up more often than one falls down. Maybe the fact that we don't have the Buddha for personal guidance is why it takes more than 12 hours or 7 days for complete awakening. On one's own + suttas, one can still make mistakes along the way and that is why it takes longer, while if the Buddha was alive he could give personalized and appropriate instruction that would quickly work. ======================== "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of 1) non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... 2)abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... 3)arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... 4)maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right effort. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html ================================================================ Again, #2 does state that right effort can arise when "unskillful qualities that have arisen". By saying that when kusala arises after akusala has ceased, to replace akusala that has ceased (and without them overlapping) one is contradicting point #2 of counteracting ARISEN akusala qualities. If that arisen quality has to cease before right effort arises, then how can arisen akusala quality be called "arisen"? I hope I could adequately explain that point. With metta, Alex #110404 From: "a_true_lotus" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 1:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Who am I?/ Howard a_true_lotus I look out the window and see that "it is raining." What is the > "it" > > that is raining? ;-) > > I see your point, but I would then say it comes from the clouds which are > formed in various ways in different areas of the world. > ---------------------------------------------- > Oh, sure! There is a variety of conditions for the raining. My point > is only that there is no agent, no "rainer," no thing that is "rain > agent/actor". > --------------------------------------------- OK. > ----------------------------------------------- > There are many conditions together resulting in the sprouting. But > there is no "sprouter," no force-entity or spout-power. It is simply the case > of the occurrence of certain conditions always resulting in the occurrence > of other conditions. (What the Buddha called "this/that-conditionality".) > -------------------------------------------- I suppose. I usually think of the genetic material of a sprout to be the same as sprout power, but I guess it does rely on water, sun and carbon dioxide. It can't sprout on it's own, I guess. > Likewise, when I say > > "I'm thinking," there is actually no thing called "I" or "the thinker," > an > > agent that is carrying out an action called "thinking." There is just > the > > event - the process of thinking. No doer of the deed. > > OK. I can conceptualize that. > > You know the other thing I was "thinking" is how in Mindfulness Way > Through Depression simply reminds us that something is "just" thinking. So, when > I get depressed, and think it's going to go on forever, I think the thought > "this is going to go on forever" is just a thought, and put into that > perspective is far less distressing than accepting the thought as reality. > --------------------------------------------- > Yes, good. > --------------------------------------------- > YES! That's my problem in thinking here! > -------------------------------------------- > We all do that. It is a convenient convention so long as it isn't > taken too seriously. > ----------------------------------------- Right. Well, I can understand it this way, but it still at least seems like "I" am doing things, though I'd have to say thoughts are kind of a mystery. They kind of come and go, and have some desire or lack of desire attached to each, and seem kind of random. It's kind of a miracle that anything gets done, with all the random thoughts just coming up. > ---------------------------------------------- > Mindfulness isn't a school of Buddhism. It is a wholesome and helpful > mental trait. Right, which is also sometimes called Theraveda Dhamma or Vipassana??? > As for what there "is", prepackaged answers aren't so helpful. It IS > good to keep in mind that all that we are aware of is 1) inconstant, 2) not > a source of lasting satisfaction (and even a source of grief if it or it's > absence is craved), and 3) not an independent reality. It is good to study > the teachings and also carry out the practice instructions. From these the > direct wisdom-realization of reality will eventually occur. Nothing comes > from nothing. > ---------------------------------------- > I think my main problem is that I study with a Swami who is Advaita > Vedanta and in that system, there is Atman, and that is the core. > ------------------------------------------ > And 'anatta', the centerpiece of the Buddhadhamma, is exactly the > denial of core. > ------------------------------------------- Right. A slight problem. The way I figure it is that I'm at such a low level that the philosophical stuff is not going to affect me much. > However, when I meditate, I meditate mostly in Buddhist style, because > this Swami is getting elderly, does not teach any more and so I switched over > to the nearest cousin. > > Anyway, I do have to say that at the level I am at, the actual Mindfulness > meditation it is working out wonderfully, but I think I am having trouble > philisophically. > ------------------------------------------ > Since none of us knows from direct experience much of what he/she is > talking about, we should, I think, let the philosophers do most of the > philosophizing, and let ourselves just keep on keepin' on with the practice that > was taught. Maintaining mindfulness; i.e., staying attentive to what is > actually occuring in the moment and monitoring the mind to avoid getting lost > in thought and in sloth & torpor is the main practice, built, of course, > upon a foundation of understanding the teaching and sila (ethical living). > The sila, BTW, is further enhanced by contemplation of the teachings and by > ongoing mindfulness - with guarding of the senses (i.e., the 4 right > efforts) serving to increase moral mentality and action. > ------------------------------------------ Right. > But you know what? I'm too philosophical, almost everyone thinks that I > think too much, and why don't I just do my meditation and see where it goes? > ------------------------------------------- > We all think too much! LOL! > ------------------------------------------ True. But when professional MD's and PhDs tell me that I think too much, I probably think too much. I have as my own personal First Noble Truth is "thinking causes suffering". I say that jokingly, but really, I suffer from depression, and the sheer quantity of negative thoughts, and attachments to thoughts that "I" create is daunting. So, really, for me, thinking is suffering. I also think there is more wholesome thinking, say, like learning a language or reading about Buddhism, but most of my thinking is not in that category. I guess my question is answered and I"ll just plug along, I guess. Best, Ari #110405 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 9:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Who am I?/ Howard upasaka_howard Hi, Ari - In a message dated 10/1/2010 4:07:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, whinney@... writes: I have as my own personal First Noble Truth is "thinking causes suffering". ========================== It may. Certainly clinging to it does! :-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110406 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sun Sep 26, 2010 11:06 am Subject: Re: Who am I? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob > > Thanks, that's true. Sharing one's understanding of Dhamma is a deed of merit. I'm definitely interested in collecting merit, even if I still feel at this time that it's "mine." No way around that for the time being even if I think about it all being dhammas at work, that's just thinking. Yeah, I think we're in the position of doing the best we can at the given time. If I worried about how far down I am on the sila check list I'd just give up. But we all have our strengths and weaknesses to build on. I'm not much of one for giving up sensuality or my attachments to people and things, so I wouldn't make a very good monk. That will probably take me a looong time. But I'm a little better with mindfulness and some other things. It took me a long time to see how difficult it really is to work through defilements. You seem to be in touch with that too. > In Japanese there are the concepts tatemae and > honnne. Tatemae is the accepted, publically stated principle that people should follow, honne is what they really deeply think and feel. I am always honne here, but the tatemae of "everything is dhammas at work" is an excellent tatemae, because it's the truth. But I think it's a truth that I will not reach in this lifetime, so I will respect my honnne, which is that I want to do whatever I can to have a favourable rebirth, and that I still can't shake my belief in an eternal atta. And respecting the tatemae (only dhammas at work) is also an important part of that because it will help to begin to guide me towards a deeper truth! Thus I'm grateful to DSG, it's the best forum for hearing that tatemae. Good concepts. Good to tell the intellectual understanding from where one really is on the path. I would guess you really need both, the sense of your reality, and the inspiration of the ideal. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110407 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 4:43 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > RobE: So when I talk about meditation, I am too talking about the real moments of experience and understanding that arise, rather than the general concept. > > pt: That's interesting because it sounds very close to how Sarah for examples defines development-bhavana, as far as I know, bhavana being any occasions when panna arises. But then her question becomes something like, okay - so how can you sit down to meditate on purpose to develop sati or something else, since doing that by definition most probably requires atta view, not understanding of anatta. This is where I think there is a lot of presumption not based fairly on what may accompany the desire to do a "positive" activity. It doesn't have to be self-based craving for results - it can be actual understanding that this is the correct process to engage with. Why not? The idea that such an intention "most likely involves atta view" is exactly the component of this contention that I think is not examined or challenged. I don't see any reason for it. I understand the argument, but there is no more atta view involved in sitting down to meditate than there is in sitting down to study dhamma. I mean, why does one sit down to discuss dhamma? Anyone who thinks it is not to understand dhamma better, rather than a pure understanding of 'dhammas right now' is not being honest, I think. I think the preferred involvements that are considered kusala and the frowned-upon ones that are considered akusala are not any different in nature, but there is a prejudice at play. Dhamma study is just as "organized and ritualistic" as sitting down to meditate. And if one sits to meditate because they believe it is the Buddha's method, that does not have to involve self-view, but can be discernment of what is skillful. So I really reject that argument, as popular as it is around here - really ubiquitous, but not with any real explanation other than a sort of formula that doesn't measure up. > I mean, anatta would more conform to the occasion of panna arising anywhere, anytime, by conditions, rather than atta trying to manipulate conditions favorably. That is only if one considers it manipulation. I think I could just as easily make the argument that anytime one purposely cracks a book that it is self-view in charge and is inherently akusala, and that one must only read or discuss dhamma when it arises with no intention. But isn't that totally absurd? Likewise with meditation. > My objection would usually be something like - well, atta doesn't necessarily has to be involved, it can be just sitting down as an outcome of calm arising with kusala citta that sees advantage in non-engagement with senses - Well I think you are on the right track, but that doesn't guarantee anything I guess. :-) > but I think I haven't yet found an explanation through which Sarah couldn't poke some serious holes, so perhaps I'll let you two ferret that one out for now. We can poke holes back and forth, but the question is, is there a real logic that makes sense and is not based on a predisposed opinion, and I think it is fair to say that when everyone in a group agrees on something, you can be assured that not all of them have examined it in a "natural" way but are just following their teacher. That is no more discerning than reading a meditation book and thinking "that must be the way." We have to examine our motives for everything, but then do what we think is correct according to our understanding, not based on what "everyone thinks" either in or out of this group. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110408 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 4:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? philofillet Hi Nina > N: But that is good. Little by little, that is the way it > accumulates. There cannot be any hurry, and no wish to have long > moments of sati. > May I ask about your understanding of the function of samvega, how does it manifest for you? I guess you will say that samvega is also momentary, and accompanies a brief moment of awareness of a reality in daily life. I'm not sure that's the way the Buddha meant samvega... Then again, there is little samvega for me... Metta, Phil #110409 From: "bhikkhu3" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 3:43 pm Subject: There are 7 Links to Enlightenment! bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the 7 Links to Awakening? Awareness is a link to Awakening (sati-sambojjhanga). Investigation of the states is a link to Awakening (vicaya-sambojjhanga). Energy is a link to Awakening (viriya-sambojjhanga). Joy is a link to Awakening (piti-sambojjhanga). Tranquillity is a link to Awakening (passaddhi-sambojjhanga). Concentration is a link to Awakening (samadhi-sambojjhanga). Equanimity is a link to Awakening (upekkha-sambojjhanga). These are the seven links leading to final Enlightenment... Whose minds are well-developed in these seven factors of self-awakening, who delight in non-clinging, relinquishing all grasping, mind being luminous, fermentations all stilled: They, even in this world, are all Unbound here! <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #110410 From: Herman Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 5:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? egberdina Hi Nina, On 2 October 2010 00:10, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > Hi pt and Herman, > Op 1-okt-2010, om 13:51 heeft Herman het volgende geschreven: > > > > Is there any understanding of a/kusala that does not amount to > > being lost in > > thought? If so, what understanding of a/kusala relates to what was > > fleetingly present (read already past)? > ------ > N: That will be an interesting meeting. Here comes the subject of > nimitta, the sign of something that has just fallen away. > ----- > Yes, I think it will be an interesting meeting too. From the sound of it, it will be mostly a discussion of theory, which is fine, of course. Even during a discussion of theory one can attend to the differences and connections between what is being said and what is being done :-) Cheers Herman #110411 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 6:18 pm Subject: Re: My Keyboard epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi All, > > Whenever I use my computer, and I look downwards towards the right, > there is this logo that says Microsoft. I fully understand that what > is seen is only different colours and brightness in context. That > understanding doesn't alter me seeing Microsoft. I was sent to school > when I lacked the strength to resist. For 12 years this went on. I was > taught that certain configurations of certain colours and brightness > had certain meanings. Even after I left school, and practiced > non-association for decades, I have been unable to separate learnt > meanings from observations associated with them. I now doubt that I > will ever be able to see a certain configuration of black and grey > without seeing Microsoft. I also doubt that it is possible for me to > live in a world that isn't already filled with meaning. > > Having said that, I see no self anywhere. But that, obviously, does > nothing to alter there being a passing parade of phenomena invested > with meaning. The meanings things have for you, including "Microsoft," are all concepts. If you see they are concepts, you don't have to take them seriously, even though you may keep seeing them. The fact that things have meanings is not in itself meaningful. It's just more stuff arising in the moment. Even though you see the pattern of colors as a logo, you can also see it is a pattern of colors. I think you can learn to shift back and forth, and see what the constituent parts are, even though you may still see the whole when you focus in the usual way. Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110412 From: Herman Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 6:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? egberdina Thanks, pt for the ongoing discussion, On 1 October 2010 23:46, ptaus1 wrote: > > > > > Hi Herman, > > > H: Yes, but we are now talking about "classed". Classifying is an act, an > act > > > other than seeing, hearing, feeling etc. My question was whether this > > classifying was being lost in thought, or not. I know that somewhere > > Buddhaghosa took his a/kusala lead from what the average > > accountant/artisan/lawyer meant by it. Hardly present moment stuff. > > Ah, I see what you were trying to ask. From memory, that issue about the > average accountant, etc, refers to classifying vipaka as kusala or akusala, > which is sort of why I didn't want to go into the whole vipka argument. > > On the other hand what I was trying to say is that regardless what the > present object is - be it a sense-object (thanks to this or that kind of > vipaka) like color, sound, etc, or a mind-door object like a dhamma (effort, > concetration, etc) or a concept - the citta that has one of these as the > object will still arise with either kusala or akusala cetasikas. If these > cetasikas are aksuala (ignorance, greed, etc), then that would mean that > there's attachemtn to that particular object as "me, myself, mine". If > however, the cetasikas arising are panna, alobha and adosa, then there's no > attachment to the object (no attachment is the same as detachment). So > finally, there's detachemtn from the object because panna understands the > anatta aspect of it - it's not "me, myself, mine" anymore. > > Thanks for the discussion, pt. Cheers Herman #110413 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 7:00 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? truth_aerator Hello Robert, all, >RE: This is where I think there is a lot of presumption not based fairly on what may accompany the desire to do a "positive" activity. It doesn't have to be self-based craving for results - it can be actual understanding that this is the correct process to engage with. Why not? The idea that such an intention "most likely involves atta view" is exactly the component of this contention that I think is not examined or challenged. I don't see any reason for it. I understand the argument, but there is no more atta view involved in sitting down to meditate than there is in sitting down to study dhamma. I mean, why does one sit down to discuss dhamma? Anyone who thinks it is not to understand dhamma better, rather than a pure understanding of 'dhammas right now' is not being honest, I think. I think the preferred involvements that are considered kusala and the frowned-upon ones that are considered akusala are not any different in nature, but there is a prejudice at play. Dhamma study is just as "organized and ritualistic" as sitting down to meditate. And if one sits to meditate because they believe it is the Buddha's method, that does not have to involve self-view, but can be discernment of what is skillful. So I really reject that argument, as popular as it is around here - really ubiquitous, but not with any real explanation other than a sort of formula that doesn't measure up. ... > > That is only if one considers it manipulation. I think I could just as easily make the argument that anytime one purposely cracks a book that it is self-view in charge and is inherently akusala, and that one must only read or discuss dhamma when it arises with no intention. But isn't that totally absurd? Likewise with meditation. > > > > We can poke holes back and forth, but the question is, is there a real logic that makes sense and is not based on a predisposed opinion, and I think it is fair to say that when everyone in a group agrees on something, you can be assured that not all of them have examined it in a "natural" way but are just following their teacher. That is no more discerning than reading a meditation book and thinking "that must be the way." We have to examine our motives for everything, but then do what we think is correct according to our understanding, not based on what "everyone thinks" either in or out of this group. > > Best, > Robert E. Well said, RobertE. With metta, Alex #110414 From: Herman Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 7:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Keyboard egberdina Hi Rob E, On 2 October 2010 11:18, epsteinrob wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > The meanings things have for you, including "Microsoft," are all concepts. > If you see they are concepts, you don't have to take them seriously, even > though you may keep seeing them. The fact that things have meanings is not > in itself meaningful. It's just more stuff arising in the moment. Even > though you see the pattern of colors as a logo, you can also see it is a > pattern of colors. I think you can learn to shift back and forth, and see > what the constituent parts are, even though you may still see the whole when > you focus in the usual way. > > Thanks for your comments. I agree with what you say about the meaning of meaning, but the act of not taking things seriously does nothing to alter the fact that stuff, including meanings, continues to arise, and that there is the continuing assuming of a position vis a vis this stuff that continues to arise. But I really, truly cannot not see Microsoft when I look at that part of the keyboard. In saying that I know that it is only certain colours in a pattern, that is in fact thinking it is only certain colours, it is not experienced as that. It is experienced as a whole, as the coloured Microsoft logo, not as constituent components which are the product of thought (analysis). Considerations such as these lead me to question the wisdom of reading a book in order to better understand present dhammas. Given that a literate person cannot not see meaning when they see written words in their native language, and given that the meaning is not at all in those written words, the act of reading a book is in fact an exercise in seeing what is not there; to seek out a dhamma book is to seek to be lost in thought. Cheers Herman #110415 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 7:46 pm Subject: study vs direct experience truth_aerator Hello Herman, all, >H: Considerations such as these lead me to question the wisdom of >reading >a book in order to better understand present dhammas. Given >that a >literate person cannot not see meaning when they see written >words in >their native language, and given that the meaning is not >at all in >those written words, the act of reading a book is in fact >an exercise >in seeing what is not there; to seek out a dhamma book >is to seek to >be lost in thought. Interesting points. Sometimes I ask myself too about teachings that tell one to study the books to see the reality. Is one training to see what the Book says as opposed to what really there is? And what to do when there are many different Abhidhamma and not just that, but different takes even on Abhidhamma belonging to the same school? Dhamma is said to be: "sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi'" `[The Dhamma is well expounded by the Blessed One,] directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, accessible, to be personally experienced by the wise.' - BB Trans. I guess the sutta instructions only point the way to how investigation and meditation should go. It is like a map to be actually followed and results seen by oneself. Reading about someone else's insights, while being helpful sometimes, is like trying to cure one's hunger through reading the menu of the food that someone else has eaten. With metta, Alex #110416 From: Herman Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 8:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] study vs direct experience egberdina Hi Alex, and thanks, On 2 October 2010 12:46, truth_aerator wrote: > > > Hello Herman, all, > > >H: Considerations such as these lead me to question the wisdom of >reading > >a book in order to better understand present dhammas. Given >that a > >literate person cannot not see meaning when they see written >words in > >their native language, and given that the meaning is not >at all in >those > written words, the act of reading a book is in fact >an exercise >in seeing > what is not there; to seek out a dhamma book >is to seek to >be lost in > thought. > > Interesting points. Sometimes I ask myself too about teachings that tell > one to study the books to see the reality. Is one training to see what the > Book says as opposed to what really there is? And what to do when there are > many different Abhidhamma and not just that, but different takes even on > Abhidhamma belonging to the same school? > > Dhamma is said to be: > "sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi'" > > `[The Dhamma is well expounded by the Blessed One,] directly visible, > immediate, inviting one to come and see, accessible, to be personally > experienced by the wise.' - BB Trans. > > I guess the sutta instructions only point the way to how investigation and > meditation should go. > I agree. It is like a map to be actually followed and results seen by oneself. > And the map is quite clear, isn't it? How marvelous is that direction - putting aside (subduing) greed & distress with reference to the world*.* Cheers Herman > Reading about someone else's insights, while being helpful sometimes, is > like trying to cure one's hunger through reading the menu of the food that > someone else has eaten. > > #110417 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 9:05 pm Subject: Re: Lost messages gazita2002 hallo pt, thanx for this, as I was wondering where a message I had sent days ago, had gone. I'm a little disappointed that I'm unable to attend the get-together in Sydney next week, but family matters came first. patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi all, > > Regarding the messages that got lost a few days ago, Yahoo explained that this was due to a technical problem they had, so all the messages should reapper on the list some time soon. Attached below is a message by Yahoo. > > Best wishes > pt #110418 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 9:15 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? ptaus1 Hi Phil, > Phil: It was comforting to think "anatta", just accumulated tendencies playing out, but that was a kind of balm, there are better and stronger teachings that could have helped prevent that sort of day from happening if they ahd arisen to my attention, alas they didn't. ... > I think if there is truly insight into anatta it's earth shattering and upsetting, not something that should make me feel good, that's very suspect, I think it's just making use of deep teachings in order to cling to pleasant mental feelings rooted in lobha, that's how I came to see what it was for me, at least. pt: With respect, I wouldn't say that intellectual understanding of anatta is just thinking about anatta. I guess it's more akin to a an instantaneous realisation/understanding in the present moment, as related to what's presently arising. It's not insight proper yet, there's no dhamma as direct object, and it still relies on thinking as such, but it's a whole another animal than just engaging in unwholesome things while thinking "anatta, anatta". As far as I can tell from experience, such understanding of present aksuala as anatta really does have the strength to evoke immediate abstinence for example. At lest that's how I experience it, which is why I find affinity with what Sarah and others here are saying about understanding arising anywhere, anytime. I mean, on the rare occasions when I experience something like that, it becomes very clear how there can be immediate abstinence from akusala simply through the virtue of understanding arising in the present moment, rather than through trying to make some special purposeful effort to abandon the present akusala. Usually, if I'm trying to make a special purposeful effort, that means I'm still in the grips of akusala - hating the present and wanting a different future, which is just more dosa and lobha really, so basically fighting the present akusala with more akusala. > Phil: OK, I don't know how you can say b) in all honesty, I don't know how there can be the kind of sensitiving to stirrings of defilements that even a halfassed meditator like me can have when one is walking around a city, pt: Hm, well I guess people (or accumulations as you like to put it) are different. For me the majority of "insights" really happened outside of meditation, especially when it comes to understanding various akusala habits as anatta. Perhaps for you these sorts of understanding arise in meditation, which is great. Different accumulations... Best wishes pt #110419 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 9:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: memories of the late Ven. Dhammadharo, to Lukas. gazita2002 Hallo Nina, Yes, difficult to know the difference unless panna arises to know. Here's some more: "mindfulness lets the objects speak for themselves and unfold their nature" "when we are attached to something, there is also moha which does not see the object which is experienced as only a conditioned reality which is not self, not something or someone. At such a moment one is enslaved to the object, one does not see that attachment is sorrowful and that it brings us unhappiness" BTW, I received the book of 'conditions' thank you kindly. patience, courage and good cheer, azita > Dear Azita, > thank you. > Op 27-sep-2010, om 13:16 heeft gazita2002 het volgende geschreven: > > > "Desire for results is real, it can be helpful BUT this field can > > also be very dangerous - it depends on the desire and why it is > > desiring". I guess this may mean chandha? > ------- > N: Kusala chandha. Chandha may be akusala or kusala. Difficult to > know the difference. > Nina. #110420 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 9:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Howard, -------- <. . .> KH: > If satipatthana was about "catching" dhammas then a quiet spot and a concentrated mind would be ideal. (Just like when catching fish.) But satipatthana is not about catching anything. >> H: > That's true, the practice involved with the foundations of mindfulness has nothing to do with catching anything. There is nothing catchable/graspable. -------- I prefer to say there is something, but it is not capable of being caught (in the conventional sense). -------------------- H: > However, the practice does have to do with paying attention - not getting lost in thought (including planning) or in sloth & torpor. --------------------- That's what I mean by "catching in the conventional sense." In absolute reality, every citta pays attention to its object. Sloth and torpor (thina and middha) arise in certain types of prompted akusala cittas, but there is no connection between them and any prevailing conventional activity. They are just as likely to arise during sitting-meditation as they are during housework (to use Phil's examples). ----------------------------- H: > And that practice when supported by a knowledge of the teachings and a practice of sila (including the 4 right endeavors), can lead to wisdom. ------------------------------ There is no mention in the Tipitaka of any vipassana practices of 'sitting with calmed mind' 'looking' or 'noting' etc. ------------------------------------------ <. . .> KH: > When you are moving around the house, what realities are there to be known? There are namas and rupas, aren't there? So the realities to be known are exactly the same as when you are sitting quietly. >> H: >It can be, provided attention is both easy and keen. ------------------------------------------- What I meant was that namas and rupas were always present (at all times and in all situations). -------------------------------- KH: > And how do those namas and rupas become known? Is it by some cunning, dhamma-catching technique? Or do they become known when you have heard, and understood, the Buddha's teaching? >> H: > See what I wrote above. Knowing *about* the tilakkhana and paticcasamupada is certainly important and good, knowing *about* sila and training the mind is better, and applying the teachings is the essential next step. --------------------------------------------- Hmm, I notice you carefully avoided "knowing about paramattha dhammas". :-) If there is no knowledge of paramattha dhammas, the tilakkhana and paticcasamupada are meaningless. Knowing namas and rupas is the be-all and end-all of satipatthana. ------------------------------------------ KH: > The right answer is the second one of course. >> H: > There is no "of course" about it. This is your opinion, period. (As is my opinion just that - an opinion.) ------------------------------------------ The Theravada texts are abundantly clear on this issue: conventional realities (objects, activities, practices) play absolutely no role in satipatthana. Therefore, as a student of those texts, I prefer to say "of course" in the above instance. ------------------ KH: > >And the same applies to the strength (or clarity) of your "knowing". Most people will tell you it depends on some kind of satipatthana-strengthening technique. But they are wrong. It depends on how much satipatthana there has been in the past. > > H: > LOLOL! First of all, satipatthana is neither mindfulness nor wisdom, but is a foundation of (or subject area for) mindfulness. The word is being misused. ------------------ That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. The Theravada texts, however, say differently. They explain that, in different contexts, satipatthana can mean "right-understanding" or "right mindfulness" or "the objects of right-mindfulness" or simply, "the teaching of the Buddha". ------------------------------------------ H: > Secondly, wholesome traits arise and are strengthened due to continual practice. To say that condition S is cultivated by past S, and that by further past S, etc, etc, is to say practically nothing at all. The idea that S>S>S>S>S>S>... is a complete explanation is just plain silly. -------------------------------------------- I don't see a problem. The explanation of the "gradual" nature of vipassana-development says it all. ----------------------------------------------------- <. . .> H: > The answer is c), the entire path of practice involving sila, samadhi, and pa~n~na taught by the Buddha. ------------------------------------------------------ "Taught by the Buddha" are the operative words. There are many false Dhammas in circulation. The trick is to know the real one. Ken H #110421 From: han tun Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 9:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The 3 Types of Persons... hantun1 Dear Sarah, Sarah wrote: Dear Han, (Ven Samahita & all), I thought this sutta was relevant to your thread on your treatment and recovery. S: Yes, even if we don't need medicine and doctors now, we're all mentally sick and all need to hear and learn the Buddha-Dhamma. Wishing everyone a good recovery! ---------- Han: Thank you very much for your kind reminder, and good wishes. Ledi Sayadaw in his Bodhipakkhiya Dipani interpreted the three types of sick persons as follows: (1) A person who is certain of regaining health in due time even though he does not take any medicine or treatment. (2) A person who is certain of failing to make a recovery, and dying from the illness, no matter to what extent he may take medicines or treatment. ( 3) A person who will recover if he takes the right medicine and treatment, but who will fail to recover and die if he fails to take the right medicine and treatment. Han: Please note the clause for the third kind of sick person [but who will fail to recover and die if he fails to take the right medicine and treatment] Ledi Sayadaw further explained that an individual of the Neyya class resembles the third class of sick person. just as a person of this third class is related to the two ways of either recovering or dying from the sickness, so is a Neyya individual related to the two eventualities of either obtaining release from worldly ills during the present life, or failing to obtain such release. If such a Neyya individual, knowing what is good for him according to his age, discards what should be discarded, searches for the right teacher, and obtains the right guidance from him and puts forth sufficient effort, he can obtain release from worldly ills in this very life. If, however, he becomes addicted to wrong views and wrong ways of conduct, if he finds himself unable to discard sensual pleasures, if although able to discard sensual pleasures he does not obtain the guidance of a good teacher, if although obtaining the guidance of a good teacher, he is unable to evoke sufficient effort, if although inclined to put forth effort he is unable to do so through old age, if although young he is liable to sickness, he cannot obtain release from worldly ills in this present life. End Quote. So for me, I still have a lot to do more for a good recovery. Respectfully, Han #110422 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 9:51 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? ptaus1 Hi Alex, Thanks for explaining. > Alex: Right Effort (RE) has 4 parts. One of its parts is "abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen" as opposed to preventing them from arising in the first place. > > The wording does suggest that RE#2 can arise when there are at that moment other akusala qualites, otherwise it would not make sense. ... > Again, #2 does state that right effort can arise when "unskillful qualities that have arisen". > > By saying that when kusala arises after akusala has ceased, to replace akusala that has ceased (and without them overlapping) one is contradicting point #2 of counteracting ARISEN akusala qualities. If that arisen quality has to cease before right effort arises, then how can arisen akusala quality be called "arisen"? pt: I see where you're coming from. I think this then has to do with the whole conventional vs ultimate issue. I mean, conventionally it could be said that arisen akusala and right effort arise together for the same reason that it can be said ultimately that the akusala dhamma is taken up as the object (by way of navattabba, so it's still "present" or "arisen" so to speak) in the very next mind-door process that has panna and right effort. In addition, the two mind-door processes (one akusala and one kusala) follow one another extremely fast and therefore seemingly at the same time. These are the two main points on how I reconcile the apparent discrepancy between sutta and commentary. > Alex: But some have said that one shouldn't do any intentional or "unnatural" effort to develop something. You are well aware of anti-method bias of some people. pt: I tried to explain before that when they warn against "intentional" and "unnatural" effort, this is in essence warning against wrong effort disguised as right effort. Whether effort at present is right or wrong, that's something that only you can figure out (or rather panna), but I find it helpful when people try to discuss all the pitfalls one can fall into, especially when it comes to such subtle differences as between right/wrong effort, etc. > Alex: If we take a discreet model of cittas, where only one citta of present and only one jati exists, then it would mean that only one citta (either kusala, akusala, kiriya or vipaka) can arise. But how can kusala citta remove arisen akusala citta that no longer is? How can one abandon what no longer exist (has ceased a mind moment before)? pt: As mentioned, this has to do with the navattabba business, i.e. a dhamma that has fallen away, but it's characteristics are still experienced in the following mind-door process(es) by way of navattabba. > Alex; Right effort is also of the type of "arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... " (ex: proper considering to counteract lust, for example), and this is what I also would like to emphasize. pt: I might be wrong, but I think this again refers simply to arising of kusala now, since that's what conditions more kusala in the future. Anther interpretation that occurs to me is that the arisen kusala is understood as anatta - e.g. when say metta arises, in the next mind-door process it becomes the object and panna understands the anatta characteristic of that metta (again by way of navattabba). Best wishes pt #110423 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 10:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Keyboard epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > On 2 October 2010 11:18, epsteinrob wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Herman. > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > Herman wrote: > > > > > The meanings things have for you, including "Microsoft," are all concepts. > > If you see they are concepts, you don't have to take them seriously, even > > though you may keep seeing them. The fact that things have meanings is not > > in itself meaningful. It's just more stuff arising in the moment. Even > > though you see the pattern of colors as a logo, you can also see it is a > > pattern of colors. I think you can learn to shift back and forth, and see > > what the constituent parts are, even though you may still see the whole when > > you focus in the usual way. > > > > > Thanks for your comments. I'm very interested in the relationship between conceptual understanding and what is "really being experienced," [including the conceptual meanings.] > I agree with what you say about the meaning of meaning, but the act of not > taking things seriously does nothing to alter the fact that stuff, including > meanings, continues to arise, and that there is the continuing assuming of a > position vis a vis this stuff that continues to arise. There's always the "meta" level. I think the problem is that we think that meanings, positions and more discerning analysis cannot coexist. I'll give you an example below and see what you think, continuing to explore the cursed´ Microsoft logo. > But I really, truly cannot not see Microsoft when I look at that part of the > keyboard. In saying that I know that it is only certain colours in a > pattern, that is in fact thinking it is only certain colours, it is not > experienced as that. It is experienced as a whole, as the coloured Microsoft > logo, not as constituent components which are the product of thought > (analysis). I don't mean to challenge your personal experience, but I don't think that's necessarily 100% true. Without getting rid of the logo perception, you can *add* various component perceptions and understandings through emphasis, investigation, etc. For instance you can focus on one color in the logo and exactly what color impression that is making on the eye, how that feels, what the color is like. You can compare that to the other color and make distinctions in how their "frequencies" feel; all this while still knowing the meaning of the overall configuration, but still the segments have their own meanings within that overall meaning, and those smaller meanings can be more abstract and less directly related to the overall logo. Likewise, I know I have a body-concept, but if I focus on my leg I get more of a "leg experience," and that not only alters the body concept but gives me specific information about smaller components that are part of it. All of these experiences that are segmented off of the overall concept are real, and actual experiences that don't necessarily have the same degree of conceptualization hampering them, and are potentially more direct than the overall accustomed configuration and its meaning. There's a lot of room for more than the "default perceptual meaning" one is apt to have without applying mindful investigation, if one does. > Considerations such as these lead me to question the wisdom of reading a > book in order to better understand present dhammas. Given that a literate > person cannot not see meaning when they see written words in their native > language, and given that the meaning is not at all in those written words, > the act of reading a book is in fact an exercise in seeing what is not > there; to seek out a dhamma book is to seek to be lost in thought. A menu is also an exercise in seeing what is not there - and invites imagining what one or another dish may be like. Based on that, we make a decision and order a meal, which is then actually experienced. So a book can give a method of investigation, as can a teacher, or one's own conceptual plan, but then we can go beyond the original thought, and apply the scheme in question to actual experience, and even drop the thought to some degree while shifting attention to actual details that are alive. It is not black and white; we can have combinations; we can shift back and forth; we can add things, and thus alter what is given, and look into "what it really is." At the meta-level, you can step back and look at your perception of a color pattern as a logo, and look into how that works too. You're not just stuck with what's in your face. Looking at the concept and meaning of a logo is not being "lost in your head." It can be truthfully investigating the perception of a thought-form - another valid form of experience. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110424 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 10:28 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? ptaus1 Hi RobE, > RobE: This is where I think there is a lot of presumption not based fairly on what may accompany the desire to do a "positive" activity. It doesn't have to be self-based craving for results - it can be actual understanding that this is the correct process to engage with. ... pt: Sure, that's similar to my logical argument, but the real deal is to understand what happens whenever there's actual sitting down to meditate or opening a book, etc. For me, it's usually akusala, and I wouldn't even know that it was akusala if someone else didn't point out what to look for. So, at least now there's some recognition of akusala. > RobE: We can poke holes back and forth, but the question is, is there a real logic that makes sense and is not based on a predisposed opinion, pt: I disagree here. I mean, my logic in this matter is similar to yours, but reality doesn't care much for logical arguments. So in terms of practical application of the teaching, I do find it very helpful when someone like Sarah comes along and starts poking holes in my understanding - otherwise I wouldn't be able to see the things I'm missing (usually because my logic is obscuring the picture in the first place), especially when it comes to the difference between kusala and akusala. Best wishes pt #110425 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 1, 2010 10:35 pm Subject: Re: Lost messages ptaus1 Hi Azita, > A: thanx for this, as I was wondering where a message I had sent days ago, had gone. pt: Thanks go to Sarah who forwarded the Yahoo message to me. > A: I'm a little disappointed that I'm unable to attend the get-together in Sydney next week, but family matters came first. pt: Ah, pity we won't see you this time, but hopefully there'll be many more opportunities. All the best to your family. Best wishes pt #110426 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 12:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Keyboard egberdina Hi Rob E, On 2 October 2010 15:09, epsteinrob wrote: > > I'm very interested in the relationship between conceptual understanding > and what is "really being experienced," [including the conceptual meanings.] > > Yes, me too. And I really do experience this conversation with delight :-) I don't mean to challenge your personal experience, but I don't think that's > necessarily 100% true. Without getting rid of the logo perception, you can > *add* various component perceptions and understandings through emphasis, > investigation, etc. > I acknowledge what you are saying, but, sorry, perhaps I have some cognitive deficit, but at no point of the ever-changing perceptual sequence is "Microsoft" not part of what I see when I look down near the numeric keypad. The very act of trying to not see it, merely affirms that I am seeing it. > For instance you can focus on one color in the logo and exactly what color > impression that is making on the eye, how that feels, what the color is > like. You can compare that to the other color and make distinctions in how > their "frequencies" feel; all this while still knowing the meaning of the > overall configuration, but still the segments have their own meanings within > that overall meaning, and those smaller meanings can be more abstract and > less directly related to the overall logo. Likewise, I know I have a > body-concept, but if I focus on my leg I get more of a "leg experience," and > that not only alters the body concept but gives me specific information > about smaller components that are part of it. All of these experiences that > are segmented off of the overall concept are real, and actual experiences > that don't necessarily have the same degree of conceptualization hampering > them, and are potentially more direct than the overall accustomed > configuration and its meaning. There's a lot of room for more than the > "default perceptual meaning" one is apt to have without applying mindful > investigation, if one does. > > I think that meaning is a function of the associations that have been made between different phenomena over time. Some phenomena are frequently associated, and others hardly ever. Meaning can thus vary in the strength of its presentation. It is certainly possible to unlearn certain associations, and thus modify behaviour, but unlearning the complex association that is the meaning "Microsoft" with the seeing of certain patterns of colours is just not one of them, for me. In the same way, I doubt that I could unlearn understanding what someone says when they speak to me in English, or that I could unlearn recognising my wife. I honestly don't see any connection with mindful investigation in these cases. > > Considerations such as these lead me to question the wisdom of reading a > > book in order to better understand present dhammas. Given that a literate > > person cannot not see meaning when they see written words in their native > > language, and given that the meaning is not at all in those written > words, > > the act of reading a book is in fact an exercise in seeing what is not > > there; to seek out a dhamma book is to seek to be lost in thought. > > A menu is also an exercise in seeing what is not there - and invites > imagining what one or another dish may be like. > Yes, imagining is a good choice of word. > Based on that, we make a decision and order a meal, which is then actually > experienced. > Yes, but the imagined meal, and the meal delivered to your table are two entirely different things. One is imagined, and the other one is, well, real :-) > So a book can give a method of investigation, as can a teacher, or one's > own conceptual plan, but then we can go beyond the original thought, and > apply the scheme in question to actual experience, and even drop the thought > to some degree while shifting attention to actual details that are alive. It > is not black and white; we can have combinations; we can shift back and > forth; we can add things, and thus alter what is given, and look into "what > it really is." > OK. I would say that the book can act as a prompt to imagine or think stuff. What will be imagined or thought, won't be a function of what the book says, though. The book doesn't say anything. What will be imagined / thought will largely be a function of associations the reader has previously made. And if the thinking / imagining is a prompt to action of some kind, it will be action according to the readers meanings, not the meanings in the book (which aren't there). > At the meta-level, you can step back and look at your perception of a color > pattern as a logo, and look into how that works too. You're not just stuck > with what's in your face. Looking at the concept and meaning of a logo is > not being "lost in your head." It can be truthfully investigating the > perception of a thought-form - another valid form of experience. > > I sort of get the feeling that you imagine / think yourself to be free to construct and discard meaning as you please. Which is fine, of course. Cheers Herman #110427 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 1:51 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? philofillet Hi Pt > As far as I can tell from experience, such understanding of present aksuala as anatta really does have the strength to evoke immediate abstinence for example. At lest that's how I experience it, which is why I find affinity with what Sarah and others here are saying about understanding arising anywhere, anytime. I mean, on the rare occasions when I experience something like that, it becomes very clear how there can be immediate abstinence from akusala simply through the virtue of understanding arising in the present moment, rather than through trying to make some special purposeful effort to abandon the present akusala. Ok, fair enough, and also re the later comments on having more awareness of dhammas in daily life than in meditation. Different accumulations, as you say. For me, there was simply a lot of thinking (even on a subtle level that didn't feel like thinking, but maybe "bare awareness" or something) of deep aspects of the Dhamma. But I have never been an insight oriented person, so it is natural that the main impact of listening to AS was, for me, thinking about deep aspects of Dhamma constantly, really being in my head all the time, and getting comfort out of it, mistaking this thinking about deep aspects of Dhamma for something to do with having the insights involved, a kind of appropriation for a very subtle form of personal pleasure. I don't think anyone would truly find it pleasant to think "there is no Phil", but it was such a neat thing to think about. Why? Because I was sucking pleasure out of the deep teachings like a child sucks flavour out of a candy. The biggest thing I noticed when I returned to meditation (such taht it is) is that the Dhamma kind of came down into my body more, which I would dare say is akin to mindfulness of the body, and we know how valuable the Buddha said that is, and that it must come first. The notion that mindfulness of the body in the body doesn't lead the other three satipatthanas is incorrect, I think. It was such a relief to no longer have to constantly be thinking about deep aspects of Dhamma! There is no longer access to the deep teachings for me, rarely anyways, but I'm not missing it right now. Of course the Buddha did say that if the deep teachings disappeared and only the poetry remained it would be like a drum with only the ribs remaining, or something like that. It is important to have access to the deep teachings. I had it, maybe I will have it again someday! But for now I am approaching the Dhamma in the terms that people of limited understanding do in the suttas, in utterly conventional terms. I don't have the Buddha to decide when understanding is ready for the deeper teachings, it would probably be best not to spend too much time at DSG, because A.S students discourage me from having an interest in the deep teachings, there is too much unabashed hunger for them. Maybe Dhammawheel where the deep teachings corners are rather dusty would be better for me.... Metta, Phil p.s I will drop out of this and the related thread now, thanks Ken, Rob, Howard and others for your feedback... #110428 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 1:54 am Subject: Re: Who am I? philofillet Hi Ari > > But the sutta is not available online so I will have to summarize it myself, but not today, maybe tomorrow. Thanks again. > > > > Metta, > > > > Phil > > I did print up the last one you recommended, but have not read it yet. I'll await your comments on the thing you printed out, about the Buddhist teaching on nutriments (not a sutta, but refers to a sutta) before posting on the deer-hunting related sutta. It is about consumption of sense objects, so I'd like to discuss the four nutriments before we go any further, of course all welcome to join in. I always think it's an underappreciated topic... Metta, Phil #110429 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 2:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The 3 Types of Persons... nilovg Dear Han and Sarah, Thank you both, appreciating the way this sutta was highlighted. Op 2-okt-2010, om 6:50 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Ledi Sayadaw in his Bodhipakkhiya Dipani interpreted the three > types of sick persons as follows: ------ N: Yes, I have this book, and Ledi Sayadaw gives examples. He also mentions the importance of the paramis. The Neyya Puggala has to practice satipa.t.thaana and the four right efforts in this life and then he can become a sotaapanna. ----- Nina. #110430 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 3:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? nilovg Hi Herman, pt and friends, Op 2-okt-2010, om 2:33 heeft Herman het volgende geschreven: > Yes, I think it will be an interesting meeting too. From the sound > of it, it > will be mostly a discussion of theory, which is fine, of course. ----- N: Please refer all to the present moment, then it will be much better than theory. But Thanks to Ken H's presence this will happen. Nina #110431 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 3:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? nilovg Dear Philip, Op 2-okt-2010, om 1:53 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > May I ask about your understanding of the function of samvega, how > does it manifest for you? I guess you will say that samvega is also > momentary, and accompanies a brief moment of awareness of a reality > in daily life. I'm not sure that's the way the Buddha meant samvega... > > Then again, there is little samvega for me... ------- N: We all have little. At the moment of awareness, even if it is merely beginning, there is already some sense of urgency, no need to think about it. It does not help to say to oneself: sati is so urgent, I may die soon. Seeing the benefit of all kusala and also of satipa.t.thaana can condition the arising of sati and pa~n~naa. Again, no need to think of the benefit. All this 'thinking about' is only thinking. As Kh Sujin says: what about the present moment? It is true that there is seeing, hearing or thinking time and again. Nina. #110432 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 3:22 am Subject: What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05,a , no 3. nilovg Dear friends, From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05,a , no 3. Sarah: Visible object is seen and paying attenion to shape and form is thinking of a concept. There was a question on the experience of different colours. Kh Sujin: There is no understanding of visible object as just a reality. Sarah: It was just a long story about visible object. Ven. Pannabahulo: People speak about noting seeing, hearing etc. but this is not helpful. Kh Sujin: This is already done all the time. Nobody has to do anything at all. Sarah: We know that colours are very different. Colour arises in a group (kalapa) of ruupas including the four Great Elements. Colour is different all the time. Is this because of the other Elements in the group? Kh Sujin: If this would not be the case there would be only one colour. --------- Jon: The Buddha did teach meditation. Kh Sujin: What do you mean by meditation? Jon: There can be many interpretations of the word meditation. Ven. Pannabahulo: Meditation seems to me something that is being done. It is an activity. Kh Sujin: Of what? Ven. Pannabahulo: Of the mind. Kh Sujin: Kusala citta arises and performs the function of what? Is it wrong understanding? Ven. Pannabahulo: A mind that is focused on reality. Kh Sujin: The mind focuses but no understanding. If one thinks that meditation is to focus that cannot be satipa.t.thaana. Focusing is not understanding. Sati is that reality which is aware of a characteristic of reality, just one at a time, with understanding. If there is no understanding of reality right now how can understanding of that object grow? When there is touching, hardness appears. Is there any understanding of the experience of hardness, or of just hardness itself ? ****** Nina. #110433 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 3:47 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? ptaus1 Hi Phil, > Phil: But for now I am approaching the Dhamma in the terms that people of limited understanding do in the suttas, in utterly conventional terms. I don't have the Buddha to decide when understanding is ready for the deeper teachings, it would probably be best not to spend too much time at DSG, because A.S students discourage me from having an interest in the deep teachings, there is too much unabashed hunger for them. Maybe Dhammawheel where the deep teachings corners are rather dusty would be better for me.... pt: I don't know Phil, I often get the feeling that you're being too tough on yourself, putting yourself down, and that sort of thing. Remember the gradual thing and what Nina said recently about how valuable are moments of understanding even if they are very rare. Regarding thinking about Dhamma, greed for the teachings and that sort of thing, I think that's normal too. One thing I found strange initially was why did Nina, Sarah and others constantly go back to discussing the basics - like the present moment, what's the reality now, and that sort of thing. To me that seemed very basic and in no need of repetition. I thought such experts should be discussing the "deep" teachings, ala how many kinds of cittas there are in relation to a particular base, how many are prompted, etc. But, it's a little more clear now that simple things are in fact much more important because they help us relate to the present moment. Like, is there sati now, and that sort of thing. So I mean, understanding now is the real deal because that's what ultimately makes all the difference. And I find that discussing with Sarah and others provides many reminders to consider the present moment. So, I'd encourage you to discuss and ask questions. Best wishes pt #110434 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 2:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/2/2010 12:21:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, -------- <. . .> KH: > If satipatthana was about "catching" dhammas then a quiet spot and a concentrated mind would be ideal. (Just like when catching fish.) But satipatthana is not about catching anything. >> H: > That's true, the practice involved with the foundations of mindfulness has nothing to do with catching anything. There is nothing catchable/graspable. -------- I prefer to say there is something, but it is not capable of being caught (in the conventional sense). -------------------- H: > However, the practice does have to do with paying attention - not getting lost in thought (including planning) or in sloth & torpor. --------------------- That's what I mean by "catching in the conventional sense." ----------------------------------------------- Repeated effort to avoid inattention, not getting lost in thought or in lethargy, is "catching in the conventional sense"? Well, if so, I plead guilty. ---------------------------------------------- In absolute reality, every citta pays attention to its object. ------------------------------------------------- So, then there is no special mental function of attention/non-distraction? (We all know that consciousness knows (or, better, "is a knowing of") what it knows. That has nothing to do with sati. It is a trivial observation that consciousness is always consciousness of something.) ----------------------------------------------- Sloth and torpor (thina and middha) arise in certain types of prompted akusala cittas, but there is no connection between them and any prevailing conventional activity. They are just as likely to arise during sitting-meditation as they are during housework (to use Phil's examples). ----------------------------- H: > And that practice when supported by a knowledge of the teachings and a practice of sila (including the 4 right endeavors), can lead to wisdom. ------------------------------ There is no mention in the Tipitaka of any vipassana practices of 'sitting with calmed mind' 'looking' or 'noting' etc. --------------------------------------------- What I spoke of was paying attention and not getting lost. These words you just used are yours, not mine. -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ <. . .> KH: > When you are moving around the house, what realities are there to be known? There are namas and rupas, aren't there? So the realities to be known are exactly the same as when you are sitting quietly. >> H: >It can be, provided attention is both easy and keen. ------------------------------------------- What I meant was that namas and rupas were always present (at all times and in all situations). ------------------------------------------- That doesn't say much - only that there always is what there is, a tautology that sounds like more. ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------- KH: > And how do those namas and rupas become known? Is it by some cunning, dhamma-catching technique? Or do they become known when you have heard, and understood, the Buddha's teaching? ---------------------------------------------- LOL! Like a physics student knows quarks because of studying about them! --------------------------------------------- >> H: > See what I wrote above. Knowing *about* the tilakkhana and paticcasamupada is certainly important and good, knowing *about* sila and training the mind is better, and applying the teachings is the essential next step. --------------------------------------------- Hmm, I notice you carefully avoided "knowing about paramattha dhammas". :-) If there is no knowledge of paramattha dhammas, the tilakkhana and paticcasamupada are meaningless. Knowing namas and rupas is the be-all and end-all of satipatthana. -------------------------------------------- Knowing the tilakkhana and conditionality is. -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ KH: > The right answer is the second one of course. >> H: > There is no "of course" about it. This is your opinion, period. (As is my opinion just that - an opinion.) ------------------------------------------ The Theravada texts are abundantly clear on this issue: conventional realities (objects, activities, practices) play absolutely no role in satipatthana. Therefore, as a student of those texts, I prefer to say "of course" in the above instance. ------------------------------------------------- We all would *prefer* to say "of course". A true believer with respect to any religion, tradition, or thought-scheme is one who never distinguishes his/her beliefs, understanding, and interpretations from TRUTH, never considering the possibility that they might differ from the facts. Where do you stand in this area? The only thing that I am certain of is not knowing much of anything with certainty. ---------------------------------------------- ------------------ KH: > >And the same applies to the strength (or clarity) of your "knowing". Most people will tell you it depends on some kind of satipatthana-strengthening technique. But they are wrong. It depends on how much satipatthana there has been in the past. > > H: > LOLOL! First of all, satipatthana is neither mindfulness nor wisdom, but is a foundation of (or subject area for) mindfulness. The word is being misused. ------------------ That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. ---------------------------------------------- Thank you. :-) --------------------------------------------- The Theravada texts, however, say differently. They explain that, in different contexts, satipatthana can mean "right-understanding" or "right mindfulness" or "the objects of right-mindfulness" or simply, "the teaching of the Buddha". ------------------------------------------- The word 'upatthÄna' means "foundation". ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ H: > Secondly, wholesome traits arise and are strengthened due to continual practice. To say that condition S is cultivated by past S, and that by further past S, etc, etc, is to say practically nothing at all. The idea that S>S>S>S>S>S>... is a complete explanation is just plain silly. -------------------------------------------- I don't see a problem. The explanation of the "gradual" nature of vipassana-development says it all. ---------------------------------------------- If you can't follow this point of infinite regress without basis, there is nothing for me to add. ---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- <. . .> H: > The answer is c), the entire path of practice involving sila, samadhi, and pa~n~na taught by the Buddha. ------------------------------------------------------ "Taught by the Buddha" are the operative words. There are many false Dhammas in circulation. The trick is to know the real one. --------------------------------------------- And somehow you are certain you *know* the real one. That makes one of us. I, however, admit that I don't know. I continue to look and see. -------------------------------------------- Ken H ========================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110435 From: "philip" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 8:10 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? philofillet Hi pot > pt: I don't know Phil, I often get the feeling that you're being too tough on yourself, putting yourself down, and that sort of thing. Remember the gradual thing and what Nina said recently about how valuable are moments of understanding even if they are very rare. Ph: It's probably a Canadian passive-aggressive thing. I actually feel kind of superior, I am very satisfied with my approach to Dhamma and feel very confident that my approach is much more in line with the Buddha's teaching than that of A.S students. I like Nina, she is a wonderful person, no doubt, but why should I be impressed or want to remember that she said how value moments of understand are, even if they are very rare? Who is she? Did the Buddha say that? Another line I used to like when I listened to A.S was Ven Dhammadaro saying "one moment of sati in a lifetime, wealthy man!" and I used to repeat it with a kind of conviction. Why? I certainly don't believe it now. "One moment of sati in a lifetime, wealthy man" sounds like gross delusion to me now. > > Regarding thinking about Dhamma, greed for the teachings and that sort of thing, I think that's normal too. One thing I found strange initially was why did Nina, Sarah and others constantly go back to discussing the basics - like the present moment, what's the reality now, and that sort of thing. To me that seemed very basic and in no need of repetition. Ph: Well, sorry, I'm not impressed by people being interested in having awareness of the present moment in daily life, it's not something I come across in the suttas that inspire me, sorry. The dry insight worker thing, sorry, Sarah, Nina, wonderful people, but my impression is that they are people who lead comfortable lives and get extra pleasure in life out of the Dhamma. Nothing wrong with that, it will keep them out of trouble. But for people like me who are right down in the trenches doing battle with very powerful defilements (you don't know, my friend, believe me) Sarah and Nina's approach to Dhamma is very cozy, won't do for me. The Buddha taught in very fierce terms to people who were dealing with fierce defilements. The day I hear *any* other Buddhist teacher say things that sound like A. Sujin I will sit up and listen. Until then I will consider her a quaint outrider. OK, thanks PT, I appreciate your tone (tone is much more impressive to me than Dhamma content, there are some really mean and arrogant people who are very proud of their Dhamma knowledge, but their arrogance makes anything they say about Dhamma moot as far as I'm concerned) though I am starting to get you mixed up with Scott, he sounded like you when he first came across A.S. He eventually got more irritable and got fed up with all the hulla-balloo involved in defending A.S and got out. (I guess he'll be back.) Good luck, it would be wonderful and impressive if you can manage to maintain your warm tone. Sarah is the undisputed champion in that sense, I would say. Ooops, more stories about people, what is the present reality. I don't know! I don't do realities, I do people! :) Metta, Phil #110436 From: "a_true_lotus" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 8:39 am Subject: Re: Who am I? a_true_lotus --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Ari > > > > > But the sutta is not available online so I will have to summarize it myself, but not today, maybe tomorrow. Thanks again. > > > > > > Metta, > > > > > > Phil > > > > I did print up the last one you recommended, but have not read it yet. > > I'll await your comments on the thing you printed out, about the Buddhist teaching on nutriments (not a sutta, but refers to a sutta) before posting on the deer-hunting related sutta. It is about consumption of sense objects, so I'd like to discuss the four nutriments before we go any further, of course all welcome to join in. I always think it's an underappreciated topic... > > Metta, > > Phil Sure, it's all printed out upstairs. I don't like reading very long documents on screen and this was 41 pages. Get back to you. Best, Ari #110437 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 8:42 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote:> > RobE: We can poke holes back and forth, but the question is, is there a real logic that makes sense and is not based on a predisposed opinion, > > pt: I disagree here. I mean, my logic in this matter is similar to yours, but reality doesn't care much for logical arguments. So in terms of practical application of the teaching, I do find it very helpful when someone like Sarah comes along and starts poking holes in my understanding - otherwise I wouldn't be able to see the things I'm missing (usually because my logic is obscuring the picture in the first place), especially when it comes to the difference between kusala and akusala. Let me rephrase: it is a question of whether there is a real basis for the objection, rather than a dogmatic or prejudicial one. Being warned of the pitfalls of doing a seemingly kusala activity for self-based reasons is very important, as you point out. Knowing what to look out for in akusala intentions is also very important. Having a wholesale prejudice against a particular realm of intention or activity is what I am objecting to, not the insight or warnings about where things can go wrong. I am happy to be warned about the possibility of akusala intentions where it would otherwise seem kusala and that the desire for results may spoil the kusala in an otherwise positive-seeming intention. What I am not happy about is being defined by buzzwords like "formal meditation" or buzz-phrases like "likely that it will be mostly akusala," because those I think are presumptuous and based on prejudice. When people are advised *not* to meditate because it is pre-defined and predetermined as a self-based, akusala activity that is trying to make things happen instead of allowing them to arise naturally, I think that is dangerous and mistaken advice that may ignore the propensities of that individual for kusala development of sati and samatha in their bhavana practice. One translates the correct principle of looking at dhammas now and to not hold onto intentions for results in the future, and mistakenly applies that across the board to rule out what may be correct kusala practice for a particular person. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110438 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 8:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Keyboard epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > I sort of get the feeling that you imagine / think yourself to be free to > construct and discard meaning as you please. Which is fine, of course. I would put it a different way - I think we are free to look at the meanings we have assigned things, and that looking at them mindfully does not get rid of them, but does alter their context. It also changes the meaning to some extent, as does any form of experience. I think experience and meaning are cumulative and are not fixed in one position. I think we keep re-experiencing what we may "think" is the same meaning, but that it is actually constantly changing and being reconstituted or deconstructed as new information comes into play. So I think you may always associate Microsoft with that color pattern of the logo, but I don't think that's a simple or fixed assignment. I think it has nuances and constructions and edges and sub-meanings that are constantly shifting and that the meaning of those meanings is a constant state of alteration. I also think that meaning changes through intention and emphasis. Anyone can make their native tongue temporarily nonsensical by saying a few words over and over again until they lose sense. The default meanings will come back, but the new information alters those too. I once was told that English was a harsh "Germanic" language as opposed to the smooth, flowing romance languages, French, Spanish, etc. I had never thought of that before. I tried out a few sentences and they were right! After trying it out for a while I came to the conclusion that I kind of liked the harshness of English and that I would have gotten bored with all the flowingness of the other languages after a while. But it changed my perspective on the context and meaning of my own language, which I had unconsciously used as my "base" up until then. Anyway, I think it's a question of changing and developing versus fixed and constantly recurring; rather than one of is vs. not-is. [The principle of anicca is somewhere in there too...] I think you tend to take conditioned meanings as a set "is," rather than something that the mind keeps reconstructing with variations, which is how I take it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110439 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 3:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Howard, -------- <. . .> KH: > > That's what I mean by "catching in the conventional sense." >> H: > Repeated effort to avoid inattention, not getting lost in thought or in lethargy, is "catching in the conventional sense"? Well, if so, I plead guilty. -------- Yes but do you understand the charges? :-) If we mistake those conventional things for satipatthana, then the charges are: wrong view, wrong mindfulness, wrong effort . . . ------------------ KH: > > In absolute reality, every citta pays attention to its object. >> H: > So, then there is no special mental function of attention/non-distraction? (We all know that consciousness knows (or, better, "is a knowing of") what it knows. That has nothing to do with sati. It is a trivial observation that consciousness is always consciousness of something.) ----------------------------------------------- It may be a trivial fact, but millions of Buddhists are unaware of it. And so they try to direct consciousness towards an object. ------------------ <. . .> KH: > > There is no mention in the Tipitaka of any vipassana practices of 'sitting with calmed mind' 'looking' or 'noting' etc. >> H: > What I spoke of was paying attention and not getting lost. These words you just used are yours, not mine. ------------------- Be fair, Howard, those words are exactly the sort of thing we hear from all meditators. Everyone who thinks the Dhamma is about "doing" something - as distinct from "understanding" something - uses that kind of language. --------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > >What I meant was that namas and rupas were always present (at all times and in all situations). >> H: > That doesn't say much - only that there always is what there is, a tautology that sounds like more. ----------------------------------------- No, it isn't just saying there is always what there is. It is saying there is always the same reality (nama and rupa) no matter whether you are sitting quietly or rushing about. -------------------------------- KH: > > And how do those namas and rupas become known? Is it by some cunning, dhamma-catching technique? Or do they become known when you have heard, and understood, the Buddha's teaching? > > H: > LOL! Like a physics student knows quarks because of studying about them! ---------------------------------- Yes, I suppose so. Some physics students are able to make that knowledge their own, and eventually know more about quarks than is in the books. ------------------ <. . .> KH: > > Knowing namas and rupas is the be-all and end-all of satipatthana. >> H:> Knowing the tilakkhana and conditionality is. ------------------ You are trying to have one without the other; it can't be done. ------------------------------------------ <. . .> H: > We all would *prefer* to say "of course". A true believer with respect to any religion, tradition, or thought-scheme is one who never distinguishes his/her beliefs, understanding, and interpretations from TRUTH, never considering the possibility that they might differ from the facts. Where do you stand in this area? The only thing that I am certain of is not knowing much of anything with certainty. ------------------------------------------- I go back to the beginning: (1) There are only the present realities. (2) The question is, what are those realities? (3) They are mental and physical phenomena. (And so on.) I haven't found any sticking points yet. And I have found this Dhamma can be a refuge in a way that nothing else can. ------------------------------------------ <. . .> H: > > > wholesome traits arise and are strengthened due to continual practice. To say that condition S is cultivated by past S, and that by further past S, etc, etc, is to say practically nothing at all. The idea that S>S>S>S>S>S>... is a complete explanation is just plain silly. >>> KH: > > I don't see a problem. The explanation of the "gradual" nature of vipassana-development says it all. >> H: > If you can't follow this point of infinite regress without basis, there is nothing for me to add. ---------------------------------------------- There are some aspects that I am not sure about. The Dhamma doesn't attempt to explain a first cause of the universe. (I think we all agree on that.) But does it attempt to explain a first cause of right understanding? I don't know the answer to that. I am sure it has been discussed at DSG, but the answer hasn't sunk in yet. (If indeed it did go "in" in the first place, as distinct from "over my head.") :-) Ken H #110440 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 3:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... truth_aerator Hello KenH, all, >KH: Be fair, Howard, those words are exactly the sort of thing we >hear >from all meditators. Everyone who thinks the Dhamma is about >"doing" >something - as distinct from "understanding" something - >uses that >kind of language. 1) What is the difference between doing and understanding? 2) Can there be doing things WITH understanding? 3)What are the causes for understanding? I hope no one is suggesting the only the previous moment of understanding, for this explains absolutely nothing, like defining X to be X. 4) Can the causes, which can only be other than understanding, to avoid tautology of X=X or X leads to X, be developed? Or do they just appear out of thin air? With metta, Alex #110441 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:50 pm Subject: Re: An afternoon with Pt - round 3 ptaus1 Hi Ann, > Ann: Can any of you talk more about how "right intellectual understanding actually has to do with relating the present experience to anatta". > > Do you mean relating the present experience to anatta - but doing so intellectually - by knowing on some level (although not by direct experience) that any intellectual understanding is also conditioned and without self/me as holder of that understanding? pt: Hopefully Jon will add more. In my basic understanding, right intellectual understanding is about the beginnings of detachment so to speak. So, if anger arises and I'm taking that anger as my anger, and blaming another person for causing me trouble, etc, well - there's no detachment there obviously. But, if anger arises, and a conceptual understanding arises at the time that sees anger as just a dhamma of conditioned nature, that it (anger) is not me and so that it has the characteristic of anatta - that might not be a direct experience of a dhamma and the anatta characteristic, but it's the beginning of detachment in the present moment so to speak. Of course, this would apply to anger, to doubt, etc, and even to thinking (as you suggested) about conditioned realities and anatta or whatever other subject, since thinking too is basically just dhammas at work. Anyway, I guess intellectual understanding gradually deepens so as to eventually enable direct experience of the anatta characteristic of a dhamma, which I think would in essence equal to detachment spoken of in the suttas. Anyway, there's a lot more on this subject in the Useful posts file: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts.htm See topics: - 'Considering, Listening, Intellectual Understanding, Pariyatti' - 'Listening' - 'Pariyatti' Best wishes pt #110442 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 5:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Keyboard egberdina Hi Rob E, On 3 October 2010 01:52, epsteinrob wrote: > > > Anyway, I think it's a question of changing and developing versus fixed and > constantly recurring; rather than one of is vs. not-is. [The principle of > anicca is somewhere in there too...] I think you tend to take conditioned > meanings as a set "is," rather than something that the mind keeps > reconstructing with variations, which is how I take it. > > I acknowledge that experience is rich and varied. But if that flux of experience is not distilled into recurring meanings, and eventually static and universal understandings eg anicca, we would remain as competent as the proverbial stupid baby lying on its back. MN78 For even the thought 'body' does not occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would it do any evil action with its body, aside from a little kicking? Even the thought 'speech' does not occur to it, so from where would it speak any evil speech, aside from a little crying? Even the thought 'resolve' does not occur to it, so from where would it resolve on any evil resolve, aside from a little bad temper? Even the thought 'livelihood' does not occur to it, so from where would it maintain itself with any evil means of livelihood, aside from its mother's milk? Cheers Herman #110443 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 6:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Keyboard epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > On 3 October 2010 01:52, epsteinrob wrote: > > > > > > > Anyway, I think it's a question of changing and developing versus fixed and > > constantly recurring; rather than one of is vs. not-is. [The principle of > > anicca is somewhere in there too...] I think you tend to take conditioned > > meanings as a set "is," rather than something that the mind keeps > > reconstructing with variations, which is how I take it. > > > > > I acknowledge that experience is rich and varied. But if that flux of > experience is not distilled into recurring meanings, and eventually static > and universal understandings eg anicca, we would remain as competent as the > proverbial stupid baby lying on its back. The repeatability and dependability of set meanings and purposes, from knowing the use of a chair, and remembering how to walk competently, to knowing the basic meanings of words and symbols of other kinds - this is a given, and it is somewhat wondrous and somewhat fascinating, that given the truth of anicca - that everything is always in process, and that process includes dissolution, rebuilding and restructuring - that we are able to maintain the continuity of our lives with all those meanings intact. However, the stability of those structures is one side of the coin. The other side is what happens to your perception when you look at those structures with a microscope and see the process that takes place to establish, maintain and reestablish those structures. It may seem static, but it is not. So it is a tribute to our adaptability and resiliency that we can keep reestablishing our meanings in the face of this entropy, but it is also true that ultimately it is a losing battle. Eventually strength gives out and we slide back in the mud and over the cliff. Even our meanings go down the tubes with everything else. So it may be worth a look at what is really going on while we are busy trying to stand still and remain the same. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #110444 From: "bhikkhu3" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 6:05 pm Subject: The Entrance! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Last Relinquishment: When ignorance of the 4 Noble Truths finally fully evaporates, Then one no longer clings to any pleasure, one no longer clings to any views, One does not any longer cling to any rule, ritual or to any idea of a self... When one does not cling, one is not agitated! One becomes imperturbable... In complete absence of agitation, one attains the state of NibbÄna! One understands: This Rebirth is ended, the Noble life has been completed, What had to be done is done, there is no relapsing into any state of being... The Entrance is a phase transition of consciousness! Source: Majjhima NikÄya I 68: The shorter speech on the Lion's Roar. Have a nice redefining the goal day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu SamÄhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net The Entrance! #110445 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 7:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Alex ----------- <. . .> KH: > > Everyone who thinks the Dhamma is about "doing" something - as distinct from "understanding" something - uses that kind of language. >> A: > 1) What is the difference between doing and understanding? ------------ I am not talking about a mysterious or esoteric difference, just the plain, obvious difference. To take a conventional example, I "understand" that two plus two equals four. When I put two blocks on top of two other blocks, however, that is something I "do". ----------------- A: > 2) Can there be doing things WITH understanding? ----------------- With 2 + 2 = 4, yes, but with *right* understanding (satipatthana), no. In satipatthana, "doing" must be understood as a mere conventional-designation (idea, concept, pannatti) - something that can't really exist. ------------------------- A: > 3)What are the causes for understanding? I hope no one is suggesting the only the previous moment of understanding, for this explains absolutely nothing, like defining X to be X. -------------------------- Sorry to disappoint, but it is nothing that can be controlled by anyone. It depends entirely on conditions. Repeated arisings of right understanding in the past can condition a slight increase in the level of understanding that arises now. ------------------------------------- A: > 4) Can the causes, which can only be other than understanding, to avoid tautology of X=X or X leads to X, be developed? Or do they just appear out of thin air? -------------------------------------- The only other causes are the other path factors, which are conditioned by panna to arise with it. Ken H #110446 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 3:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/2/2010 6:25:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: There are some aspects that I am not sure about. The Dhamma doesn't attempt to explain a first cause of the universe. (I think we all agree on that.) ----------------------------------------- I agree, in any case. ---------------------------------------- But does it attempt to explain a first cause of right understanding? ------------------------------------------------ I don't think so. I think there is a host of contributing conditions. We do agree that contemplation of the teachings is an important one. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110447 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 7:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Keyboard egberdina Hi Rob E, On 3 October 2010 11:28, epsteinrob wrote: > > The repeatability and dependability of set meanings and purposes, from > knowing the use of a chair, and remembering how to walk competently, to > knowing the basic meanings of words and symbols of other kinds - this is a > given, and it is somewhat wondrous and somewhat fascinating, that given the > truth of anicca - that everything is always in process, and that process > includes dissolution, rebuilding and restructuring - that we are able to > maintain the continuity of our lives with all those meanings intact. > However, the stability of those structures is one side of the coin. The > other side is what happens to your perception when you look at those > structures with a microscope and see the process that takes place to > establish, maintain and reestablish those structures. It may seem static, > but it is not. So it is a tribute to our adaptability and resiliency that we > can keep reestablishing our meanings in the face of this entropy, but it is > also true that ultimately it is a losing battle. Eventually strength gives > out and we slide back in the mud and over the cliff. Even our meanings go > down the tubes with everything else. So it may be worth a look at what is > really going on while we are busy trying to stand still and remain the same. > > > Yes, wondrous and fascinating indeed. You make many great and useful observations. And you have a marvelous way of writing them down. Microsoft and "Microsoft" won't go away, but I don't really care :-) Cheers Herman #110448 From: Herman Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 7:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... egberdina Hi Ken H, On 3 October 2010 08:25, Ken H wrote: > > > > I go back to the beginning: (1) There are only the present realities. (2) > The question is, what are those realities? (3) They are mental and physical > phenomena. (And so on.) > > I haven't found any sticking points yet. And I have found this Dhamma can > be a refuge in a way that nothing else can. > You and me, we start from different vantage points, which may explain why we see such different things. You start with absolute certainty, I start with uncertainty. You start with knowing that you know, I start with knowing that I can't know what it is I don't know. And I presume there is much I don't know. It is my experience that rigid understandings of metaphysical (read: in principle unknowable) matters are often a tacit realisation of, but aversive reaction against the reality of uncertainty, rather than an acceptance of it. Cheers Herman #110449 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 8:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Keyboard epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > Microsoft and "Microsoft" won't go away, but I don't really care :-) > > Cheers > > Herman Ha, well that is good. I guess we're here to stay for a while too - in one form or another... Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #110450 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Sep 26, 2010 1:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Gall Bladder Surgery Update sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > I am very glad to hear from you after quite a long time. Your post gives me a new strength to bear all these difficulties. Yes, we have endured such shocking pain repeatedly, and we will continue to endure and suffer such pain again and again in the samsara. I only pray for the *strength* to bear all these. .... S: Not easy at all, but the Buddha never said that life in samsara is easy. Thx for your kind words, Han and apologies for slow responses. Wishing you'll bear up with plenty of kusala cittas. .... > Yes, my grandson is the same person you had met. His name is Maung Thet Oo. He remembers you and often speaks about his discussions with you. .... S: They were lovely spirited discussions and he's obviously a very fine, caring grandson. Perhaps you can ask him (from me) to share more of his comments and advices directly here! I'd like to hear from him and discuss more about anatta:-)) Thank you very much for your beautiful series. When Htoo went back to Myanmar, before anything else, he sat at Shwedagon for quite a long while - even before visiting his family. I also know that the cave with the statue, Padamya-myet-shin has special significance for all Buddhists from Myanmar. You mentioned that you wish you can recollect your meritorious deeds during your dying moments. Of course this is very understandable, but perhaps we can see the greatest merit now is not to cling at all to furture states, but just to be aware and understand the dhamma now, even the clinging:-) Your other post on "Old Age", #110126, the last in your series, was beautiful and very moving as you recalled how your wife (who had nearly passed away herself last year) helped you to walk and all the excellent quotes. Thank you so much for sharing all of these and your helpful, personal comments which we can all learn from. I appreciate all these meritorious deeds at a time when you're still recovering. Fortunately, your confidence in the Dhamma and your mental faculties are as strong as ever. Wishing you courage, patience and wisdom! Metta Sarah ====== #110451 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 9:33 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? ptaus1 Hi RobE, > RobE: Having a wholesale prejudice against a particular realm of intention or activity is what I am objecting to, not the insight or warnings about where things can go wrong. ... > What I am not happy about is being defined by buzzwords like "formal meditation" or buzz-phrases like "likely that it will be mostly akusala," because those I think are presumptuous and based on prejudice. When people are advised *not* to meditate because it is pre-defined and predetermined as a self-based, akusala activity that is trying to make things happen instead of allowing them to arise naturally, I think that is dangerous and mistaken advice that may ignore the propensities of that individual for kusala development of sati and samatha in their bhavana practice. pt: Ok, I think I see what you're saying. I agree it's a bit counter-productive to generalise - but we all do it to a degree of course. I know I get uncomfortable when Sukin for example starts criticising all the meditators with blanket statements as if every single meditator was exactly the same. Similarly, I get a bit uncomfortable when meditators start assuming that warnings against formal meditation here are based on prejudice, bias, etc. I mean, I think KenH, Sukin, Sarah and others here have a decade or two of formal meditation practice behind them before getting in touch with A.S. so I think their statements here are based on personal experience rather than on prejudice, etc. And the advice they give is sincere I think, rather than trying to be superior and that sort of thing. So, I think their warnings are simply against wrong practice, which is a really big possibility for any one of us at any time. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're engaging in wrong practice. But, for me, when they warn me of the same thing, I find it a useful reminder to examine what's arising at the moment, in a similar way that you described as well I think. Best wishes pt #110452 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 10:28 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > pt: Ok, I think I see what you're saying. I agree it's a bit counter-productive to generalise - but we all do it to a degree of course. I know I get uncomfortable when Sukin for example starts criticising all the meditators with blanket statements as if every single meditator was exactly the same. Similarly, I get a bit uncomfortable when meditators start assuming that warnings against formal meditation here are based on prejudice, bias, etc. A warning against "formal meditation" is a generalization on its face. It assumes that all meditators are in a category, as you rightly pointed out. I don't think that criticizing that as a prejudice is an equal generalization. An equal generalization would be if I said that all dry insight approaches are wrong practice. If I did make such an assertion, I should have a basis for it, not just assert it as a fact. > I mean, I think KenH, Sukin, Sarah and others here have a decade or two of formal meditation practice behind them before getting in touch with A.S. so I think their statements here are based on personal experience rather than on prejudice, etc. Then they should say what their experience is, and what led them to that conclusion, as you have; and they shouldn't generalize to everyone and make a general conclusion about meditation practice, if that's what it's based on. And if it's based on the teachings of K. Sujin then they should say so, and then say why they believe it, but not assert that it is the absolute truth and they know it is so as a general rule. I have heard one or two people even assert that the body of meditators had not produced any real insight but only wrong view. They have not done a survey and have no way of knowing that, not to mention that unless they are arahants they have no way of seeing into others' minds directly, but they said it anyway, and that is objectionable. > And the advice they give is sincere I think, rather than trying to be superior and that sort of thing. I think in some cases that is true, and in one or two cases there seems to be some other motivation as well, but that may be a matter of style. If someone makes an argument for their view, I have no problem with that. If they say they know they are absolutely right about their view, which one or two have, and they are not arahants, I think that is a problem. > So, I think their warnings are simply against wrong practice, which is a really big possibility for any one of us at any time. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're engaging in wrong practice. But, for me, when they warn me of the same thing, I find it a useful reminder to examine what's arising at the moment, in a similar way that you described as well I think. Well I like the way you put it, pt, if one needs a good example to follow. You say what you think but you don't have any "I'm right and you're wrong" feeling in what you say. We should all aspire to that, since holding onto views that fiercely can in itself be wrong view and self-view; so why not let a little sunlight in, just in case we can learn something from each other. You seem to have that space in your understanding of things to let in new information, and that is very positive in my view. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110453 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 10:47 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Robert E, > > ---------- > <. . .> > RE: > Hm... why not put it in the most negative possible terms, so it will seem wrong no matter what. > ---------- > > I leave that to the meditators. Actually you haven't, but framed it that way yourself, for your own expository purposes. Like it or not, Ken, you have intentions - no way to get rid of them. In this case, it is to support your view and dismiss an opposing view via the way you frame things - which you seem to have snipped. > --------------- > RE: > Meditation is not a "cunning dhamma-catching technique," it is > a way of practicing being open and observing what is there, as well as understanding and calming fabrications. No "catching" involved. > --------------- > > A way of "practicing being open" "observing what is there" and "calming fabrications"! Need I say more? No, because your prejudice speaks for you. I don't see "practicing," "observing," or "calming fabrications" according to Buddha's explicit instructions to be akusala. You do, but it's not based on sutta. It's based on the esoteric understanding that any acknowledgment of intention or action based on intention, is wrong practice and self-view. > I am not trying to be offensive. If anything, I am trying not to be offensive. But in the eyes of a non-meditating Dhamma student, any description of vipassana or samatha as a formal practice will always sound like double-talk. (That is, any description of vipassana or samatha as being "something other than a conditioned dhamma" will always sound like double-talk.) I don't blame you for sticking to your own chosen terminology, but to think it is the only possible way of describing reality or right practice is pretty presumptuous. > ------------------ > KH: > > Or do they become known when you have heard, and understood, the Buddha's teaching? > > RE: > Heard, understood and correctly applied. > ------------------ > > Yes, that's what I said. "Dhammas become known" when "the Buddha's teaching is correctly applied". They are two ways of saying the same thing. We disagree on what is correct application, that's all. > > ------------------------ > KH: > > Hand on heart, Phil, the answer is not a. > > RE: > Your opinion. > ------------------------ > > My understanding of the Dhamma. As long as you know it is your understanding, and not the only possible truth, that's fine with me. You're a "worthy opponent" in any case. Everyone needs one to test out their views and hold them under close pressure and scrutiny. Even you. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #110454 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sat Oct 2, 2010 10:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Who am I?/ Sarah epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > How about a dsg computer video conference? > > > > > To the Luddites, it will be just more of the same namas and rupas. To the > likes of you and me, the developments in technology open up possibilities > previously undreamed of. I like your thought, but will not volunteer my > services :-) Ha ha, well thanks for announcing that. There are a variety of areas in which I'm not available either, but I won't list them all at the present time. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110455 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 12:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Who am I?/ Sarah sarahprocter... Hi Ari (& Howard), Thx for your reply. I hope you read Howard's - I thought it was very helpful. (Thx, Howard). A little more... --- On Thu, 30/9/10, a_true_lotus wrote: >S: Glad you're "hanging in" with us... A:>Barely! Amadaba, nabbana, it's all very confusing. I think chittas I have that down. .... S: Seeing now is citta, hearing now is citta, thinking now is citta. There is always a citta arising, conditioning the next one, like falling dominoes. Each citta is accompanied by several cetasikas. These are mental factors, such as greed, hatred, kindness, feeling and so on. So now, is there a citta with greed or a citta with wisdom or a citta with kindness? Gradually, it becomes clearer that there are just different cittas and cetasikas arising, not "Me" or "You" experiencing anything. ... > S: Just moments of thinking on and on and on. We think of 'life' as being the particular life-span of so many years, but actually, there's the birth and death of life, of thinking, at each moment. >A:*Right. But while you are alive, you are thinking, while you are dead you are not thinking, so doesn't make sense that you are thinking? ... S: Actually, as Howard said, just streams of thinking on and on and on. Even when this life is ended, the stream of thinking continues on with another form according to kamma. .... >S:Just as this moment of thinking conditions the next moment of thinking, so does the last moment of thinking in "Ari's life" condition the next moment of thinking in the next life. >A:*OK, Well, when my house was being destroyed by a tornado and I was in the basement, I was mostly screaming. So, if I had died, as a neighbor did, my last thoughts would have been screaming. Although, I have to admit I was fascinated by my dog that was somehow circling me, and my last thought might have been about my dog circling me. .... S: The processes of cittas, the processes of thinking occur so incredibly fast, faster than we can ever imagine. Even in between thoughts of screaming or circling dogs, there are also moments of seeing, hearing, bodily experience and many other kinds of thinking too. It just depends on complex conditions what the last thoughts are - no way of knowing in advance. .... >A:*But, yes, I get it. We all assume we're going to have a skillful death, but sometimes you don't die on a deathbed, you die, in your home, watering your orchids when a tornado you don't see comes upon you. ... S: Yes, death can come at any time at all. This is why the Buddha encouraged us to reflect on death and to remember to develop right understanding and awareness now. .... > >S:If awareness is aware of thinking, that's all it is - no "me" in it. > > >A:I kind of see that. > ... > S: Good, whenever there's awareness, no "Sarah", no "Ari" at all. Just thinking with joy, thinking with sadness, thinking with delight....whatever is conditioned at that moment! A:> *I'm still confused. Who is doing the thinking? Where does the thinking come from? .... S: The cittas think and the kind of thinking depends on past tendencies and habits. For example, if there are thoughts about revenge now, that unwholesome tendency increases and causes one more and more harm. On the other hand, if there are thoughts of loving-kindness and friendliness to others now, metta arises more often in one's day and one is more likely to sleep well and be surrounded by well-wishing friends:-) ..... > >OK, it still seems like I am thinking. Even if I am meditating, it seems like I am meditating. > ... > S: Yes, seems like that to "thinking". This is why thinking (or citta) is said to be like a conjurer's trick - it deceives all the time because of ignorance. >A:*If we are not thinking, then who is doing the thinking? ... S: No "who". Just passing cittas which see, hear, smell, taste, touch and think about various topics. .... A:>*OK, there are thoughts, of a certain person, and then that person dies, and there are more thoughts in the next life, and then also thoughts of other living people. All the thoughts someone thinks, are forgotten. .... S: That's right. All the thoughts, all the people, we find so important in this life are forgotten. Can we remember our family, friends and thoughts of last life time? That's why the only important thing is the development and accumulation of wholesome states now, especially right understanding about the truth of realities. .... <...> >A:*I think about my own moods an awful lot. I have bipolar disorder and I'm constantly going to depression to a good mood. It's the first thing I think of when I wake up and I think of it, many times during the day. .... S: We all find ourselves very, very impportant. We cling to what is experienced through the senses and to our thoughts all day long. As Queen Mallika said, wherever we look, we'll not find anyone dearer than ourselves. It is this strong clinging to oneself - one's experiences, one's moods and so on, from the moment we wake up, as you say, that causes all the problems we have during the day. Why do we mind what others say? Clinging to oneself. Why do we mind what is experienced? More clinging to oneself. When we think of others's welfare, show generosity or have awareness in a wholesome sense, there's no depression, no bipolar, no thought about one's mood, don't you find? ... >A:*Well, I guess the biggest thing that makes me depressed is the sheer number of hours my husbad spends working. I wish we had more time together but we don't. We've even asked his supervisor if he could work less, and make less money, but that's a "no" on that. I try not to get too downtrodden about it, as there are so many people in the opposite situation where they have no work, and are losing their homes, stuff like that. So, I supposed my sadness in this, is my desire to be around my husband more. ... S: Ari, I understand. I also like to be with Jon a lot. But actually, whatever our situation in life, we really live alone with the seeing, the hearing, the thinking or the other experiences. At these moments of reflecting on dhamma or helping each other, we don't think about our loneliness or need for other company at all. .... >But if I meet another person, they surely seem that they are physically there, visually there, and are speaking their thoughts. ... S: Yes, we all know it seems like that and yet, and yet, what is actually experienced? What is seen through the eyes? What is heard? What is smelt? what is thought about? ... > S: So, we learn to be considerate and understanding of others feelings. However, in the end, only we can know our thinking and motives for mentioning this or that. A:> *Well, I speak too much of things, perhaps, but then also don't see why it engenders hatred. .... S: Hatred is conditioned by hatred in the past. Just as our depressions and upsets are not actually caused by another, so it is for them. The real cause is the deep-rooted attachment and ignorance which leads to all we experience in the cycle of birth and death. ... >S: People get upset because of their own accumulated tendencies, but just as we don't like to get upset, we can see the value of developing metta and kindness to others, don't you think? >A: *Yes. I recently gave up a revenge. I'm 48, on a spiritual path, and >though I could wreak havak upon some folk, I decided not to, because revenge is not appropriate if you are on a spiritual path. Feeling Metta for them, well, that's going to take awhile! .... S: What is important is the development of wisdom which sees the real harm of such bad thoughts and the real value of kind thoughts and deeds. Otherwise the harmful thoughts will just cause you more and more distress and may bring their own bad results for you as a result of kamma. ... >But many others would confirm that I do exist and my dog exists so it's not some figment of my imagination?? .... S: Yes and No. Conventionally speaking, you and your dog exist. However, the Buddha's teaching shows us that actually we're ignoranct about the underlying truths - the truths that in actuality, there's no "you", no "dog", just cittas, cetasikas and rupas. .... A:> I think I might be getting what you are saying. Certainly from meditation I can see that there are just thoughts. They come and go. So, your life is made up of these thoughts, which really maybe nobody really knows where they come from..... ... S: That's right - lots of inconsequential moments of thinking all day long - nothing to attach to or be distressed about:-). Just the present moment realities to be known. thx for sharing your reflections and experiences, Ari. Metta Sarah ======= #110456 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 12:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Good to read all your "ramblings" again and especially your discussions with Rob Ep and others. --- On Thu, 30/9/10, philip wrote: >P: "The gradual training begins with the practice of generosity, which helps begin the long process of weakening the unawakened practitioner's habitual tendencies to cling — to views, to sensuality, and to unskillful modes of thought and behavior. This is followed by the development of virtue, the basic level of sense-restraint that helps the practitioner develop a healthy and trustworthy sense of self. ... S: "... helps the practitioner develop a healthy and trustworthy sense of self". Did the Buddha ever recommend developing this "sense of self"? Metta Sarah p.s no need to reply - keep up your other discussions instead... =========== #110457 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 12:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep, jumping in too.....(110342) --- On Thu, 30/9/10, epsteinrob wrote: > We may disagree that only consideration of dhamma, rather than experiential practice will lead to this understanding, but we can all agree that consideration and understanding of dhamma is a most important component for recognizing kusala and distinguishing it from akusala. .... S: Who denies the importance of "experiential practice"? But what is the "experiential practice" as taught by the Buddha which leads to the eradication of defilements? Isn't it the development of satipatthana? Metta Sarah ====== #110458 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 12:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] We are alone. sarahprocter... Hi Rob Ep, --- On Thu, 30/9/10, epsteinrob wrote: > S: Alone from birth to death throughout samsara, alone with this very citta now. "We are alone, there are no people" and this is just what the Buddha taught us.....just cittas experiencing objects through six doorways. > > We can never be reminded enough! R:>Not to get too crazy with this, but I thought I would throw in that even the "we" that is "alone" is nonexistent as well. .... S: Yes, exactly so. ... >Since there is only citta and its object, there is not even anyone to be alone. There's just "what is." ... S: Yes, and "what is" are just cittas, cetasikas and rupas.... Not crazy at all:-) Metta Sarah ======= #110459 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 2:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? nilovg Dear Phil, Op 2-okt-2010, om 17:10 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I like Nina, she is a wonderful person, no doubt, but why should I > be impressed or want to remember that she said how value moments of > understand are, even if they are very rare? Who is she? Did the > Buddha say that? -------- N: Phil, remember the sutta about the knife handle one holds each day. Although not noticeable, it wears off all the time. But very, very slowly. Evenso with our defilements, with wrong view and attachment. At a short moment of right understanding a tiny bit of wrong understanding is worn away, but so little that it is not noticeable. I find this realistic. It cannot be spectacular, that is just the way it is. ------ Nina. #110460 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 2:15 am Subject: What I heard. From a Thai recording about phassa, contact. nilovg Dear friends, From a Thai recording about phassa, contact. Kh Sujin explains about the four kinds of nutriment, ahaara: There are four kinds of nutriment which are nutriment-condition, aahaara- paccaya. One kind is physical nutriment and three are mental nutriment. The four kinds of nutriment are: physical nutriment contact (phassa cetasika) volition (manosa~ncetanå which is cetanå cetasika) consciousness (vi~n~naa.na) In the case of nutriment-condition, åhåra-paccaya, a conditioning dhamma maintains and supports the growth and development of the conditioned dhammas. The Buddha spoke about these four kinds of nutriment-condition in the “Kindred Sayings” (II, Kindred Sayings on Cause, Ch VII, the Great Chapter, § 63, Child’s Flesh. After the explanation of each of these kinds of nutriment, the Buddha states that this nutriment and the fruit it brings should be well understood. Kh Sujin remarked that whenever the Buddha taught Dhamma he pointed to satipa.t.thaana, the development of right understandig of naama and ruupa. The mental nutriment contact, the cetasika phassa, accompanies each citta. It conditions citta to know the objects appearing through the six doorways.We feel happy or unhappy because of the object that is experienced and we should understand that there is such feeling because of phassa that contacts the object. Someone had evil thoughts and he could not abstain from these. Therefore he was afraid. Khun Sujin: Only satipa.t.thaana helps, otherwise we take such thoughts for self. What conditions satipa.t.thaana? There is no condition for satipa.t.thaana if one does not listen to a great extent, very often (in Thai: maak maak, boj boj). Listening very often is a decisive support-condition for kusala citta with sati and sati can be aware of kusala citta. The cetasika contact falls away immediately together with the citta it accompanies, it is present for an extremely brief moment. It may seem very insignificant but the Buddha taught that it is the nutriment of contact which brings its own fruit. One may commit akusala kamma because one likes visible object and this occurs not without phassa contacting visible object. If phassa would not contact visible object there would not be lobha, dosa and moha, no kusala kamma and no akusala kamma. Understanding this will help to see the anattaness of the dhammas that arise and fall away. Why is there in the lives of different people the experience of different objects? People have different friends: foolish friends or wise friends. The cetasika phassa contacts at the moments of meeting friends different objects through the eyes, the ears, and the other senses. Through the mind-door we can think of beneficial words that were spoken. Phassa is a condition that brings fruit even after innumerable lives. It can be a decisive support-condition for chosing foolish friends or wise friends again in the future. Each moment of life is actually naama dhamma and ruupa dhamma. If we study the Dhamma in detail we can understand that there is no person, no being, no self. We have different inclinations, different likes and dislikes. If one likes a green colour one will search for green objects. We have different likes and dislikes of flavours when we are eating. Phassa that contacts objects through six doors brings its fruit later on, even after innumerable lives. It can be a condition to contact similar objects. ********************** Nina. #110461 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: dry insight. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > There are suttas that deal with the right and wrong ways of understanding the Dhamma. They are likened to the right and wrong ways of grasping sword grass, or picking up a snake. It's all about conditioned dhammas. If you begin with a wrong understanding of conditioned dhammas (such as thinking that they don't really exist) you have picked up a snake by the wrong end. It is not a question of whether they exist or not, but what they really are. There are two sides to that issue, and you seem to be quite fixated on only one of them. Paramatha dhammas do really arise, but are they substantial? Do they have ultimate status as entities? Are we able to understand them properly by reciting their formulas and definitions, or clinging to our intellectual understanding of them, or turning them into the point instead of the fact that they are anatta? Questions you might want to ponder sometime. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110462 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 3:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? egberdina Hi pt, On 3 October 2010 15:33, ptaus1 wrote: > > I mean, I think KenH, Sukin, Sarah and others here have a decade or two of > formal meditation practice behind them before getting in touch with A.S. so > I think their statements here are based on personal experience rather than > on prejudice, etc. And the advice they give is sincere I think, rather than > trying to be superior and that sort of thing. > I know a number of people who have each had a string of failed heterosexual relationships, and eventually "came out". Failed heterosexual relationships are specific to each individual, there is nothing about them that is general, applicable to anyone else. If anyone sought to convince me of the dangers of my heterosexual practice on the basis of their own history, I wouldn't say that they were sincere, rather that they lacked insight. Cheers Herman #110463 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 3:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? ptaus1 Hi Herman and RobE, > Herman: I know a number of people who have each had a string of failed heterosexual > relationships, and eventually "came out". Failed heterosexual relationships > are specific to each individual, there is nothing about them that is > general, applicable to anyone else. If anyone sought to convince me of the > dangers of my heterosexual practice on the basis of their own history, I > wouldn't say that they were sincere, rather that they lacked insight. pt: Sure, but I was trying to say something a bit different - that the advice they give is based on their experiences (whatever those experience are) and as such they are sincere, i.e. not based on prejudice or malice. We're all limited in insight I guess, so it's sincerity which makes the difference. At least to me. > RobE: Then they should say what their experience is, and what led them to that conclusion, as you have; and they shouldn't generalize to everyone and make a general conclusion about meditation practice, if that's what it's based on. pt: I think this kind of thing gets lost in a forum of this format - I mean, I remember KenH and Sukin explaining how they came about to their current conclusions as compared to their previous meditative practice. But I guess after a while it gets tiresome to keep repeating these things. But, yes, I distinctly remember them giving their accounts, maybe you can do a detailed search if you're interested, I tried a quick search, but it didn't get me far. Best wishes pt #110464 From: Herman Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 3:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? egberdina Hi pt, On 3 October 2010 21:41, ptaus1 wrote: > > > > > Hi Herman and RobE, > > > Herman: I know a number of people who have each had a string of failed > heterosexual > > > relationships, and eventually "came out". Failed heterosexual > relationships > > are specific to each individual, there is nothing about them that is > > general, applicable to anyone else. If anyone sought to convince me of > the > > dangers of my heterosexual practice on the basis of their own history, I > > wouldn't say that they were sincere, rather that they lacked insight. > > pt: Sure, but I was trying to say something a bit different - that the > advice they give is based on their experiences (whatever those experience > are) and as such they are sincere, i.e. not based on prejudice or malice. > We're all limited in insight I guess, so it's sincerity which makes the > difference. At least to me. > > Thanks for your consideration. I have been a member of this site, on and off, for ten years. The dispensing of advice against meditation has been a constant companion of my participation here. Perhaps it is a bit much to expect that people should develop insight into why their own longterm meditation practice failed to deliver. However, that lack of insight does not translate into a reason to presume that the Buddha's prescriptions won't work for others either. Cheers Herman #110465 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what I heard. Was: An afternoon with Pt. nilovg Dear rob Ep, Op 24-sep-2010, om 0:29 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > How is pariyatti - clear intellectual understanding of the nature > of dhammas - converted into direct seeing? Does the accumulation of > pariyatti create a condition for direct seeing at a later time? ------- N: Pariyatti relates to the reality appearing now, like seeing, visible object. We hear a great deal about these and then we consider what we hear and gradually we just understand a little more. This understanding accumulates and can grow almost unnoticeably. It is like the wearing out of a knife handle one holds each day. We do not expect the arising of direct understanding, because it will arise if we do not cling. Nina. #110466 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 8:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob Ep, > > jumping in too.....(110342) > > --- On Thu, 30/9/10, epsteinrob wrote: > > > We may disagree that only consideration of dhamma, rather than experiential practice will lead to this understanding, but we can all agree that consideration and understanding of dhamma is a most important component for recognizing kusala and distinguishing it from akusala. > .... > S: Who denies the importance of "experiential practice"? But what is the "experiential practice" as taught by the Buddha which leads to the eradication of defilements? Isn't it the development of satipatthana? Nice to hear from you! I think what you say above is correct, but I guess the questions are: what is satipatthana? There is some disagreement about that; and: what is the "experiential practice" that develops it? There is some disagreement about that as well. It seems clear to me that Buddha advised both dhamma study and meditation practice in order to develop insight and understanding. In my understanding, Dhamma and meditation work together. Dhamma teaches what is to be understood and what is important for realization, and meditation is the field in which it is discovered and developed. Those qualities are also developed in everyday life, but more effectively by going back and forth between meditation and everyday life, rather than just observing dhammas in the midst of everyday life. I agree that any "prescribed activity" can potentially come from self-view, but it can also come from a correct understanding of the process given by Buddha. To only meditate, or to only observe in life, or to only study dhamma, seems to me to be short-changing the process of its necessary ingredients. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110467 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 2:47 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Herman (and Howard), ---- <. . .> Herman: > You and me, we start from different vantage points, which may explain why we see such different things. You start with absolute certainty, ---- Yes, I have been an atheist all of my adult life and I am not about to take up blind faith now. So, I commence my search with something every sane person can agree on: "there are only the present realities." Then I proceed to the next, equally certain, point. --------------------- Herman: > I start with uncertainty. --------------------- What sort of start is that? --------------------------- Herman: > You start with knowing that you know, --------------------------- Yes (if we are still talking about the same thing) I start by accepting that there are only the present realities. It's a very basic start. Howard has said on occasions that it was a painfully obvious point and nothing to be proud of, and I suppose he was right. But at least it is a starting point that is free of any assumptions or blind beliefs. ----------------------------------- Herman: > I start with knowing that I can't know what it is I don't know. And I presume there is much I don't know. ------------------------------------ Hmm. ----------------------------------------- Herman: > It is my experience that rigid understandings of metaphysical (read: in principle unknowable) matters are often a tacit realisation of, but aversive reaction against the reality of uncertainty, rather than an acceptance of it. ------------------------------------------ Now I am not at all sure that we are talking about the same thing. Are you saying my approach is metaphysical - following an unknowable path? I started with "there are only the present realities." What's metaphysical about that? What could be more solid, sound, obvious or undeniable? Then I said, "(2) The question is, what are those realities?" That's fair enough too, isn't it? Can you suggest a better Step 2? Then I said, "(3) They are mental and physical phenomena." I suppose there could be some argument about that: someone could say there were only physical phenomena. But even that person would have to admit that consciousness did exist somehow. So I think point (3) is still on the "factual and undeniable" path. Then I said, "(4) (And so on.)" And I said I hadn't found any sticking points so far. That meant I hadn't found anything that required a leap of faith; I was still following a sound, sensible path. So what's your problem with that, Herman? :-) Ken H #110468 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 2:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, > pt: I think this kind of thing gets lost in a forum of this format - >I mean, I remember KenH and Sukin explaining how they came about to >their current conclusions as compared to their previous meditative >practice. But I guess after a while it gets tiresome to keep repeating >these things. But, yes, I distinctly remember them giving their >accounts, maybe you can do a detailed search if you're interested, I >tried a quick search, but it didn't get me far. Maybe they made some mistakes (which is quite natural. It would be strange if no one did any mistakes.), or didn't take meditation far enough? Maybe they were very close, or had some blocks at that time. In any case the Buddha and VsM often did teach about strenuous effort, ascetic practices and so on. With metta, Alex #110469 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:00 pm Subject: Re: Who am I? A correction. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > Weasel words notwithstanding, Nagarjuna's pseudo-philosophy held great appeal to many Buddhists. Those who were clinging desperately to a belief in self could have their cake and eat it too! They could pay lip service to the Buddha's doctrine of anatta, and still believe that somehow - in some logic-defying way - there really was a self. Ha ha ha, that is rich. Have you ever read Nagarjuna? You are welcome to disagree with his philosophy, but to dismiss him as a weasel? One of the greatest of all the Buddhist philosophers, certainly one of the most influential. In any case, I am not a follower of Nagarjuna, and you brought him up, not me. And your conclusion at the end that somehow one could believe that "there really was a self" is the *opposite* of everything that I said. If you wish to argue with yourself about a nonexistent conclusion that is not being drawn, feel free, but it has nothing to do with me. If you want to cling to paramatha dhammas as being more "actual" then self, when they are fleeting and empty and subject to the three marks, that is your choice, but it is the opposite of the attitude recently expressed by K. Sujin that the only purpose of investigating dhammas is to see that they are anatta, which was also my point. Be well, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110470 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 2:57 pm Subject: Singular Sameness! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: How is the Unconditioned State? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, the absence of all greed, all hate, and all ignorance: This, friends, is called the Uncreated, the Unconditioned, the Uninclined, the Unattracted, the Unmanifested, the Infinite, the absolute Freedom, the Further Shore, the Subtle, the Inconceivable, the Ageless, the Unity, the Permanent, the Beyond of all diversity, the Peaceful, the Deathless..., the Sublime Sameness, the Wonderful, the Sweet Safety, the Fantastic, the Sorrowless, the Refuge, the Unoppressed, the Detached, the Release, the Island..., the Shelter..., the Final State..., the Highest Bliss: Nibbana... Samyutta Nikaya. 43:12-44 There exists indeed, Bhikkhus, that which is unborn, unbecome, uncreated, that which is neither caused, nor conditioned… For if there were not, Bhikkhus, that which is unborn, unbecome, uncreated, that which is uncaused & unconditioned, there could not be known here the absolute escape from that, which is born, from that which is become, from that which is created, from that which is conditioned... However, since there indeed exists, this still sublime state, which is unborn, which is unbecome, which is uncreated, and absolutely unconditioned, there can therefore right now be made known the complete escape from all that, which is born, from that, which is created, from that, which is conditioned... Itivuttaka: 43 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #110471 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 4:39 pm Subject: Re: what I heard. Was: An afternoon with Pt. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear rob Ep, > Op 24-sep-2010, om 0:29 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > > > How is pariyatti - clear intellectual understanding of the nature > > of dhammas - converted into direct seeing? Does the accumulation of > > pariyatti create a condition for direct seeing at a later time? > ------- > N: Pariyatti relates to the reality appearing now, like seeing, > visible object. We hear a great deal about these and then we consider > what we hear and gradually we just understand a little more. This > understanding accumulates and can grow almost unnoticeably. It is > like the wearing out of a knife handle one holds each day. We do not > expect the arising of direct understanding, because it will arise if > we do not cling. Just pushing this a little further, even if pariyatti accumulates to the point of very clear understanding, it would seem to be a different type than the actual direct seeing of dhammas that are arising *now.* In a moment of direct seeing and the understanding of what is arising, there would be no gap in which to think, am I right? So the direct understanding would happen immediately after the moment in which the dhamma arises...? Would you say that as pariyatti accumulates it allows for enough clarity that when the object arises in the moment, at some point the direct understanding of what it is just clicks into place? I am just trying to understand how the process finally leads to real in-the-moment knowing. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110472 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 4:42 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---------- <. . .> KH: > > I leave that to the meditators. >> RE: > Actually you haven't, but framed it that way yourself, for your own expository purposes. Like it or not, Ken, you have intentions - no way to get rid of them. In this case, it is to support your view and dismiss an opposing view via the way you frame things - which you seem to have snipped. ----------- Well, I can only repeat the same point I tried to make before. I admit my description of formal vipassana meditation (as "some kind of cunning, dhamma-catching technique") was not flattering: however, the meditators' own descriptions of their practices are equally unflattering. So I quoted the descriptions you gave - "practicing being open" "observing what is there" and "calming fabrications." On examination, all of those terms are empty double-talk. ------------------- <. . .> RE: > I don't see "practicing," "observing," or "calming fabrications" according to Buddha's explicit instructions to be akusala. ------------------- I am not talking about anything's being akusala, I am saying descriptions of meditation techniques are empty rhetoric. They put the onus (of finding a meaning in them) on the listener. I am not singling you out, and I am not singling "Buddhist meditators" out: I am talking about all of the self-help psychobabble that is so prevalent today (and so financially profitable). Dr Phil and Oprah, for example, are immensely successful, wealthy, self-help psychobabblers. --------------------------- RE: > You do, but it's not based on sutta. It's based on the esoteric understanding that any acknowledgment of intention or action based on intention, is wrong practice and self-view. --------------------------- It *is* based on sutta. It is based on the understanding that everything in reality is conditioned - devoid of a controlling self, beyond control, anatta. ----------- <. . .> KH: > > (That is, any description of vipassana or samatha as being "something other than a conditioned dhamma" will always sound like double-talk.) >> RE: >I don't blame you for sticking to your own chosen terminology, but to think it is the only possible way of describing reality or right practice is pretty presumptuous. ----------- Thanks, and I take your point: if there are two ways of saying the same thing then I have no argument with either of them. :-) However, if each of them is saying something completely different from the other, then one of them has to go. There can't be two (contradictory) Dhammas. ------------------- <. . .> RE: > > > Your opinion. >>> KH: >> My understanding of the Dhamma. >> RE: > As long as you know it is your understanding, and not the only possible truth, that's fine with me. You're a "worthy opponent" in any case. Everyone needs one to test out their views and hold them under close pressure and scrutiny. Even you. ------------------- I must admit the DSG people I disagree with are just as valuable in Dhamma discussions as the DSG people I agree with. You are all vitally important, indispensable, wonderful people! :-) Ken H #110473 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Herman) - In a message dated 10/3/2010 5:47:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Herman (and Howard), ---- <. . .> Herman: > You and me, we start from different vantage points, which may explain why we see such different things. You start with absolute certainty, ---- Yes, I have been an atheist all of my adult life and I am not about to take up blind faith now. -------------------------------------------- Well, at least not blind faith in a deity. ;-) ------------------------------------------- So, I commence my search with something every sane person can agree on: "there are only the present realities." Then I proceed to the next, equally certain, point. -------------------------------------------- On this first point I am with you, although I am inclined to use 'reality' (singular). What is the next "equally certain" point? ------------------------------------------ --------------------- Herman: > I start with uncertainty. --------------------- What sort of start is that? --------------------------- Herman: > You start with knowing that you know, --------------------------- Yes (if we are still talking about the same thing) I start by accepting that there are only the present realities. It's a very basic start. Howard has said on occasions that it was a painfully obvious point and nothing to be proud of, and I suppose he was right. But at least it is a starting point that is free of any assumptions or blind beliefs. ----------------------------------- Herman: > I start with knowing that I can't know what it is I don't know. And I presume there is much I don't know. ------------------------------------ Hmm. ----------------------------------------- Herman: > It is my experience that rigid understandings of metaphysical (read: in principle unknowable) matters are often a tacit realisation of, but aversive reaction against the reality of uncertainty, rather than an acceptance of it. ------------------------------------------ Now I am not at all sure that we are talking about the same thing. Are you saying my approach is metaphysical - following an unknowable path? I started with "there are only the present realities." What's metaphysical about that? What could be more solid, sound, obvious or undeniable? Then I said, "(2) The question is, what are those realities?" That's fair enough too, isn't it? Can you suggest a better Step 2? ---------------------------------------- What it seems to me is that you are not *questioning* whether there are separate, self-existent realities that are not just matters of convention. I'm not saying that this is a priori impossible. What I'm saying is that it is not a certainty, yet you think it is an indubitable certainty. ----------------------------------------- Then I said, "(3) They are mental and physical phenomena." I suppose there could be some argument about that: someone could say there were only physical phenomena. But even that person would have to admit that consciousness did exist somehow. So I think point (3) is still on the "factual and undeniable" path. ------------------------------------------ I do think there certainly seems to be these two distinguishable types of object-content of consciousness, two different sorts of worldly experience. -------------------------------------- Then I said, "(4) (And so on.)" And I said I hadn't found any sticking points so far. That meant I hadn't found anything that required a leap of faith; I was still following a sound, sensible path. --------------------------------------- That there are separate entities, actual delineable realities and not just matters of convention, unless and until one has directly known it (by wisdom), is, IMO, a leap of faith. My sense of things is that convention is essentially involved here with these "things". I admit that I do not KNOW that as fact, though, and therefore categorize it as mere belief on my part and not known fact. -------------------------------------- So what's your problem with that, Herman? :-) Ken H =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110474 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 4:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > pt: I think this kind of thing gets lost in a forum of this format - I mean, I remember KenH and Sukin explaining how they came about to their current conclusions as compared to their previous meditative practice. But I guess after a while it gets tiresome to keep repeating these things. But, yes, I distinctly remember them giving their accounts, maybe you can do a detailed search if you're interested, I tried a quick search, but it didn't get me far. Well, it's not just a question of whether they ever explained how they developed their view, but what tone of certainty one takes when advising others, and whether one in fact believes that the conclusion that they have arrived at through their experiences is universal, or applies mainly to themselves and others that can relate to that same conclusion. In other words, there is a way of announcing one's view that invites others to learn from it and adopt it if it resonates with them, and there is another way that says "I have discovered the truth and it applies to everyone, if they were only insightful enough to realize it." The former way, which can be very helpful and share insight one has gained, is what I would call an "open" or "flexible" approach, in which one might say "I think I have discovered a universal truth, but I could be wrong - go see for yourself," which even scientists do when calling their well-established discoveries "theories" for decades afterwards. The latter approach I would describe as "fundamentalist" or "dogmatic." One is so certain that the complexity of the subject can be reduced to the formulation that they have settled on that they have no room for revision or for other views to be held as valid. I don't think that latter approach is ever really helpful. It precludes someone discovering the truth for themselves, and simplifies the subject to something that is manageable while shutting off additional doorways to understanding. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110475 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 5:04 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > Then I said, "(3) They are mental and physical phenomena." I suppose there could be some argument about that: someone could say there were only physical phenomena. But even that person would have to admit that consciousness did exist somehow. So I think point (3) is still on the "factual and undeniable" path. Jumping in for a point of clarification, Ken. It is in the defining of the constituent elements of #3 and how they function that the views of reality can diverge. Are mental and physical phenomena arising one dhamma at a time as contended in this group? Do they have no contact but pass accumulations through recognition of one citta by the not-yet-faded mirror image of the arising dhamma just before it, as contended on this group? Is the nature of cittas and cetasikas such that they are clearly definable separate arising elements that do not cross or mix and have definite forms with definite definable characteristics, as contended in this group? Do they arise within the exact mechanism that is often described here? Do the actual mental and physical phenomena that arise in life exactly match the descriptions of factors and elements that are outlined in Abhidhamma, or are they an approximation that seeks to describe and define actual phenomena in terms that serve an analytic - pariyatti - function? In other words, is reality sloppier than Abhidhamma and related doctrines seek to make it? Does life and death behave, begin and continue through the described cittas that are said to end and begin life? Does kamma operate as described in the Adhidhamma, with the precision with which it is therein described? Is the nature of satipatthana, panna and bhavana of the nature of arising factors that arise spontaneously based on unknowable processes of like accumulations and which happen quickly and permanently affect the accumulations of mental factor when they do arise? Or is there a more "mundane" process of practice and clarification that leads to accumulations that can actually be tracked and understood by the mortal mind? You say you are an atheist, yet you have a strong belief in a number of processes within the certainty of "dhammas arising" which are not based on any current living human observations that we know of, but on faith. It is in fact a religious belief that all these elements exist and function the way that it is said they do. We have not seen any living arahants lately that have proclaimed that they have experienced this and that it is all true, have we? So again, it is based on your experiences, logic and common sense that parts 1-3 are undeniable and sensible - there are only dhammas in each moment and they are made up of physical and mental factors. But when it comes to understanding what these are and how they function and what makes samsara and enlightenment tick, it is all based on a combination of intellectual understanding of Abhidhamma and related commentaries and teachings, and a large degree of faith that these are the real elements that exist and can be understood directly at some point in the distant future. Given the degree of faith involved in the specifics of what exists, I think we should adopt a more investigational attitude about them, and not one of smugness and certainty. We should certainly not be exactly sure what is good for others to practice or not to practice based on this degree of speculation. But it is fine to proceed with the investigation, share findings, and feel sure that it is the correct path for oneself, if you see the distinction. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110476 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 5:23 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > ---------- > <. . .> > KH: > > I leave that to the meditators. > >> > > RE: > Actually you haven't, but framed it that way yourself, for your own expository purposes. Like it or not, Ken, you have intentions - no way to get rid of them. In this case, it is to support your view and dismiss an opposing view via the way you frame things - which you seem to have snipped. > ----------- > > Well, I can only repeat the same point I tried to make before. I admit my description of formal vipassana meditation (as "some kind of cunning, dhamma-catching technique") was not flattering: however, the meditators' own descriptions of their practices are equally unflattering. Hm...since you are currently talking to me, and not all meditators, maybe you should reference my description of meditation rather than some normative generalization which cannot be clearly stated. Both Howard and I have said to you directly that there is no "dhamma catching" involved. So if there is some "equally unflattering" characterization at work, why not say what they actually are and what they mean? Don't worry, we can still continue to disagree. But we'd have the advantage of not dealing with a straw man that you invented yourself. > So I quoted the descriptions you gave - "practicing being open" "observing what is there" and "calming fabrications." On examination, all of those terms are empty double-talk. > > ------------------- > <. . .> > RE: > I don't see "practicing," "observing," or "calming fabrications" according to Buddha's explicit instructions to be akusala. > ------------------- > > I am not talking about anything's being akusala, I am saying descriptions of meditation techniques are empty rhetoric. They put the onus (of finding a meaning in them) on the listener. I don't think that calling something "double-talk" is a very astute analysis. I can say that the term "paramatha dhammas" is double-talk, because arising dhammas are not absolute, they are momentary and fleeting. But it would be more intelligent to ask "What is absolute about them? What does that mean?" so at least if I disagree I know what I am disagreeing with. If you think all the instructions given by Buddha in anapanasati and satipatthana suttas are double-talk, then what is your view of sutta, that it is all double-talk? Most of it is not in precise "dhamma-only" terms, so I guess it's all double-talk? Only repeating the same few formulas over and over again is "real talk?" > I am not singling you out, and I am not singling "Buddhist meditators" out: I am talking about all of the self-help psychobabble that is so prevalent today (and so financially profitable). Dr Phil and Oprah, for example, are immensely successful, wealthy, self-help psychobabblers. Oh, well thanks. That is a lot better to see that rather than dealing with precise practices and understandings, you are ready at a moment's notice to throw Buddhist meditation and all sincere application of the Buddha's teachings into phoney new-age philosophies and cheap advice from Dr. Phil. Buddha would be so proud! "Calming fabrications" is from the anapansati sutta, it's not from new age philosophy or Dr. Phil. So I have to say, that is pretty arrogant. I guess you know better than Buddha? Sorry about Buddha's psychobabble, it must be pretty offensive to someone as serious as yourself. > --------------------------- > RE: > You do, but it's not based on sutta. It's based on > the esoteric understanding that any acknowledgment of intention or action based on intention, is wrong practice and self-view. > --------------------------- > > It *is* based on sutta. It is based on the understanding that everything in reality is conditioned - devoid of a controlling self, beyond control, anatta. You have reached a conclusion based on that truth - that no one can practice anything without involving self-view. That is not true, it is opposite to the Buddha's teaching and it is wrong view, because it contradicts basic Buddhist teachings. Anatta is not meant to be used as a justification for quietism and abandoning of practice as clearly described by Buddha. > ----------- > <. . .> > KH: > > (That is, any description of vipassana or samatha as being "something other than a conditioned dhamma" will always sound like double-talk.) > >> > > RE: >I don't blame you for sticking to your own chosen terminology, but to think it is the only possible way of describing reality or right practice is pretty presumptuous. > ----------- > > Thanks, and I take your point: if there are two ways of saying the same thing then I have no argument with either of them. :-) However, if each of them is saying something completely different from the other, then one of them has to go. There can't be two (contradictory) Dhammas. That's right, and therefore I would advise you to pay closer attention to what Buddha actually says. You have reasons to ignore his direct teachings as "mundane" and not for one such as you, but I think that is dismissing the teachings themselves. Abhidhamma is a further explanation of what sutta means, but it does not replace sutta, it adds to it. > ------------------- > <. . .> > RE: > > > Your opinion. > >>> > > KH: >> My understanding of the Dhamma. > >> > > RE: > As long as you know it is your understanding, and not the only possible truth, that's fine with me. You're a "worthy opponent" in any case. Everyone needs one to test out their views and hold them under close pressure and scrutiny. Even you. > ------------------- > > I must admit the DSG people I disagree with are just as valuable in Dhamma discussions as the DSG people I agree with. > > You are all vitally important, indispensable, wonderful people! :-) Well, I appreciate that and I think you are a smart, stubborn, dependable conversant. I know you are sticking to your guns with good intention, so thanks for being tough! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110477 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:30 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: dry insight. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 22-sep-2010, om 18:32 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Paramattha dhammas, actually these are the presently arisen > realities, and nibbaana is to be excluded since it does not arise. > ============================== > Yes, we differ on this matter. :-) I provide a few sutta quotes at the > end of this post in support of my understanding on this issue. ------- N: We take the body and mind for real. In reality there are only different elementss, naama elements and ruupa elements. All conditioned dhammas are insignificant, as it were a mere nothing. Nibbaana is 'not false in nature', it is excellent. It does not fall away. We cannot reach nibbaana without thoroughly knowing naama and ruupa that arise and appear now, one at a time. If these fleeting phenomena would not arise and be present for an infinitely brief moment, there is no way to develop understanding of them and in this way attain nibbaana. They can be experienced and their nature can be known as impermanent, dukkha, anattaa. If the term reality or paramattha dhamma does not appeal to you, never mind. No need to fight about terms. We can also use the word element. ******* Nina. #110478 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 10:15 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Howard, --------- <. . .> KH: > "there are only the present realities." Then I proceed to the next, equally certain, point. >> H: > On this first point I am with you, although I am inclined to use 'reality' (singular). ---------- With the benefit of hindsight, I can see that realities (plural) was the only sensible possibility. :-) You prefer reality (singular) because, with the benefit of hindsight *from your perspective* it is the only sensible possibility. ----------------- H: > What is the next "equally certain" point? ----------------- It was that we needed to ask, what are those realities? But it won't have much credibility unless we can agree on the first point. If, as you suggest, there is only one reality then that reality cannot know another reality. So its world could never be known, and there would be no way out. No reason to look beyond Point 1. :-) ------------------- <. . .> H: > That there are separate entities, actual delineable realities and not just matters of convention, unless and until one has directly known it (by wisdom), is, IMO, a leap of faith. My sense of things is that convention is essentially involved here with these "things". I admit that I do not KNOW that as fact, though, and therefore categorize it as mere belief on my part and not known fact. ------------------- We are talking two separate paths. One begins with "there are only the present realities, what are they?" and the other begins with "there is only the one present reality" - end of story! :-) Ken H #110479 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Oct 3, 2010 10:25 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? ptaus1 Hi RobE, Herman, Alex, > RobE: Well, it's not just a question of whether they ever explained how they developed their view, but what tone of certainty one takes when advising others, and whether one in fact believes that the conclusion that they have arrived at through their experiences is universal, or applies mainly to themselves and others that can relate to that same conclusion. pt: Thanks for your responses. I see your points and agree with them to a degree. And still I also really like examining what KenH, Sarah and others here say, especially when they criticise my meditation practice, because I've found it beneficial so far. So you see my difficulty... Best wishes pt #110480 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 12:03 am Subject: Re: An afternoon with Pt - round 3 jonoabb Hi pt (and Ann) Thanks for the detailed report on our last little get-together. 110164 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, KenO, all, > > 2. Regarding right intellectual understanding which takes concepts as the object of cittas - Jon pointed out that this is not academic knowledge as such. As I understood him, right intellectual understanding actually has to do with relating the present experience to anatta. The more there's such understanding, the closer it gets to actual insight proper. > =============== J: Just a minor comment here. I think what I said was that right intellectual understanding involves an appreciation that what is being discussed/considered concerns the present moment, and further that a better understanding of the reality/truth of the present moment is what the path is all about. I would add that right intellectual understanding also involves an appreciation that this level of understanding is a precursor to, and a prerequisite for, a more direct understanding of the truth regarding the present moment, and that there is the potential for verification by direct experience, to the extent that panna of the appropriate level has been developed. Right intellectual understanding may of course include an understanding (at the intellectual level) of the anattaness of all dhammas, but I would not emphasise this particular aspect over any other. (Ann, hoping this answers your question on this part of pt's post.) Jon PS Pt, looking forward to our next get-together this weekend, when you'll get to meet the 2 heavies KenH and Herman. Be prepared for some fireworks!! (Just kidding, they're both very personable guys.) #110481 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 12:04 am Subject: Re: An afternoon with Pt - round 3 jonoabb Hi Ann Thanks for coming in on this thread. (110223) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "glenjohnann" wrote: > > Hello Pt, Sarah and Jon > > Very good to have the summaries of your time together recently. Certainly would be nice to be able to take my own ferry over to Manly and join in! Was with friends the other day who were there recently and spoke of it being a lovely place indeed. > > One of the points made by PT (below) is interesting: > -- > > 2. Regarding right intellectual understanding which takes concepts as the object of cittas - Jon pointed out that this is not academic knowledge as such. As I understood him, right intellectual understanding actually has to do with relating the present experience to anatta. The more there's such understanding, the closer it gets to actual insight proper. > > Can any of you talk more about how "right intellectual understanding actually has to do with relating the present experience to anatta". > > Do you mean relating the present experience to anatta - but doing so intellectually - by knowing on some level (although not by direct experience) that any intellectual understanding is also conditioned and without self/me as holder of that understanding? > > I am hoping that one of you can expand - Jon appears to have made the comment initially - so, J., anything more you can say? > =============== J: See my post of a few minutes ago to pt and you. Apologies for the delay in getting this out. Jon #110482 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 12:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? sarahprocter... Hi Alex (& Pt), --- On Sat, 2/10/10, truth_aerator wrote: >Right Effort (RE) has 4 parts. One of its parts is "abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen" as opposed to preventing them from arising in the first place. .... S: There is a chapter on the "Classification of the Right Efforts" in the Sammohavinodanii, the commentary to the Vibhanga. It's been translated into English as "Dispeller of Delusion" (PTS). Under the section of defilements, it says: "1413. But at the moment of the supramundane path it is one single energy that accomplishes both the function of causing the non-arising of those which are unarisen and might arise thus, and also the function of abandoning those which are arisen. "1444. That is why 'of arisen evil' [is said]. But here 'arisen' is fourfold: (1) arisen as actually occurring, (2) arisen as experienced and gone, (3) arisen having got an opportunity, (4) arisen having obtained a plane. "1445. Herein (1) those defilements which are existent, being possessed of arising and so on, are 'arisen as actually occurring'. "1446. (2) When kamma has been accumulated by impulsion, the [kamma]-result which has ceased after experiencing the essential nature of the object is 'gone away having experienced', and kamma which has arisen and ceased is 'gone away having been'; both are counted as 'arisen as experienced and gone'. "1447. (3) Profitable or unprofitable kamma inhibits the result of other kamma and makes the opportunity for its own result. When such an opportunity is thus made, the result which arises, from the [time of the] making of the opportunity, is counted as arisen; this is called 'arisen having got an opportunity'. "1448. (4) But the five aggregates are called the plane of insight. These are divided into past, etc. But the defilements inhering in these are not to be said to be past, future or present; inhering in the past aggregates, they are unabandoned. Inhering in the future aggregates and in the present aggregates, they are also unabandoned. This is called 'arisen having obtained a plane'. Hence the Ancients said: 'The defilements which are unabolished in this or that plane are counted as 'arisen having obtained a plane'." S: Here the text is referring to the anusayas, the latent tendencies, which lie dormant with each citta until abandoned. So they are referred to under "arisen evil", even though it is the khandhas, not the anusayas which arise and it is the khandhas which are the objects of insight. It's a very subtle area. [See more on "anusayas" in U.P.] The text continues: "1449. 'Arisen' is again fourfold thus: (5) arisen as behaviour, (6) arisen because an object has been taken up, (7) arisen through non-suppression, (8) arisen through non-abolition. "1450. Herein, (5) that existing now is what is called 'arisen as behaviour'. "1451. (6) After the eyes have been opened once, when an object has been grasped as a sign, it cannot be said that the defilements will not rise at any moment whenever [the object is] remembered (anussaritaanussaritakkha.ne). Why? Because the object has been taken up. Like what? Just as it cannot be said that milk will not issue from a place on a milk tree which has been repeatedly struck by a hatchet. Thus this is called 'arisen because an object has been taken up'. "1452. (7) But when the defilements are not suppressed by an attainment, it is not to be said that they will not arise in that situation. Why? Because of non-suppression. Like what? Like it cannot be said that if one were to strike a milk tree with a hatchet, milk would not issue from that very spot. Thus this is called 'arisen through non-suppression'. "1453. (8) But the idea that it is not to be said that defilements which are not abolished by the path will not arise in one even if reborn in the summit of existence, should be elaborated in the same way. This is called 'arisen through non-abolition'. "1454. Among these [varieties of] 'arisen', the four kinds of 'arisen'. that is to say, (1) 'arisen as actually occurring', (2) 'arisen as experienced and gone', (3) 'arisen having got an opportunity' and (5) 'arisen as behaviour' are not to be annihilated by the path; but the four kinds of 'arisen' that is to say, (4) 'arisen having obtained a plane', (6) 'arisen because an object has been taken up', (7) 'arisen through non-suppression' and (8) 'arisen through non-abolition' are to be annihilated by the path. For the path, on arising, abandons these defilements. The defilements which it abandons are not to be said to be past, future or present." S: This is because it is the latent tendencies, the anusayas that are abandoned at such moments by the path, the lokuttara magga cittas of the various stages. The anusays themselves cannot be said to be past, future or present, because they are the inherent tendencies, not the arisen defilements. At moments of mundane path, i.e. at moments of satipa.t.thaana, the inclination to unwholesome states is worn away at such moments, like the adze handle simile indicates, until they are completed eradicated at the different stages of enlightenment. I've quoted this detail to indicate how carefully we need to consider what we read. We know from our studies that akusala states cannot arise with kusala states, so if a sutta seems to suggest they can, we have to consider further as to what is meant. Now, if there is right understanding of seeing or visible object or any other reality, at this moment there is the (mundane)path to the abandoning of unwholesome states. The tendency to wrong view of self and other defilements is worn away at that instant. There is right effort with that right understanding. Thx for an opportunity to reflect further on your discussion. [Also see lots and lots more detail and quotes in U.P. under "effort - right".] Metta Sarah ===== #110483 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 12:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? jonoabb Hi Howard (110251) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon (and Robert) - > ... > Let's suppose, Jon, that you have an area of vulnerability, a powerful > inclination towards gambling or drink or illiciit/dangerous sexuality or > violence that is likely lead you to harmful action. Suppose, accordingly, > you intentionally avoid situations that will be tempting and proactively turn > the mind away from fantasizing in that direction, and even turn the mind > towards offsetting thoughts and emotions. IYO, Jon, is that way of behaving > wholesome or unwholesome, wise or unwise, kusala or akusala? > =============== J: A good question, Howard, worth discussing. It is no doubt conventionally wise behaviour to avoid obvious areas of temptation. However, the extent to which kusala will be involved (if at all) in doing so will depend very much on the individual concerned. An act of avoiding a situation is the same as an act of doing something. As you well explained in a recent post to Nina, the mental state will be constantly changing (K, AK, K, AK, AK, K, K, K, AK), and the act will conventionally be regarded as good or bad based on various (and varying) considerations, such as what is taken to be preponderant or what is the perceived consequence. In the context of the Dhamma, however, the terms 'kusala' and 'akusala' relate to mind-moments, not to conventional actions as such. > =============== > What would the Buddha urge? Would he, as in MN 8, the discourse on > effacement, say to combat unwholesome inclination and action by wholesome > action, or would he say that there is no you to do anything, and any attempt at > proactive approach only involves "self," and you can't do anything anyway, > because it's all just conditions? > =============== J: It's impossible to say how the Buddha would have responded in a hypothetical situation. However, as a generalisation, when people came to the Buddha with their problems he explained the Dhamma to them in accordance with their receptiveness to the teachings, rather than recommending a course of action to be followed (although he sometimes did this as a teaching strategy), and I would guess the reason for this would be the very reason discussed above, namely, that there's no saying how much (if any) kusala would be involved in the carrying out of the action. As I see it, a teaching on developing unwholesome qualities to combat unwholesome inclinations, of the kind mentioned in your post, would be more likely to be directed to monks than to lay-followers, because of the potentially dire consequences for monks of not keeping good sila. Just my thoughts. Jon #110484 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 12:21 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? jonoabb Hi Robert E (110254) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: These passages from the Visuddhimagga are addressed to the teachers of persons developing samatha (together with insight), not to the person developing samatha. In my view, they summarise the collective wisdom of the ancients, and are not intended as instructions to be followed. > > > > =============== > > I wonder what is the evidence that your opinion is based on? The evidence that is actually here in the Vism is that all the quoted statements made are clearly given as instructions. Is there a reason that you think they are not instructions, even though they are clearly put forward that way? > =============== J: Well I was just following the text of the Vism. Alex in his post quoted from Vism VIII, 56, 57: "[56] … The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times. For it is through verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar, and the mind being thus prevented from running here and there, the parts become evident and seem like [the fingers of] a pair of clasped hands, like a row of fence posts. "[57] 2. The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally. For the verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of foulness]." [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/109896] That passage is part of a section that begins at VIII, 48 under the heading 'Development': +++++++++++++++++++++++++ [Development] [48.] Now a clansman who, as a beginner, wants to develop this meditation subject should go to a good friend of the kind already described (Ch. DI, §§61-73) and learn it. *And the teacher who expounds it to him should tell him the sevenfold skill in learning and the tenfold skill in giving attention*. [The Sevenfold Skill in Learning] Herein, the sevenfold skill in learning *should be told thus*: (1) as verbal recitation, (2) as mental recitation, (3) … [The Tenfold Skill in Giving Attention] [61]. Having thus *told the sevenfold skill in learning*, he should *tell the tenfold skill in giving attention* as follows: (1) as to following the order, (2) not too quickly, (3) not too slowly … [62]. 1. Herein, as to following the order: from the time of beginning the recitation attention should be given following the serial order without skipping. … +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Note the passages I have marked with asterisks. These refer to the role of the teacher. Of course, there are many other passages that refer more directly to the role of the person who is developing samatha, but in this particular case the context is otherwise. > =============== > I don't understand the propensity to think something is the opposite of what it says, unless there is some direct statement that it is not to be taken that way. As far as I know, there is no tradition in which the wisdom of the ancients is given as instructions for no good reason, when it is really meant *not* to be taken as instructions. > =============== J: The Vism does not purport to be an instruction manual. According to the Theravada tradition, it's a compilation of the commentaries extant at the time, recorded to provide greater access by students of the teachings, and for posterity. The author was not a renowned teacher of samatha/vipassana, but rather a scholar of the texts. > =============== > If someone says "You should do this," "You must do this," why would you think that this is not what is meant? > =============== J: It's interesting that you should use the second person here, because the Vism passages are invariably in the third person ;-)) The third person form "He should do this", "He must do that" is at least as capable of being descriptive as it is of being prescriptive wouldn't you agree? Jon #110485 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 12:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) sarahprocter... Hi Antony, Thank you for sharing your good examples of questions rooted in self-view here, such as these: --- On Fri, 1/10/10, antony272b2 wrote: >I've been struggling with unhelpful self-view questions such as "Surely samsara would be a better place overall for other beings if only I could attain a permanent state of non-existence?", "Is my karmic account balance too negative such that Nibbana is impossible for me?", "Will my rebirth after death be thumbs up or thumbs down?", "Will all of my experience refer back to an individual such that I will never get to witness much of the results of any generous actions?". Much of these questions give me excuses to be lazy. ... S: I wouldn't be so concerned about "excuses to be lazy", so much as not understanding the truth of dhammas as anatta as apparent when we think in ways as you helpfully outline above. .... >Here is a list of other unhelpful questions from the suttas, followed by helpful questions based on the Four Noble Truths: "Are bliss and pain, the self and the cosmos self-produced?" "...produced by another?" "...both self-produced and produced by another?" "...neither self-produced nor produced by another?" (Udana 6.6) "Is the agent who performs an act of kamma the same as the person experiencing the result?" "...someone else?" "...both the same person and someone else?" "...neither the same person nor someone else?" (sutta ref?) "Was I in the past?" "What was I in the past?" "How was I in the past?" "Shall I be in the future?" "What shall I be in the future?" "How shall I be in the future?" "Am I?" "What am I?" "How am I?" (Majjhima 2) .... S: Yes, just the same kind of "self-loaded" questions as the ones in the examples you gave at the top. .... >Now I'm asking helpful questions free of self-view including: "Is this dukkha?" "Is this the origination of dukkha?" "Is this the cessation of dukkha?" "Is this the way leading to the cessation of dukkha?" (adapted from Majjhima 2) .... S: Whether these questions are "free of self-view' will depend on whether there is any understanding of realities now, as we reflect on dukkha. For example, if we ask whether the computer or cup on our desks are dukkha, atta-view is still there in the question - no understanding of visible object or tangible object as anatta at such a time. A subtle path - and in the end, not a matter of the words that are used, but the understanding at this very moment. Is it a siren or a sound that is heard now? People chattering, a car horn, or just sound? Any idea of "something" as dukkha now? ... >Thanks for listening. Happy Uposatha Day everyone! .... S: Many thanks for your very helpful sharing. I'll look forward to any more! Sorry you won't be joining us on Sat in Manly. Another time.... Metta Sarah ===== #110486 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 12:37 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (110255) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > I do not think it would run counter - I think it is possible for anyone to have awakening at any time based on their past accumulations, sharpness of their own natural bent towards wisdom, and conditions, but I don't think it's likely. I think it's very unlikely and don't think it happens very often if at all. > =============== J: In my view, the question we should be discussing is not whether *awakening* is possible, but whether *awareness* (of whatever level) is possible. Because it is awareness that is our immediate concern, not enlightenment just yet ;-)) What are the conditions for the development of awareness of a (any) presently arising dhamma? Do these conditions include a reduction in, or the absence of, stimulation through the sense-doors? Etc. > =============== > I think that those who study Dhamma AND practice meditation in order to concretize their understanding through concentrated experience are MUCH more likely to make progress on the path - that is to say, to accumulate those qualities that are necessary to create the conditions for enlightenment. > =============== J: Again, it's (basic) awareness, not enlightenment, that should be our concern, don't you think? > =============== > I think that the Buddha clearly said that the doing of meritorious action in the conventional way, doing meditation towards development of samatha and vipassana, as well as understanding Dhamma and progressing in other areas of the path, create the conditions and accumulate the merit for both positive kamma to develop and create better conditions, and for the accumulations that lead to wisdom. Whether they are necessary is another matter. > =============== J: Well, yes, but which conditions are necessary ones (i.e., prerequisites) and which are optional ones (i.e., useful, or appropriate for some only, but not prerequisites) is surely something we need to know. If we take for being prerequisites things that are not, it will likely lead to wrong practice. > =============== I don't know if they are all necessary, but I know they were all made part of the path that the Buddha espoused and I take him seriously. There is a reason why he listed voluminously all the ways in which monks and householders should and shouldn't behave, think, practice etc. I don't think he did it to pass the time. > =============== J: To my understanding, the Buddha listed the various ways of behaviour in order to illustrate to persons of different dispositions that the path could be developed regardless of their mode of behaviour. We should not assume that in addressing these situations the Buddha was stipulating prerequisite circumstances. > =============== > I am merely including lifestyle and activity, rather than leaving it out. The only thing I am saying is that *he* emphasized them continually *in his teaching,* not just in his behavior, so the distinction is irrelevant. I personally harbor the fantasy that I can awaken without living a pure and noble life, but I may be very mistaken. > =============== J: Yes, there was certainly emphasis on lifestyle, but we should not draw the wrong conclusion from that. Many, many different kinds of lifestyle were the subject of suttas. Also, you will notice that when reference is made in the suttas to the monk's life, it is to the monk's life *properly lived* (i.e., not to the living of the monk's life for its own sake). Those unable to live the monk's life as it should be lived were not encouraged to enter the order. > =============== > > J: If there are different 'pathways', there is still a common denominator for the various paths. This common denominator is, I believe, the direct understanding of dhammas. > > I don't disagree with you about that! Direct experiential understanding, whether it comes sooner or later, is the essential factor in awakening. > =============== J: A rare point of agreement ;-)). So the question is, what are the conditions, as stated by the Buddha, for the arising/developing of 'direct experiential understanding'. Any thoughts on this? > =============== > And also all the supports and conditions that are necessary and desirable for different individuals to realize that essence of the teachings. You can't have direct experience without right conditions, and it is a big issue what creates those conditions, isn't it? > =============== J: Yes, without the right conditions there cannot be direct experience of dhammas. Another point of agreement! So we need to ask what the Buddha said on this score. > =============== If it turns out that meditation is an essential tool for developing samatha and vipassana, as I think it is, and people are refraining from doing so because they think it is akusala, that would be a big mistake, wouldn't it? > =============== J: The view that "meditation is an essential tool for developing samatha and vipassana" is worth looking at. To what extent is this based on direct statements in the suttas (or commentaries), rather than inferred from the situations described in the suttas or from the conduct of the Buddha and his disciples during his lifetime? > =============== > Thank you, Jon. I am honored to have that role, and also to learn a lot from all of you while causing trouble. > =============== J: No trouble at all, I assure you. I'm just sorry we don't see eye-to-eye more than we do ;-)) Jon #110487 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 12:41 am Subject: Re: Tadao at the Saturday Discussions jonoabb Hi Sukin (and Tadao) (110259) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal" wrote: > > Hi Jon, Sarah, Tadao and all, > > This is just to let you know that Tadao visited the Foundation this last Saturday and it was his first meeting with A. Sujin in 20 years for whom he brought a gift. I took a liking to him almost immediately and by the end of the discussions, thought to myself that it would be nice if he moved to Bangkok. ;-) Later at Starbucks he said that he may be here next February and so I suggested that he let you two know about his plans so that you could also plan to visit Bangkok at the same time. > =============== J: Thanks for this news. I'm very pleased to hear that Tadao's visit went well. It's great to have him back among us as before. > =============== > As usual we discussed a few things and I can't recall much of it, but I do remember that Tadao showed much interest, asking questions. So I hope that he will respond and give his own report. > =============== J: Tadao, anything to share from the visit? Jon #110488 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 12:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] We are alone. sarahprocter... Hi Sarah, --- On Thu, 30/9/10, Herman wrote: > I can accept all you say in the above without any dramas. > But surely we can > be consistent in that understanding, and thus also just say > that there is no > Buddha, and as a consequence also no Buddha Dhamma. ... S: OK, fine. In the ultimate sense, yes, no Herman, no Sarah, no Buddha, no Buddha Dhamma. I've always said this:-) ... > I say this in reference to what I initially replied to, > especially the bits > between the **: > > >S: Alone from birth to death throughout samsara, alone > with this very citta > now. "We are >alone, there are no people" **and this is > just what the Buddha > taught us**.....just cittas >experiencing objects > through six doorways. .... S: Yes, by "we" and "the Buddha" are meant just more cittas , cetasikas and rupas. ....> > Happily, we can also take another, quite legitimate > approach. > > SN 45.2 > PTS: S v 2 > > CDB ii 1524 > Upaddha Sutta: > > I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was > living among the > Sakyans. Now there is a Sakyan town named Sakkara. There > Ven. Ananda went to > the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the > Blessed One, sat > to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda said to > the Blessed One, > "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, > admirable > companionship, admirable camaraderie." > > "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable > friendship, admirable > companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole > of the holy life. > When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, > & comrades, he can > be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold > path. > > I don't for a minute suggest I am aspiring to a holy life, > Sarah, but you > have been one heck of a good friend :-) .... S: Thx, Herman!!:-) And of course, even that association with "admirable friendship", amounts to wise reflection and consideration, to various wholesome states, esp. pa~n~naa, while hearing particular sounds, seeing particular visible objects and so on, as said to be "The Buddha" or someone else . Without any wise reflection, there's no admirable friendship. From the commentary in the Udana (Meghiya chapter): “Since he proceeds, by way of both mind and body, in a state that slopes, tends, inclines towards lovely individuals alone, he is “one with a lovely intimateâ€. By means of this triad of words, he gives rise to regard with respect to association with a lovely friend.†"Lovely individuals" - more cittas, cetasikas and rupas. Nothing to be dismayed about:-) More grist for the Manly Mill on Sat! Metta Sarah ======== #110489 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 1:02 am Subject: Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---------- <. . .> RE: > Jumping in for a point of clarification, Ken. It is in the defining of the constituent elements of #3 and how they function that the views of reality can diverge. ---------- Yes, I suppose so. When I think about it: even a materialist scientist (1), accepts there are only the present realities, and (2) inquires into what they are. He tends to believe in sub-atomic particles rather than rupas and something else [I don't know what] rather than namas, so he diverges at my hypothetical Stage 3. ------------------ RE: > Are mental and physical phenomena arising one dhamma at a time as contended in this group? ------------------- To be more precise, one citta, and its cetasikas, and its object (when that object is a dhamma) arise at a time. ------------------------- RE: > Do they have no contact but pass accumulations through recognition of one citta by the not-yet-faded mirror image of the arising dhamma just before it, as contended on this group? ------------------------- Again to be more precise, the present citta, with its accumulations, was conditioned to arise by the citta that preceded it. (The object of consciousness is not so important in this case.) ------------------------------- RE: > Is the nature of cittas and cetasikas such that they are clearly definable separate arising elements that do not cross or mix and have definite forms with definite definable characteristics, as contended in this group? -------------------------------- Yes, except I don't know what you mean by "forms". Dhammas don't have form in the sense of size, or mass, or shape. ----------------------------------------- RE: > Do they arise within the exact mechanism that is often described here? Do the actual mental and physical phenomena that arise in life exactly match the descriptions of factors and elements that are outlined in Abhidhamma, or are they an approximation that seeks to describe and define actual phenomena in terms that serve an analytic - pariyatti - function? ----------------------------------------- The Abhidhamma is to be taken literally. I have seen people suggest that the Abhidhamma is just a "theoretical model" rather than a literal description of reality. But that is not true. ------------------------- RE: > In other words, is reality sloppier than Abhidhamma and related doctrines seek to make it? Does life and death behave, begin and continue through the described cittas that are said to end and begin life? ------------------------- Definitely there is a birth citta and a death citta that define the duration of "life" in one sense of the word. However, the Abhidhamma makes it clear that life's duration can be defined just as accurately by the arising and ceasing of each individual citta within that longer "life". ------------------------------------ RE: > Does kamma operate as described in the Adhidhamma, with the precision with which it is therein described? ------------------------------------ I'm not sure why there would be any doubt about it, but yes, that is what Theravada Dhamma students are meant to be learning. --------------------- RE: > Is the nature of satipatthana, panna and bhavana of the nature of arising factors that arise spontaneously based on unknowable processes of like accumulations and which happen quickly and permanently affect the accumulations of mental factor when they do arise? Or is there a more "mundane" process of practice and clarification that leads to accumulations that can actually be tracked and understood by the mortal mind? --------------------- If I understand the question correctly, definitely the former. All of absolute reality (apart from nibbana) is 100% conditioned dhammas arising and ceasing in billionths of seconds. It is beyond the control that we habitually think we exercise in our conventionally known world. --------------------------- RE: > You say you are an atheist, yet you have a strong belief in a number of processes within the certainty of "dhammas arising" which are not based on any current living human observations that we know of, but on faith. --------------------------- I was trying to demonstrate to Herman that none of my Dhamma beliefs were based on blind faith. The Dhamma is more rational and believable than any of the other explanations I have ever heard. And so, for me, to *not* believe in it would require a leap of blind faith. ----------------- RE: > It is in fact a religious belief that all these elements exist and function the way that it is said they do. We have not seen any living arahants lately that have proclaimed that they have experienced this and that it is all true, have we? So again, it is based on your experiences, logic and common sense that parts 1-3 are undeniable and sensible - there are only dhammas in each moment and they are made up of physical and mental factors. But when it comes to understanding what these are and how they function and what makes samsara and enlightenment tick, it is all based on a combination of intellectual understanding of Abhidhamma and related commentaries and teachings, and a large degree of faith that these are the real elements that exist and can be understood directly at some point in the distant future. ------------------- I find the best advice given here at DSG is to "start again." That's what I meant by the steps I suggested to Herman. Start again at the beginning ("there are only namas and rupas") and work towards whatever it is you are currently trying to understand. If you find any weak links, maybe you need to reassess your understanding. ----------- RE: > Given the degree of faith involved in the specifics of what exists, I think we should adopt a more investigational attitude about them, and not one of smugness and certainty. We should certainly not be exactly sure what is good for others to practice or not to practice based on this degree of speculation. But it is fine to proceed with the investigation, share findings, and feel sure that it is the correct path for oneself, if you see the distinction. ----------- Let me assure you that that all of no-control/no-formal-practice opinions expressed at DSG, are in good faith. No one is trying to deceive anyone. :-) Ken H #110490 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 1:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] We are alone. sarahprocter... Hi Herman & all, --- On Mon, 4/10/10, sarah abbott wrote: >Hi Sarah, .... S: Hmmm, there may be no people, no Herman, no Sarah, but I still intended to address my post to Herman rather than to myself:-) Pls don't take this as an example of how an understanding of paramattha dhammas leads to conventional confusion and delusion:-)) Metta Sarah ===== #110491 From: "antony272b2" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 4:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) antony272b2 Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Antony, > >Now I'm asking helpful questions free of self-view including: > > "Is this dukkha?" > "Is this the origination of dukkha?" > "Is this the cessation of dukkha?" > "Is this the way leading to the cessation of dukkha?" > (adapted from Majjhima 2) > .... > S: Whether these questions are "free of self-view' will depend on whether there is any understanding of realities now, as we reflect on dukkha. For example, if we ask whether the computer or cup on our desks are dukkha, atta-view is still there in the question - no understanding of visible object or tangible object as anatta at such a time. > > A subtle path - and in the end, not a matter of the words that are used, but the understanding at this very moment. Is it a siren or a sound that is heard now? People chattering, a car horn, or just sound? Any idea of "something" as dukkha now? > ... Antony: In comprehending dukkha (the duty of the First Noble Truth) I categorize the situation based on this sutta quote: "Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are dukkha; association with what is not loved is dukkha, separation from what is loved is dukkha, not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." Antony: I'm still a beginner on the five aggregates. I found SN22.95 A Lump of Foam very helpful: http://www.suttareadings.net/audio/index.html#sn22.095 Another sutta SN22.85 draws a distinction between the five aggregates and the five clinging-aggregates: "These same five aggregates of clinging, to which he does not become engaged and to which he does not cling, lead to his welfare and happiness for a long time." > >Thanks for listening. Happy Uposatha Day everyone! > .... > S: Many thanks for your very helpful sharing. I'll look forward to any more! > > Sorry you won't be joining us on Sat in Manly. Another time.... > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== Antony: Thanks for all your thoughtful replies over the years. And it was great to meet you in 2005 which I'll continue to remember. Metta / Antony. #110492 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 5:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... egberdina Hi Ken H, On 4 October 2010 08:47, Ken H wrote: > > > > Hi Herman (and Howard), > > ---- > <. . .> > Herman: > You and me, we start from different vantage points, which may > explain why we see such different things. You start with absolute certainty, > > ---- > > Yes, I have been an atheist all of my adult life and I am not about to take > up blind faith now. > It seems to me that atheism is the adopting of a view, just like certain obviously incorrect paraphrases of anatta. The statement "there is no self/god" are radically different from "this I am not". The first is metaphysical (ie unknowable), the second merely states the obvious, that whatever is experienced or observed, it is not self or God. The first is thus actually a statement of (blind) faith. > So, I commence my search with something every sane person can agree on: > "there are only the present realities." Then I proceed to the next, equally > certain, point. > > Well, fortuitously or otherwise, Bhikku Samahita just today posted the good oil on Nibbana. From it, I would surmise that what is real is nibbana, and by the time we get to what is present we are well into samsara. Also, you would be well aware of the Sabba Sutta, SN 35.23, subtitled the All, and how that sutta specifically excludes Nibbana. So, is it sane, or is it presumptuous to proceed as you do? > --------------------- > Herman: > I start with uncertainty. > --------------------- > > What sort of start is that? > > --------------------------- > It's where I am at. Confronted with the ocean I am about to step into, I am uncertain as to whether it is warm or cold, I have to step into to find out. Paddling out towards the break, I am unsure whether there is a white pointer out there as well. My safe return to the beach is no guarantee there wasn't. Seeing an icon in my taskbar that announces that I have received new email, I am unsure as to what those emails are about. I have to read them, and even after that I have to write back to the author to confirm I have understood them. I mostly inhabit a continuum of past - future. That's craving for you, it's all about what isn't there. You'll have to tell me what your craving-free, intentionless present is like :-). > Herman: > You start with knowing that you know, > --------------------------- > > Yes (if we are still talking about the same thing) I start by accepting > that there are only the present realities. It's a very basic start. Howard > has said on occasions that it was a painfully obvious point and nothing to > be proud of, and I suppose he was right. But at least it is a starting point > that is free of any assumptions or blind beliefs. > > It is not a matter of acceptance, the present moment, it is a matter of renunciation. As long as there is craving, craving for what by necessity isn't there, then all of us will continue to inhabit the continuum past-future. We may say there is only the present, but that is not what we do. Deeds or action, towards a state of affairs that does not yet exist, otherwise known as kamma, seem to be something you are not prone to :-) > ----------------------------------- > Herman: > I start with knowing that I can't know what it is I don't know. > And I presume there is much I don't know. > ------------------------------------ > > Hmm. > > ----------------------------------------- > Blind people cannot, in a million years, imagine red. People who have not realised anatta cannot in a million years imagine what the realisation of anatta is like. Whether there is a spider under my bed at the moment remains to be seen. However, acknowledgment of expectation of the unknown is part and parcel of my life. > Herman: > It is my experience that rigid understandings of metaphysical > (read: in principle unknowable) matters are often a tacit realisation of, > but aversive reaction against the reality of uncertainty, rather than an > acceptance of it. > ------------------------------------------ > > Now I am not at all sure that we are talking about the same thing. Are you > saying my approach is metaphysical - following an unknowable path? > > I started with "there are only the present realities." What's metaphysical > about that? What could be more solid, sound, obvious or undeniable? > Well, it sounds rather theoretical, for one. My experience is anicca. On that basis I doubt substantial realities or existents of any sort, but you embrace them, and even have a name for them. I only live my expectations, which are continually being shattered, only to be replaced by new ones. That's becoming for you :-) > Then I said, "(2) The question is, what are those realities?" That's fair > enough too, isn't it? Can you suggest a better Step 2? > > Well, the obvious reality there is the question "what are those realities?" Do you allow for the possibility that the answer to that question is a function of the question? What do you reckon the realities would be in the absence of the question? > Then I said, "(3) They are mental and physical phenomena." I suppose there > could be some argument about that: someone could say there were only > physical phenomena. But even that person would have to admit that > consciousness did exist somehow. So I think point (3) is still on the > "factual and undeniable" path. > > Then I said, "(4) (And so on.)" And I said I hadn't found any sticking > points so far. That meant I hadn't found anything that required a leap of > faith; I was still following a sound, sensible path. > > So what's your problem with that, Herman? :-) > > No problem really, because I accept that folks live an experience of their own making. Sometimes that experience includes a denial that they live a life (ie they are arahants with no kamma), or sometimes, even when they acknowledge that they do live a life, it is not so much them that makes their life, all that they do it is actually caused by accumulations. Of course, these miserable sods have no way of accounting for there being these accumulations they are so dependent on, but they are happy to assume it is so. It is the same old story, lack of insight. But that is another thread :-) Cheers Herman #110493 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 6:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An afternoon with Pt - round 3 egberdina Hey Jon and all, On 4 October 2010 18:03, jonoabb wrote: > > > PS Pt, looking forward to our next get-together this weekend, when you'll > get to meet the 2 heavies KenH and Herman. Be prepared for some fireworks!! > (Just kidding, they're both very personable guys.) > > I'm happy to announce that I haven't put on any weight since the last time we met, but I now have lost so many views, I'm downright dangerous :-) See you Saturday. Cheers Herman #110494 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 7:03 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, Herman, Alex, > > > RobE: Well, it's not just a question of whether they ever explained how they developed their view, but what tone of certainty one takes when advising others, and whether one in fact believes that the conclusion that they have arrived at through their experiences is universal, or applies mainly to themselves and others that can relate to that same conclusion. > > pt: Thanks for your responses. I see your points and agree with them to a degree. And still I also really like examining what KenH, Sarah and others here say, especially when they criticise my meditation practice, because I've found it beneficial so far. So you see my difficulty... I don't really see it as a conflict or a difficulty. Even I, with all my complaining, enjoy and appreciate the comments that Sarah and Nina make to help me clarify my understanding. I don't have to agree with everything I hear, but I still am open to growing and learning from what I hear. I think it is also important that you have a sort of "contract" with certain people. If you feel that Sarah and others are your "spiritual friends" in a sense you give them permission to advise and critique you. When you are open to that and feel the advice helps you, then that is a very positive relationship, and what I said about it doesn't really apply. I object more to big generalizations that don't leave room for other possibilities. [Please see Ken H.'s recent lumping together of Buddhist meditation, new age philosophies and Dr. Phil. Hi Ken H!] Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #110495 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 7:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] We are alone. egberdina Hi Sarah and Herman, On 4 October 2010 19:18, sarah abbott wrote: > > > Hi Herman & all, > > --- On Mon, 4/10/10, sarah abbott > > wrote: > > >Hi Sarah, > > .... > S: Hmmm, there may be no people, no Herman, no Sarah, but I still intended > to address my post to Herman rather than to myself:-) Pls don't take this as > an example of how an understanding of paramattha dhammas leads to > conventional confusion and delusion:-)) > > *They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:**Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.**At the going down of the sun and in the morning,**We will remember them.* It is only when I am no longer remembered, that I never existed. Do your worst, Sarah :-) Cheers Herman Metta > > Sarah > ===== > > #110496 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 7:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what I heard. Was: An afternoon with Pt. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 4-okt-2010, om 1:39 heeft epsteinrob het volgende geschreven: > Just pushing this a little further, even if pariyatti accumulates > to the point of very clear understanding, it would seem to be a > different type than the actual direct seeing of dhammas that are > arising *now.* ------ N: It is still pa~n~naa cetasika, but it becomes stronger, more developed. Also the object is not different, it is still ordinary seeing or visible object, just like now. But the understanding develops. ------- > R: In a moment of direct seeing and the understanding of what is > arising, there would be no gap in which to think, am I right? ------- N: Direct awareness and understanding is different from thinking, but thinking can arise shortly afterwards and in between. ------- R: > So the direct understanding would happen immediately after the > moment in which the dhamma arises...? ------ N: Instead of arises I would say: appears. It appears to sati and pa~n~naa. But the object , for example seeing, arose and fell away in a previous process of cittas. We can still call it present object, by way of navattaaramma.na as pt. explained. But we should not think too much of: at which moment, trying to trace the moment. Who can trace that? The most important things is: knowing characteristics as they appear one at a time through one of the six doorways. Becoming familiar with different characteristics. We can learn that these are just realities, not a thing or a person. -------- > R: Would you say that as pariyatti accumulates it allows for enough > clarity that when the object arises in the moment, at some point > the direct understanding of what it is just clicks into place? I am > just trying to understand how the process finally leads to real in- > the-moment knowing. ------ N: As to real in-the-moment knowing, we have to remember that naamas and ruupas arise and fall away with a speed we cannot imagine. Visible object arises and falls away but the sign or nimitta remains. Quoting: Kh S: There are nimittas of each of the five khandhas. Visible object appears as nimitta. Each visible object appears so shortly, it arises and falls away in splitseconds. One can understand visible object when seeing. We do not have to say which one since it has passed. Anything which appears does so in splitseconds. What remains is the image or nimitta. We live in the nimitta world. It is as if we are lost in a forest, no way out. Nina: We are not hopelessly lost. There can be awareness of nimitta. Kh S: Nimitta of a reality. Without reality can there be an image of reality? There are many visible objects arising and falling away before there can be an image of Khun Nina. Sa~n~naa remembers it. ----------- Kh S: Is the understanding of a reality right now sufficient so as to condition direct awareness of a characteristic of reality at this moment? The development of understanding will lead to the direct experience of realities, by itself, not by anyone. (end quote) ------- N: Understanding, as it develops because of its own conditions, will take care of it all. We do not think of moments, or of knowing reality in the moment. Just knowing different characteristics as they appear, is that not enough for now? ------- Nina. #110497 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 7:27 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (110254) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > J: These passages from the Visuddhimagga are addressed to the teachers of persons developing samatha (together with insight), not to the person developing samatha. In my view, they summarize the collective wisdom of the ancients, and are not intended as instructions to be followed. > > > > > > =============== > > > > I wonder what is the evidence that your opinion is based on? The evidence that is actually here in the Vism is that all the quoted statements made are clearly given as instructions. Is there a reason that you think they are not instructions, even though they are clearly put forward that way? > > =============== > > J: Well I was just following the text of the Vism. Alex in his post quoted from Vism VIII, 56, 57: > "[56] � > The recitation should be done verbally in this way a hundred times, > a thousand times, even a hundred thousand times. For it is through > verbal recitation that the meditation subject becomes familiar, and the mind > being thus prevented from running here and there, the parts become evident and > seem like [the fingers of] a pair of clasped hands, like a row of fence posts. > "[57] 2. The mental recitation should be done just as it is done verbally. For the > verbal recitation is a condition for the mental recitation, and the mental > recitation is a condition for the penetration of the characteristic [of > foulness]." > [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/109896] > > That passage is part of a section that begins at VIII, 48 under the heading 'Development': > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > [Development] > [48.] Now a clansman who, as a beginner, wants to develop this meditation subject should go to a good friend of the kind already described (Ch. DI, ��61-73) and learn it. *And the teacher who expounds it to him should tell him the sevenfold skill in learning and the tenfold skill in giving attention*. > > [The Sevenfold Skill in Learning] > Herein, the sevenfold skill in learning *should be told thus*: > (1) as verbal recitation, > (2) as mental recitation, > (3) � > > [The Tenfold Skill in Giving Attention] > [61]. Having thus *told the sevenfold skill in learning*, he should *tell the tenfold skill in giving attention* as follows: > (1) as to following the order, > (2) not too quickly, > (3) not too slowly � > [62]. 1. Herein, as to following the order: from the time of beginning the recitation attention should be given following the serial order without skipping. � > +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Note the passages I have marked with asterisks. These refer to the role of the teacher. Of course, there are many other passages that refer more directly to the role of the person who is developing samatha, but in this particular case the context is otherwise. I really don't see your point. "*Should* go to the teacher;" "*Should* do the recitation 1000 times; "should do this;" "should do that;" are obviously instructions and not descriptions. It doesn't matter whether the instructions are for the teacher or the student, or from the teacher to the student, or for the student from the Vism; they are still clearly instructions and not descriptions. So....? You agree that "should" is a command or instruction, or not? I mean - gimme a break. Should = should. Here's another direct quote from your quotation here, with which you establish the context for this being the "collective wisdom of the ancients and not an instruction to be followed:" "Now a clansman who, as a beginner, wants to develop this meditation subject should go to a good friend of the kind already described (Ch. DI, ��61-73) and learn it. *And the teacher who expounds it to him should tell him the sevenfold skill in learning and the tenfold skill in giving attention*." So what is being said here, Jon, in plain black and white? The beginner who WANTS to DEVELOP this MEDITATION SUBJECT SHOULD go to a good friend - pardon my CAPS, just trying to be really clear here. This is not directed towards the teacher, and is not a collection of ancient wisdom. It's a direct instruction to the beginner to "go to a teacher" if he "wants to develop this meditation subject." It says he *should* go, which is an imperative. All the things you say are not in the passage are right there in your quote - First of all, the student's desire and volition are acknowledged. If he desires to learn this, he should take a particular action and go to a teacher. That is not waiting for dhammas to arise naturally is it? It also says he can learn to do this from the teacher and develop the meditation subject. So he is doing exactly what I say he is doing - he is consciously and purposely taking an effort to do an action to develop his skill in bhavana through formal meditation instruction. Once he is there, the teacher is instructed to instruct him and then he is instructed to recite the recitations multiple times. These are all instructions and practices; some are for the student and some are for the teacher, but it's all doing, and it's directed towards formal practice of recitation, working with a meditation subject, etc. Is there any way in the world you can read those sentences and deny that they are in direct opposition to the anti-formal-meditation-learning-effort-doing philosophy? Again, I hope you will not be too offended if I say, gimme a break! I just want to read the words of the ancients and actually go by what they say, not twist over backwards and break the philosophy's neck in order to twist it into the opposite of what it clearly and obviously says. > > =============== > > I don't understand the propensity to think something is the opposite of what it says, unless there is some direct statement that it is not to be taken that way. As far as I know, there is no tradition in which the wisdom of the ancients is given as instructions for no good reason, when it is really meant *not* to be taken as instructions. > > =============== > > J: The Vism does not purport to be an instruction manual. According to the Theravada tradition, it's a compilation of the commentaries extant at the time, recorded to provide greater access by students of the teachings, and for posterity. > > The author was not a renowned teacher of samatha/vipassana, but rather a scholar of the texts. Well that is all well and fine, but the actual content of what he has recorded in his scholarly capacity are instructions for teachers and students of meditation and recitation! That's what it is about! It odesn' matter who wrote it down; what is being reported is what the student and teacher should do to develop bhavana through specific practices. It doesn't matter what the tradition says about it, or what it is purported to be. It says what it is about in the actual body of the text. > > =============== > > If someone says "You should do this," "You must do this," why would you think that this is not what is meant? > > =============== > > J: It's interesting that you should use the second person here, because the Vism passages are invariably in the third person ;-)) > > The third person form "He should do this", "He must do that" is at least as capable of being descriptive as it is of being prescriptive wouldn't you agree? No I do not agree. If I say "If you want to reach enlightenment you should practice anapanasati with breath as the object" it is not any less an instruction or any more a description than if I say "If you want to get milk you should go to the store." Sure, I'm not saying you have to get milk, or that you must go to the store, but I am saying that if you want the milk, you *should* in fact go to the store. It's an instruction no matter how you slice it. You have to be a real mental acrobat to turn these obvious instructions for how to achieve x and y by doing a, b and c into a description with the instruction somehow weeded out of it. Congratulations on a good try, but the Vism speaks for itself and is most obvious to anyone who is not dead set against instruction and practice. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110498 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 7:48 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (110255) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > I do not think it would run counter - I think it is possible for anyone to have awakening at any time based on their past accumulations, sharpness of their own natural bent towards wisdom, and conditions, but I don't think it's likely. I think it's very unlikely and don't think it happens very often if at all. > > =============== > > J: In my view, the question we should be discussing is not whether *awakening* is possible, but whether *awareness* (of whatever level) is possible. Because it is awareness that is our immediate concern, not enlightenment just yet ;-)) What are the conditions for the development of awareness of a (any) presently arising dhamma? Do these conditions include a reduction in, or the absence of, stimulation through the sense-doors? Etc. > > > =============== > > I think that those who study Dhamma AND practice meditation in order to concretize their understanding through concentrated experience are MUCH more likely to make progress on the path - that is to say, to accumulate those qualities that are necessary to create the conditions for enlightenment. > > =============== > > J: Again, it's (basic) awareness, not enlightenment, that should be our concern, don't you think? To me it's the same thing. You can just take enlightenment out of my statements and substitute basic awareness or mindfulness or samatha or whatever basic development you want to plug in. I think the combination of Dhamma study, observation in life and meditation practice or other practices prescribed by the Buddha [eg, metta meditation, corpse contemplation, etc.] is always the winning combination for making progress. In biology you read the text to understand the science, then you go out in the field and observe, and then finally you replicate some field or theoretical conditions in the laboratory to do a more careful or closer study of a particular subject. In our case, the subject is observing the nature of arising dhammas and development of samatha - either or both at a given time - and I think that they work in the same way: Dhamma study, real life experience and meditation process, to develop greater understanding of dhammas in all three situations. > > =============== > > I think that the Buddha clearly said that the doing of meritorious action in the conventional way, doing meditation towards development of samatha and vipassana, as well as understanding Dhamma and progressing in other areas of the path, create the conditions and accumulate the merit for both positive kamma to develop and create better conditions, and for the accumulations that lead to wisdom. Whether they are necessary is another matter. > > =============== > > J: Well, yes, but which conditions are necessary ones (i.e., prerequisites) and which are optional ones (i.e., useful, or appropriate for some only, but not prerequisites) is surely something we need to know. > > If we take for being prerequisites things that are not, it will likely lead to wrong practice. Maybe. I'm convinced that meditation is not optional, but primary, as are millions of Buddhists around the world. I know you guys disagree, but I don't see a basis for it. I agree that some basic understanding of the framework should precede meditation, and that Dhamma study should continue and that they feed each other, but not that one should be reserved for a special time of life, or that meditation should wait until massive study of Dhamma has been completed. > > =============== > I don't know if they are all necessary, but I know they were all made part of the path that the Buddha espoused and I take him seriously. There is a reason why he listed voluminously all the ways in which monks and householders should and shouldn't behave, think, practice etc. I don't think he did it to pass the time. > > =============== > > J: To my understanding, the Buddha listed the various ways of behaviour in order to illustrate to persons of different dispositions that the path could be developed regardless of their mode of behaviour. He also gave specific ways for each person in those situations to practice and progress. It's not just an idle description but a very thorough set of instructions all the way through. I would not be able to live as a monk, and I don't have the sila to do certain practices. It's just not going to happen that I am going to control my actions, food intake and sexual behavior to such a great extent that I could follow the Vinaya very well, so it's clear to me that's not my path at this time in my life or probably this lifetime. We can make good judgments based on who we are at the time. > We should not assume that in addressing these situations the Buddha was stipulating prerequisite circumstances. I go by what I read. I don't try to second guess everything I see based on some other interpretation. The Buddha's 40 years of teaching makes a pretty good record of what he had to say about the path, different temperaments and life situations. > > =============== > > I am merely including lifestyle and activity, rather than leaving it out. The only thing I am saying is that *he* emphasized them continually *in his teaching,* not just in his behavior, so the distinction is irrelevant. I personally harbor the fantasy that I can awaken without living a pure and noble life, but I may be very mistaken. > > =============== > > J: Yes, there was certainly emphasis on lifestyle, but we should not draw the wrong conclusion from that. Many, many different kinds of lifestyle were the subject of suttas. Well that is great - then there's a good instruction for everyone! > Also, you will notice that when reference is made in the suttas to the monk's life, it is to the monk's life *properly lived* (i.e., not to the living of the monk's life for its own sake). Those unable to live the monk's life as it should be lived were not encouraged to enter the order. Exactly, which is not on my agenda at present. > > =============== > > > J: If there are different 'pathways', there is still a common denominator for the various paths. This common denominator is, I believe, the direct understanding of dhammas. > > > > I don't disagree with you about that! Direct experiential understanding, whether it comes sooner or later, is the essential factor in awakening. > > =============== > > J: A rare point of agreement ;-)). So the question is, what are the conditions, as stated by the Buddha, for the arising/developing of 'direct experiential understanding'. Any thoughts on this? He said different things in different suttas. In some he said that Dhamma study and wise association were the essential ingredients, in other suttas he said that anapanasati or satipatthana practice were essential and could bring one all the way to enlightenment, step by step. So I take both of those as being important and necessary, personally speaking. Since it is an eight-fold path, I think we should pay attention to understanding the 4 noble truths, studying Dhamma and practicing Right Concentration, Right Mindfulness, etc. All of the above. > > =============== > > And also all the supports and conditions that are necessary and desirable for different individuals to realize that essence of the teachings. You can't have direct experience without right conditions, and it is a big issue what creates those conditions, isn't it? > > =============== > > J: Yes, without the right conditions there cannot be direct experience of dhammas. Another point of agreement! So we need to ask what the Buddha said on this score. A lot of different things which in my view cumulatively add up to living a decent lifestyle that is not too extreme or causing of negative kamma and suffering; doing decent work that does not disturb the mind and creates positive conditions; studying Dhamma and contemplating scriptures along with wise association with Dhamma friends; contemplation of occurring dhammas in everyday life; and specific meditation practices to develop concentration, mindfulness and samatha leading to greater insight, understanding, equanimity, detachment, etc. > > =============== > If it turns out that meditation is an essential tool for developing samatha and vipassana, as I think it is, and people are refraining from doing so because they think it is akusala, that would be a big mistake, wouldn't it? > > =============== > > J: The view that "meditation is an essential tool for developing samatha and vipassana" is worth looking at. To what extent is this based on direct statements in the suttas (or commentaries), rather than inferred from the situations described in the suttas or from the conduct of the Buddha and his disciples during his lifetime? Well that all hinges on whether you interpret detailed instructions that go step by step through meditation practices and recategorize them as "descriptions only with no instructive content" based on your own meta-philosophy that is not directly related to what is said in sutta. It is my firm opinion that if someone says "the person who wants to develop greater samatha and sati leading to the development of the enlightenement factors does x and y" that this is saying clearly that one who wants to develop these qualities *should* do x and y. To say it is only a description based on it saying "the case where a monk does x" seems nonsensically hair-splitting to me. It is clearly an instruction manual with an ordered set of details. Likewise for the satipatthana sutta. It is mainly based on those two suttas and other supporting suttas that make clear how various factors are developed, including the jhanas, that I am convinced that Buddha advocated meditation practice as an essential part of the path. > > =============== > > Thank you, Jon. I am honored to have that role, and also to learn a lot from all of you while causing trouble. > > =============== > > J: No trouble at all, I assure you. I'm just sorry we don't see eye-to-eye more than we do ;-)) Well, thank you for expressing that. I'm sure our 'not seeing eye to eye' has its purpose too! Unless it's all kammas that need to be sorted out. In that case, let's keep talking and burn em up! ;-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110499 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 7:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what I heard. Was: An afternoon with Pt. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------- > N: Understanding, as it develops because of its own conditions, will > take care of it all. We do not think of moments, or of knowing > reality in the moment. Just knowing different characteristics as they > appear, is that not enough for now? Yes, that is good. That is a good set of quotes on the subject too, which I will re-read, and the sense of the object appearing and being apprehended as nimita, but that what is important is to see the characteristic, rather than worrying about whether it is happening right now or not. Seeing the characteristic of the nimita, or I guess, even the characteristic of a nama that has come in relation to that nimita, is just as good. Seeing the characteristic of any dhamma when that is possible, is the point. Thanks, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #110500 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 3:40 pm Subject: metta, gazita2002 Hallo Sarah, everyone In Jivaka sutta (MN55,BB) the Buddha is talking to Jivaka about a bhikkhu who 'abides pervading the all encompassing world imbued with metta [karuna, mudita, uppekkha] abundant, exalted, immeasurable without hostility and without ill-will'. My understanding of metta is that it is friendliness and there must be a being that one is 'friendly' to. So if said bhikkhu is 'pervading' the world, isn't this only in his mind, so to speak? No-one can 'receive' metta. Of course, the answer could be that there are conditions,for that bhikkhu, for metta to arise while contemplating the whole wide world! Anything more you could tell me about this? Cheers patience, courage and good cheer azita #110501 From: "bhikkhu3" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 5:44 pm Subject: Placid is Composed Equanimity! bhikkhu5 Friends: What is the Equanimity Link to Awakening? Even evaluation is characteristic of the Equanimity Link to Awakening. (Upekkha-Sambojjhanga). Preventing both deficiency & excess and securing impartiality is the function of Equanimity. Imperturbable ballance is the manifestation of the Equanimity Link to Awakening. Equanimity just looks on whenever new phenomena arises and ceases. This stable yet plastic patience purifies all the other advantageous mental states, which reach maximum, when joined with Equanimity... Equanimity (Upekkha) is a moderating mental construction. Equanimity is also a mood of neither gladness nor sadness. Equanimity is also a feeling of neither pain nor pleasure. Equanimity is also the neutral ability to be indifferent. Equanimity is also the 4th infinitely divine dwelling. Equanimity is also a quite high form of happiness. Equanimity is also a refined mental purification. Equanimity is therefore a Link to Enlightenment... There is Equanimity both regarding live beings and dead things. There is Equanimity both regarding all internal & external states. There is Equanimity both regarding all past, present and future. There is Equanimity both regarding all mentality & all materiality. The Buddha once said: What mental fermentations (asava) should be overcome by development? If a Bhikkhu by alert & rational attention develops the Equanimity Link to Awakening based on seclusion, based on disillusion, on ceasing, culminating in full renouncing relinquishment, then neither can mental fermentation, nor any fever, nor discontent ever arise in him. MN2 [i 11] When mind is concentrated one can observe all closely in equanimity. The Equanimity Link to Awakening arises right there. He develops it, and for him repeatedly meditating it goes gradually to the completion of its development. MN118 [iii 85] <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #110502 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 6:25 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > To be more precise, one citta, and its cetasikas, and its object (when that object is a dhamma) arise at a time. You answer a lot of the - actually rhetorical - questions I raised in a similar manner to this - with absolute certainty. I'd like to ask for all your answers - How do you know this? If it is a matter of personal experience of dhammas, or a matter of faith, or whatever, I'll be happy to hear the basis for your assurance that your philosophy is correct.... > The Abhidhamma is to be taken literally. I have seen people suggest that the Abhidhamma is just a "theoretical model" rather than a literal description of reality. But that is not true. How do you know that? I'd really like to know the basis for your self-assurance. > --------------------------- > RE: > You say you are an atheist, yet you have a strong belief in a number of processes within the certainty of "dhammas arising" which are not based on any current living human observations that we know of, but on faith. > --------------------------- > > I was trying to demonstrate to Herman that none of my Dhamma beliefs were based on blind faith. The Dhamma is more rational and believable than any of the other explanations I have ever heard. And so, for me, to *not* believe in it would require a leap of blind faith. The fact that you find the Dhamma as you understand it to be more rational and believable than any other explanation does not prove it is correct; it merely establishes a firm basis for your faith. Unless you have either proven or personally experienced the truth of the teachings, you are speculating, and it is an act of faith to *believe,* not know that what you think is true is in fact true. So again, you are a believer, which is fine, but you should not pretend to know that you are right when the basis is faith and belief. > ----------------- > RE: > It is in fact a religious belief that all these elements exist and function the way that it is said they do. We have not seen any living arahants lately that have proclaimed that they have experienced this and that it is all true, have we? So again, it > is based on your experiences, logic and common sense that parts 1-3 are undeniable and sensible - there are only dhammas in each moment and they are made up of physical and mental factors. But when it comes to understanding what these are and how they function and what makes samsara and enlightenment tick, it is all based on a combination of intellectual understanding of Abhidhamma and > related commentaries and teachings, and a large degree of faith that these are the real elements that exist and can be understood directly at some point in the distant future. > ------------------- > > I find the best advice given here at DSG is to "start again." That's what I meant by the steps I suggested to Herman. Start again at the beginning ("there are only namas and rupas") and work towards whatever it is you are currently trying to understand. If you find any weak links, maybe you need to reassess your understanding. Maybe you need to look at the assumptions in your belief structure. They're not factual. They need to be borne out by experience, or else admitted as an act of faith and conviction. Nothing wrong with that, but your sense of "logic" isn't enough to prove something is true. We all adopt belief structures in order to follow our path, but we shouldn't be under the illusion that we've been proven correct when we haven't. > ----------- > RE: > Given the degree of faith involved in the specifics of what exists, I think we should adopt a more investigational attitude about them, and not one of smugness and certainty. We should certainly not be exactly sure what is good for others to practice or not to practice based on this degree of speculation. But it is fine to proceed with the investigation, share findings, and feel sure that it is the correct path for oneself, if you see the distinction. > ----------- > > Let me assure you that that all of no-control/no-formal-practice opinions expressed at DSG, are in good faith. No one is trying to deceive anyone. :-) You miss the point. You need to understand that *you* may be deceived. If you have a basis for certainty other than faith, let's hear what it is. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110503 From: Herman Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 7:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... egberdina Hi Ken H, On 4 October 2010 19:02, Ken H wrote: > > > Definitely there is a birth citta and a death citta that define the > duration of "life" in one sense of the word. However, the Abhidhamma makes > it clear that life's duration can be defined just as accurately by the > arising and ceasing of each individual citta within that longer "life". > > There is hope for us all, it seems :-) You acknowledge duration, if only of a citta, and that's a great start to realising that anicca and present moment are mutually exclusive. We can build on that understanding and come to realise that moments or instants don't exist or occur at all, they are just the seeming rupturing of duration by ignorance. What for you, in your present understanding, would be the most refined wisdom or perception ie awareness of a present moment, is for me, in my present understanding, the basis of all ignorance. Cheers Herman #110504 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 7:35 pm Subject: Re: An afternoon with Pt - round 3 ptaus1 Hi Jon, > Jon: Just a minor comment here. I think what I said was that right intellectual understanding involves an appreciation that what is being discussed/considered concerns the present moment, and further that a better understanding of the reality/truth of the present moment is what the path is all about. >... > Right intellectual understanding may of course include an understanding (at the intellectual level) of the anattaness of all dhammas, but I would not emphasise this particular aspect over any other. pt: Thanks for the correction. Looks like I took your words on intellectual understanding, then joined them with Sarah's following comments about detachment in the present moment, and so ended up making a unified theory of everything :) > Jon: PS Pt, looking forward to our next get-together this weekend, when you'll get to meet the 2 heavies KenH and Herman. Be prepared for some fireworks!! (Just kidding, they're both very personable guys.) pt: Yes, I am really looking forward to seeing their debate in real-life. Bringing chocolate to make it even sweeter :) Best wishes pt #110505 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 7:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? ptaus1 Hi Sarah, > S: There is a chapter on the "Classification of the Right Efforts" in the Sammohavinodanii, the commentary to the Vibhanga. It's been translated into English as "Dispeller of Delusion" (PTS). pt: Thanks for this bit from Dispeller. It looks like this short sutta passage on effort is far more complex than I imagined. I'll study it a bit and maybe come up with some questions for Saturday. Best wishes pt #110506 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 8:00 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? ptaus1 Hi RobE, > RobE: I think it is also important that you have a sort of "contract" with certain people. If you feel that Sarah and others are your "spiritual friends" in a sense you give them permission to advise and critique you. When you are open to that and feel the advice helps you, then that is a very positive relationship, pt: Yes, I think that's how I see it as well. > RobE: I object more to big generalizations that don't leave room for other possibilities. > > [Please see Ken H.'s recent lumping together of Buddhist meditation, new age philosophies and Dr. Phil. Hi Ken H!] pt: Yes, well, KenH has his own style for which we love him. Same as Alex and Phil, and anyone else here for that matter. So, to paraphrase KenH's recent comment, regardless of whether we all agree or disagree, each one of us makes a very important contribution to the discussion here. Best wishes pt #110507 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 8:29 pm Subject: Re: metta, ptaus1 Hi Sarah, Azita, > My understanding of metta is that it is friendliness and there must be a being that one is 'friendly' to. So if said bhikkhu is 'pervading' the world, isn't this only in his mind, so to speak? > > No-one can 'receive' metta. Of course, the answer could be that there are conditions,for that bhikkhu, for metta to arise while contemplating the whole wide world! > Anything more you could tell me about this? Cheers pt: I was wondering about this as well. I think in Visudhimagga chapter on metta it says that object during metta is a concept of a person, and then that when it's spoken about pervading a certain direction - it's actually about all the people in that direction. But what does that mean? That the mind has to quickly run through a concept for every single person in that direction? I assume it would be more like - 'all people in that direction' becoming one single concept so to speak at the moment of metta. I'd assume that the same principle applies to the 'world'. But then there might be also the case that for immesurable brahma viharas - jhana and maybe divine eye are needed so that metta can actually pervade the whole universe and all beings in it and that sort of thing. I mean, I don't really know how devas, nagas and petas look like, so without divine eye I'm not sure how I can even have a concept of them in my mind as object of metta. Or perhaps it's really just down to imagination. I don't know. Sometimes I end up thinking, hm, it looks like I'm imagining devas as they are on hindu pictures, but what if they really look more like ancient egyptian gods? They might get offended that I'm imagining them all plump and almost naked :) And by the time my train of thought is there, that's pretty far off from metta already... Best wishes pt #110508 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 4:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/4/2010 10:00:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: There is hope for us all, it seems :-) You acknowledge duration, if only of a citta, and that's a great start to realising that anicca and present moment are mutually exclusive. ============================ IMO, this is a deep, fresh, important, and TRUE observation! With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110509 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 9:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Ken H, > > On 4 October 2010 19:02, Ken H wrote: > > > > > > > Definitely there is a birth citta and a death citta that define the > > duration of "life" in one sense of the word. However, the Abhidhamma makes > > it clear that life's duration can be defined just as accurately by the > > arising and ceasing of each individual citta within that longer "life". > > > > > There is hope for us all, it seems :-) You acknowledge duration, if only of > a citta, and that's a great start to realising that anicca and present > moment are mutually exclusive. > > We can build on that understanding and come to realise that moments or > instants don't exist or occur at all, they are just the seeming rupturing of > duration by ignorance. What for you, in your present understanding, would be > the most refined wisdom or perception ie awareness of a present moment, is > for me, in my present understanding, the basis of all ignorance. I am pretty sure you are not saying that actions, changes, "moments of things arising or happening" don't take place, so I am interested to hear more about what you object to about the idea of the "moment." Is it the idea that it is a definite time-span, rather than a particular identification of an event within a continuous flow? Even if there is an unbroken flow of constant change, and that is the real anicca, there are changes and events that represent the changes that take place, even though isolating them may be artificial. If we watch a wave rise and fall on the sea, we can see a definite time when it is no longer moving up to a peak, but is moving down in collapse. There may not be a fixed moment in time when that transition takes place, but there is a time when it has changed from one predominant direction or action to another. So how would you define a "moment" or "series of moments" in those terms? There is no moment when we stop being "young" and become "old" and yet we can see that we are no longer young after a certain point or period of time. So how does this take place, and what sort of process would you propose for it? I have a practical definition of a moment: that is, one discrete intentional action, which is usually aligned with one movement, one action, one intention, one breath. While there may be many other things going on at the same time, you can identify a main responsive event. Someone says hello to you. You have a moment when you take in their point of view, behavior, etc., and then you have a response that starts internally as an intention and then expresses as behavior back as you say "hello" back, also with a certain emotion, point of view, etc. So you can identify a kind of exchange between stimulus and response and see these stimulus-response moments ticking along. Just another way of looking at the changing course of events, although much more macroscopic than millions of dhammas per second. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110510 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 9:38 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > pt: Yes, well, KenH has his own style for which we love him. Same as Alex and Phil, and anyone else here for that matter. So, to paraphrase KenH's recent comment, regardless of whether we all agree or disagree, each one of us makes a very important contribution to the discussion here. :-) You are right about that, and so is Ken H. Ha ha, you have a very good way of accenting the positive. That diplomatic quality can accomplish many good things. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110511 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 4, 2010 11:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] metta, sarahprocter... Hi Azita, --- On Tue, 5/10/10, gazita2002 wrote: >In Jivaka sutta (MN55,BB) the Buddha is talking to Jivaka about a bhikkhu who 'abides pervading the all encompassing world imbued with metta [karuna, mudita, uppekkha] abundant, exalted, immeasurable without hostility and without ill-will'. >My understanding of metta is that it is friendliness and there must be a being that one is 'friendly' to. So if said bhikkhu is 'pervading' the world, isn't this only in his mind, so to speak? .... S: A being or beings (not oneself as some like to think!). Yes, metta is always "in the mind", but it has a being/beings as object. We may feel friendliness or metta now to the person we're associating with, to a child on the street or to some ants on the path. For the one with more developed metta, there's less discrimination - it may be metta for all the people in the football stadium or all the passers by, for example. And then, for the one who has developed metta to the degree of the jhanas, by really understanding its characteristic precisely, knowing exactly when it does and does not arise, metta has become "immeasurable", "encompassing" all the beings in the world. (Without metta having been developed to this degree, it's useless to just repeat a phrase about having metta to all beings, wishing for such a result). Of course, the Buddha had incomparable metta and karuna, because his metta and karuna extended to whatever beings he put his mind, including us! ... >No-one can 'receive' metta. Of course, the answer could be that there are conditions,for that bhikkhu, for metta to arise while contemplating the whole wide world! Anything more you could tell me about this? Cheers .... S: Yes, we cannot 'receive' metta, but according to 'our' kamma and other conditions, there can be the kusala vipaka when we hear the pleasant sounds of someone's assistance with metta or in the case of the Buddha's metta and compassion- there are now the conditions (thanks again to good kamma in the past), to hear the Teachings today. So when we show kindness and friendliness to those around us, it'll depend on many factors as to whether they appreciate it or benefit at all. The point is that at the moment of having metta, the mind, ('our' mind) is kusala and free from kilesa at such a time. Only panna can tell at any moment whether it really is metta or not, of course. If there are expectations of any response from an individual or 'the world', that is not metta. If we wish to have more metta or to be a kinder person or sit for an hour to try and have metta, none of that is metta either. If it's just wishing for our dear ones to be happy, it's much more likely to be attachment most the time. If we see the value in metta and begin to understand its characteristic, it can and will develop naturally and joyfully. This is the development of samatha in daily life, as I understand it. Metta Sarah ====== #110512 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 4:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... egberdina Hi Rob E and Howard, On 5 October 2010 15:04, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > Thanks for your encouragement, Howard. I'll just wait for a while before replying to your questions, Rob E, just to give others a chance to have their say before the sumo wrestlers do :-) Cheers Herman #110513 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 7:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: what I heard. Was: An afternoon with Pt. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 4-okt-2010, om 16:54 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > Just knowing different characteristics as they > > appear, is that not enough for now? > > Yes, that is good. That is a good set of quotes on the subject too, > which I will re-read, and the sense of the object appearing and > being apprehended as nimita, but that what is important is to see > the characteristic, rather than worrying about whether it is > happening right now or not. Seeing the characteristic of the > nimita, or I guess, even the characteristic of a nama that has come > in relation to that nimita, is just as good. Seeing the > characteristic of any dhamma when that is possible, is the point. ------ N: Yes, you expressed that very well. I asked Kh Sujin about awareness of nimitta and whether that would not be awareness of concepts, which is not an object of satipa.t.thaana. She said that sa"nkhaara nimittas ( nimittas of each of the five khandhas) means nimittas of realities. Thus, we can be aware of characteristics of realities. We do not have to think of nimittas. ------ Nina. #110514 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 8:05 am Subject: What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). nilovg Dear friends, From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). Kh Sujin: Naama and ruupa are different realities. We do not have to call them anything at all but we can come to understand that they are different dhammas. Ven. Pannabahulo: So, we should watch them? Kh Sujin: No, we can learn that this is a characteristic of a reality that was not known before we were reading or listening to the teachings. Hardness is real and it is not a table or a chair, it is not my arm. It is only a reality. One has to learn that in one’s life there are only different realities appearing from time to time. Visible object does not appear at the same time as sound. They are real. You do not have to call them ruupa. By learning the different characteristics we will understand that they are real, not imagination. Hardness is appearing now. That characteristic is real. Visible object appears at the moment of seeing, sound appears at the moment of hearing. Who is seeing or hearing? No one, only these realities are experiencing. Citta and cetasikas arise together, experience one object at a time, from the moment of birth until the moment of death, from life to life. Just learn to understand that there is no self. Ven. Pannabahulo: That is very clear. Kh Sujin: Otherwise it seems that we have to find naama and ruupa, but actually, it is not like that. They are here all the time. --------- Jon: Can we say that when the understanding is developed, the distinction between naama and ruupa becomes apparent? Kh Sujin: The question is when. Jon: When understanding arises. Kh Sujin: When it is vipassanaa ~naa.na. That is the difference between the development of understanding in satipa.t.thaana and vipassanaa ~naa.na. Jon: We cannot expect the distinction to be apparent but nevertheless we can understand at the intellectual level that dhammas are distinguished in this way. Kh Sujin: When sati does not arise yet how can we know the characteristic of satipa.t.thaana? Because it is not the sati that arises when there is intellectual understanding. Jon: But even intellectual understanding can be a condition for the arising of sati of satipa.t.thaana. Kh Sujin: It is sa”nkhaarakkhandha. We may use the word sa”nkhaarakkhandha without understanding it now. All cetasikas (except feeling and sa~n~naa) are sa”nkhaarakkhandha, arising and falling away from moment to moment. We can see how ignorance covers up the true nature of realities. Ignorance does not understand. Visible object is visible object and it can be seen just now. When pa~n~naa develops the objects do not change, they are exactly the same. But when there are sati and pa~n~naa the understanding is deeper, stronger, more subtle. It is not thinking of visible object as ‘something’. ******* Nina. #110515 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 4:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/5/2010 11:05:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes the final paragraph of material stated by Khun Sujin: We can see how ignorance covers up the true nature of realities. Ignorance does not understand. Visible object is visible object and it can be seen just now. When pa~n~naa develops the objects do not change, they are exactly the same. But when there are sati and pa~n~naa the understanding is deeper, stronger, more subtle. It is not thinking of visible object as ‘something’. ================================== I find this paragraph interesting, and most especially the last sentence. Is the emphasis there on "thinking" or on "something"? Both are important, IMO, but the "something" is especially interesting to me. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110516 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 9:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E and Howard, > I'll just wait for a while before replying to your questions, Rob E, just to > give others a chance to have their say before the sumo wrestlers do :-) I'll oil up for the match. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110517 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 9:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nina - > > In a message dated 10/5/2010 11:05:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > vangorko@... writes the final paragraph of material stated by Khun Sujin: > > We can see how ignorance covers > up the true nature of realities. Ignorance does not understand. > Visible object is visible object and it can be seen just now. When > pa~n~naa develops the objects do not change, they are exactly the > same. But when there are sati and pa~n~naa the understanding is > deeper, stronger, more subtle. It is not thinking of visible object > as ‘something’. > ================================== > I find this paragraph interesting, and most especially the last > sentence. Is the emphasis there on "thinking" or on "something"? Both are > important, IMO, but the "something" is especially interesting to me. I seem to be jumping in a lot, and don't mean to speak for Nina, but I find that paragraph very interesting too. My sense is that it is saying that no concept or definition of "somethingness" is imposed on "the object" when sati and panna understand their direct characteristics in the moment. I think that would apply to concepts like calling something your "arm" or a "table," but would be interesting if that is also true that there is not even a concept of "hardness" or "seeing" but that it is just the raw experience itself clearly experienced. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110518 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:53 pm Subject: Re: An afternoon with Pt - round 3 glenjohnann Hello Jon (and Pt) Yes, your comments below regarding right intellectual understanding do answer my questions earlier to you and Pt. You make it very clear - nothing academic in it - it all relates to the present moment and is verifiable directly where panna has been developed to the appropriate level and only if panna has been developed to that level through increasing levels of right intellectual understanding. I look forward to reports of your upcoming week-end Dhamma talks - you are all fortunate to have the geographic proximity to be able to meet (over chocolate, as I understand). Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > J: Just a minor comment here. I think what I said was that right intellectual understanding involves an appreciation that what is being discussed/considered concerns the present moment, and further that a better understanding of the reality/truth of the present moment is what the path is all about. > > I would add that right intellectual understanding also involves an appreciation that this level of understanding is a precursor to, and a prerequisite for, a more direct understanding of the truth regarding the present moment, and that there is the potential for verification by direct experience, to the extent that panna of the appropriate level has been developed. > > Right intellectual understanding may of course include an understanding (at the intellectual level) of the anattaness of all dhammas, but I would not emphasise this particular aspect over any other. > > (Ann, hoping this answers your question on this part of pt's post.) #110519 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:59 pm Subject: Re: An afternoon with Pt - round 3 glenjohnann Hi Pt As you may be able to tell here, I have somehow managed to go through recent posts backwards - and am coming to your post below after responding to Jon's later response. Thanks for the references below. Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > > Hi Ann, > > pt: Hopefully Jon will add more. In my basic understanding, right intellectual understanding is about the beginnings of detachment so to speak. So, if anger arises and I'm taking that anger as my anger, and blaming another person for causing me trouble, etc, well - there's no detachment there obviously. But, if anger arises, and a conceptual understanding arises at the time that sees anger as just a dhamma of conditioned nature, that it (anger) is not me and so that it has the characteristic of anatta - that might not be a direct experience of a dhamma and the anatta characteristic, but it's the beginning of detachment in the present moment so to speak. > > Of course, this would apply to anger, to doubt, etc, and even to thinking (as you suggested) about conditioned realities and anatta or whatever other subject, since thinking too is basically just dhammas at work. > > Anyway, I guess intellectual understanding gradually deepens so as to eventually enable direct experience of the anatta characteristic of a dhamma, which I think would in essence equal to detachment spoken of in the suttas. Anyway, there's a lot more on this subject in the Useful posts file: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts.htm > > See topics: > - 'Considering, Listening, Intellectual Understanding, Pariyatti' > - 'Listening' > - 'Pariyatti' > > Best wishes > pt > #110520 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). glenjohnann Hi Rob E. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > I seem to be jumping in a lot, and don't mean to speak for Nina, but I find that paragraph very interesting too. My sense is that it is saying that no concept or definition of "somethingness" is imposed on "the object" when sati and panna understand their direct characteristics in the moment. I think that would apply to concepts like calling something your "arm" or a "table," but would be interesting if that is also true that there is not even a concept of "hardness" or "seeing" but that it is just the raw experience itself clearly experienced. I believe that your last thought is correct. When there is direct experience of a reality, it is only the reality that is experienced. There may well be thinking of that reality as a concept afterwards, but the direct experience is just that - direct experience, no concepts attached at that moment. Ann #110521 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:36 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Robert E, I am behind with my replies, and having a day off yesterday didn't help, so I'll quickly say something about this: ---------------- <. . .> RE: > Hm...since you are currently talking to me, and not all meditators, maybe you should reference my description of meditation rather than some normative generalization which cannot be clearly stated. Both Howard and I have said to you directly that there is no "dhamma catching" involved. So if there is some "equally unflattering" characterization at work, why not say what they actually are and what they mean? Don't worry, we can still continue to disagree. But we'd have the advantage of not dealing with a straw man that you invented yourself. ----------------- It is not a straw man: the way I see things, you and Howard - and all other meditators - are talking about "catching" something. You might not always use the word "catching" but you imply *doing* something, and so it comes down to the same thing. Whether you are intentionally "practicing being open" "observing what is there" or "calming fabrications" (to use your words) it's all the same thing. It is an illusion. And when an illusion is seen as satipatthana practice it is wrong view. -------------------------- <. . .> RE: > I don't think that calling something "double-talk" is a very astute analysis. I can say that the term "paramatha dhammas" is double-talk, because arising dhammas are not absolute, they are momentary and fleeting. -------------------------- After a quick check of the dictionary I am sure you are using the word incorrectly. There is no suggestion of permanence or lastingness; absolute simply means "total" or "complete". --------------------------------------- RE: > But it would be more intelligent to ask "What is absolute about them? What does that mean?" so at least if I disagree I know what I am disagreeing with. ---------------------------------------- Namas and rupas are totally and completely real; they are absolute realities. If you disagree then please tell me, what are the absolute realities of the present moment? And don't say there aren't any. --------------------------- RE: > If you think all the instructions given by Buddha in anapanasati and satipatthana suttas are double-talk, then what is your view of sutta, that it is all double-talk? Most of it is not in precise "dhamma-only" terms, so I guess it's all double-talk? Only repeating the same few formulas over and over again is "real talk?" --------------------------- What were you saying earlier about straw men? :-) Although I must admit there are some formulas that I do enjoy repeating. ------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > I am not singling you out <. . .> Dr Phil and Oprah, for example, are immensely successful, wealthy, self-help psychobabblers. >> RE:> Oh, well thanks. That is a lot better to see that rather than dealing with precise practices and understandings, you are ready at a moment's notice to throw Buddhist meditation and all sincere application of the Buddha's teachings into phoney new-age philosophies and cheap advice from Dr. Phil. -------------------------------------- There I go: out of the frying pan into the fire! :-) You say you are sincere in your attempts, and I like to think I am sincere too. But what is "sincere" in Abhidhamma terminology? When we are wrong, are we any less wrong by thinking we are right? No, according to the Abhidhamma, we are more wrong. --------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > It *is* based on sutta. It is based on the understanding that everything in reality is conditioned - devoid of a controlling self, beyond control, anatta. >> RE: > You have reached a conclusion based on that truth - that no one can practice anything without involving self-view. That is not true, it is opposite to the Buddha's teaching and it is wrong view, because it contradicts basic Buddhist teachings. Anatta is not meant to be used as a justification for quietism and abandoning of practice as clearly described by Buddha. ------------------------------ Perhaps you should have another look at Anthony's list of wrong questions. When someone asks, "Does anatta mean I can practice? Does anatta mean I cannot practice?" they are wrong questions, aren't they? Ken H #110522 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:43 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. Part 1 in a series of 200 replies, still to come. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > Perhaps you should have another look at Anthony's list of wrong questions. When someone asks, "Does anatta mean I can practice? Does anatta mean I cannot practice?" they are wrong questions, aren't they? Hm. I don't think you can say that is a "wrong question" and at the same time give your answer to the question, that indeed anatta dictates that any attempt to do something on the Buddhist path is wrong view as it is self view and inherently akusala. Since you have answered the question, you must be guilty of inherently asking that wrong question as well. Or else you actual think it is a right question when you answer, but a wrong question when someone of a different view asks the same question and comes up with a different answer. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110523 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:49 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. This is part 2 out of 200 upcoming replies. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > It is not a straw man: the way I see things, you and Howard - and all other meditators - are talking about "catching" something. > > You might not always use the word "catching" but you imply *doing* something, and so it comes down to the same thing. Whether you are intentionally "practicing being open" "observing what is there" or "calming fabrications" (to use your words) it's all the same thing. It is an illusion. And when an illusion is seen as satipatthana practice it is wrong view. > > -------------------------- If planning to do a prescribed Dhamma activity is akusala because it is "doing something," then the rest of what you say could be correct; but that is wrong. Things are not akusala inherently based on the nature of the activity, but only if they are promoting further delusion and not leading to developing factors of the path. Doing something can be done with right understanding or wrong understanding. It is not pre-set simply by the fact of intending to do something. If there is right understanding that one doesn't control the results, then any process can be undertaken and other factors being kusala it may be kusala to do so. I disagree with your premise, so the rest of your logica chain is wrong. It is dogmatic. Your view of meditation and all the exercises laid down by the Buddha and Vism - that they are all not to be undertaken, but must occur by themselves without any plan or intention, is a wrong view of meditation. You are suffering from a form of wrong view, and that makes me sad. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110524 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 4:05 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. This is part 3 of my 200 upcoming replies. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > RE: > I don't think that calling something "double-talk" is a very astute analysis. I can say that the term "paramatha dhammas" is double-talk, because arising dhammas are not absolute, they are momentary and fleeting. > -------------------------- > > After a quick check of the dictionary I am sure you are using the word incorrectly. There is no suggestion of permanence or lastingness; absolute simply means "total" or "complete". > > --------------------------------------- > RE: > But it would be more intelligent to ask "What is absolute about them? What does that mean?" so at least if I disagree I know what I am disagreeing with. > ---------------------------------------- > > Namas and rupas are totally and completely real; they are absolute realities. > > If you disagree then please tell me, what are the absolute realities of the present moment? And don't say there aren't any. What kind of reality do arising dhammas have that makes them "absolutely real." Why is it necessary to emphasis them as "absolutely real" rather than merely real. If you were to say that "dhammas really do arise and as such are real in the moment of their arisal. They quickly fall away again and so exist only for a moment," that would be true but to call that "absolutely real" seems almost a contradiction. We emphasize their fleeting and insubstantial nature; that is the opposite feeling from saying they are "absolute," even if it is just highlighting the fact that they do exist. Even that exist is so fleeting and changeable at every point in their tiny existence that the word "absolute" seems very badly applied. It is more like "hardly real," "just real by a tiny hairs-breadth" would be more appropriate than emphasizing that they have some kind of solid, substantial existence for that tiny moment that they arise. Also, to say "they are real" and especially "they are absolutely real" has two implications that don't seem right to me. The first is that to say a dhamma is real *implies*, even though we then say it isn't true, that they stay the same for some period of time and are thus identifiable. That is not true and I'm sure it causes confusion for some. At every point in the arising, sustaining/functional and falling-away phase of existence, anicca is active and even during those phases the dhamma is constantly changing, either building up by degrees, functioning by degrees and falling away by degrees until it is completely gone and replaced by the next dhamma. If we examine this more closely you will see that actually there is no "dhamma per se" to be "absolutely real," quite the contrary. In fact, at any given moment the reality of the dhamma is changing, so there is no "is reality" to put your finger on and happily announce "It is absolutely real!" even for a micro-moment. So I think the term is wrong and should not have been applied to dhammas in the first place. It would be much better to say that dhammas are "absolutely anicca," or "only real in the sense that we can functionally identify them but other than that have no solid reality." I think it gives the wrong impression. Who came up with the term paramatha dhammas? And what difference did it make to the way in which dhammas were discussed after employing that term? I don't think the term appears in the Abhidhamma but only in the commentaries. Correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that the term promotes a precise analytic framework that tends to wipe out the specifics of anicca and replace them with the specifics of frozen characteristics that are attributed to the dhammas. I would also be interested in how the functional characteristic of the dhamma is expressed, beyond an analysis of what function it performs; because according to the truth of anicca even the characteristic of a dhamma must be something that develops, sustains and falls away and is always changing, otherwise it would be frozen for a period of time and would be a solid entity for that period where anicca would be temporarily cancelled. Since every dhamma has a characteristic, anicca would cease to exist. I think this shows some ways in which the "paramatha dhamma" idea with a "specific function/characteristic" has some potential problems for Buddhists. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110525 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 4:09 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. This is part 4 in my series of 200 replies to your post. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > --------------------------- > RE: > If you think all the instructions given by Buddha in anapanasati and satipatthana suttas are double-talk, then what is your view of sutta, that it is all double-talk? Most of it is not in precise "dhamma-only" terms, so I guess it's all double-talk? Only repeating the same few formulas over and over again is "real talk?" > --------------------------- > > What were you saying earlier about straw men? :-) Although I must admit there are some formulas that I do enjoy repeating. I see you picked up and had a good laugh about the "repeating formulas" straw man I set up for you, but did not answer the more important question of whether or not you consider the Buddha's "conventional" instructions in the sutta pitaka to be "double talk," inaccurate talk or otherwise not to be taken literally or seriously? I'd really like to know. Maybe the Buddha's talks over his 40 year career were just "Buddhism for Dummies," eh? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110526 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). egberdina Hi Rob E, On 6 October 2010 03:56, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Howard. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Nina - > > > > In a message dated 10/5/2010 11:05:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > vangorko@... writes the final paragraph of material stated by Khun > Sujin: > > > > > We can see how ignorance covers > > up the true nature of realities. Ignorance does not understand. > > Visible object is visible object and it can be seen just now. When > > pa~n~naa develops the objects do not change, they are exactly the > > same. But when there are sati and pa~n~naa the understanding is > > deeper, stronger, more subtle. It is not thinking of visible object > > as ‘something’. > > > ================================== > > I find this paragraph interesting, and most especially the last > > sentence. Is the emphasis there on "thinking" or on "something"? Both are > > > important, IMO, but the "something" is especially interesting to me. > > I seem to be jumping in a lot, and don't mean to speak for Nina, but I find > that paragraph very interesting too. My sense is that it is saying that no > concept or definition of "somethingness" is imposed on "the object" when > sati and panna understand their direct characteristics in the moment. I > think that would apply to concepts like calling something your "arm" or a > "table," but would be interesting if that is also true that there is not > even a concept of "hardness" or "seeing" but that it is just the raw > experience itself clearly experienced. > > I imagine that this would be like the conceptless state of the stupid baby lying on its back. I never got the feeling that the Buddha aspired to that state Cheers Herman #110527 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/5/2010 1:31:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: But when there are sati and pa~n~naa the understanding is > deeper, stronger, more subtle. It is not thinking of visible object > as Ă¢â‚¬ËœsomethingĂ¢â‚¬â„¢. > ================================== > I find this paragraph interesting, and most especially the last > sentence. Is the emphasis there on "thinking" or on "something"? Both are > important, IMO, but the "something" is especially interesting to me. I seem to be jumping in a lot, and don't mean to speak for Nina, but I find that paragraph very interesting too. My sense is that it is saying that no concept or definition of "somethingness" is imposed on "the object" when sati and panna understand their direct characteristics in the moment. ---------------------------------------------------- That probably is the intended meaning, and it is a good one, IMO. Another possible meaning, ver likely NOT intended, is one of non-reification. -------------------------------------------------- I think that would apply to concepts like calling something your "arm" or a "table," but would be interesting if that is also true that there is not even a concept of "hardness" or "seeing" but that it is just the raw experience itself clearly experienced. Best, Robert E. ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110528 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 4:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). egberdina Hi Ann, On 6 October 2010 07:19, glenjohnann wrote: > > > Hi Rob E. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "Robert E" wrote: > > > > I seem to be jumping in a lot, and don't mean to speak for Nina, but I > find that paragraph very interesting too. My sense is that it is saying that > no concept or definition of "somethingness" is imposed on "the object" when > sati and panna understand their direct characteristics in the moment. I > think that would apply to concepts like calling something your "arm" or a > "table," but would be interesting if that is also true that there is not > even a concept of "hardness" or "seeing" but that it is just the raw > experience itself clearly experienced. > > I believe that your last thought is correct. When there is direct > experience of a reality, it is only the reality that is experienced. There > may well be thinking of that reality as a concept afterwards, but the direct > experience is just that - direct experience, no concepts attached at that > moment. > > I only ever got the feeling that the concepts that were a no-no for the Buddha was "the self" (and thus permanence), and that the purpose of any teaching re seeing hearing only etc was to undermine that concept. I mean to say, the Buddha still addresses Bahiya, doesn't he, and speaks to him after hearing his repeated questions for advice. See Ud 1:10 "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." Cheers Herman #110529 From: "bhikkhu3" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:55 pm Subject: The Seed of all Good! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Saving Aspects of Morality? The Primary Aspect of Morality is: Composing internal consistency in all behaviour… The Dual Aspects of Morality are: Keeping the rules and avoiding wrongdoing… Good behaviour and mental purification… Good intention and complete self-control… Dependent on prompting or own initiative… Limited in extent or unlimited in extent… Temporary & feeble or lifelong & stable… Ordinary=Mundane or Supramundane=Noble… The Triple aspects of Morality are: Low, or medium, or superior… Giving first priority to oneself, or to the world, or to the Dhamma… Clung to, or not clung to, or naturally & spontaneously maintained… Pure, or impure, or dubious and doubtful… The learner’s, the learned’s, or the neither-learner-nor-learned’s… The Quadruple aspects of Morality are: Leading to falling, to stagnation, to distinction, or to penetration… That of Bhikkhus, or Bhikkhunis, or novices, or the laity… Being natural, customary, necessary, or caused by prior events… Regarding the rules, the sense doors, livelihood, or the requisites… The Fivefold aspects of Morality are: Limited, unlimited, completed, detached, and tranquillized purity… Intending, refraining, controlling, leaving, and non-transgression… These are the various inherent aspects of Morality… Source: The Path of Purification: Visuddhimagga. Written by 'the great explainer' Ven. Buddhaghosa in 5th century AC. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <....> #110530 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 5:28 pm Subject: We all want more pleasure in our lives (an apology) philofillet Hi all I'd just like to post a quick apology/clarification re something I posted the other day. I wrote that it seemed to me Nina and Sarah were people who have comfortable lives and just want more pleasure out of Dhamma. I think that goes for almost everybody in the West, so I shouldn't have singled out those two wonderful people. I just don't believe there are people here who aren't using the Dhamma to add more pleasant mental factors into their lives. I just don't see it. And if we approach the Dhamma through gradual development, starting as the Buddha did, with conventional teachings about the householder's happiness (the highest is freedom from remorse re doing bad deeds) our desire for happiness fits with the Buddha's teaching. But it's my strongly (and oft repeated opinion) that if we mix paramattha teachings with this desire for happiness, we turn the paramattha teachings into pleasant pablum. Yesterday I was looking through my notebooks and found this from one of Nina's books: "When we are tired we takes tiredness and sickness for self. Why don't we accept unpleasant things as they come to us since they are only elements?" So what happens in the wake of this sort of encouragement to get to the paramattha level is that of course we reflect on only elements, only nama and rupa etc, but since we are tired and unhappy, we are using that groping for paramattha truth for pleasure. Do you see what I'm getting at? I just find it goes on all the time with A.S students, and I guess with all of us. So when I am tired or unhappy, I will not grope for understanding that doesn't truly belong to me, I will not appropriate insight into elements, I will think in terms of conventional behaviour, I will reflect, perhaps, on my virtues, and feel gratitude that I have done no one harm that day, and that conventional reflection will probably condition continued vigilance and energy. That's just one example. Anyways, I apologize for singling out Nina and Sarah, who have been so helfpul to me. I should have pointed the finger at all of us (including me, cuz I do it too sometimes) who use paramattha teachings for pleasant pablum in daily life. Pariyatti? Pablumattti! :) Metta, Phil #110531 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 7:03 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Herman, ------------- <. . .> H: > It seems to me that atheism is the adopting of a view, just like certain obviously incorrect paraphrases of anatta. The statement "there is no self/god" are radically different from "this I am not". The first is metaphysical (ie unknowable), the second merely states the obvious, that whatever is experienced or observed, it is not self or God. The first is thus actually a statement of (blind) faith. --------------- Yes, I think I can agree with that: if either of those statements is meant as an understanding of a paramattha dhamma, then it is right. If it is meant as an understanding of a person, or some other conventional thing, then it is wrong. ----------------------- <. . .> RE: > Well, fortuitously or otherwise, Bhikku Samahita just today posted the good oil on Nibbana. From it, I would surmise that what is real is nibbana, and by the time we get to what is present we are well into samsara. ----------------------- Sorry, I can't follow your logic. And, BTW, samsara is real. Conditioned dhammas are just as real as the unconditioned dhamma. ------------------------------- H: > Also, you would be well aware of the Sabba Sutta, SN 35.23, subtitled the All, and how that sutta specifically excludes Nibbana. So, is it sane, or is it presumptuous to proceed as you do? ------------------------------- Does it exclude nibbana? I suppose it does. That would be because it was answering the question "What is the world?" and "the world" was meant to denote samsara (the conditioned world). ------------------------------------ H: >> >I start with uncertainty. >>> KH: > >What sort of start is that? >> H: > It's where I am at. ----------------------------------- Forget it then! This Dhamma is not about you, it is about absolute realities. Its only starting point is right understanding (of the realities that are arising now). ----------------------------------------- H: > Confronted with the ocean I am about to step into, I am uncertain as to whether it is warm or cold, I have to step into to find out. Paddling out towards the break, I am unsure whether there is a white pointer out there as well. My safe return to the beach is no guarantee there wasn't. Seeing an icon in my taskbar that announces that I have received new email, I am unsure as to what those emails are about. I have to read them, and even after that I have to write back to the author to confirm I have understood them. I mostly inhabit a continuum of past - future. That's craving for you, it's all about what isn't there. You'll have to tell me what your craving-free, intentionless present is like :-). ------------------------------------------ Gladly! There are just the presently arisen disinterested dhammas. They may include craving (lobha-dhamma) and intention (cetana-dhamma), but they are only dhammas. They have no interest whatsoever in their functions or the outcome of their functions; they just do what they are conditioned to do and then cease to exist. ------------------------------------------------------ <. . .> H: > It is not a matter of acceptance, the present moment, it is a matter of renunciation. As long as there is craving, craving for what by necessity isn't there, then all of us will continue to inhabit the continuum past-future. We may say there is only the present, but that is not what we do. Deeds or action, towards a state of affairs that does not yet exist, otherwise known as kamma, seem to be something you are not prone to :-) ------------------------------------------------------ I don't like your reasoning, Herman. You seem to be saying reality is whatever we perceive it to be. --------------- <. . .> H: > Blind people cannot, in a million years, imagine red. People who have not realised anatta cannot in a million years imagine what the realisation of anatta is like. Whether there is a spider under my bed at the moment remains to be seen. However, acknowledgment of expectation of the unknown is part and parcel of my life. ---------------- Stick to the Dhamma. What is the nature of ultimate reality? ------------------- <. . .> KH: > > "there are only the present realities." What's metaphysical about that? What could be more solid, sound, obvious or undeniable? > > H: > Well, it sounds rather theoretical, for one. ------------------- What could be more obvious or undeniable than "there are only the present realities"? ------------------------- H: > My experience is anicca. On that basis I doubt substantial realities or existents of any sort, but you embrace them, and even have a name for them. ------------------------- You "doubt substantial realities"! What sort of double talk is that? To be substantial is to be real. There are no unsubstantial realities. --------------------------------------- <. . .> H: > No problem really, because I accept that folks live an experience of their own making. Sometimes that experience includes a denial that they live a life (ie they are arahants with no kamma), ---------------------------------------- What is an arahant, what is kamma? Are you talking about realities or "expectations"? I must warn you that I am only interested in realities: you can keep your expectations. :-) Ken H >or sometimes, even when they > acknowledge that they do live a life, it is not so much them that makes > their life, all that they do it is actually caused by accumulations. Of > course, these miserable sods have no way of accounting for there being these > accumulations they are so dependent on, but they are happy to assume it is > so. It is the same old story, lack of insight. But that is another thread #110532 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 7:36 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. This is part 5 of my 200 responses to your post. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > KH: > > It *is* based on sutta. It is based on the understanding that everything in reality is conditioned - devoid of a controlling self, beyond control, anatta. > >> > > RE: > You have reached a conclusion based on that truth - that no one can practice anything without involving self-view. That is not true, it is opposite to the Buddha's teaching and it is wrong view, because it contradicts basic Buddhist teachings. Anatta is not meant to be used as a justification for quietism and abandoning of practice as clearly described by Buddha. > ------------------------------ > > Perhaps you should have another look at Anthony's list of wrong questions. When someone asks, "Does anatta mean I can practice? Does anatta mean I cannot practice?" they are wrong questions, aren't they? Uh...in this case it would be tough to say that it is a wrong question, because I didn't ask one! I made a statement: "Anatta is not meant to be used as a justification for quietism and abandoning of practice as clearly described by Buddha." Meditation is one of Buddha's strongest components in the path for realizing anatta directly. To say one cannot meditate [as you do] because of the truth of anatta is not only wrong, it is the direct opposite of what Buddha taught. No questions asked. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110533 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 7:43 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. This is part 6 of my 200 responses to your post. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > KH: > > I am not singling you out <. . .> > Dr Phil and Oprah, for example, are immensely successful, wealthy, self-help psychobabblers. > >> > > RE:> Oh, well thanks. That is a lot better to see that rather than dealing with precise practices and understandings, you are ready at a moment's notice to throw Buddhist meditation and all sincere application of the Buddha's teachings into phoney new-age philosophies and cheap advice from Dr. Phil. > -------------------------------------- > > There I go: out of the frying pan into the fire! :-) > > You say you are sincere in your attempts, and I like to think I am sincere too. But what is "sincere" in Abhidhamma terminology? When we are wrong, are we any less wrong by thinking we are right? No, according to the Abhidhamma, we are more wrong. > --------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- Well, first of all, how *do* you manage to associate Buddhist meditators with Dr. Phil and Oprah? Are you really suggesting that Dr. Phil, Oprah and Buddhist meditators are all in the same category? You think that Buddhist meditators are phoney new-age psycho-babblers? That is truly amazing. You have Buddhist scholars and practitioners throughout the Buddhist world, many versed in Abhidhamma and commentaries from a very early age in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, some of whom have become monks and meditate and study Dhamma full time, who have achieved the higher jhanas and satipatthana and have been practicing for decades, and somehow you manage to think that you are superior to these people and that you know more than them? Not only that but you call them phonies and psycho-babblers. That is truly incredible Ken H. I mean, just how arrogant can someone be while still espousing "right view?" Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110534 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 7:44 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. I've decided to postpone replies 7-200 for now ---- but I'll be back...! Best, Robert E. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Robert E, > > I am behind with my replies, and having a day off yesterday didn't help, so I'll quickly say something about this: ... #110535 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 9:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > I imagine that this would be like the conceptless state of the stupid baby > lying on its back. I never got the feeling that the Buddha aspired to that > state. I am not always the greatest defender of the absolute philosophy of the Abhidhamma commentary followers, but on this particular point I think you have jumped to the wrong conclusion. I imagine that the state being spoken about is not one in which the experiencer is stupified and senseless like a little baby who can't tell one sensation from another, or one person from another, but rather someone who's senses have been refined to the point of microscopic discernment and who can see directly what is in front of them at a particular time, rather than confusing it with errant concepts that do not truly represent what is there. It would be like an artist who focuses on the exact texture or color of a patch of oil paint and follows and shapes it exactly. That artist may have a concept of what he is doing before and after the moment, but in that moment he focuses totally on the exactness of what is there. Thus his conceptual understanding afterwards has more precise knowledge and experience to work with when he goes back to thinking. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #110536 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 9:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 10/5/2010 1:31:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > But when there are sati and pa~n~naa the understanding is > > deeper, stronger, more subtle. It is not thinking of visible object > > as Ă¢â‚¬ËœsomethingĂ¢â‚¬â„¢. > > ================================== > > I find this paragraph interesting, and most especially the last > > sentence. Is the emphasis there on "thinking" or on "something"? Both > are > > important, IMO, but the "something" is especially interesting to me. > > I seem to be jumping in a lot, and don't mean to speak for Nina, but I > find that paragraph very interesting too. My sense is that it is saying that > no concept or definition of "somethingness" is imposed on "the object" when > sati and panna understand their direct characteristics in the moment. > ---------------------------------------------------- > That probably is the intended meaning, and it is a good one, IMO. > Another possible meaning, very likely NOT intended, is one of non-reification. > -------------------------------------------------- Well, I would think that not categorizing the experience as a "something" would be moving in the direction of non-reification. Experiencing directly rather than conceptualizing would also be moving in that direction, would it not? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110537 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Ann, > > On 6 October 2010 07:19, glenjohnann wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Rob E. > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > "Robert E" wrote: > > > > > > I seem to be jumping in a lot, and don't mean to speak for Nina, but I > > find that paragraph very interesting too. My sense is that it is saying that > > no concept or definition of "somethingness" is imposed on "the object" when > > sati and panna understand their direct characteristics in the moment. I > > think that would apply to concepts like calling something your "arm" or a > > "table," but would be interesting if that is also true that there is not > > even a concept of "hardness" or "seeing" but that it is just the raw > > experience itself clearly experienced. > > > > I believe that your last thought is correct. When there is direct > > experience of a reality, it is only the reality that is experienced. There > > may well be thinking of that reality as a concept afterwards, but the direct > > experience is just that - direct experience, no concepts attached at that > > moment. > > > > > I only ever got the feeling that the concepts that were a no-no for the > Buddha was "the self" (and thus permanence), and that the purpose of any > teaching re seeing hearing only etc was to undermine that concept. I mean to > say, the Buddha still addresses Bahiya, doesn't he, and speaks to him after > hearing his repeated questions for advice. There's a functional, but not a final, contradiction between an absolute acknowledgment of anatta, and the conventional world that we live in and refer to each other within. You seem to keep wanting an either/or choice between conventional reality and the realization of what conventional reality is composed of. That would be like a biologist insisting there are only cells because that is what he sees in the microscope and that we cannot reconcile the understanding of whole solid organisms and the cells of which they are composed. Buddha can seamlessly get Bahiya's attention by calling Bahiya, thus appealing to the sense of identity of the organism then known as Bahiya, while at the same time instructing that identity that the sense of self is an unreal mental fabrication. What you, me and Bahiya do with that information is take a closer look at what's actually going on, while still cooperatively responding to our names and to-do lists. Without abandoning conventional reality, we can still become smarter about what is actually taking place. Does knowing that the walls of my house are made of atoms which are mostly composed of space interfere with my walking around the house or leaning on a wall? Buddha doesn't have to get stupider in order to get smarter. He can function normally and develop wisdom at the same time. We can use concepts but also see through them to what they are referring to. That is a more precise development of mindfulness and discernment. I think that Buddha also said to see through concepts and meanings attached to objects, body, other people and the world in general in order to see them as phenomena to detach from and reduce our clinging and craving for them. It's hard to have anatta with regard to oneself without challenging our attachment to all the people and objects that we take as part of self through association and clinging. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110538 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 10:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... egberdina Hi Ken H, On 6 October 2010 13:03, Ken H wrote: > > > > RE: > Well, fortuitously or otherwise, Bhikku Samahita just today posted > the good oil on Nibbana. From it, I would surmise that what is real is > nibbana, and by the time we get to what is present we are well into samsara. > > ----------------------- > > Sorry, I can't follow your logic. > > And, BTW, samsara is real. Conditioned dhammas are just as real as the > unconditioned dhamma. > > Should I understand this to be a modification of your dictum that there are only namas and rupas? Or is nibbana also namas and rupas? ------------------------------- > H: > Also, you would be well aware of the Sabba Sutta, SN 35.23, subtitled > the All, and how that sutta specifically excludes Nibbana. So, is it sane, > or is it presumptuous to proceed as you do? > ------------------------------- > > Does it exclude nibbana? I suppose it does. That would be because it was > answering the question "What is the world?" and "the world" was meant to > denote samsara (the conditioned world). > > ------------------------------------ > H: >> >I start with uncertainty. > >>> > > KH: > >What sort of start is that? > >> > > H: > It's where I am at. > ----------------------------------- > > Forget it then! This Dhamma is not about you, it is about absolute > realities. Its only starting point is right understanding (of the realities > that are arising now). > > I would just chip in that the common dsg question "what is/are the realities of the present moment" is also an acknowledgment of uncertainty. If the present reality was indeed present and known, the question wouldn't need to be asked. > H: > It is not a matter of acceptance, the present moment, it is a matter > of renunciation. As long as there is craving, craving for what > > by necessity isn't there, then all of us will continue to inhabit the > continuum past-future. We may say there is only the present, but that is > not what we do. Deeds or action, towards a state of affairs that does not > yet exist, otherwise known as kamma, seem to be something you are not prone > to :-) > ------------------------------------------------------ > > I don't like your reasoning, Herman. You seem to be saying reality is > whatever we perceive it to be. > > Well, to the extent that the question "what is the reality of the present moment?" prompts some sort of action towards discovering (read: constructing) what that reality might be, we do only see our actions. That is what I understand samsara to be. > --------------- > <. . .> > H: > Blind people cannot, in a million years, imagine red. People who have > not realised anatta cannot in a million years imagine what the realisation > of anatta is like. Whether there is a spider under my bed at the moment > remains to be seen. However, acknowledgment of expectation of the unknown is > part and parcel of my life. > ---------------- > > Stick to the Dhamma. What is the nature of ultimate reality? > > How would I tell? > ------------------- > <. . .> > KH: > > "there are only the present realities." What's metaphysical > > about that? What could be more solid, sound, obvious or undeniable? > > > > > H: > Well, it sounds rather theoretical, for one. > ------------------- > > What could be more obvious or undeniable than "there are only the present > realities"? > > I recently pointed out to you that you acknowledged that the present moment has duration. So how long is the present, and why should that specific duration be obvious? If that is not at all obvious, how could the content of that duration be obvious? > ------------------------- > H: > My experience is anicca. On > > that basis I doubt substantial realities or existents of any sort, but you > embrace them, and even have a name for them. > ------------------------- > > You "doubt substantial realities"! What sort of double talk is that? To be > substantial is to be real. There are no unsubstantial realities. > > I don't doubt experience. And experience is certainly unsubstantial. What I do doubt is that behind experience there is a real world, hidden and waiting to be be known as it is, somehow without it being experienced. That is the nonsense of Plato, not the Buddha. > --------------------------------------- > <. . .> > H: > No problem really, because I accept that folks live an experience of > their own making. Sometimes that experience includes a denial that they live > a life (ie they are arahants with no kamma), > ---------------------------------------- > > What is an arahant, what is kamma? Are you talking about realities or > "expectations"? > > I must warn you that I am only interested in realities: you can keep your > expectations. :-) > > "Realities" in your usage seems to equate to your beliefs about how things would be in the absence of your experience. I'm here that tell you that that is in principle unknowable ie metaphysical speculation. Also, I doubt, the truth of your suggestion that you are not interested in experience. Travelling all the way to Manly would require a lot of effort for you. I am glad that you are making that effort. I expect we will have a hoot :-) Cheers Herman > >> Ken H > > > >or sometimes, even when they > > acknowledge that they do live a life, it is not so much them that makes > > their life, all that they do it is actually caused by accumulations. Of > > course, these miserable sods have no way of accounting for there being > these > > accumulations they are so dependent on, but they are happy to assume it > is > > so. It is the same old story, lack of insight. But that is another thread > #110539 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:19 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Robert E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Ken H. > I've decided to postpone replies 7-200 for now ---- but I'll be back...! > ---------------------- Sorry to hear the first part, and glad to hear the second! :-) It's probably for the best. I have a big weekend away to prepare for, and should cut back on my posting. Here is my reply to episode 6 (after which I shall go back to episode 1 and maintain the correct order!): Hi Robert E, ---- <. . .> RE: >Well, first of all, how *do* you manage to associate Buddhist meditators with Dr. Phil and Oprah? Are you really suggesting that Dr. Phil, Oprah and Buddhist meditators are all in the same category? ---- They all have basically the same message: do this and become a happier person - or a wealthier person, or wiser person. Or at least: do this and become better in some way. Millions of people spend a fortune on self-help books courses and seminars that simply don't work. Not only do they not work, they actually leave those people more dependent, more demoralised and more helpless than ever. --------------------- RE: > You think that Buddhist meditators are phoney new-age psycho-babblers? That is truly amazing. You have Buddhist scholars and practitioners throughout the Buddhist world, many versed in Abhidhamma and commentaries from a very early age in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, some of whom have become monks and meditate and study Dhamma full time, who have achieved the higher jhanas and satipatthana and have been practicing for decades, and somehow you manage to think that you are superior to these people and that you know more than them? Not only that but you call them phonies and psycho-babblers. --------------------- Some of those teachers may claim to have "achieved the higher jhanas and satipatthana" I don't know. I don't keep up to date with the personalities of the Buddhist world. (Except when I occasionally see the Dalai Lama on news bulletins.) But I am sceptical. Now that I have acquired my new "no-control" perspective on the Dhamma, I am more sceptical of their claims than ever. ------------------------------ RE: > That is truly incredible Ken H. I mean, just how arrogant can someone be while still espousing "right view?" ------------------------------ Should have kept quiet about "psychobabble" and just thought it to myself? :-) If I remember correctly (and ten years is a long time!) I was even more tactless and outspoken when I first learned the true meaning of satipatthana. I was quite angry towards the meditation teachers who had led me down the wrong path for the previous twenty-six years. But it's silly to be angry, of course, and I don't really bear them any ill will. Ken H #110540 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 12:46 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] We all want more pleasure in our lives (an apology) nilovg Dear Phil, No need to apologize. I find your remarks a challenge, they make me reflect more. Op 6-okt-2010, om 2:28 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Yesterday I was looking through my notebooks and found this from > one of Nina's books: "When we are tired we takes tiredness and > sickness for self. Why don't we > accept unpleasant things as they come to us since they are only > elements?" So what happens in the wake of this sort of > encouragement to get to the paramattha level is that of course we > reflect on only elements, only nama and rupa etc, but since we are > tired and unhappy, we are using that groping for paramattha truth > for pleasure. Do you see what I'm getting at? I just find it goes > on all the time with A.S students, and I guess with all of > us. ...Anyways, I apologize for singling out Nina and Sarah, who > have been so helfpul to me. I should have pointed the finger at all > of us (including me, cuz I do it too sometimes) who use paramattha > teachings for pleasant pablum in daily life. Pariyatti? > Pablumattti! :) ------- N: I could not help laughing, but you also make good points. As to: This is more an encouragement to develop understanding of elements. The vipaakacittas experiencing unpleasant objects are conditioned by kamma. For example, feeling pain due to sickness. This is the passive side of life. Then: how do we cope? With aversion or with right understanding of kamma and vipaaka? Our reactions with akusala citta or kusala citta, that is the active side of life. Is it not good to have more understanding of the different moments of life? Understanding is always beneficial and encouraged by the Buddha. Nina. #110541 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 2:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). nilovg Dear Rob E. Op 6-okt-2010, om 6:27 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > We can use concepts but also see through them to what they are > referring to. That is a more precise development of mindfulness and > discernment. I think that Buddha also said to see through concepts > and meanings attached to objects, body, other people and the world > in general in order to see them as phenomena to detach from and > reduce our clinging and craving for them. > > It's hard to have anatta with regard to oneself without challenging > our attachment to all the people and objects that we take as part > of self through association and clinging. -------- N: Yes, that is correct. We can use concepts and we do all day long. Thinking of concepts cannot be prevented. And it is hard not to cling to people and things. Only understanding can eventually eliminate clinging. But it is a long, long way. Nina. #110542 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 2:50 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). nilovg Dear Rob E, Howard, Ann. You all had good additions. Op 5-okt-2010, om 18:56 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: Howard: I find this paragraph interesting, and most especially the last sentence. Is the emphasis there on "thinking" or on "something"? Both are important, IMO, but the "something" is especially interesting to me. That probably is the intended meaning, and it is a good one, IMO. Howard: Another possible meaning, very likely NOT intended, is one of non-reification. > -------------------------------------------------- N: Non-reification implies not taking it for having a core or substance. It is another description of anattaa. --------- Rob E: Well, I would think that not categorizing the experience as a "something" would be moving in the direction of non-reification. Experiencing directly rather than conceptualizing would also be moving in that direction, would it not? > Rob E, I seem to be jumping in a lot, and don't mean to speak for > Nina, but I find that paragraph very interesting too. My sense is > that it is saying that no concept or definition of "somethingness" > is imposed on "the object" when sati and panna understand their > direct characteristics in the moment. I think that would apply to > concepts like calling something your "arm" or a "table," but would > be interesting if that is also true that there is not even a > concept of "hardness" or "seeing" but that it is just the raw > experience itself clearly experienced. Ann: I believe that your last thought is correct. When there is direct experience of a reality, it is only the reality that is experienced. There may well be thinking of that reality as a concept afterwards, but the direct experience is just that - direct experience, no concepts attached at that moment. ------ N: I have not much to add, except: As to < It is not thinking of visible object as ‘something’> namely, a thing or person which lasts or exists, but it is just that which is visible, which can be experienced through eyesense. People and things cannot impinge on the eyesense. The world through the eyes is different from the world through thinking. ----- Nina. #110543 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 3:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... egberdina Hi Rob E, On 5 October 2010 15:04, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > > I am pretty sure you are not saying that actions, changes, "moments of > things arising or happening" don't take place, so I am interested to hear > more about what you object to about the idea of the "moment." Is it the idea > that it is a definite time-span, rather than a particular identification of > an event within a continuous flow? Even if there is an unbroken flow of > constant change, and that is the real anicca, there are changes and events > that represent the changes that take place, > Perhaps I'm reading too much into your usage "representation", but I don't buy into the view that there is a real world "out there" that is somehow being represented to experience "in here". Experience has no inside or outside. > even though isolating them may be artificial. If we watch a wave rise and > fall on the sea, we can see a definite time when it is no longer moving up > to a peak, but is moving down in collapse. There may not be a fixed moment > in time when that transition takes place, but there is a time when it has > changed from one predominant direction or action to another. So how would > you define a "moment" or "series of moments" in those terms? > > In the context of experience, I would say that a moment was the deluded belief/thought that things had stood still, that nothing was changing. As to a series, it would be a belief that there were identifiable beginnings and endings within change, somehow punctuated by periods of non-change. In my experience, in the absence of such thinking / believing, there are no discernible boundaries in experience, only change. > There is no moment when we stop being "young" and become "old" and yet we > can see that we are no longer young after a certain point or period of time. > So how does this take place, and what sort of process would you propose for > it? > > That would come down to adopting some view or other about causality or conditionality. No doubt, interesting stuff to theorise about. But, we don't experience causality, we think it. There's nothing wrong with induction or deduction, but strictly, experience is limited to one thing following another. That is the limit of what there can be certainty of. > I have a practical definition of a moment: that is, one discrete > intentional action, which is usually aligned with one movement, one action, > one intention, one breath. While there may be many other things going on at > the same time, you can identify a main responsive event. Someone says hello > to you. You have a moment when you take in their point of view, behavior, > etc., and then you have a response that starts internally as an intention > and then expresses as behavior back as you say "hello" back, also with a > certain emotion, point of view, etc. So you can identify a kind of exchange > between stimulus and response and see these stimulus-response moments > ticking along. Just another way of looking at the changing course of events, > although much more macroscopic than millions of dhammas per second. > > I can relate to your descriptions of daily life stuff. It doesn't sound like you buy into absolute, discrete units of stuff either. I don't know how many more posts I will reply to tonight. We're off to Sydney in the morning for four days, so I'll be off the air for a while. Cheers Herman #110544 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 4:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). egberdina Hi Rob E, On 6 October 2010 15:15, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > I imagine that this would be like the conceptless state of the stupid > baby > > lying on its back. I never got the feeling that the Buddha aspired to > that > > state. > > I am not always the greatest defender of the absolute philosophy of the > Abhidhamma commentary followers, but on this particular point I think you > have jumped to the wrong conclusion. > > I imagine that the state being spoken about is not one in which the > experiencer is stupified and senseless > What makes you believe that babies are stupified or senseless? > like a little baby who can't tell one sensation from another, or one person > from another, but rather someone who's senses have been refined to the point > of microscopic discernment and who can see directly what is in front of them > at a particular time, rather than confusing it with errant concepts that do > not truly represent what is there. > > A baby has no concepts, IMO. Not even a self-concept. I am sure that a baby experiences exactly and only what it experiences, and not what it thinks. Because it doesn't think, IMO. Still the Buddha does not think much of genuine, but baby, anatta. > It would be like an artist who focuses on the exact texture or color of a > patch of oil paint and follows and shapes it exactly. That artist may have a > concept of what he is doing before and after the moment, but in that moment > he focuses totally on the exactness of what is there. Thus his conceptual > understanding afterwards has more precise knowledge and experience to work > with when he goes back to thinking. > > Again, I suspect you have some representational theory going on. In that framework, I suppose that you will think that developing an exact concept of reality means something. Cheers Herman #110545 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 1:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/6/2010 12:19:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Well, I would think that not categorizing the experience as a "something" would be moving in the direction of non-reification. Experiencing directly rather than conceptualizing would also be moving in that direction, would it not? ============================ Yes. (Though not quite so clearly.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110546 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 7:14 am Subject: What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 2). nilovg Dear friends, From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c., no 2. Kh Sujin: Visible object is only visible object. Why can’t it appear as it is? It cannot appear to ignorance, but it can to pa~n~naa. Pa~n~naa does not have to look for visible object, it is now appearing. Just develop the understanding, very little at a time. One can become used to not paying attention to shape ands form and to the story. There can be the understanding of the distinction between absolute realities and the story about absolute realities. One can see that not knowing, not experiencing, not understanding realities greatly differs from pa~n~naa which understands. Ven. Pannabahulo: It is important to observe the defilements in the mind. Kh Sujin: We can understand the characteristic of a reality that is now appearing. We can learn to understand the difference between the moment when awareness arises and is aware and the moment when there is no awareness. Now there is seeing , and is there awareness or no awareness after seeing? Ven. Pannabahulo: When you say understanding I immediately associate that with reflecting on what has just happened. There was seeing of visible object and now they have to be reflected on in order to be properly understood. Kh Sujin: no one can stop thinking and there are many ways of thinking: thinking in words, thinking about shape and form. Are you thinking? This is not known, even if there is thinking at that very moment. When right awareness does not arise, reality arises and falls away within split seconds, before there can be any understanding of them. Only when sati arises a characteristic of a reality can appear. Hardness arises and falls away from morning up until now, it is gone already without it being known. Its characteristic appears to pa~n~naa and it does so more predominantly than when there is no pa~n~naa. All realities are gone completely except that which is appearing. One has to know the difference between the moment of sati and the moment of no sati. When there is touching hardness may appear but without there being awareness. When awareness arises it is aware of that characteristic; it appears as a characteristic, and then (N: later on) it can appear as arising and falling away. ******************* Nina. #110547 From: nichicon cp Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 8:11 am Subject: sangiitisutta 329, 6.21 nichiconn dear friends, DN33 continues. CSCD 329 begins: <>nti vutta.m. Nibbaana~nca naama imasmi.m atthe arahatta.m adhippeta.m. Ta~nhi kilesanibbaanante jaatattaa nibbaana.m naama. Ta.m esa abhijaayati pasavati karoti. Sukkaabhijaatiko samaanoti sukke uccakule jaato hutvaa. Sesa.m vuttanayeneva veditabba.m. .Tiikaa 329. <>ti ettha abhi-saddo upasaggamatta.m, na atthavisesajotakoti aaha <>ti. Abhijaayatiiti etthaapi eseva nayo. Jaayatiiti ca antogadhahetuatthapada.m, uppaadetiiti attho. Jaatiyaa, ta.mnibbattakakammaana~nca ka.nhasukkapariyaayataaya ya.m vattabba.m, ta.m he.t.thaa vuttameva. Pa.tippassambhanavasena kilesaana.m nibbaapanato nibbaana.m sace ka.nha.m bhaveyya yathaa ta.m dasavidha.m dussiilyakamma.m. Sace sukka.m bhaveyya yathaa ta.m daanasiilaadikusalakamma.m. Dvinnampi ka.nhasukkavipaakaana.m. Arahatta.m adhippeta.m <>ti vacanato. Ta.m kilesanibbaanante jaatattaa nibbaana.m yathaa raagaadiina.m khayante jaatattaa raagakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayoti. ...to be continued, connie #110548 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 10:06 am Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > Millions of people spend a fortune on self-help books courses and seminars that simply don't work. How do you know? I would say, as opposed to a black-and-white point of view, that some of them are helpful and some of them are not. Too wishy-washy? :-) But it's the truth. Not everything can be painted with the same brush. I would judge a program, whether it's yoga, therapy or a seminar of some kind, on what it purports to do and whether it does it or not. And then we could discuss whether the aim of that particular discipline was valuable or not. But you prefer to dismiss all such programs with one global generalization. Is your generalization justified? Do you have a basis for it? Or is it just easier to think simply and decide that anything that's not your chosen discipline is worthless? Jogging is good for circulation, yoga is good for flexibility, psychotherapy can demonstrably get to the causes of depression and anxiety in many cases and help to alleviate suffering. Nothing wrong with any of those disciplines or their goals. TV therapy with Dr. Phil is another matter - I don't think that has great value, but it may to those who are on the show. Who knows? > Not only do they not work, they actually leave those people more dependent, more demoralised and more helpless than ever. How do you know this? Do you have a basis for thinking this that has some sort of data or knowledge to back it up? Or is just another convenient thing for you to make up and then think you are right without real evidence? It's easy to say things, Ken. That doesn't mean they are true. > --------------------- > RE: > You think that Buddhist meditators are phoney new-age psycho-babblers? That is truly amazing. You have Buddhist scholars and practitioners throughout the Buddhist world, many versed in Abhidhamma and commentaries from a very early age in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, some of whom have become monks and meditate and > study Dhamma full time, who have achieved the higher jhanas and satipatthana and have been practicing for decades, and somehow you manage to think that you are superior to these people and that you know more than them? Not only that but you call them phonies and psycho-babblers. > --------------------- > > Some of those teachers may claim to have "achieved the higher jhanas and satipatthana" I don't know. I don't keep up to date with the personalities of the Buddhist world. (Except when I occasionally see the Dalai Lama on news bulletins.) But I am sceptical. Now that I have acquired my new "no-control" perspective on the Dhamma, I am more skeptical of their claims than ever. You're free to be skeptical, but still - if someone has the discipline to follow the actual monastic practices that Buddha described a couple thousand years ago, one can't assume that they haven't achieved a high degree of jhana or accomplishment in satipatthana, or that they are busy exercising some sort of "control" that goes against your definition of kusala and anatta. Truth is you just don't know. I respect someone who follows the Buddha's teaching and stays with it for decades developing skill and understanding. When Buddha described the advanced monks in the anapanasati sutta, we agree that for *them* the practices he described were kusala and skillful. So why would they not be for a modern practitioner who has followed the exact same path? Your view on this seems inconsistent to me. We have seen criticism of householders who try to do these practices without developing samatha, but surely someone who is following the monastic path in this way is in a different category. > ------------------------------ > RE: > That is truly incredible Ken H. I mean, just how arrogant can someone be while still espousing "right view?" > ------------------------------ > > Should have kept quiet about "psychobabble" and just thought it to myself? :-) Well, Ken, there is more to it than just whether to express yourself or keep it to yourself. More important is how you reach a conclusion that does not give a measured or factual analysis of someone else's discipline, but instead labels it with a pejorative term that doesn't take account at all of what it may actually be. I don't object to your honesty, but to your conclusion. Go ahead and say what you think, but how about thinking a little more carefully in the first place? What I find offensive is not your forthrightness, which I admire, but I think you are too self-assured that whatever glib conclusion you come to about what others are doing must be correct just because you think it. That is dangerous and is based on your thinking that only your own discipline is correct, so everything else must be wrong, and not even worthy of respect. I just don't buy such a dogmatic view. > If I remember correctly (and ten years is a long time!) I was even more tactless and outspoken when I first learned the true meaning of satipatthana. I was quite angry towards the meditation teachers who had led me down the wrong path for the previous twenty-six years. > > But it's silly to be angry, of course, and I don't really bear them any ill will. I think it's fair to draw a conclusion that it was the wrong path for you. Having that much experience in something should also qualify you to have an expert opinion about it and I'd be happy to hear about the specifics and how you discovered it was "wrong," rather than wrong for you. But it may not qualify you to make a final judgment on whether it is a valid path for others or not. I do respect your years of experience however, and would like to hear more about it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110549 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 1:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > On 5 October 2010 15:04, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Herman. > > > > > > I am pretty sure you are not saying that actions, changes, "moments of > > things arising or happening" don't take place, so I am interested to hear > > more about what you object to about the idea of the "moment." Is it the idea > > that it is a definite time-span, rather than a particular identification of > > an event within a continuous flow? Even if there is an unbroken flow of > > constant change, and that is the real anicca, there are changes and events > > that represent the changes that take place, > > > > Perhaps I'm reading too much into your usage "representation", but I don't > buy into the view that there is a real world "out there" that is somehow > being represented to experience "in here". Experience has no inside or > outside. Yeah, in this case I meant "represent" to mean "an example of," not "a concept or model of." Alternate meaning and totally different sense. I just meant that even though it's anicca all the way through with no moment that is unchanging, there are things that can be seen to happen and identified, although not an "exact moment" when they take place. > > even though isolating them may be artificial. If we watch a wave rise and > > fall on the sea, we can see a definite time when it is no longer moving up > > to a peak, but is moving down in collapse. There may not be a fixed moment > > in time when that transition takes place, but there is a time when it has > > changed from one predominant direction or action to another. So how would > > you define a "moment" or "series of moments" in those terms? > > > > > In the context of experience, I would say that a moment was the deluded > belief/thought that things had stood still, that nothing was changing. As to > a series, it would be a belief that there were identifiable beginnings and > endings within change, somehow punctuated by periods of non-change. In my > experience, in the absence of such thinking / believing, there are > no discernible boundaries in experience, only change. Well what about all the concrete things that take place within the flow of change? You are the one who always says that we really do these things - life a glass, take a sip, smile and say hello, acknowledge another person and see that they are "there." So what's the status of those concrete events? > > There is no moment when we stop being "young" and become "old" and yet we > > can see that we are no longer young after a certain point or period of time. > > So how does this take place, and what sort of process would you propose for > > it? > > > > > That would come down to adopting some view or other about causality or > conditionality. No doubt, interesting stuff to theorize about. But, we don't > experience causality, we think it. There's nothing wrong with induction or > deduction, but strictly, experience is limited to one thing following > another. That is the limit of what there can be certainty of. Well if I get hit by a car and get thrown down the street, do you think it is a concept that the car knocked me down the street, or is that what actually happened? > > I have a practical definition of a moment: that is, one discrete > > intentional action, which is usually aligned with one movement, one action, > > one intention, one breath. While there may be many other things going on at > > the same time, you can identify a main responsive event. Someone says hello > > to you. You have a moment when you take in their point of view, behavior, > > etc., and then you have a response that starts internally as an intention > > and then expresses as behavior back as you say "hello" back, also with a > > certain emotion, point of view, etc. So you can identify a kind of exchange > > between stimulus and response and see these stimulus-response moments > > ticking along. Just another way of looking at the changing course of events, > > although much more macroscopic than millions of dhammas per second. > > > > > I can relate to your descriptions of daily life stuff. It doesn't sound like > you buy into absolute, discrete units of stuff either. No, every beginning is also a middle of something else; every end another beginning or middle - there's no absolute beginnings or endings to anything in life. > I don't know how many more posts I will reply to tonight. We're off to > Sydney in the morning for four days, so I'll be off the air for a while. Hope you have a good time in Sydney. I'll look forward to more when you are back online. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110550 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 12:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard. From audio (DSG org), 2007-07-05, c. (no 1). epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > On 6 October 2010 15:15, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Herman. > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > Herman wrote: > > > > > I imagine that this would be like the conceptless state of the stupid > > baby > > > lying on its back. I never got the feeling that the Buddha aspired to > > that > > > state. > > > > I am not always the greatest defender of the absolute philosophy of the > > Abhidhamma commentary followers, but on this particular point I think you > > have jumped to the wrong conclusion. > > > > I imagine that the state being spoken about is not one in which the > > experiencer is stupified and senseless > > > > What makes you believe that babies are stupified or senseless? I am just responding to your statement and using the baby in terms of your analogy from above, which I here repeat: "I imagine that this would be like the conceptless state of the stupid baby lying on its back." So since you called the baby "stupid" I just extended it a bit into "stupified and senseless," accepting your characterization for the sake of discussion of the subject. If you would like to use a stupider example than a lively and healthy baby, such as a lobotomized zebra, that would be fine with me too. I think the point you were making however was that without concepts we are dumbfounded in some way. > > like a little baby who can't tell one sensation from another, or one person > > from another, but rather someone who's senses have been refined to the point > > of microscopic discernment and who can see directly what is in front of them > > at a particular time, rather than confusing it with errant concepts that do > > not truly represent what is there. > > > > > A baby has no concepts, IMO. Not even a self-concept. I am sure that a baby > experiences exactly and only what it experiences, and not what it thinks. > Because it doesn't think, IMO. Still the Buddha does not think much of > genuine, but baby, anatta. I think the point is that while the baby, like anyone else, including an amoeba, the baby's failure to conceptualize does not make it the equivalent of an amoeba, and the arahant's refraining from conceptualization does not make him the equivalent of a baby. The refined wisdom, understanding, concentration and discernment of the arahant are not based on conceptualization, but on direct mental functions that have been skillfully developed. If I see a car coming I don't have to go through a complex thought process to realize it's dangerous and get out of the way. I already know that and as soon as I see it I see "what it is" in that situation, without any necessity for additional thought. A baby would *have* to conceptualize to learn that where I would not. And an arahant who has been trained to look at things directly rather than add a bunch of unnecessary explanatory or delusory proliferations on top of what is perceived, thus distorting what is perceived, does not have to conceptualize in order to see what is there. It's the skill set in which he's been trained. He's been trained to tell a physical impression from a subsequent mental process about the physical impression, ie, rupa from nama, and he knows it when he sees it. The idea that the lack of conceptualization stupefies or infantalizes him is not correct. He already has enough mental prowess that he doesn't need to think. We have many many examples of this in our lives - we don't have to think about how to use language, how to walk, how to eat, etc., etc., because we've been trained. And a lot of the thinking and conceptualizing that we engage in does not have to do with necessary problem-solving but with neurotic and delusory conditioning, worry, anxiety, greed, jealousy, regret, etc., the whole plethora of craving-and-aversion-based proliferations. Getting rid of that kind of thinking makes us smarter, not stupider. That kind of thinking is dumb and is the support structure for samsara's delusory aspect. We don't lose the ability to conceptualize by reaching this skill set. We can go back to thinking of a "table" as a "table" any time we want. But to see the nature of perception and meaning that we are conditioned into we need to be able to perceive the building blocks. Even right now we can see that the table is a smooth square surface on four legs and that each of these components breaks down even further into various raw perceptions that are assembled into a table. Buddha advised that we understand the nature of the object as an experience, what the contact is like, what the basic emotional reaction is like, how it is perceived, how it is mentally processed, what kinds of unnecessary proliferations are then caused, and how consciousness takes it all in. So that is the process in question. Then we can perhaps go back to the experience itself and refrain from taking vedana all the way up into neurotic proliferations and live a saner existence on the way to detaching and letting go of craving and clinging. That's sort of the picture to me. You accept the conditioned meanings as an inevitable fixture of life, perhaps the basis of our lives, but I think Buddha advised us to step back and attempt to look at those conditioned meanings with a critical view, and then detach from them. Isn't that the path? > > It would be like an artist who focuses on the exact texture or color of a > > patch of oil paint and follows and shapes it exactly. That artist may have a > > concept of what he is doing before and after the moment, but in that moment > > he focuses totally on the exactness of what is there. Thus his conceptual > > understanding afterwards has more precise knowledge and experience to work > > with when he goes back to thinking. > > > > > Again, I suspect you have some representational theory going on. In that > framework, I suppose that you will think that developing an exact concept of > reality means something. The construction of our reality and how it causes suffering is most at issue. To understand how it works may allow us to get some creative freedom within it, and make choices about what to adopt and what to detach from. Maybe you think that's impossible. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110551 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 2:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Herman, -------- <. . .> H: > Should I understand this to be a modification of your dictum that there are only namas and rupas? Or is nibbana also namas and rupas? -------- Nibbana is classified as a nama. Don't ask why; it's a long story. ------------------------------- <. . .> H: > I would just chip in that the common dsg question "what is/are the realities of the present moment" is also an acknowledgment of uncertainty. If the present reality was indeed present and known, the question wouldn't need to be asked. -------------------------------- I think it is meant as a reminder. We forget what we have been told, and we mistake concepts for realities. And so we need all the reminders we can get. ---------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > I don't like your reasoning, Herman. You seem to be saying reality is whatever we perceive it to be. > > H: > Well, to the extent that the question "what is the reality of the present moment?" prompts some sort of action towards discovering (read: constructing) what that reality might be, we do only see our actions. That is what I understand samsara to be. ------------------------------------------- The question is meant as an aid to understanding. It is not meant to boost our illusions of a self (a one that acts). ---------------------- <. . .> KH: > > Stick to the Dhamma. What is the nature of ultimate reality? >> H: > How would I tell? ----------------------- You can tell because you have heard the answer at DSG and read it in the Tipitaka. --------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > What could be more obvious or undeniable than "there are only the present realities"? >> H: > I recently pointed out to you that you acknowledged that the present moment has duration. So how long is the present, and why should that specific duration be obvious? If that is not at all obvious, how could the content of that duration be obvious? ---------------------------------- It doesn't matter how long the present moment is, there are only the present realities. (This is not rocket surgery!) --------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > To be substantial is to be real. There are no unsubstantial realities. > > H: > I don't doubt experience. And experience is certainly unsubstantial. What I do doubt is that behind experience there is a real world, hidden and waiting to be be known as it is, somehow without it being experienced. That is the nonsense of Plato, not the Buddha. ---------------------------------------- Experience is not unsubstantial, but the things experienced often are. (When they are concepts.) Namas and rupas, also, are often experienced. They are substantial things, and they bear characteristics that can be known. ------------------------------------------------------- <. . .> H: > "Realities" in your usage seems to equate to your beliefs about how things would be in the absence of your experience. I'm here that tell you that that is in principle unknowable ie metaphysical speculation. Also, I doubt, the truth of your suggestion that you are not interested in experience. Travelling all the way to Manly would require a lot of effort for you. I am glad that you are making that effort. I expect we will have a hoot :-) ------------------------------------------------------- I am glad you will be making the effort too. And let's not forget, effort is just a nama performing its functions. Just like now! :-) Ken H #110552 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 3:30 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Robert E, My reply to part 1: --------- KH: >> When someone asks, "Does anatta mean I can practice? Does anatta mean I cannot practice?" they are wrong questions, aren't they? >> RE: > Hm. I don't think you can say that is a "wrong question" and at the same time give your answer to the question, that indeed anatta dictates that any attempt to do something on the Buddhist path is wrong view as it is self view and inherently akusala. ------------ That's the beauty of Dhamma study. It allows us to see questions (and answers) that we have never seen before. Middle Way questions! "Given that there is no self, in what way can there be practice?" That's my idea of a Middle Way question. --------------------- RE: > Since you have answered the question, you must be guilty of inherently asking that wrong question as well. Or else you actual think it is a right question when you answer, but a wrong question when someone of a different view asks the same question and comes up with a different answer. ---------------------- Being mere worldlings, with inclinations for wrong view, we can find ourselves quite often asking the wrong questions. That's the way things are. There is no quick fix. Ken H #110553 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 4:06 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E, > > My reply to part 1: > > --------- > KH: >> When someone asks, "Does anatta mean I can practice? Does anatta mean I cannot practice?" they are wrong questions, aren't they? > >> > > RE: > Hm. I don't think you can say that is a "wrong question" and at the same time give your answer to the question, that indeed anatta dictates that any attempt to do something on the Buddhist path is wrong view as it is self view and inherently akusala. > ------------ > > That's the beauty of Dhamma study. It allows us to see questions (and answers) that we have never seen before. Middle Way questions! > > "Given that there is no self, in what way can there be practice?" > > That's my idea of a Middle Way question. > > --------------------- Oh I see. Your idea of a middle way question, rather than a wrong question, is to rephrase it according to the proper formula. You know, I sometimes talk kind of loosely about these things because I don't want to be so conscious of language that I am turning my words into pets and then grooming them excessively, instead of being plain about the subject. However, I do happen to like your way of asking the question, even though my point stands that you answered the question in the same form that you objected to the question afterwards, by saying decisively that one *cannot* practice. Well, that's a wrong answer. It's in the same conventional terms. As for "What kind of practice is possible, given the reality of anatta?," I don't think there's a pat answer to that either. My "middle way" answer would be "Whatever practice is engaged should be mindful that there is no one practicing." As one might say in zen, "there is practice but no practitioner." One can be mindful of this in meditation just as well as doing the dishes or reading a commentary. > RE: > Since you have answered the question, you must be guilty of > inherently asking that wrong question as well. Or else you actual think it is a right question when you answer, but a wrong question when someone of a different view asks the same question and comes up with a different answer. > ---------------------- > > Being mere worldlings, with inclinations for wrong view, we can find ourselves quite often asking the wrong questions. That's the way things are. There is no quick fix. Well I'm sure that such devices as avoiding using the word "I" and similar niceties may dress up wrong view, but will not avoid it. The middle way is not primarily a matter of manipulating syntax. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110554 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 6:07 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------ <. . .> KH: >> "Given that there is no self, in what way can there be practice?" >> That's my idea of a Middle Way question. >> RE: > Oh I see. Your idea of a middle way question, rather than a wrong question, is to rephrase it according to the proper formula. You know, I sometimes talk kind of loosely about these things because I don't want to be so conscious of language that I am turning my words into pets and then grooming them excessively, instead of being plain about the subject. ------------- Perhaps I should rephrase my question. It might be better to ask, "Given that there are only dhammas, and given that all dhammas are anatta, in what way can there be practice?" ----------------- RE: > However, I do happen to like your way of asking the question, even though my point stands that you answered the question in the same form that you objected to the question afterwards, by saying decisively that one *cannot* practice. Well, that's a wrong answer. It's in the same conventional terms. ----------------- If the question was meant in the wrong way (pertaining to the 2 extremes) then that answer was wrong. If the question was meant in the right way (pertaining to the middle) then the answer was right. In other words, if the reality under consideration was absolute reality (nama or rupa), then it would have been correct to say, "There is no one here who can practise, there are no people, no Dhamma-books, no reading . . ." If, on the other hand, the reality under consideration had been the conventional one - of people, and free will, and book-reading etc - then it would have been incorrect to have answered that way. Many Buddhists (dare I say most Buddhists?) are asking the wrong questions, and the right answers are wasted on them. ------------------- RE: > As for "What kind of practice is possible, given the reality of anatta?," I don't think there's a pat answer to that either. My "middle way" answer would be "Whatever practice is engaged should be mindful that there is no one practicing." As one might say in zen, "there is practice but no practitioner." One can be mindful of this in meditation just as well as doing the dishes or reading a commentary. -------------------- When the question is asked properly, the questioner is aware of the momentary nature of reality. He/she knows there are just the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. And so the questioner is looking, not for instructions, but for a *description* of conditioned dhammas. ---------- <. . .> RE: > Well I'm sure that such devices as avoiding using the word "I" and similar niceties may dress up wrong view, but will not avoid it. The middle way is not primarily a matter of manipulating syntax. ---------- The Buddha was able to use conventional language without mistaking concepts for realities, and some of his audiences were able to hear it that way, too. For the rest of us, however, it's not so easy. Sometimes we get it right, other times we get it wrong. Ken H #110555 From: "bhikkhu3" Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 5:21 pm Subject: I am Not! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Ego-concept is a Mental Catastrophe! The blessed Buddha once pointed out: Bhikkhus, these ideas: "I am...", "I am this...", "I will be...", "I shall not be...", "I shall be of such form", "I shall be formless...", "I will experience such...", "I will not experience...", "I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient...", are all self-deceptions, are all conceited fantasies, are all whimsy illusions, are all agitated excitations, are escalated proliferations & are all inflated, vain & narcissistic self-love, leading to egotism, puffed pride & arrogance! Such self-deceptions are all diseases, such ego-conceits are all tumours, such egocentric phantasms are all internal, and agonizing hooks in the mind! Therefore, bhikkhus & friends, you should train yourselves in this very way: We will dwell with a mind unperturbed by any "I exists..." conceiving... We will dwell with a mind purified of any "I am this/that" self-deception... We will dwell with a mind uninvolved in any "I will be this or that" illusion... We will dwell with a mind without any "I shall not be this/that" agitation... We will dwell with a mind devoid of any "I will have such a form" fantasy... We will dwell with a mind cleaned of any "I shall be formless" escalation... We will dwell with a mind empty of "I will experience such" proliferation... We will dwell with a mind cleared of any "I will not experience" excitation... Since these ideas are all self-deceptions, conceited fantasies, illusions, agitated excitations, escalated proliferations, and are all inflated, vain & narcissistic self-centred ego-love, leading to egotism, pride & arrogance... Self-deceptions are all mental diseases! Ego-conceits are puffed inflations! Egocentric phantasms are internally agonizing & painful hooks in the mind, which incur inestimable future suffering!!! The cure is understanding the absolute selflessness of all things, whether they are internal or external... Thus should you train yourselves... Comment: This inherent and somewhat hidden "ego-idea", which may seem innocent, is the core cause of all egoism, asocial behaviour, crime, conflicts and even wars! Therefore is it extremely advantageous to repeatedly try to understand this absolute truth: Sabbe Dhamma Anatta: All Phenomena are without any Self! However counter-intuitive, puzzling, paradoxical & strange it seems initially! <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV 202-3 The 6 senses section 35: Thread on The sheaf of barley. (248) http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #110556 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 7:44 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > When the question is asked properly, the questioner is aware of the momentary nature of reality. He/she knows there are just the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. > > And so the questioner is looking, not for instructions, but for a *description* of conditioned dhammas. Well, this is the conclusion that Buddha and I disagree with you about. Buddha did not say 'since there is no self there should be no instructions." He gave countless instructions, which you folks like to call "descriptions" even though they are full of imperatives. Even the suttas that are done in descriptive language are clearly instructions in the sense that they are describing formulaicly what sorts of practice will lead to certain results. So let's think intelligently about this, instead of dogmatically. What conclusion can you draw by finding the least common denominator for these two statements: 1. There are only dhammas, which are experienced by cittas. 2. If certain instructions are followed, certain accumulations and attainments will result. Taking them both together, I imagine the Buddha might say something like this - invoking the old "middle way" that you like in other contexts: "There is no one to do anything, and no one who reaps the results of anything. There are only dhammas arising, and the cittas that experience them. [I realize that citta is a dhamma too, but I am highlighting them.] However, there is experience of practice and there is the experience of results of practice. In truth that practice and those results are experienced one dhamma at a time, but they do pass on their accumulations. Therefore I will tell you what sorts of instructions if intended and followed, will lead to certain results. Through hearing and intending to follow these instructions, certain properties will accumulate and greater degrees of panna will develop. In all of this reading, hearing, understanding, intending, and the experiences which will then constitute practice, you will come to understand that there is no self practicing, and that there is only the experience of each dhamma as it arises. Yet the path will be realized through this process." > ---------- > <. . .> > RE: > Well I'm sure that such devices as avoiding using the word "I" and similar niceties may dress up wrong view, but will not avoid it. The middle way is not primarily a matter of manipulating syntax. > ---------- > > The Buddha was able to use conventional language without mistaking concepts for realities, and some of his audiences were able to hear it that way, too. Still, he expressed the Dhamma in a way that was suitable for communicating the path. It worked for those who followed it. > For the rest of us, however, it's not so easy. Sometimes we get it right, other times we get it wrong. Even so, continuing to read, listen, understand and practice, one will come to understand. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110557 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 6, 2010 11:29 pm Subject: [dsg] sangiitisutta 329, 6.21 and commentary. nilovg Dear friends, Walshe DN 33.2.2(21) 'Six "species" (aabhijaatiyo): Here, (a) one born in dark conditions [iii 251] lives a dark life, (b) one born in dark conditions lives a bright life, (c) one born in dark conditions attains Nibbaana, which is neither dark nor bright, (d) one born in bright conditions lives a dark life, (e) one born in bright conditions leads a bright life, (f) one born in bright conditions attains Nibbaana which is neither dark nor bright. -------- N: The Co explains born in dark conditons: born into a low cast (niicakule). As to living a dark life: he accumulates the ten immoral dhammas. N: Killing, stealing etc. Co: Having lived thus he is born in Hell. As to leading a bright life: he thinks, ‘since I formerly did not perform meritorious deeds I am born into a low cast. Let me now perform merit’. He lives a bright life denoted as merit (pu~n~nasa'nkhaata). Therefore he is born in heaven. As to ‘ Nibbaana which is neither dark nor bright’, the Tiika explains that dark and bright is figurative language. Nibbaana is here kilesa nibbaana, the eradication of defilements by the arahat. Commentary: If nibbaana would be dark it would produce dark vipaaka and if nibbaana would be bright it would produce bright vipaaka. Since these two things are not possible it is said: neither dark nor bright. The name nibbaana denotes here arahatship. The Tiika states as to kilesa nibbaana: nibbaana in so far as there is the eradication of lust etc. It is the eradication of lust, illwill and ignorance. ---------- Conclusion: This sutta shows the danger and disadvantage of being in the cycle of birth and death. Only when arahatship has been attained there is the complete eradication of all defilements and there will not be any rebirth. It is due to kamma whether one is born in favorable conditions or unfavorable conditions. But even when is born into a poor family or a low cast it is possible to perform kusala kamma that produces vipaaka in the form of a happy rebirth. For example Khujjuttaraa who was a slave woman developed right understanding and became a sotaapanna. She would not have anymore an unhappy rebirth. The attainment of arahatship seems to be far away, but this sutta can encourage us to begin to develop right understanding now that is leading to this goal. In each sutta the teaching of satipa.t.thaana is implied. ******** Nina. #110558 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 7, 2010 3:57 am Subject: Re: Let's be honest... kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------- <. . .> KH: > > And so the questioner is looking, not for instructions, but for a *description* of conditioned dhammas. >> RE: > Well, this is the conclusion that Buddha and I disagree with you about. Buddha did not say 'since there is no self there should be no instructions." He gave countless instructions, which you folks like to call "descriptions" even though they are full of imperatives. Even the suttas that are done in descriptive language are clearly instructions in the sense that they are describing formulaicly what sorts of practice will lead to certain results. -------- Yes, and what is "practice"? Is it something that a sentient being does? Or is it the momentary function of a momentary citta? It can't be both. -------------- RE: > So let's think intelligently about this, instead of dogmatically. What conclusion can you draw by finding the least common denominator for these two statements: 1. There are only dhammas, which are experienced by cittas. 2. If certain instructions are followed, certain accumulations and attainments will result. --------------- I don't know about any conclusions, but do you think the citta that follows the instructions is also the citta that experiences the results? If not, why would the first citta be interested in doing that? Instructions are for continuing (lasting) things, not for dhammas. -------------------- RE: > Taking them both together, I imagine the Buddha might say something like this - invoking the old "middle way" that you like in other contexts: "There is no one to do anything, and no one who reaps the results of anything. There are only dhammas arising, and the cittas that experience them. [I realize that citta is a dhamma too, but I am highlighting them.] However, there is experience of practice and there is the experience of results of practice. In truth that practice and those results are experienced one dhamma at a time, but they do pass on their accumulations. Therefore I will tell you what sorts of instructions if intended and followed, will lead to certain results. --------------------- You are saying the Dhamma is about doing something now in order to receive results later. I am glad to know you are mistaken. The Dhamma is purely an understanding of the here and now. ------------------------- RE: > Through hearing and intending to follow these instructions, certain properties will accumulate and greater degrees of panna will develop. In all of this reading, hearing, understanding, intending, and the experiences which will then constitute practice, you will come to understand that there is no self practicing, and that there is only the experience of each dhamma as it arises. Yet the path will be realized through this process." -------------------------- No, Robert, it has all got too complicated. Stick to the understanding that there are only the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. Try seeing the Dhamma from that perspective, you won't regret it. Ken H (signing off until after Manly) #110559 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 7, 2010 3:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Let's be honest... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Robert) - In a message dated 10/7/2010 6:57:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Robert E, ------- <. . .> KH: > > And so the questioner is looking, not for instructions, but for a *description* of conditioned dhammas. >> RE: > Well, this is the conclusion that Buddha and I disagree with you about. Buddha did not say 'since there is no self there should be no instructions." He gave countless instructions, which you folks like to call "descriptions" even though they are full of imperatives. Even the suttas that are done in descriptive language are clearly instructions in the sense that they are describing formulaicly what sorts of practice will lead to certain results. -------- Yes, and what is "practice"? Is it something that a sentient being does? Or is it the momentary function of a momentary citta? It can't be both. ---------------------------------------------- Of course it can! An analogy: What is a rainbow? Light dispersed by a spray of fine water droplets or a beautiful, multi-colored arc stretching across the sky? It is exactly both. ----------------------------------------------- ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #110560 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 7, 2010 7:37 am Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > Hi Robert E, > > ------- > <. . .> > KH: > > And so the questioner is looking, not for instructions, but for a *description* of conditioned dhammas. > >> > > RE: > Well, this is the conclusion that Buddha and I disagree with you about. Buddha did not say 'since there is no self there should be no instructions." He gave countless instructions, which you folks like to call "descriptions" even though they are full of imperatives. Even the suttas that are done in descriptive language are clearly instructions in the sense that they are describing formulaicly what sorts of practice will lead to certain results. > -------- > > Yes, and what is "practice"? Is it something that a sentient being does? Or is it the momentary function of a momentary citta? > > It can't be both. Well it comes down to two issues and two possible scenarios: a/ There is no such thing as action, no body, no doing. Not only is there no "self" in the body or mind, there is no body or mind, just individual cittas that experience either dhamma-experiences or concept-experiences, but those are just experiences and citta is the passive recipient. Nothing in the world of form is real - therefore there is no possibility of doing anything. I'm pretty sure this is the preponderent view in this group, although maybe not everyone has thought about it in that way. When you say "there are only dhammas" I am guessing you are saying "the physical world is unreal," and that rupa is only a "physical quality experience" rather than the experience of an "actual physical quality" that pertains to a physical object. Physical object is only a concept and that concept is an illusion. Citta invents the world of form, or maybe better said receives it, through illusory concepts that it entertains as real. I haven't exactly gotten anyone to come out and say that, but maybe you will. You're pretty bold. In that extreme view, which I am not judging as correct or not, but which is mystical and esoteric at the very least, there would be no possibility of practice or doing of any kind, because there isn't even a body. Any running around doing x and y with the body or the mind would be conceptual delusion, because what one is actual doing is hallucinating that one is practicing, doing, going around etc. None of that actually takes place, so the very idea of practice would take one further into the delusion that the world of form is real and something can be done with or in it. In that view, the only thing to do is to sit back passively and receive Dhamma, the truth, so that one can discern that the world is illusory concept, and only citta and the dhamma it experiences passively at a given moment, with accompanying cetasikas, is real, although fleeting and temporary. So we are really not existing or doing, even as physical organisms. We are a disembodied momentary consciousness that arises, falls and is replaced because of accumulations and kamma by another citta, which keeps reconstructing the illusion of experience through these momentary presentations. It's all a mirage. Awakening is citta awakening to the nothing that is really there and stopping the movie. Then citta no longer has a reason to entertain the nama and rupa it has been experiencing, and the show is over. b/ In the second possible scenario, the physical world does exist at least in its own right - which is to say that even if it is an illusion, things do take place in the world of form that impact the "real consciousness" that exists. In this scenario then, the world of the body and objects and other people has some integrity in its own right, and people are running around and doing things with bodies in it, but it may all be a hologram created by consciousness. This is more of the esoteric Buddhist/traditional Hindu view of the world. Or the world may be real, but have no self residing within it. It is all "just form," with no meaning, and there is "just consciousness" experiencing it. Neither consciousness nor form has any self and one detaches from it to gain liberation from the illusion of self and the clinging, craving and suffering this creates. This is a little more traditional - there is form, but there is no self. In this scenario, the mind and body exist, at least for the time being, whether or not the world of form is ultimately substantial or not, and therefore what one does with the mind and body has a corollary effect on consciousness, and sitting and meditating to discern realities, training the mind, relaxing the body, etc., will all ultimately hone the discernment of the actual consciousness which is experiencing through form, and eventually as the experience is sharpened and cleaned up, the consciousness will also awaken. When it does awaken it realizes it has no involvement or attachment to body or mind, that these are not "self," and it is freed from attachments, and realizes that there is only impersonal consciousness with no self, and impersonal form with no self. No more illusion, clinging, craving, greed, anger, desire or suffering. To me, even if scenario a/ is correct, which I suspect you subscribe to, one can still engage conditions that promote awakening. So in scenario a, you and I disagree about that. I think that even in the conceptual realm, what one does translates to what the cittas are experiencing and accumulating. If one clings to concepts, this does spoil the soup, but if one realizes both the conceptual aspect and the discernment aspect of practice, one can experience practice as arising namas and rupas and it will create conditions for sati, panna, and ultimately awakening. So we can disagree about that if you like. In scenario b, no problem with practice. As one thinks, acts and discerns correctly, the understanding of what is real becomes stronger until one awakens. When I say "one" I mean citta of course. :-) > -------------- > RE: > So let's think intelligently about this, instead of dogmatically. What conclusion can you draw by finding the least common denominator for these two statements: > > 1. There are only dhammas, which are experienced by cittas. > 2. If certain instructions are followed, certain accumulations and attainments will result. > --------------- > > I don't know about any conclusions, but do you think the citta that follows the instructions is also the citta that experiences the results? > > If not, why would the first citta be interested in doing that? Why not? If citta has accumulated enough panna/right intention, etc., it would have the imperative for awakening built in to its cetasikas. Citta never seems to care whether *it* awakens or whether the next citta does. Awakening is dependent on one citta passing on accumulations to the next in any case, so it is a moot point - even in your philosophy one citta disinterestedly passes on whatever it discovers to the next citta so that those accumulations may eventually lead to panna, etc. I would say the citta that arises with panna, having more understanding that there is no self, will certainly care less whether *it* awakens or a future citta awakens. > Instructions are for continuing (lasting) things, not for dhammas. But you follow the instructions of the dhamma in continuity in any case. You don't just read part of a word and then stop do you? You read whole sentences, engage in concepts and keep moving forward in the illusion of time in order to understand Dhamma and awaken, so you are engaging the same illusion for "lastingness" no matter *what* you do or don't do. It still works out if you are focused with right intention on using the concepts to engage the realities. Why have this conversation or any conversation? Why eat? Why not just go catatonic and merely experience dhammas until a citta arises that stops the whole show? That's what Buddha did, no? He sat under the tree and didn't move until he had awakened. Oh, I take that back. Hm, he took milk which took him to the finish line. So I guess he was "using the illusion" too, as needed. So maybe, Ken, maybe that's okay. > -------------------- > RE: > Taking them both together, I imagine the Buddha might say something like this - invoking the old "middle way" that you like in other contexts: > > "There is no one to do anything, and no one who reaps the results of anything. There are only dhammas arising, and the cittas that experience them. [I realize that citta is a dhamma too, but I am highlighting them.] However, there is experience of practice and there is the experience of results of practice. In truth that practice and those results are experienced one dhamma at a time, but > they do pass on their accumulations. Therefore I will tell you what sorts of instructions if intended and followed, will lead to certain results. > --------------------- > > You are saying the Dhamma is about doing something now in order to receive results later. I am glad to know you are mistaken. The Dhamma is purely an understanding of the here and now. But you're not awakened are you? So do you expect to be? Or have you abandoned all cares for the future altogether? If you take this seriously why are you engaged with anything that resembles action? Why not just stop this conceptual tomfoolery and all this illusory activity? Do you enjoy hallucinating? > ------------------------- > RE: > Through hearing and intending to follow these instructions, certain properties will accumulate and greater degrees of panna will develop. In all of this reading, hearing, understanding, intending, and the experiences which will then constitute practice, you will come to understand that there is no self practicing, and that there is only the experience of each dhamma as it arises. > Yet the path will be realized through this process." > -------------------------- > > No, Robert, it has all got too complicated. Stick to the understanding that there are only the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. Try seeing the Dhamma from that perspective, you won't regret it. I already regret it, but since regret is just a concept accumulated from the mistaken notion of arising dhammas, with a little negative vipaka thrown in, it's not really a problem. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110561 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Oct 7, 2010 10:14 am Subject: Re: Let's be honest... truth_aerator Hello Robert, all, It seems to me that the no-control position goes something like this. All things rise from their causes, and certain causes lead to certain effects. This requires analysis and synthesis of those causes and effects - dhammas, with causes being kusala/akusala/kiriya and results being vipaka dhammas. There is no Self that can control the aggregates to be like this or like that. Also there is no Self to set and control even the causes which would bring certain effects. Setting the causes for future success or failure is an action initiated by sankhara khandha, and it is anatta. Thus there is no total control and no control of "let me set such and such causes for future results". ===== But with all of the above, experientially there is action. If the house is on fire some do their best to get out. If you one is dropped into a lake, one will probably do one's best to swim to safety. Of course the external/internal conditions may change the plans. But even with all this conditionality it is probably not wise to cross one's arms and hope for conditions to decide, that way one will simply drown. With metta, Alex #110562 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 7, 2010 5:55 am Subject: Source of What? bhikkhu.sama... Friends: The 12 Sense Sources produce Suffering! 1: The eye is a source of Suffering... 2: Forms are a source of Suffering... 3: The ear is a source of Suffering... 4: Sounds are a source of Suffering... 5: The nose is a source of Suffering... 6: Scents are a source of Suffering... 7: The tongue is a source of Suffering... 8: Flavours are a source of Suffering... 9: The body is a source of Suffering... 10: Tangibles are a source of Suffering... 11: The mind is a source of Suffering... 12: Mental phenomena are a source of Suffering... Why so? Because, whether they give rise to a pleasant, painful or a neutral feeling and experience, then this will always change, fade away, be lost & vanish... This change takes place even at the very moment of the experience itself! Sensing is the soil in which all greed and craving takes root and grows... Like the chronic morphinist can neither understand, nor accept, that to become clean, without using drugs, is better and more happy on long-term, even so can the habitual hedonist, delighting in any sense pleasure, neither understand nor accept, that renunciation and withdrawal from all sense experience is far better, trustable, and more blissful on the long term... Urging for sense pleasure, one only gains ever more frustration and pain! Neither seeing, nor knowing any other happiness, the hedonist always runs headlong back to rebirth, ageing, decay, sickness, death and Suffering... Again and again, life after life, again and again, universe after universe!!! Like a rat in a carrousel, blinded by ignorance and bound by craving, do beings, in this awful round of rebirth called Samsara, suffer repeatedly... <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #110563 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 7, 2010 1:23 pm Subject: Re: Let's be honest... epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Robert, all, > > It seems to me that the no-control position goes something like this. > > All things rise from their causes, and certain causes lead to certain effects. This requires analysis and synthesis of those causes and effects - dhammas, with causes being kusala/akusala/kiriya and results being vipaka dhammas. > > There is no Self that can control the aggregates to be like this or like that. Also there is no Self to set and control even the causes which would bring certain effects. Setting the causes for future success or failure is an action initiated by sankhara khandha, and it is anatta. Thus there is no total control and no control of "let me set such and such causes for future results". > > ===== > > > But with all of the above, experientially there is action. If the house is on fire some do their best to get out. If you one is dropped into a lake, one will probably do one's best to swim to safety. Of course the external/internal conditions may change the plans. But even with all this conditionality it is probably not wise to cross one's arms and hope for conditions to decide, that way one will simply drown. I think that Ken H. and others are saying that with respect to conventional affairs [ie, within the conceptual illusion that we are here in the world, inhabit bodies and do things] it is fine to act accordingly and run out of the burning house or swim to safety; but when it comes to realizing the truth of the Dhamma, such concept-based activities are counter-productive, as they merely feed the illusion that there is a self that has volition. Rather than lead one to realization of anatta, it will lead one to promote a concept of spiritual self which will just lead to more suffering births within the illusory concept of self. In order to this philosophy, the best thing to do with respect to Dhamma, is to refrain from any kind of action, and instead to merely observe what is arising from moment to moment in order to catch a glimpse, with panna, of the reality of fleeting momentary experiences that are thoroughly uncontrollable, changing, unsatisfying and not-self. Thus the only action necessary will be caused by this discernment - to step back from what is not-self, become detached, and awaken from the illusion of psycho-physical existence and psycho-physical self that continues to suffer from lifetime to lifetime. In order to sit back and observe this reality and abandon the false concept of selfhood and existence in the world, one must first understand the terms of that existence as concept, and the actual reality as fleeting cittas experiencing fleeting dhammas. To be thoroughly convinced of this one develops the right concepts through Abhidhamma and appropriate interpretations and commentaries. That makes it easier to accept the model of reality, and then to observe and discern it as sati and panna develop. If one accepts the premise that there is no world such as we think there is, and that there is no self such as we think there is, and that the idea of a body, a world, a car, a table etc., are all false concepts constructed out of mental manipulations of experiences of hardness, visual experience, sound, etc., then one can understand the conclusion that one should not take on the illusion of action, but concentrate on seeing what is real and what is concept. Personally, I think that even if the above model is correct, conventional activity that cultivates awareness is still a much greater accumulator of sati and panna than just reading and understanding by themselves, because I think that they have certain effects when engaged in with right understanding. However, I understand the opposing philosophy a bit better now than I did before. I am waiting for someone to admit that they do not believe the world, self, body, objects or other people actually exist, but are just conceptual hallucinations constructed from concepts. I'm pretty sure that is the understanding underlying this whole view of the path. I may even agree with it, though I draw a different conclusion about how to respond to it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110564 From: "gazita2002" Date: Thu Oct 7, 2010 8:23 pm Subject: Re: metta, gazita2002 hallo Sarah, Thank you for this. You have presented it quite clearly. > Hi Azita, > > --- On Tue, 5/10/10, gazita2002 wrote: > > >In Jivaka sutta (MN55,BB) the Buddha is talking to Jivaka about a bhikkhu who 'abides pervading the all encompassing world imbued with metta [karuna, mudita, uppekkha] abundant, exalted, immeasurable without hostility and without ill-will'. > > >My understanding of metta is that it is friendliness and there must be a being that one is 'friendly' to. So if said bhikkhu is 'pervading' the world, isn't this only in his mind, so to speak? > .... > S: A being or beings (not oneself as some like to think!). Yes, metta is always "in the mind", but it has a being/beings as object. > > We may feel friendliness or metta now to the person we're associating with, to a child on the street or to some ants on the path. > > For the one with more developed metta, there's less discrimination - it may be metta for all the people in the football stadium or all the passers by, for example. Azita: this is a good current, local example given we have jst gone thro grand final season and all the chaos that comes with that. It would be most difficult to have metta for the opposing team if one's own team was losing:)) Sarah: And then, for the one who has developed metta to the degree of the jhanas, by really understanding its characteristic precisely, knowing exactly when it does and does not arise, metta has become "immeasurable", "encompassing" all the beings in the world. (Without metta having been developed to this degree, it's useless to just repeat a phrase about having metta to all beings, wishing for such a result). > > Of course, the Buddha had incomparable metta and karuna, because his metta and karuna extended to whatever beings he put his mind, including us! > ... > >No-one can 'receive' metta. Of course, the answer could be that there are conditions,for that bhikkhu, for metta to arise while contemplating the whole wide world! > Anything more you could tell me about this? Cheers > .... > S: Yes, we cannot 'receive' metta, but according to 'our' kamma and other conditions, there can be the kusala vipaka when we hear the pleasant sounds of someone's assistance with metta or in the case of the Buddha's metta and compassion- there are now the conditions (thanks again to good kamma in the past), to hear the Teachings today. > > So when we show kindness and friendliness to those around us, it'll depend on many factors as to whether they appreciate it or benefit at all. The point is that at the moment of having metta, the mind, ('our' mind) is kusala and free from kilesa at such a time. Only panna can tell at any moment whether it really is metta or not, of course. > > If there are expectations of any response from an individual or 'the world', that is not metta. If we wish to have more metta or to be a kinder person or sit for an hour to try and have metta, none of that is metta either. If it's just wishing for our dear ones to be happy, it's much more likely to be attachment most the time. > > If we see the value in metta and begin to understand its characteristic, it can and will develop naturally and joyfully. This is the development of samatha in daily life, as I understand it. Azita: I think when we learn more about the characteristics of metta, AND see the value of kusala, there are more conditions for being 'friendly' to beings rather than impatient, for example. patience, courage and good cheer azita #110565 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 8, 2010 12:58 am Subject: The Eightfold Path. nilovg Dear friends, Jon to Lodewijk, while in India, about the eightfold Path: Nina. #110566 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 8, 2010 7:05 am Subject: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Khun Bong’s Diary. Our friend Khun Bussabong Ramphai (Khun Bong) who has passed away kept a diary during her sickness, the last four months before she died. We all can learn from the way she coped with her suffering because she had great confidence in the Dhamma. Her husband, Khun Weera Phlawadana, had this diary printed in Thailand. He was a great support during her illness and asked questions on her behalf at the Dhamma session. Khun Bong became very ill during her last journey to India where she went together with Acharn Sujin and friends in order to present the ornamented caskets for the relics of the Buddha, Såriputta and Mahå- Moggallåna which are kept in the Mahå-Bodhi Society in Bodh-Gaya. She was very brave during her illness while she had to undergo many hospital visits, tests, X rays, knowing that she would die. She could hardly eat and became very thin and tired. She said that she was ready to depart within a short time. She had cancer but it was not sure where exactly. At first it was thought that it was cancer of the liver, but this was not so. When she telephoned Acharn telling her this, Acharn answered: “In this life there is already kusala because you understood the Dhamma and this is not an easy matter. You should rejoice because this is of great value for this life and when you die you have not wasted your life.” She asked herself why sati would not arise. She remembered that Acharn had said that this was because sati of the level of considering and studying was not yet sufficient. Khun Bong wanted to remind others: “People who still have the opportunity to listen should not waste this opportunity at all.” She reminded herself that if akusala citta would arise shortly before death this would cause an unhappy rebirth. But one cannot prevent the arising of akusala citta. When it arises its characteristic can be studied. Khun Bong wrote: “Lobha is attached to life, that is natural. Tomorrow it is the same again, it is attached to the objects experienced through the six doors of the senses and the mind-door. When we are born again it is the same story. The friends I met in this life will not be there anymore. Last life I did not want to depart and now I have new friends in Thailand. I am clinging very much. Today is Måkapuccha. This originated in Veruvanna, where I paid respect. Next life I may go there again according to conditions. The Buddha taught there thousand and two hundredfifty bhikkhus to abandon evil, perform kusala and purify the citta. This is very important.” Khun Bong thought of the moment of rebirth-consciousness when three groups of ten rúpas arose: one group with bodysense, one with the heartbase (the physical base of origin of cittas other than the sense- cognitions) and one with sex. But at this moment she is old and withered. Only skin and bones. Khun Bong thought of a saying of Acharn: “There is not, and then there is something and after that there is nothing to be found.” This reminds us that whatever arises because of conditions was not present before, and then it falls away completely. ******* Nina. #110567 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri Oct 8, 2010 4:26 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. gazita2002 Hallo Nina, thank you for this. When I talk about dying and death, most people think I am gloomy but I dont think so. The surest thing we know in this life is that there will be death. patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Khun Bong's Diary. > #110568 From: "macrosamurai1781" Date: Fri Oct 8, 2010 8:52 pm Subject: Introduction!!! macrosamurai... Hi all! I've just stumbled on this group and I'm very interested in the teachings of the Buddha as he taught them. Since I believe that you can tell most about a person from the questions they ask, I would like to query, "What do you think the place of entertainment is in practice? Did the Buddha say anything on this topic?" Thanks, Mike #110569 From: "Christine" Date: Sat Oct 9, 2010 2:26 am Subject: Re: Introduction!!! christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "macrosamurai1781" wrote: > > Hi all! > I've just stumbled on this group and I'm very interested in the teachings of the Buddha as he taught them. > Since I believe that you can tell most about a person from the questions they ask, I would like to query, "What do you think the place of entertainment is in practice? Did the Buddha say anything on this topic?" > Thanks, > Mike > Welcome Mike! Not too sure what you mean by ''entertainment'', but here are the Buddha's words on a Code of Discipline for the layperson - DN 31 Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala The Layperson's Code of Discipline EXCERPT:(3) "What are the six channels for dissipating wealth which he does not pursue? (a) "indulgence in intoxicants which cause infatuation and heedlessness; (b) sauntering in streets at unseemly hours; (c) frequenting theatrical shows; (d) indulgence in gambling which causes heedlessness; (e) association with evil companions; (f) the habit of idleness. read more here ....... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html with metta Chris #110570 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Oct 9, 2010 5:44 pm Subject: Saturday meeting ptaus1 Hi all, A short report on the Saturday meeting in Manly - I had the pleasure of meeting KenH, Herman, Sarah and Jon for a discussion, and despite all the hype and anticipation, I have to say it's been one of the nicest meetings I've attended. I expected KenH and Herman to be a couple of these really sullen and stern old men, and yet, they both turned out to be really nice and soft spoken guys. So, despite what everyone thought, the meeting itself was productive and there wasn't any real confrontation as far as I could tell. There were differing positions and viewpoints on some matters, but I was really glad that there also seemed to be a genuine attempt to try and understand each other despite the differences in terminology. In fact, by the end, when everyone realised how well the meeting went, KenH and Herman tried to have a big argument on purpose, pulling up all the most controversial subjects like formal meditation and the like, but it just didn't work :) So, all in all, I found it to be a very pleasant and useful discussion. Hopefully, others might add a bit more, and I'll also add a bit later on some of the topics we discussed. Best wishes pt #110571 From: "bhikkhu3" Date: Sat Oct 9, 2010 3:55 pm Subject: The Good Disciple... bhikkhu5 Friends: How to be a Worthy Lay Disciple! The Buddha once explained how: I will tell you the way of life of a householder, who becomes a good disciple. Laying aside all violence, he would not kill a living creature, nor cause to kill, nor allow others to kill. He should deliberately avoid taking anything, which has not been freely given. Neither should he cause to steal, nor allow others to steal. He should not transgress against another's wife. When gone to the audience hall, court or assembly, he should neither speak false himself, nor cause others to speak false, deceive or pretend. He should avoid all untruth. He should also avoid intoxicating drinks and drugs, nor cause to drink, nor allow others to drink or take drugs, since intoxication causes carelessness! Intoxication makes negligent fools commit evil deeds accumulating demerit. He should neither eat food at night, nor wear jewellery, nor use perfume... He should sleep on a low couch or on the ground on a mat. For this they say is the eight-fold fast day observance, declared by the Buddha, who has gone beyond all suffering. Having kept this fast day every fortnight, with a clear mind, rejoicing, he should in the morning share suitable food with the Sangha of Bhikkhus. He should support his mother & father by making honest trade. A vigilant householder living this Noble way of life is reborn among the devas who shines bright... Sn 393-404 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #110572 From: "bhikkhu3" Date: Sat Oct 9, 2010 4:18 am Subject: Excellent Dhamma Talks online in audio. bhikkhu5 Friends: The treasures of excellent Dhamma talks by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, who is pupil of the late Ajahn Chah of the Thai Forest Tradition, are all highly recommendable and can freely be downloaded here as audio: http://www.dhammatalks.org Ven. Thanissaro and the late Ajahn Chah. Good to download and listen to in the evening. Enjoy and gain! Dhamma Talks from 2010 September Archive (zip) as .mp3 files Your Sense of Balance, Rhythms of the Mind, Thinking About Death, Developed in Body & Mind, Working Hypotheses, Hold On to your Frame of Reference, What to Trust & Respect Inside, Fortress Dhamma, Your Mind Is Lying to You, Be Bigger than Your Pains, On Your Own Two Feet, Top Priorities, Leaving Distractions Alone The Inevitable Emergency, Lifting the Mind! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net #110573 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction!!! sarahprocter... Hi Mike*, Welcome to DSG! --- On Sat, 9/10/10, macrosamurai1781 wrote: >I've just stumbled on this group and I'm very interested in the teachings of the Buddha as he taught them. Since I believe that you can tell most about a person from the questions they ask, I would like to query, "What do you think the place of entertainment is in practice? Did the Buddha say anything on this topic?" ... S: That's an interesting and good observation about the questions a person asks... Chris has already given a relevant quote. I was discussing with friends this weekend about the distinction between ordinary, daily attachment ("sama lobha" and especially strong, out of the ordinary attachment which leads to the harming of others ("visama lobha"). We have lots of ordinary attachment when we eat, watch TV, go for a walk, spend time with our friends and so on. The Buddha encouraged us to develop understanding and awareness of all kinds of realities in a day, including such common attachment. So, it's not a matter of not seeking such entertainment, but just of beginning to understand more about the various reallities that make up our lives, such as seeing now, attachment now, thinking now. When it's the particularly strong, "out-of-the-ordinary" attachment, again the harm, the dangerous aspect of has to be known when it arises. Only the development of the Path taught by the Buddha leads to first the eradication of this strong attachment at the stage of sotapanna (who can no longer break the precepts or contemplate doing so), and later the eradication of ordinay attachment and finally the tendency to the most subtle of all kinds of attachment at the stage of arahat. Perhaps you can elaborate a little more on your question and also introduce yourself a little more. Where do you live Mike? Metta Sarah * We have a few Mikes here, so it would be helpful if you could add the initial of your surname after signing off as well, so we can address you as "Mike M" or whatever it is. ======== #110574 From: "dsgmods" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:22 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting dsgmods Hi pt and all My thanks to pt for his comments. It was indeed a pleasant occasion, with much useful dhamma discussion. No mediation/moderation necessary! ;-)) I will try to add more on some of the topics covered in due course. In the meantime, I have some overdue responses to earlier posts to get out ... Pt, glad you enjoyed the occasion. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi all, > > A short report on the Saturday meeting in Manly - I had the pleasure of meeting KenH, Herman, Sarah and Jon for a discussion, and despite all the hype and anticipation, I have to say it's been one of the nicest meetings I've attended. I expected KenH and Herman to be a couple of these really sullen and stern old men, and yet, they both turned out to be really nice and soft spoken guys. So, despite what everyone thought, the meeting itself was productive and there wasn't any real confrontation as far as I could tell. There were differing positions and viewpoints on some matters, but I was really glad that there also seemed to be a genuine attempt to try and understand each other despite the differences in terminology. In fact, by the end, when everyone realised how well the meeting went, KenH and Herman tried to have a big argument on purpose, pulling up all the most controversial subjects like formal meditation and the like, but it just didn't work :) So, all in all, I found it to be a very pleasant and useful discussion. Hopefully, others might add a bit more, and I'll also add a bit later on some of the topics we discussed. > > Best wishes > pt > #110575 From: "Lukas" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:26 am Subject: Re: Introduction!!! szmicio Hi Mike, You should check Sigalovada Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.htmlhttp://www.accesstoi\ nsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html and Uposatha Sutta. >Mike: Since I believe that you can tell most about a person from the questions they ask, I would like to query, "What do you think the place of entertainment is in practice? Did the Buddha say anything on this topic?" Lukas: In Uposatha Sutta we can read about entertainment(all those things I also have a big problem like listening music and a lot of sensual entertainments): <7. "Bhikkhus. Ariyan disciples in this Religion reflect thus: "'All arahants, for as long as life lasts, have given up singing and dancing, the playing of musical instruments and the watching of entertainments, which are stumbling blocks to that which is wholesome. Nor do they bedeck themselves with ornaments, flowers or perfume.' "All of you have given up singing and dancing, the playing of musical instruments and the watching of entertainments, which are stumbling blocks to that which is wholesome. You do not bedeck yourselves with ornaments, flowers or perfume. For all of this day and night, in this manner, you will be known as having followed the arahants, and the Uposatha will have been observed by you. This is the seventh factor of the Uposatha."> L: So sensual entertainments are gona to bring suffering, no matter how subtle they are. Best wishes Lukas #110576 From: "dsgmods" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:27 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? dsgmods Hi Alex (110282) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Jon, Robert E, all, > ... > When they say "do this, do that" I do not think that it is wise to say that what they really mean is that one should not do this, and should not do that". > =============== J: Well this is the nub of the matter. Do the suttas and commentaries actually say "Do this, do that"? Or do they rather set out the conditions that if properly developed will result in the development of samatha and vipassana? > =============== > WHy wouldn't the suttas and the commentaries (such as VsM) clearly state that anapanasati should not be "formally" done? > =============== J: The suttas and commentaries clearly state what the conditions for the development of awareness/insight are; it is not practicable, or necessary, to negative every other possible candidate for inclusion! > =============== > Where is there such a thing said? It seems like "no-practice" is entirely modern invention of a certain teacher... > =============== J: Yes, the term "practice" is used in the texts, but it's a question what it means as used. > =============== > Anapanasati VsM VIII > VIII,158. Herein, gone to the forest is gone to any kind of forest possessing the bliss of seclusion among the kinds of forests characterized thus: 'Having gone out beyond the boundary post, all that is forest' (Ps.i,176; Vbh. 251), and 'A forest abode is five hundred bow lengths distant' (Vin.iv,183). To the root of a tree: gone to the vicinity of a tree. To an empty place: gone to an empty, secluded space. And here he can be said to have gone to an 'empty place' if he has gone to any of the remaining seven kinds of abode (resting place).42 [271] > > VIII,159. Having thus indicated an abode that is suitable to the three seasons, suitable to humour and temperament,43 and favourable to the development of mindfulness of breathing, he then said sits down, etc., indicating a posture that is peaceful and tends neither to idleness nor to agitation. Then he said having folded his legs crosswise, etc., to show firmness in the sitting position, easy occurrence of the in-breaths and out-breaths, and the means for discerning the object. ... > > This commentary is clear about intentional actions being done. > =============== J: Yes, it clearly describes certain intentional activities. But the question is what the passage says about how those intentional activities relate to the development of the path. For example, are we to understand the commentary as saying that there can be no mindfulness of breathing unless one has first 'gone to the forest' etc. or is in a seated position? I don't think so. > =============== > 189. Here are the stages in giving attention to it: (1) counting, (2) connexion, (3) touching, (4) fixing, (5) observing, (6) turning away, (7) purification, and (8) looking back on these. > Herein, counting is just counting, connexion is carrying on, touching > is the place touched [by the breaths], fixing is absorption, observing is insight, turning away is the path, purification is fruition, looking back on these is reviewing. > > 190. 1. Herein, this clansman who is a beginner should first give attention to this meditation subject by counting. > VsM VIII > ====== > > > How isnt't "1) counting, (2) connexion, (3) touching, (4) fixing, (5) observing, (6) turning away, (7) purification, and (8) looking back on these." an intentional action that should be done? > =============== J: OK, let's take *connexion* as an example. This is defined (VIII, 196) as "the uninterrupted following of the in-breaths and out-breaths with mindfulness after counting has been given up". I would see this as a stage that occurs when mindfulness is sufficiently developed, rather than a 'practice' to be undertaken by someone hoping to develop samatha. > =============== > Why should one ignore the direct instructions on what should be done written in VsM? Where does it say that one shouldn't do the "shoulds" found in VsM? Isn't this just a later invention of one certain teacher? > =============== J: The "shoulds" apply to persons who meet the criteria specified in the preceding part of the text at III, 28 to IV, 20, namely that he/she: - is a person of purified virtue - has severed the ten impediments. - has been given a meditation subject by an accomplished teacher. - living in a place that is favourable to the development of concentration (as described) - has severed the lesser impediments and has complied with all the other recommendations for development. These criteria, like the "shoulds" we are now discussing, are also not simply a matter of "doing" what is suggested in the text. They require ever greater levels of kusala (including panna). Jon #110577 From: "dsgmods" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:30 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? dsgmods Hi Robert E (110288) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > it is not as though he is just developing anapanasati and then, having attained jhana, suddenly discerns dhammas for the first time. > > No one would suggest that, but that doesn't mean that a/ it isn't a practice being recommended, and b/ that there isn't an equivalent "beginner's" technique for basic development of samatha and sati. It is the opinion of many teachers that the first stanzas dealing with long and short breaths and being fully mindful of breath and body do represent the basic approach to developing sati and samatha. > =============== J: If as you say it describes the development of sati, then sati of what (i.e., of what object) is being described? > =============== > > Consider the significance of the words `having established mindfulness in front of him' -- see Vism Ch. VIII, par. 142 and the commentary on those words at par. 161, 162. > > One can start out by concentrating fully, putting mindfulness to the fore etc, without implying that the practitioner has perfectly established mindfulness that is unwavering. That seems to me to be indicating a strong intention to focus with mindfulness, rather than a final result before one has hardly sat down. > =============== J: What about the words "Ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out"? Is this not well-established mindfulness? Jon #110578 From: "dsgmods" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:31 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? dsgmods Hi Robert E (110289) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > Consider the significance of the words `having established mindfulness in front of him' -- see Vism Ch. VIII, par. 142 and the commentary on those words at par. 161, 162. > > Bikkhu Bodhi expressed a view on some of these similar statements, particularly one that suggests that he has put aside the 5 hindrances before sitting down to practice in the Satipatthana Sutta, that this is an intention that one begins with, and then one continues to encounter the hindrances arising and deals with them each time they do. That would be similar to "having established mindfulness in front of him." For almost anyone, they would begin with concentration and mindful awareness, but it would have to be reestablished several times throughout the period of sitting. It is the practice that develops mindfulness fully. Therefore it would not be fully established before the practice takes place. > =============== J: I think if we were to consult the commentaries we'd find they don't support such an interpretation. Jon #110579 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Saturday meeting sarahprocter... Hi Pt & all, --- On Sun, 10/10/10, ptaus1 wrote: >A short report on the Saturday meeting in Manly - I had the pleasure of meeting KenH, Herman, Sarah and Jon for a discussion, and despite all the hype and anticipation, I have to say it's been one of the nicest meetings I've attended. I expected KenH and Herman to be a couple of these really sullen and stern old men, and yet, they both turned out to be really nice and soft spoken guys. .... S: Yes, we found it to be a delightful afternoon as well. I could see everyone was a little shell-shocked to find out how friendly and pleasant everyone else was.... "really nice and soft spoken", and not so old either:-) The pic taken by you (Pt) is on Herman's camera, taken on our balcony, and I'm sure it'll be uploaded once Herman returns home. I was asking for waves in the pic, but Herman was asking for close-ups - I'm sure to show his youth and lack of "sullen and stern" features;-)) ... >So, despite what everyone thought, the meeting itself was productive and there wasn't any real confrontation as far as I could tell. There were differing positions and viewpoints on some matters, but I was really glad that there also seemed to be a genuine attempt to try and understand each other despite the differences in terminology. In fact, by the end, when everyone realised how well the meeting went, KenH and Herman tried to have a big argument on purpose, pulling up all the most controversial subjects like formal meditation and the like, but it just didn't work :) ... S: No, it didn't work at all in the sense of not get a rise out of anyone. For nearly three hours, bringing up all the usual "bug bears", there truly wasn't one raised voice, any sarcasim, impatience at all - not even any hunting for lost sunglasses for Herman to pounce on when he writes up his report this time:-) Still, I'm sure we can rely on both Herman and Ken H to make the friendly, considerate, everyone on their best behaviour get-together into something closer to the true sumo wrestling match we were expecting. Ah yes, there was the moment when Herman threatened to raise his samurai sword and cut off Ken's head. The ostensible point was to discuss whether awareness could arise just in time to save Ken's head, but were those cittas truly kusala? Only (Herman's) panna can answer that! Actually, Herman was an exemplary example of a discussion leader - asking everyone there opinions, listening carefully and even apologising for interrupting when there was not a hint of him interrupting. And it was pure dhamma for the entire time, even when Herman's wife, Vicki, joined us... And room for attachment.... as we discussed, the sun shone, the waves lapped on the shore beneath our balcony, a thrush sung melodiously on the back balcony, varieties of cakes, pleasant company.....must be the pablum Phil says we all cling to from the Dhamma... Who's complaining? Not me! All dhammas... ... > So, all in all, I found it to be a very pleasant and useful discussion. Hopefully, others might add a bit more, and I'll also add a bit later on some of the topics we discussed. .... S: I'm sure we'll all come round to the topics and feed them in.... A good idea to set the scene first... Herman will be returning to Bathurst (several hours inland), Ken H, having brought the Queensland sun with him on Friday afternoon, took it back with him this afternoon (now rainy and cloudy, Ken) - a trip by ferry, train and flight home. A lovely occasion and perhaps others will join us next time - the live Sumo wrestling of the gentle DSG giants:-) Metta Sarah ====== #110580 From: "dsgmods" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:35 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? dsgmods Hi Robert E (1102920 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > > Hm....that's not saying you don't agree with it. Please write me privately if the physical universe does not in fact exist. ;-) > > =============== J: I see there has been some further correspondence on the subject of the 'physical universe'. I'm wondering if the question, "Is there a physical universe out there?" is the same as the question, "Do rupas arise even when not the object of consciousness?". Is this how you'd see it? Jon #110581 From: "dsgmods" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:41 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? dsgmods Hi Alex (110293) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Jon, all, > ... > You disagree with VsM and suttas on how Anapanasati is *to be developed*? > =============== J: No, I don't disagree with Vism. I'm saying that, according to the texts, it is not the development of samatha per se that leads to the development of insight and enlightenment. Rather, the texts are explaining that the development of insight in tandem with the development of samatha may lead to enlightenment with jhana as object. > =============== > But do you agree that those parts that I have quoted do talk about a formal practice, just for an advanced meditator. > > VsM VIII,142 seems to talk about something else > "But several first jhanas, according to the number of parts, are produced in one to whom several parts have become evident, or who has > reached jhana in one and also makes further effort about another. As in the case of the Elder Mallaka. [266]" > > > As for VsM 161,162 (pali fonts messed up, so I took them out) > 161. Established mindfulness in front of him = having placed mindfulness facing the meditation subject . Or alternatively, the meaning can be treated here too according to the method of explanation given in the Patisambhida, which is this: Pari has the sense of control , has the sense of outlet , sati > has the sense of establishment ; that is why parimukham > sati ("mindfulness as a controlled outlet") is said' (Ps.i,176). The meaning of it in brief is: Having made mindfulness the outlet [from opposition, forgetfulness being thereby] controlled.44 > > 162. Ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out: having seated himself thus, having established mindfulness thus, the bhikkhu does not abandon that mindfulness; ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out; he is a mindful worker, is what is meant. > ======= > > How isn't VsM VIII,162 not an instruction on things to do and postures to adopt "having seated himself"? > =============== J: By this stage the bhikkhu is already highly skilled in the development of samatha with breath as object, to the extent that his mindfulness is continuous and uninterrupted (see the words "the bhikkhu does not abandon that mindfulness … he is a mindful worker, is what is meant". So he has reached a certain (high) stage of development of both samatha and vipassana, is what is being said. This could not be a matter of following an instruction; otherwise, we could all experience such attainment ;-)) Jon #110582 From: "dsgmods" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:45 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? dsgmods Hi Phil (110295) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: ... > How are we to understand the "clansman who is a beginner" who appears in Vism in VIII 190, and I imagine other places: > > "This clansman who is a biegginer should first give attention to this meditation subject by counting. And when counting, he should not stop short of five or go beyond ten..." and there follows detailed instructions on counting the breath. > =============== J: Thanks for identifying the exact passage. As I explained in a recent post to Alex, this has to be read in the context of its place in Vism. As I see it, "beginner" is used here in a relative sense, in that there has not yet been any of the development spoken of in the succeeding paragraphs of the text. However, just to 'qualify' as a "beginner" here, there must have already been the development of samatha to levels that we would regard as well advanced. As pt explained in a recent post, at the very least there must be the understanding of the distinction between kusala and akusala as they arise, in real time so to speak. See particularly III, 28: ************** But mundane concentration should be developed by one who has taken his stand on virtue that is quite purified in the way already stated. He should sever any of the ten impediments that he may have. He should then approach the good friend, the giver of a meditation subject, and he should apprehend from among the forty meditation subjects one that suits his own temperament. After that he should avoid a monastery unfavourable to the development of concentration and go to live in one that is favourable. Then he should sever the lesser impediments and not overlook any of the directions for development. This is in brief. ************** These are not just boxes to be ticked! As regards the terms "clansman", this I think is used here in the sense of a follower of the teachings: see also at XX, 105, XX1, 45, 83. It is not intended to connote a lay-follower in particular (as it sometimes is). Jon #110583 From: "Christine" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Saturday meeting christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Herman will be returning to Bathurst (several hours inland), Ken H, having brought the Queensland sun with him on Friday afternoon, took it back with him this afternoon (now rainy and cloudy, Ken) - a trip by ferry, train and flight home. > > A lovely occasion and perhaps others will join us next time - the live Sumo wrestling of the gentle DSG giants:-) > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== > Hello Sarah, all, Sounds like you all had a productive and enjoyable weekend. I hate to tell you this Sarah, but I think KenH sent the sun to Melbourne, or left it at the airport. There have been torrential rain and winds in Brisbane since Friday. :-) with metta Chris #110584 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction!!! nilovg Dear Macrosamurai, Op 9-okt-2010, om 5:52 heeft macrosamurai1781 het volgende geschreven: > Since I believe that you can tell most about a person from the > questions they ask, I would like to query, "What do you think the > place of entertainment is in practice? Did the Buddha say anything > on this topic?" ------- N: Entertainment is never lacking and we like it. Through the eyes we may receive pleasant colours, through the ears beautiful sounds, through the nose fragrant odours, through the tongue delicious flavours, through the bodysense agreeable tangibles. We would like pleasant objects to last but they all fall away immediately. Then there are unpleasant objects received through the senses. There is loss, pain and mourning. The wise follow the Buddha's advice to understand each moment as it comes. It arises because of conditions and there is no self who can control what kind of object is experienced at which moment. We cannot help liking pleasant objects and disliking unpleasant objects, those are conditioned moments, and they do not belong to a self. We can come to understand what the world is: the world of colour is one world, the world of sound is one world. The Buddha taught us to understand our life: only one moment experiencing one object at a time and then gone. At the moment of experiencing colour there cannot be at the same time the experience of sound. Nina. #110585 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:00 am Subject: Topics from Manly (1) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, A few topics discussed with Ken and Pt before Herman's arrival, mostly over a simple Mod-lunch on our balcony with the surfers and waves in the background. Perhaps Jon, Ken and Pt will help "colour them in", if interested to do so only, if they ring a bell at all, that is: (with Ken only) - hearing the Dhamma, but not understanding it, but as value as a condition for understanding in future lives. - forgetfullness of different kinds, different moments, old age - tone of posts, causing offence, offence caused, different cittas - wrong view as being blind to hearing Dhamma, attachment to wrong view (with Ken & Pt) - life of the monk, understanding one's true accumulations. - Jhanas possible if in daily life there's a lot of attachment, aversion and so on? - Ken's first book on 5 mins to jhana - Visuddhimagga and metta in various directions. Counting the surfers in one direction and then extending metta to them in turn? - satipatthana and vipassana nanas....realities all the way. What exactly is known? - anusayas and right effort, the reality, the nama which doesn't arise. levels of defilements, the abandoning of akusala, anusayas being accumulated, microbes, barnacles, day-time and night-time (!!),seeds (helpful, Howard), anantara paccaya - bhavanga cittas - anchored in place, Ken's theories about the object of cuti citta conditioning plane of rebirth (:-//) - we didn't hear the end because we all jumped on him! Then there was something about bhavanga and default options, but I switched off whenever computer terminology was introduced:-) - meditation and how the 2 hrs seems to calm down the mind, the mind stops jumping, some sort of awareness of breath? less nervousness...feels like it's the right way... What about if it's staring at the waves or a candle flame or any other object? In what way is it kusala? - Escape from sense impressions a *result* from the development of samatha, not a setting up in order to develop samatha. In the beginning of the development of samatha, no escape from sense objects. Pasaddhi arising now? Rushing round in the supermarket or relaxing, looking at the waves - can one say there is more kusala, more calm in one situation? - Reflecting on Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha - kusala or akusala? Attachment and ignorance or understanding and calm? Kusala now, understanding now leads to kusala in future. Not focussing on the Buddha. Meaning of samatha. - Why breath? So cool? Kusala or akusala? and then, waiting for Herman's arrival.... Metta Sarah ========= #110586 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:30 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting jonoabb Dear All I somehow managed to send this and several other messages from the mods account. Duh! Please treat them as sent from this account. Thanks. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dsgmods" wrote: > > Hi pt and all > > My thanks to pt for his comments. It was indeed a pleasant occasion, with much useful dhamma discussion. No mediation/moderation necessary! ;-)) > > I will try to add more on some of the topics covered in due course. In the meantime, I have some overdue responses to earlier posts to get out ... > > Pt, glad you enjoyed the occasion. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. > > Jon #110587 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Saturday meeting sarahprocter... Hi Chris, --- On Sun, 10/10/10, Christine wrote: >Sounds like you all had a productive and enjoyable weekend. ... S: Yes, thanks.. ... >I hate to tell you this Sarah, but I think KenH sent the sun to Melbourne, or left it at the airport. There have been torrential rain and winds in Brisbane since Friday. :-) .... S: Well maybe he'll find a little sunshine to share in his little back-pack alone with Rob Ep's posts and his wise reflections on the discussions when he unpacks:-) Good to hear from you again, Chris. Hope your Mum is doing OK. She must be very glad to have you near at hand. Metta Sarah ===== #110588 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:53 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi all, > > A short report on the Saturday meeting in Manly - I had the pleasure of meeting KenH, Herman, Sarah and Jon for a discussion, and despite all the hype and anticipation, I have to say it's been one of the nicest meetings I've attended. I expected KenH and Herman to be a couple of these really sullen and stern old men, and yet, they both turned out to be really nice and soft spoken guys. So, despite what everyone thought, the meeting itself was productive and there wasn't any real confrontation as far as I could tell. There were differing positions and viewpoints on some matters, but I was really glad that there also seemed to be a genuine attempt to try and understand each other despite the differences in terminology. In fact, by the end, when everyone realised how well the meeting went, KenH and Herman tried to have a big argument on purpose, pulling up all the most controversial subjects like formal meditation and the like, but it just didn't work :) So, all in all, I found it to be a very pleasant and useful discussion. Hopefully, others might add a bit more, and I'll also add a bit later on some of the topics we discussed. Thanks for the excellent preliminary report. I do wish I could have been there, sounds like a wonderful time. I'll look forward to any details that you and the others want to share. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110589 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:01 am Subject: Re: Introduction!!! epsteinrob Hi Lukas, and Mike. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > "All of you have given up singing and dancing, the playing of musical instruments and the watching of entertainments, which are stumbling blocks to that which is wholesome. You do not bedeck yourselves with ornaments, flowers or perfume. For all of this day and night, in this manner, you will be known as having followed the arahants, and the Uposatha will have been observed by you. This is the seventh factor of the Uposatha."> > > L: So sensual entertainments are gona to bring suffering, no matter how subtle they are. I guess that singing Buddhist chants and prayers is not considered "singing?" I mention this because there is singing in Buddhist ritual, and it is not considered sensual or a stumbling block, so there must be some distinction between singing that is wholesome and that which is a stumbling block. If one extends that idea a bit, a modern person may look at what sorts of singing, dancing, music, plays or films may lead to the development of positive qualities and those which have unwholesome results. I don't think we need to judge all of these activities as unwholesome by their own nature. Some "entertainments" are much more obviously stumbling blocks to awareness, equanimity, etc., than others, and we can avoid the worst without refraining from all normal activities. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #110590 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:21 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon, and Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dsgmods" wrote: Alex wrote: > > This commentary is clear about intentional actions being done. > > =============== > > J: Yes, it clearly describes certain intentional activities. But the question is what the passage says about how those intentional activities relate to the development of the path. > > For example, are we to understand the commentary as saying that there can be no mindfulness of breathing unless one has first 'gone to the forest' etc. or is in a seated position? I don't think so. Jumping in here, Jon. This is a strange example to give. Since we agree that Buddha is describing the conditions under which anapanasati can be done and the results that will follow, it is clear that these are the conditions. If you want to guess that a bunch of other conditions are equally good for developing mindfulness of breathing, then why heed the sutta at all? Or any suttas for that matter? Why not just do what we feel like, since Buddha didn't specifically rule it out? We can develop mindfulness of breathing in the movies, or while having cocktails. Why not? The sutta doesn't say not to. I think it is clear that since we agree that Buddha is at least describing the conditions under which development of mindfulness takes place, that we accept those conditions as he described them, and consider a whole bunch of other possibilities equally viable. =============== Alex wrote: > > How isnt't "1) counting, (2) connexion, (3) touching, (4) fixing, (5) observing, (6) turning away, (7) purification, and (8) looking back on these." an intentional action that should be done? > > =============== > > J: OK, let's take *connexion* as an example. > > This is defined (VIII, 196) as "the uninterrupted following of the in-breaths and out-breaths with mindfulness after counting has been given up". > > I would see this as a stage that occurs when mindfulness is sufficiently developed, rather than a 'practice' to be undertaken by someone hoping to develop samatha. How about counting? Is that also something that just develops by itself when one has sufficient mindfulness, or is it a specific practice, Jon? Have you ever discovered a moment of "counting" suddenly descending on your consciousness when the conditions were right? How about "looking back at these?" Is that an intentional practice, or something that happens by itself? > > =============== > > Why should one ignore the direct instructions on what should be done written in VsM? Where does it say that one shouldn't do the "shoulds" found in VsM? Isn't this just a later invention of one certain teacher? > > =============== > > J: The "shoulds" apply to persons who meet the criteria specified in the preceding part of the text at III, 28 to IV, 20, namely that he/she: > - is a person of purified virtue > - has severed the ten impediments. > - has been given a meditation subject by an accomplished teacher. > - living in a place that is favourable to the development of concentration (as described) > - has severed the lesser impediments and has complied with all the other recommendations for development. > > These criteria, like the "shoulds" we are now discussing, are also not simply a matter of "doing" what is suggested in the text. They require ever greater levels of kusala (including panna). There are several questions here. First of all, this is a separate subject from whether the earlier actions, such as "counting," are meant to be practiced or not. The second question, you raise here, is whether the requirements stated must be completed before embarking on anapanasati. That is a legitimate issue, but a different one from whether practices must be "done" or whether they arise by themselves at the appropriate time. Even if one must meet the criteria, that does not affect the fact that something like "counting" involves an activity, and that this is required for practice. Third of all, if the requirements are considered necessary before engaging the full practice, the question arises as to the legitimate means for developing those required conditions. Can one sever the lesser impediments, live under appropriate conditions, purify one's virtue, etc., without engaging in intentional activities, such as finding a teacher, finding an appropriate dwelling place, constraining activities so as not to engage in unvirtuous activity, etc.? And whether there are earlier stages of meditation that can take place during this process of preparation. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110591 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:42 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dsgmods" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (110288) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > it is not as though he is just developing anapanasati and then, having attained jhana, suddenly discerns dhammas for the first time. > > > > No one would suggest that, but that doesn't mean that a/ it isn't a practice being recommended, and b/ that there isn't an equivalent "beginner's" technique for basic development of samatha and sati. It is the opinion of many teachers that the first stanzas dealing with long and short breaths and being fully mindful of breath and body do represent the basic approach to developing sati and samatha. > > =============== > > J: If as you say it describes the development of sati, then sati of what (i.e., of what object) is being described? The breath. If we are talking about being mindful of long and short breaths, then obviously the object is the long or short breath. Object = the breath. It seems fairly obvious to me as well that exercises such as counting breaths which is one of the earlier techniques in the list of the Vism, and tracking long-ness or short-ness of breath, which is towards the beginning of the anapanasati sutta, are "grosser" exercise in following breath, not needing as high a degree of mindfulness as "being mindful of the body as a whole while following the breath," or "calming fabrications," which are obviously more advanced results of more advanced levels of mindfulness, samatha and concentration. So I think it is very possible to use the early, "grosser" exercises in following breath to develop basic sati, and then go on to the later exercises as greater skill develops. Bikkhu Bodhi noted in his taped lectures on the satipatthana sutta, which I've been listening too lately, that the preliminary instructions in these suttas, such as "having established mindfulness in front of him," before the meditation even begins, is a setting up of right intention rather than a statement of prior accomplishment. For instance, B. Bodhi notes that while the suttas begin by saying that the hindrances have been put aside, that it is understood that the hindrances would re-surface during the practice at times, and one would deal with whatever arose in that sense as it happened. It is not expected that unless one is a sotappana that no defilements will arise, so the idea that they are defeated in advance of anapanasati is clearly not what is meant. > > =============== > > > Consider the significance of the words `having established mindfulness in front of him' -- see Vism Ch. VIII, par. 142 and the commentary on those words at par. 161, 162. > > > > One can start out by concentrating fully, putting mindfulness to the fore etc, without implying that the practitioner has perfectly established mindfulness that is unwavering. That seems to me to be indicating a strong intention to focus with mindfulness, rather than a final result before one has hardly sat down. > > =============== > > J: What about the words "Ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out"? Is this not well-established mindfulness? "Ever mindful" is an instruction and it is how one is to practice. It is not a statement of prior accomplishment. If I were giving someone a guitar lesson, I would say, "Make sure that you stay conscious of how hard you are pressing down the strings, and make sure you press them down fully at all times so that you get a pure tone." I would say this to a beginner, even though I would not expect him to do it perfectly until he developed more skill. But you start those instructions right away. It was not the style of the time in any case for Buddha to say "Look dude, I know you're not going to be too mindful at first, but do your best, and make sure to take a break for a beer if you get fatigued." He would announce the intention of the exercise, which would be passed around verbally after that to monks of various levels, so you would want to have the correct instruction and let the monks work towards it as they were able. It may even be that using the advanced monks of the sutta as an example would set up the ideal case for monks of all levels. If you were going to give out *one* manual for anapanasati, wouldn't you want it to be the correct version that all monks should aspire towards? As far as I know, there is no "anapanasati 2.0" to follow the original. In the Vism, Buddhaghosa goes into more detail, breaking down the breathing exercises that might be practiced by monks of various levels. Counting breaths, for instance, is a traditional beginning practice, which allows the breath as a whole to be tracked and is a measure of continuity and concentration, whereas more subtle approaches to the breath are taken up later on. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #110592 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:45 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dsgmods" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (110289) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > Consider the significance of the words `having established mindfulness in front of him' -- see Vism Ch. VIII, par. 142 and the commentary on those words at par. 161, 162. > > > > Bikkhu Bodhi expressed a view on some of these similar statements, particularly one that suggests that he has put aside the 5 hindrances before sitting down to practice in the Satipatthana Sutta, that this is an intention that one begins with, and then one continues to encounter the hindrances arising and deals with them each time they do. That would be similar to "having established mindfulness in front of him." For almost anyone, they would begin with concentration and mindful awareness, but it would have to be reestablished several times throughout the period of sitting. It is the practice that develops mindfulness fully. Therefore it would not be fully established before the practice takes place. > > =============== > > J: I think if we were to consult the commentaries we'd find they don't support such an interpretation. Are they available? Let's take a look together if you have any of them handy. B. Bodhi does refer to the commentaries on the sati. sutta and anapana. sutta so I know he is conversant with them, and has done some translation of both suttas and at least some of the commentaries on his own from the Pali. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #110593 From: "Lukas" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:32 am Subject: Re: Introduction!!! szmicio Hi Robert R, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Lukas, and Mike. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > > "All of you have given up singing and dancing, the playing of musical instruments and the watching of entertainments, which are stumbling blocks to that which is wholesome. You do not bedeck yourselves with ornaments, flowers or perfume. For all of this day and night, in this manner, you will be known as having followed the arahants, and the Uposatha will have been observed by you. This is the seventh factor of the Uposatha."> > > > > L: So sensual entertainments are gona to bring suffering, no matter how subtle they are. > > I guess that singing Buddhist chants and prayers is not considered "singing?" I mention this because there is singing in Buddhist ritual, and it is not considered sensual or a stumbling block, so there must be some distinction between singing that is wholesome and that which is a stumbling block. L: Here, I think this only refers to sensual activities, not the chantings itself. I think Uposatha Sutta can refer to siila samvara especially. So this is one kind of refraining that can be encounter in life. Best wishes Lukas #110594 From: "Christine" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:08 pm Subject: Re: Introduction!!! christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > I guess that singing Buddhist chants and prayers is not considered "singing?" I mention this because there is singing in Buddhist ritual, and it is not considered sensual or a stumbling block, so there must be some distinction between singing that is wholesome and that which is a stumbling block. > = = = = = = = = = > Hello Rob, This might be of interest: Bhikkhus, there are these five dangers when Dhamma is chanted with a long, singing sound: 1. He is pleased with himself regarding that sound, (= pride) 2. others are pleased regarding that sound (they have regard for it but not for Dhamma) 3. householders look down upon him (as music is for those who enjoy sense-pleasures) 4. while trying for accuracy of sound his concentration is broken, (he neglects the meaning of what he is chanting) 5. people coming after fall into views (by emulation) ("saying: Our teachers and preceptors sang it thus" [Commentary] — a source of both pride and quarreling among later generations of Buddhists). — Vinaya Pitaka, ii. 108 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khantipalo/wheel206.html#chanting with metta Chris #110595 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:17 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dsgmods" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (1102920 > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > > Hm....that's not saying you don't agree with it. Please write me privately if the physical universe does not in fact exist. ;-) > > > =============== > > J: I see there has been some further correspondence on the subject of the 'physical universe'. > > I'm wondering if the question, "Is there a physical universe out there?" is the same as the question, "Do rupas arise even when not the object of consciousness?". Is this how you'd see it? Well that might actually make the question more complicated. As I currently understand it - always ready to be corrected - I am no longer given to understand that rupas are "physical objects," or even "perceived aspects of physical objects," which I think is how they are usually thought of, but instead rupa is merely a physical quality that is perceived directly, and the idea that there is a "whole physical object" of which that physical quality is a perceived part is merely a concept which sews various rupa-experiences together and assumes that they cohere in a larger whole. And that is an illusion. I think I have gotten this pretty much confirmed by Nina and a few others, that there is no "body," there is no "table," there is no "other person," but that these are concepts created by extrapolating from perceived qualities like "hardness," or "color," or "motion." In that idea of how the universe is constructed, it is actually a sort of flat space-less universe where consciousness and object arise together momentarily, then fall away, and there is no physical world or physical movement through space at all, as there are no bodies or objects, just citta-experiences of physical qualities and then proliferations about them that create further concepts of "a world." No driving in a car in reality, no having a conversation in reality, no reading sutta in reality, but simply "motion," "hearing," "seeing" in various moments. So my question is not just is there rupa if no one is there to experience it - I assume that there is not, since rupa and nama arise together and are mutually dependent. My question is whether there is a physical universe or not, which we perceive as individual rupas, but which exists apart from nama and rupa, or not. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #110596 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:20 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dsgmods" wrote: > J: By this stage the bhikkhu is already highly skilled in the development of samatha with breath as object, to the extent that his mindfulness is continuous and uninterrupted (see the words "the bhikkhu does not abandon that mindfulness … he is a mindful worker, is what is meant". So he has reached a certain (high) stage of development of both samatha and vipassana, is what is being said. > > This could not be a matter of following an instruction; otherwise, we could all experience such attainment ;-)) I think it is equally possible that we have not experienced such attainments because we have *not* followed these instructions, not because they "are not instructions" or because we "should not follow them." Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #110597 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:13 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? truth_aerator Hi Jon, all, > > Hello Jon, Robert E, all, > > ... > > When they say "do this, do that" I do not think that it is wise to say that what they really mean is that one should not do this, and should not do that". > > =============== > > J: Well this is the nub of the matter. Do the suttas and >commentaries actually say "Do this, do that"? Well when they use imperative verbs, and say "do this, do that" - I believe that that is what they've meant, unless one finds a clear explanation where the Buddha has said that "whenever I have said do this or that, I haven't really meant that". >Or do they rather set out the conditions that if properly developed >will result in the development of samatha and vipassana? Doing those actions will set up conditions for appropriate results./ > > J: Yes, the term "practice" is used in the texts, but it's a >question what it means as used. Unless the suttas or VsM doesn't define practice as "not doing anything", I believe that the word says what it says. > J: The "shoulds" apply to persons who meet the criteria specified in the preceding part of the text at III, 28 to IV, 20, namely that he/she: > - is a person of purified virtue > - has severed the ten impediments. > - has been given a meditation subject by an accomplished teacher. > - living in a place that is favourable to the development of concentration (as described) > - has severed the lesser impediments and has complied with all the other recommendations for development. > > These criteria, like the "shoulds" we are now discussing, are also not simply a matter of "doing" what is suggested in the text. They require ever greater levels of kusala (including panna). > > Jon > And that criteria will only occur if one does the above. With metta, Alex #110598 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:49 pm Subject: Re: Introduction!!! epsteinrob Hi Lukas. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Hi Robert R, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Lukas, and Mike. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > > > > "All of you have given up singing and dancing, the playing of musical instruments and the watching of entertainments, which are stumbling blocks to that which is wholesome. You do not bedeck yourselves with ornaments, flowers or perfume. For all of this day and night, in this manner, you will be known as having followed the arahants, and the Uposatha will have been observed by you. This is the seventh factor of the Uposatha."> > > > > > > L: So sensual entertainments are gona to bring suffering, no matter how subtle they are. > > > > I guess that singing Buddhist chants and prayers is not considered "singing?" I mention this because there is singing in Buddhist ritual, and it is not considered sensual or a stumbling block, so there must be some distinction between singing that is wholesome and that which is a stumbling block. > > L: Here, I think this only refers to sensual activities, not the chantings itself. > I think Uposatha Sutta can refer to siila samvara especially. So this is one kind of refraining that can be encounter in life. I think there is a worthwhile distinction between two ways of looking at samvara sila. One would be to avoid sensory activity that might excite the senses and cause disruptive reactions; and the other is the amount of restraint or control one has over the senses that keep akusala reactions from coming up when there is sensory experience. I think the latter is real restraint, whereas the former is more like avoidance. If there is enough sati and other qualities to guard the senses, then the reactions will be mindful instead of disruptive to development. If we are developed enough in our mindfulness and understanding [which I'm probably not] we can endure entertainments without getting lost in them or having akusala reactions. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #110599 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:51 pm Subject: Re: Introduction!!! epsteinrob Hi Chris. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > > I guess that singing Buddhist chants and prayers is not considered "singing?" I mention this because there is singing in Buddhist ritual, and it is not considered sensual or a stumbling block, so there must be some distinction between singing that is wholesome and that which is a stumbling block. > = = = = = = = = = > > > Hello Rob, > > This might be of interest: > > Bhikkhus, there are these five dangers when Dhamma is chanted with a long, singing sound: > 1. He is pleased with himself regarding that sound, (= pride) > 2. others are pleased regarding that sound (they have regard for it but not for Dhamma) > 3. householders look down upon him (as music is for those who enjoy sense-pleasures) > 4. while trying for accuracy of sound his concentration is broken, (he neglects the meaning of what he is chanting) > 5. people coming after fall into views (by emulation) ("saying: Our teachers and preceptors sang it thus" [Commentary] — a source of both pride and quarreling among later generations of Buddhists). > — Vinaya Pitaka, ii. 108 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khantipalo/wheel206.html#chanting Wow! That is very interesting. I guess you could say Buddha didn't leave much out! I guess if singing chants has that much potential danger, it might be worth asking why sing at all? They could have just recited the Dhamma rather than chanting it, but there must be some positive aspect to chanting that is worth the potential danger. [Other than my reason for thinking it's a good idea - that it would make it more enjoyable. :-) ] Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = =