#111400 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 4:02 pm Subject: Re: Buddha: "tiresome & troublesome for me" truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hello Nina, Sarah, Jon, KenH, Sukin, Herman, all, > > > > > > >Herman: So when the Buddha has a bad back, why does he change posture >and >recline, if he has no aversion to pain? If pleasure and pain are >all >of the same value, there is no need to react, is there? > > > > That is an interesting question, Herman. I don't know the answer. I wonder how would KS, Nina, Sarah, Jon, KenH, Sukin answer? > > > ------------ > Hi Alex, > > The Buddha had a lot of work to do - constantly walking from town to town, teaching thousands of people. He had to maintain his health for that. And pain is nature's warning; when the body is complaining something needs to be done about it. > > Ken H It is great that we agree that conventional reality and conventional action is important and it does matter. Thank you for your answer, With metta, Alex #111401 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 4:23 pm Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. kenhowardau Hi Ann (and Nina), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "glenjohnann" wrote: > > Dear Nina (Sukin and Rob E) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > N: I just take out one sentence which i find of interest. > > I was listening to a Thai DVD where this came up. The subject was the > > perfection of truthfulness. > > Kh Sujin asked someone what his motive for listening to the Dhammas > > was: answer: to have more understanding of realities. She asked > > whether he wanted to get anything else. His answer was: nothing else. > > Kh Sujin: this is the perfection of truthfulness, sacca parami. > > > > When the perfection of truthfulness develops, we do not want to get > > any advantage for ourselves, not even a happy rebirth. We see the > > benefit of understanding of realities, since this leads to having > > less clinging to self and eventually to the eradication of all > > defilements. > > ------ > > > A: I have to confess that this one caused me to pause - when I thought about my motive for listening to Dhamma - for better understanding of realities, less clinging to self, I thought. However, when I looked at the next question "Anything else?" - things did come to mind - things like "It feels better", as in it makes me feel good, I like listening. The loba of it all - the pleasant feeling. Reminded me of Phil's comment about pablum. So, realistically there is a mix of kusala and akusala motivation. And without really knowing moments of kusala from akusala, impossible to pinpoint which. Often I just sit down and start reading the DSG site - like a routine and never even think about why I am doing it. ------------------------- KH: I agree with what you say, Ann, and the same thing applies to me of course. But I think we are being a bit harsh with ourselves. When we have the right motive ("to have more understanding of realities") we know there can be no other right motive. We have no doubt about that. That doesn't stop us from having lobha, dosa and moha at other times. But we know at those other times there is no *real* listening to, or *real* discussion of the Dhamma. There is just idle enjoyment (etc). When we *are* listening to the true Dhamma we know beyond doubt that our only motive is "to have more understanding of realities." Ken H #111402 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 4:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep 13. sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, > > Sorry to make you have to go through all this. I'll put forth great > > effort to make this the last set of posts, and won't mind it whether > > this will be kusala or akusala / with or without self view. ;-) > > Well, I think it would be useful if you want to, to take one or two > points at a time and just post them from scratch, if there is anything > we still want to bring up. You know, one or two posts instead of 13, > and maybe we can handle a topic or two if they come up. > > I can't keep answering so many posts, so if there is anything you want > to say to my last round, I'll let you have the last word. I appreciate > all the hearty discussions! > You have put in quite a bit of effort, I appreciate it. But as you say, it may be better to discuss a little at a time. In case you missed the posts, in #111378 I suggested that we start a new discussion and #111379 I initiated it. I'll wait for your response. Metta, Sukinder #111403 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 4:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction kenhowardau Hi Howard, --- H: > Just to clarify: I made a mistake in addressing my post to "Ken and > Robert, and, most especially, Sarah." It must have seemed that I was attributing Sarah's words to you. I wasn't clear enough. sorry. ---- You were clear enough, and I knew you were talking mainly to Sarah. However, I wanted to make sure of a couple of things. In recanting my mistake (of thinking anatta could be a separate object of consciousness) I may have given the impression of recanting certain other things too (relating to sabhava). I wasn't! :-) Ken H #111404 From: "philip" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 5:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [6] philofillet Hi Nina and all and I don't understand how moments of pure awareness of seeing now > > can possibly get through that screen of thinking about seeing now, > > certainly not for me. > ------ > N: Your remark is certainly worth considering. Perhaps we can learn > to understand that just seeing is not the same as thinking about what > is seen or thinking about seeing. Can there be seeing without > thinking? There need not be thinking, thinking, all the time. > I agree with you that it is not easy to be sure of the difference > between thinking about realities and direct awareness of them. When > trying to be aware it is not awareness. Listening can condition > awareness, but we do not know when. Only when awareness arises we > shall know. It is essential to know the difference between the > moments of sati and the moments there is no sati. Ph: You wrote "when trying to be aware, it is not awareness, listening can condition awareness, but we do not know when." Certainly I can agree with this. What I wonder is if the emphasis you and others put on being aware of the present reality, investigating it, wouldn't it put up a screen to that awareness by conditioning too much thinking? One of the things I always remember hearing from A.S, a great talk, was about the dome of lobha, or something like that. I could really appreciate, understand, how there is a great dome of lobha and only a few moments of awareness/understanding that penetrates it. Now I wonder if the terms I used "a screen of thinking" might not be related to that. As I've said before, it seems so natural and unavoidable that lobha be at the heart of our approach to Dhamma. It has to feed somewhere, and if we are fortunate enough to have developed freedom from lobha feeding in harmful places, isn't it natural that it feed on Dhamma? The dome of lobha, a screen of thinking, one conditioning the other, I don't know. But I feel very, very far from investigation of realities in a way that is anything but wanting and trying. So I shy away from it, sensing it would be a bit of an exploitation for me. THen again, maybe all the thinking does condition the moments of pure awareness and I am missing out on satipatthana. No worries, I am busy with other aspects of Dhamma, and I am grateful that you and others bring the deeper aspects to my attention, though I might sound ungrateful at times....and I am also happy if you and others continue to consider to what degree wanting and thinking and trying are likely to be involved when a respected teachers reminds us to investigate realities.... Metta, Phil #111405 From: "philip" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 5:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [6] philofillet Hi again I'll just add another thing that occurred to me. It seems to me that in daily life we are always under attack by all kinds of vipaka, it can be so intense and so challenging, so much dosa, so much lobha to get away from that dosa, thus more dosa, and so on. I think if we are wanting to investigate realities, investigating realities will be done in a way that helps us to cope with all that harsh and/or seductive vipaka in a comfortable way, we seek comfort all the time, we are so conditioned to do so. Thought I don't do so-called "satipatthana meditation" or vipassana, I can see that an advantage to it would be that the vipaka that we are going to be dealing with will be less extreme, less demanding of coping mechanisms from lobha. I think we would be better off seeking satipatthana in situations where that need for lobha to regulate and manipulate our response to harsh and seductive vipaka would be less extreme. That's why I don't get why you and others think there is more attempt to control in formal meditation, it seems to me that our intrinsic desire for physical and mental comfort would condition more attempts to control and manipulate when having an interest in satipatthana in daily life. If my interest in satipatthana ever returns, it is almost surely to be through formal meditation, I suspect, that feels more suitable to us, our defilements, our need for comfort, so strong, too strong to aspire to satipatthna out in the world, in daily life. Just some thoughts... Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Nina and all > > and I don't understand how moments of pure awareness of seeing now > > > can possibly get through that screen of thinking about seeing now, > > > certainly not for me. > > ------ > > N: Your remark is certainly worth considering. Perhaps we can learn > > to understand that just seeing is not the same as thinking about what > > is seen or thinking about seeing. Can there be seeing without > > thinking? There need not be thinking, thinking, all the time. > > I agree with you that it is not easy to be sure of the difference > > between thinking about realities and direct awareness of them. When > > trying to be aware it is not awareness. Listening can condition > > awareness, but we do not know when. Only when awareness arises we > > shall know. It is essential to know the difference between the > > moments of sati and the moments there is no sati. > > > > Ph: You wrote "when trying to be aware, it is not awareness, listening can condition awareness, but we do not know when." > > Certainly I can agree with this. What I wonder is if the emphasis you and others put on being aware of the present reality, investigating it, wouldn't it put up a screen to that awareness by conditioning too much thinking? One of the things I always remember hearing from A.S, a great talk, was about the dome of lobha, or something like that. I could really appreciate, understand, how there is a great dome of lobha and only a few moments of awareness/understanding that penetrates it. Now I wonder if the terms I used "a screen of thinking" might not be related to that. As I've said before, it seems so natural and unavoidable that lobha be at the heart of our approach to Dhamma. It has to feed somewhere, and if we are fortunate enough to have developed freedom from lobha feeding in harmful places, isn't it natural that it feed on Dhamma? The dome of lobha, a screen of thinking, one conditioning the other, I don't know. But I feel very, very far from investigation of realities in a way that is anything but wanting and trying. So I shy away from it, sensing it would be a bit of an exploitation for me. THen again, maybe all the thinking does condition the moments of pure awareness and I am missing out on satipatthana. No worries, I am busy with other aspects of Dhamma, and I am grateful that you and others bring the deeper aspects to my attention, though I might sound ungrateful at times....and I am also happy if you and others continue to consider to what degree wanting and thinking and trying are likely to be involved when a respected teachers reminds us to investigate realities.... > > Metta, > > Phil > #111406 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 6:20 pm Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. glenjohnann Hi Ken (Nina and all) > KH: I agree with what you say, Ann, and the same thing applies to me of course. But I think we are being a bit harsh with ourselves. > > When we have the right motive ("to have more understanding of realities") we know there can be no other right motive. We have no doubt about that. > > That doesn't stop us from having lobha, dosa and moha at other times. But we know at those other times there is no *real* listening to, or *real* discussion of the Dhamma. There is just idle enjoyment (etc). > > When we *are* listening to the true Dhamma we know beyond doubt that our only motive is "to have more understanding of realities." A: You are right, Ken. Different moments. When one is truly listening to true Dhamma and considering, the motive is more than likely to be to have more understanding. The loba, idle enjoyment etc. - different moments. I do like the question, though, "anything else?". Ann #111407 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 6:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Alex, > I agree that there are only namarupas, that they are fully > conditioned, no-control, etc. > > I also agree that self view is wrong. > > However, with all of that being said. What is wrong in engaging in the > activities outlined in satipatthana sutta, for example? > S: Perhaps the right question is, "Given the understanding, how are we to read / interpret the Satipatthana Sutta?" ========== > Of course those things "just happen" (no self, no control). > S: Perhaps this is not good enough. Nothing"just happens", they all arise due to particular set of conditions and fall away together instantly. This must be kept in mind, because it will lead us not to ignore the fact of the present reality being one kind of condition, different from another moment. For example, seeing is resultant consciousness, different from the thinking, which is impulsion and we need to understand this. Moreover there can be kusala and akusala citta with the corresponding intentions, but if we didn't know better, we might end up being taken in by the stories conditioned by those intentions, all the while ignorant about the present moment reality. ========== > > Going to the gym, practicing a skill (such as playing a piano), does > happen because of impersonal conditions. > S: Again here we need to be precise, 'going to the gym' and 'practicing the piano' are concepts and we need to take care not to give it any value beyond that. Playing piano in a dream does not involve seeing, touching, hearing, sound, hardness and so on and no 'skill' is being developed, however, in both cases concept is product of thinking and all the realities that are in fact there, are equally conditioned and fleeting. It is these realities that are to be known, and the only worthy skills to have is this ability to understand them. ========== > > But just like going to the gym or practicing playing the piano is > required for mastery of those skills/abilities, same when it comes to > satipatthana. > S: Yes panna gets developed and along with saddha, viriya, sati and samadhi becomes Indriya and subsequently Bala. ========== > > > Do you suggest that because there is no control, one should indulge in > whatever mind wants (surfing, watching TV, etc etc) without trying to > control reality? Please explain. > S: Because dhammas arise and fall away by conditions and hence not within any control, trying to make particular dhammas arise by following some conventional idea about 'practice' is reflection of wrong understanding. It is this Wrong Understanding which I'm critical of and this should not be taken to mean that I then encourage other kinds of akusala. Akusala citta as with all dhammas that has arisen in the moment has fallen away already, so why continue to think about it, given especially that another reality has arisen to take its place and another and another, the urgency hence is to understand. And this needs to be developed, obviously not by any 'doing' since this would in fact take us in the opposite direction. ========== > > > BTW, since there is no-control, it makes no sense to say "he attempted > to control realities" as it cannot possibly occur. There are kusala > and akusala actions. > S: Of course there are only conditioned realities. However this understanding would only be correct if at the same time there is no insistence on then 'doing' something about these realities or 'attempting to control'. To do so and saying that this could be kusala, is to have one's cake and eat it too. ========= > Satipatthana practices are kusala, worldly are not. > S: Yes, satipatthana is kusala of the highest order. ========= > > Because Kusala is a skill, it has to be developed, and satipatthana > does that. > S: Satipatthana is Right View at the level of direct understanding. It is of the opposite nature to the understanding which sees the importance of particular time, place, posture and object in order to develop the skill. Metta, Sukinder #111408 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 6:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep truth_aerator Hi Sukin, all, > S: Perhaps this is not good enough. Nothing"just happens", they all > arise due to particular set of conditions and fall away together > instantly. I agree with the above. > This must be kept in mind, because it will lead us not to > ignore the fact of the present reality being one kind of condition, > different from another moment. Right. And what happens now is important. Kusala or akusala actions do matter, they do bring their own vipakas. >For example, seeing is resultant consciousness, different from the >thinking, which is impulsion and we need to understand this. I agree. >Moreover there can be kusala and akusala citta > with the corresponding intentions, but if we didn't know better, we > might end up being taken in by the stories conditioned by those > intentions, all the while ignorant about the present moment reality. Right. Nothing that you've said above goes against what development of satipatthana is all about. > ========== > > > > Going to the gym, practicing a skill (such as playing a piano), does > > happen because of impersonal conditions. > > > > S: Again here we need to be precise, 'going to the gym' and >'practicing the piano' are concepts and we need to take care not >to give it any value beyond that. I used a simile. Furthermore, in one of our favourite suttas (satipatthana sutta) it does talk about Being aware of 4 postures & minor movements 4 elements contemplation Cemetery contemplation of body in decay Anapanasati 32 bodyparts contemplation > Playing piano in a dream does not involve seeing, > touching, hearing, sound, hardness and so on and no 'skill' is >being developed, I was not talking about "in a dream". BTW, some say that it is possible to practice skills in lucid dreams. >however, in both cases concept is product of thinking and all > the realities that are in fact there, are equally conditioned and > fleeting. It is these realities that are to be known, and the only > worthy skills to have is this ability to understand them. Right. Understanding is a must. But does this means that one rejects what our favourite sutta, satipatthana sutta, says? > > > > Do you suggest that because there is no control, one should indulge in > > whatever mind wants (surfing, watching TV, etc etc) without trying to > > control reality? Please explain. > > > > S: Because dhammas arise and fall away by conditions and hence not > within any control, trying to make particular dhammas arise by > following some conventional idea about 'practice' is reflection of >wrong understanding. It seems to me that indulging in kilesas is an example of indulgence and rational justification. I don't remember Buddha saying anywhere something like "if you want to do kilesas, do them." And it seems that that kind of belief is one of the factors responcible for kilesas to arise and strengthen. > S: Satipatthana is Right View at the level of direct understanding. >It is of the opposite nature to the understanding which sees the >importance of particular time, place, posture and object in order to >develop the skill. Near the begining of Satipatthana sutta it does say: ""There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html It does talk about a specific posture: "sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect" It does talk about a specific place: "having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building" And it definitely talk about specific objects: Anapanasati 4 major and minor postures 4 elements cemetery contemplations 32 body parts contemplation. With metta, Alex #111409 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 2:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/1/2010 7:53:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: You were clear enough, and I knew you were talking mainly to Sarah. However, I wanted to make sure of a couple of things. In recanting my mistake (of thinking anatta could be a separate object of consciousness) I may have given the impression of recanting certain other things too (relating to sabhava). I wasn't! :-) --------------------------------------------- Oh, I see. :-) No, I didn't think you were saying anything other than that. ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111410 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 7:28 pm Subject: Re: A discussion about reality kenhowardau Hi Herman, ------ <. . .> KH: >> If that wasn't about an analysis of reading an email, what was it about? >> H: > I do not consider mindfulness to be analysis. It sounds like you do. ------ No, I consider mindfulness - in the conventional sense of the word - to mean "thinking about". So, had you said, "Now while reading this email, there is thinking about "this email"" I would have agreed. In the paramattha-dhamma sense, mindfulness is sati - mindfulness of the application of kusala consciousness. I don't think you meant that, did you? ---------------- <. . .> > H: >>> You will note, perhaps, that what is defining of my descriptions, is the act. >>> KH: >> Sorry, that one has gone over my head, >> H: > Perhaps the following will clarify: > Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' ---------------- I think at that stage in the Satipatthana Sutta the Buddha was referring to discernment of nama and rupa. So, had you said, "Now while reading this email, I understand there are really only the presently arisen namas and rupas," I would have agreed. ----------- <. . .> H: > When there is believing in right belief, that's what there is. When there is believing in wrong belief, that's what there is. ----------- Believing in right belief and wrong belief can mean believing there are absolute realities known as 'right view' and 'wrong view'. I'd agree with that. Ken H #111411 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 8:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality egberdina Hi Ken H, On 2 November 2010 13:28, Ken H wrote: > > > > Hi Herman, > > ------ > <. . .> > KH: >> If that wasn't about an analysis of reading an email, what was it > about? > >> > > H: > I do not consider mindfulness to be analysis. It sounds like you do. > ------ > > No, I consider mindfulness - in the conventional sense of the word - to > mean "thinking about". So, had you said, "Now while reading this email, > there is thinking about "this email"" I would have agreed. > > Oh, OK. I consider mindfulness to be reflective awareness. I doubt very much that reading an email is even possible without some mindfulness of my variety. Reading an email includes being aware that this is happening. On the other hand, thinking about this email is a different activity altogether, isn't it? >In the paramattha-dhamma sense, mindfulness is sati - mindfulness of the application of kusala consciousness. I don't think you meant that, did you? No, I didn't. And from what people have been writing lately, no-one actually knows what they mean when they say stuff like that. > ---------------- > <. . .> > > > H: >>> You will note, perhaps, that what is defining of my descriptions, > is the act. > >>> > > KH: >> Sorry, that one has gone over my head, > >> > > H: > Perhaps the following will clarify: > > > > Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing > out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he > discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I > am breathing out short.' > ---------------- > > I think at that stage in the Satipatthana Sutta the Buddha was referring to > discernment of nama and rupa. > > Hmmm, that is an interesting, and perplexing interpretation of some very plain, non-perplexing Pali sentences. So, had you said, "Now while reading this email, I understand there are > really only the presently arisen namas and rupas," I would have agreed. > > If I had said that, I would have been a liar. Because that is not at all what is being understood as I am reading the email and aware of that fact. > ----------- > <. . .> > H: > When there is believing in right belief, that's what there is. When > there is believing in wrong belief, that's what there is. > ----------- > > Believing in right belief and wrong belief can mean believing there are > absolute realities known as 'right view' and 'wrong view'. I'd agree with > that. > > Believing is something we are all prone to. When mindful, there is a knowable difference between believing and knowing, though. Cheers Herman #111412 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 8:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddha: "tiresome & troublesome for me" egberdina Hi Ken H and Alex, On 2 November 2010 09:00, Ken H wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hello Nina, Sarah, Jon, KenH, Sukin, Herman, all, > > > > > > >Herman: So when the Buddha has a bad back, why does he change posture > >and >recline, if he has no aversion to pain? If pleasure and pain are >all > >of the same value, there is no need to react, is there? > > > > That is an interesting question, Herman. I don't know the answer. I > wonder how would KS, Nina, Sarah, Jon, KenH, Sukin answer? > > > ------------ > Hi Alex, > > The Buddha had a lot of work to do - constantly walking from town to town, > teaching thousands of people. He had to maintain his health for that. And > pain is nature's warning; when the body is complaining something needs to be > done about it. > > And not only did the Buddha suffer physical pain, and reacted to minimise that, he also suffered the mental pain that comes with being surrounded by complete pains in the ass, and reacted accordingly. Udana IV:5 Then, while the Lord was in solitude and seclusion, this thought arose in his mind: "Formerly I was living hemmed in by bhikkhus and bhikkhunis... and I was living in discomfort and not at ease. But now I live not hemmed in by bhikkhus and bhikkhunis... in comfort and at ease." And also this thought arose in that bull elephant's mind: "Formerly I was living hemmed in by elephants and she-elephants... and I was living in discomfort and not at ease, but now I live not hemmed in by elephants and she-elephants... I eat unbroken grass and (others) do not eat the branches which I break down. I drink clear water and on going down and coming out of the water I am not jostled by she-elephants, and I live in comfort and at ease." Then the Lord, on observing his own solitude, understood with his mind the thought in the mind of that bull elephant, and uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance: *This unites mind with mind, The perfected one and the bull elephant With tusks as long as chariot-poles: That each delights in being alone in the forest.* Cheers Herman #111413 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 9:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > You appear to be saying that some concepts have referents, some don't, > and that concepts are namas, and I have no problem with that. In terms of what you are saying, I agree. I have discovered, however, that "concept" is not used to describe the act of thinking in dhamma theory, but instead to define the imaginary object of the thought; ie, you would not say that the thought of unicorn = the concept of unicorn, therefore, the concept is a nama; but you would say that the thought is a nama, and the object of the thought - the unicorn - is the concept being referenced by that thought; ie, the thought is real and is a nama; its object, the unicorn is imaginary, and is a concept. > > By the way, I disagree with Ken H. that since only namas and rupas exist, a > > stream of namas and rupas cannot exist, and is a concept. That is not > > logical. A stream of namas and rupas refers to how the namas and rupas are > > organized, not to another existent other than namas and rupas. No one is > > saying there are namas and rupas and streams, just that namas and rupas are > > organized in different streams, which is the only way to explain why you and > > I experience a different set of namas and rupas. Each of us is like a > > separate portal through which come certain experiences. We don't experience > > the same ones. > > > > > I wonder how you can say that namas and rupas are organised in streams, and > yet deny there are streams? I'm not denying that there are streams of namas and rupas; I am denying that "stream" is an existential category, rather than a further specification of how namas and rupas occur. In other words, if water comes in waves, I would not deny that there are waves, but waves is not a category separate from the water, it is a form that water appears in, and is its constituent element. Streams exist, but are only composed of namas and rupas, nothing else. They are not a substance in their own right; therefore, the existence of streams does not add another existential category to namas and rupas. > > If I "stream" video to you over the internet, the only thing that exists in > > the stream is video, there is not a "stream" on the one hand, and a "video" > > on the other hand; > > > > > The specific stream is the specific relations between the specific video > bits. Without those relations (eg clock rates) you would be streaming noise. Sure, and if water was dispersed in some other ways, you would not have coherent waves, but only splashing or foam, or still water or whatever; but whatever form the water appears in, there's nobody in there but water; and the streams have nothing in them but nama and rupa. > > streaming is just the method of delivery of the video, not another object > > that contains the video. So a stream of namas and rupas would just be > > composed of namas and rupas, nothing else. > > > > > I disagree. Relationships between nama and rupa are neither nama or rupa. Are relations a "thing?" Do they have substance without their constituent elements? Do waves exist as something other than water? If so, what is the additional element that makes a wave a "wave?" And what would be the analogous element that makes a stream of nama and rupa a "stream?" Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111414 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 9:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > On 31 October 2010 17:28, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Herman. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > Herman wrote: > > > > > The end of suffering for Buddhists is death without rebirth. The 4th > > noble > > > truth is the way that leads to that extinction. > > > > Hm. I don't see permanent extinction as the end of the path. > > > > That's fine, of course. What is paranibbana, in your opinion? Extinction of the kandhas, ie, the All, and graduation of consciousness to a state of perfect emptiness and peace. However, one doesn't get to cessation without a transformation of consciousness via nibbana, and I am not convinced that transformed consciousness, eg, impersonal awareness, is extinguished in parinibbana. > > I see extinction of the kandhas as the end of the path, but nibbana is not > > included in the kandhas, and no one achieves extinction of the kandhas > > without experiencing nibbana. > > > > Experience and the khandas are synonymous. How can the khandas be > extinguished and yet there be an experience of something? If nibbana is not experienced, or in some other way realized, what is nibbana and what kind of existence does it have, in your view? There are suggestions in sutta that there is a state of experience that is nibbanic and is beyond the kandhas. It would have nothing in common with what we normally consider experience. > > And so, one's awareness is transformed by experiencing nibbana before the > > kandhas stop arising. That is a little different than simple extinction - > > well, a lot different. > > > > > It would be, if it were possible :-) Do you know that it's not? > > > I have no doubts about the reality of nibbana, but I left the space > > > intentionally blank because liberation from samsara is a moot point while > > I > > > am still alive. > > > > Hm. I don't see it as a totally moot point. I may know nothing about > > California, but if I'm planning to drive there, I would not leave the > > "California" part of the map "intentionally blank," I'd want to at least > > have a diagram of where I am heading, in order to get there accurately. > > > > If you believe that it is possible to remain alive and yet be free from all > craving whatsoever, then I would have to disagree with you there. I am not sure one would be alive at that point in the usual sense. One would no longer be a participant in personhood on any level, so most likely it would be beyond any participation in form. In other > words, I would think that the bit of the map that has your intended > destination on it, is a concept without a referent. I would put it a different way - if such a destination does exist, upon reaching it the traveller would no longer exist as such. It's a destination one becomes rather than reaches. Same thing happens when you approach the speed of light in physics. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111415 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 9:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > I think the sticking point here is that people believe that they are to > > develop Right View, which the Buddha said leads all the other factors in the > > path, and that No View is not Right View. So what would you say to such > > folks to reconcile these two ideas? > > > > > I would say that I read exactly the same sources as they do. ...IMO an a-historical view of the dhamma could never be > a right view of it. Well the statement from the sutta is beautifully clear and suggestive: "...for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the least notion. That brahmana who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the world?" So let me ask you: If it is true that the prerequisite for being an arahat is "not grasping at views" and having no "fixed viewpoint," how would you define Right View, the forerunner of all the views in the Eightfold Noble Path? And is there any way that thinking of any theory of reality as Right View can be reconciled with the statement above from the sutta? It seems that the sutta is advocating not having a fixed doctrine of any kind, but to rely on direct, unmitigated awareness. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111416 From: "Christine" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 9:44 pm Subject: Type of being who can never attain Nibbana christine_fo... Hello all, I remember hearing in BKK or reading on this list the word which stands for a Being who can never attain Nibbana.... but I can't bring it to mind. Any thoughts or assistance would be appreciated. with metta Chris #111417 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 9:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > On 31 October 2010 17:46, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Herman. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > Herman wrote: > > > > > When one is engaged in any activity of daily life, both feet are firmly > > > planted in the world of the five senses. That is not the case when > > engaged > > > in meditation. When engaged in meditation, what is one mainly engaged with? > I think the intention to be free of ignorance is delusional, and cannot bear > fruit :-) (a bit like intending to become intelligent) What do you consider to be the purpose of Buddhist study and meditation? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111418 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 9:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha: "tiresome & troublesome for me" epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > On 1 November 2010 01:06, truth_aerator wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Herman, all, > > > > >H: Do you think that the Buddha had no values ? > > > > It all depends on what you mean by values. Buddha certainly knew what is > > right and what was wrong. He still had memory of the past. > > > > According to the suttas, the Buddha had thoughts and intentions. It was > > just that they were not conditioned by 10 fetters or 3 unwholesome roots. > > > > > So when the Buddha has a bad back, why does he change posture and recline, > if he has no aversion to pain? If pleasure and pain are all of the same > value, there is no need to react, is there? I wonder if having no aversion is the same as being insensible? I think you may have a point, but on the other hand, it is possible that even without aversion, one would do what is most natural - ie, if there is discomfort in position A, adopt position B. The real test would come if the Buddha proliferated on the discomfort, rather than merely adjusting to it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #111419 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 9:51 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: ...I think Robert E and I were concentrating so much on the inherent/non-inherent nature of anatta that I lost the plot for a while. > > The same goes for the abyss/starry-night debacle: too much theorising, not enough staying on track. :-) I think it's fine, Ken - it was just anatta way of looking at it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111420 From: Sukinderpal Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 9:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. sukinderpal Hello Nina, Ann, Ken H, Thank you for your input. > > But of course the actual reference is to the arising of panna, a > > > conditioned reality, beyond control. And while in the case of Dhamma > > > study there is no claim to such things as 'setting up conditions' or > > > that panna is more likely to arise at such times than any other > > time, > > > > Then why do it? If that is the case, please tell me your exact > > motivation for studying Dhamma. > ------- > N: I just take out one sentence which i find of interest. > I was listening to a Thai DVD where this came up. The subject was the > perfection of truthfulness. > Kh Sujin asked someone what his motive for listening to the Dhammas > was: answer: to have more understanding of realities. She asked > whether he wanted to get anything else. His answer was: nothing else. > Kh Sujin: this is the perfection of truthfulness, sacca parami. > > When the perfection of truthfulness develops, we do not want to get > any advantage for ourselves, not even a happy rebirth. We see the > benefit of understanding of realities, since this leads to having > less clinging to self and eventually to the eradication of all > defilements. > Like Ann, I am curious about what exactly A. Sujin was referring to when she said, "this is the perfection of truthfulness". Would it be correct to say that Truthfulness is the inclination not to misinterpret the present reality, for example, if there are akusala motives, we shouldn't think that it is kusala? What about remembering wrong and therefore misinforming? This would be carelessness for sure, but would it also reflect lack of Truthfulness? Metta, Sukinder #111421 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 10:14 pm Subject: Re: A discussion about reality epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi all, > > Now while reading this email, there is reading this email. > > Does anyone have any problems with that? No problem with that - however, that statement can be further broken down and specified, as to what is involved in experiencing this. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #111422 From: "Christine" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 10:19 pm Subject: Re: Type of being who can never attain Nibbana christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" wrote: > > Hello all, > > I remember hearing in BKK or reading on this list the word which stands for a Being who can never attain Nibbana.... but I can't bring it to mind. > > Any thoughts or assistance would be appreciated. > > with metta > Chris > Hello all, I have been told that the mahayana term is Skt: icchantika but feel that I have seen a Theravada term also. Most happy to be corrected. with metta Chris #111423 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 10:04 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > 2) Good to remember that external ayatanas are defined by similes in Vism. (?) as being village raiding daicots (marauders?) and that they are said to lash (beat, flog? I forget the exact verb) the internal ayatanas - this is irregardless of whether they are kusala or akusala vipaka. It is very safe to say that wholesome vipaka tends to condition akusala kamma unless there is steady sensitivity to the Buddha's teaching, a strong willingness to be aware of dangers. > "Who is he who is unafraid of wrongdoing?" asks one sutta? It is he who does not reflect "if unarisen evil states arise, it will be for my harm" or words to that effect. We should be afraid of wrongdoing at all times, especially when things are going well.... I wonder if there is any confusion between kusala vipaka and pleasant vipaka? Are they always the same thing? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111424 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 10:12 pm Subject: Re: A Discussion between Robert Ep. and Sukinder epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Robert Ep, > > > I'd like to begin with the question: > > "Now while reading this email, there is seeing and there is thinking, > are these real?" They are real, insofar as they are taking place, for sure. > "If so why, if not why?" What is experienced is a real experience. To go beyond this, one must leave experience and access analysis, which is always second-hand. > Only this for now. > > Metta, > > Sukinder > > PS: If you'd like to be the one asking me questions or to have the > discussion some other way, please go ahead. That's fine; no need to assign a role. I am happy to answer; if I think of a question, I will ask as well. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111425 From: "philip" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 11:21 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Rob E and all > I wonder if there is any confusion between kusala vipaka and pleasant vipaka? Are they always the same thing? Good point, if I'm not mistaken kusala vipaka (which is not technically 'kusala' if I recall correctly, but rather the result of kusala kamma, it is a sense door consciousness, so ....kirya or something like that? My Abhidhamma knowledge is sliding away...) comes in the form of pleasant body or mental feeling? Can anyone clarify for us, thanks. OK, now some related thoughts.... I keep thinking about this topic, I find it very interesting. I think I (so to speak) am moving towards a pretty tough attitude towards sense pleasures. I want to avoid becoming a harsh puritan, but my sense from studying the Buddha's teaching these days is that it would be a mistake to believe that because we are householders we should feel comfortable about sliding along enjoying sense pleasures without a sense of samvega about it. For example this, from MN 6:19: "Now, Udaya(sp?), the pleasure and joy that arise dependant on these 5 chords of sensual pleasure are called sensual pleasure...a filthy pleasure, a coarse pleasure - I say of this kind of pleasure that it should not be pursued, developed, cultivated, that it should be feared..." This is not the kind of teaching that attracts Westerners (or Asians for that matter) to good old cozy anything goes Buddhism, but I like it. It seems that I have a natural tendency towards this kind of thing, I can rememeber even 25 years ago, in my mid-twenties, a friend wondering why I was hoping to stop having sexual fantasies, and that was before I came across Buddhism. That kind of renunciation seems natural to me, and now there are circumstances in my life that will give me an opportunity to toughen my attitude towards sense pleasures. A bit of a ramble, cuz i am interested in the pleasant vipaka>mindless craving>akusala kamma patha galore> animal realm/hell rebirth chain and aspire to avoid it. The key for me is to find a way to also maintain a gentle, generous, friendly attitude towards people even as I toughen my attitude towards sense pleasures. That's possible. Meditation and the safely pleasant mind states it conditions makes it possible, without meditation I'd be screwed, I think. Metta, Phil #111426 From: "sukinderpal" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 11:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Alex, > > S: Again here we need to be precise, 'going to the gym' and >'practicing the piano' are concepts and we need to take care not >to give it any value beyond that. > >Alex: I used a simile. Furthermore, in one of our favourite suttas (satipatthana sutta) it does talk about > > Being aware of 4 postures & minor movements > 4 elements contemplation > Cemetery contemplation of body in decay > Anapanasati > 32 bodyparts contemplation > > >however, in both cases concept is product of thinking and all > > the realities that are in fact there, are equally conditioned and > > fleeting. It is these realities that are to be known, and the only > > worthy skills to have is this ability to understand them. > > Alex: Right. Understanding is a must. But does this means that one rejects what our favourite sutta, satipatthana sutta, says? Suk: As I suggested in the last post, given the understanding that there are only conditioned realities and that these are to be known, the question to ask is, "how is the Satipatthana Sutta to be interpreted"? ============== > > > Do you suggest that because there is no control, one should indulge in > > > whatever mind wants (surfing, watching TV, etc etc) without trying to > > > control reality? Please explain. > > > > > > > S: Because dhammas arise and fall away by conditions and hence not > > within any control, trying to make particular dhammas arise by > > following some conventional idea about 'practice' is reflection of >wrong understanding. > > Alex: It seems to me that indulging in kilesas is an example of indulgence and rational justification. I don't remember Buddha saying anywhere something like "if you want to do kilesas, do them." Suk: Why should a suggestion to understand whatever arises now, lead to the conclusion that one is allowing oneself to indulge in akusala? A moment of dosa arises and falls away in an instant; this is how it is known to panna. Why should one then think to do something about that which is not there? Would not the thought `to do', in fact be a case of having not understood, but gone on to feed the illusion of lastingness and a `self' who must act? =========== > Alex: And it seems that that kind of belief is one of the factors responcible for kilesas to arise and strengthen. Suk: On the contrary, it is the same stuff to that which is responsible for gradual eradication of all kilesas, the first of which is wrong view. =========== > > S: Satipatthana is Right View at the level of direct understanding. >It is of the opposite nature to the understanding which sees the >importance of particular time, place, posture and object in order to >develop the skill. > > > Alex: Near the begining of Satipatthana sutta it does say: > ""There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html > > It does talk about a specific posture: > "sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect" > > It does talk about a specific place: > "having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building" > > And it definitely talk about specific objects: > Anapanasati > 4 major and minor postures > 4 elements > cemetery contemplations > 32 body parts contemplation. Suk: And it talks about activities such as bending forward, sideways and backwards, wearing the robes, defecating, etc. So why is it that you highlight and particularly follow `sitting' in a particular posture? And regarding object, I was talking about the chosen object such as breath, and asking why if understanding nama and rupa is the objective, that one chooses to focus on or use as anchor, that one object? Metta, Sukinder #111427 From: Herman Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 11:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Discussion about Sukinder's discussions egberdina Hi Sukin, On 2 November 2010 01:45, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > Hi Robert Ep, > > I'd like to begin with the question: > > "Now while reading this email, there is seeing and there is thinking, > are these real?" > > No. Seeing without a seen object is anywhere from careless talk to abject nonsense, and so is thinking without a corresponding thought. There never is just seeing or thinking. Further, why your question needs to be put is beyond me, because you already acknowledge that reading this email is what is real. "If so why, if not why?" > > See above. > Only this for now. > I hope I was clear. Cheers Herman Cheers #111428 From: "Christine" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 11:20 pm Subject: Re: Type of being who can never attain Nibbana christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > I remember hearing in BKK or reading on this list the word which stands for a Being who can never attain Nibbana.... but I can't bring it to mind. > > > > Any thoughts or assistance would be appreciated. > > > > with metta > > Chris > > > Hello all, > > I have been told that the mahayana term is Skt: icchantika but feel that I have seen a Theravada term also. Most happy to be corrected. > > with metta > Chris > Hello all, Apparently my memory is more faulty than I realised. I raised this very question back in 2007 and Larry and Sarah put me straight. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/74969 (blush) with metta Chris #111429 From: "sukinderpal" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 11:44 pm Subject: Re: A Discussion between Robert Ep. and Sukinder sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, =========== > > "Now while reading this email, there is seeing and there is thinking, > > are these real?" > > R: They are real, insofar as they are taking place, for sure. S: Next question. What does seeing experience and what does thinking experience? ============ > > "If so why, if not why?" > > R: What is experienced is a real experience. S: This is confusing. Do you not distinguish the experience from that which is experienced? ============ R: To go beyond this, one must leave experience and access analysis, which is always second-hand. S: Or you could begin to understand that which otherwise is not apparent and this must necessarily begin at the conceptual level. There shouldn't be a problem about anything being second-hand, if we take it that we are on the path of a Savaka. Metta, Sukinder #111430 From: "Christine" Date: Mon Nov 1, 2010 11:50 pm Subject: Re: Type of being who can never attain Nibbana christine_fo... Surprise!!! As tiltbillings says … `' And just when you think there is nothing new to know….'' There is a great deal more on this subject …… Buswell mentions the Theravāda idea of ekantakāḷaka from the Abhidhamma Puggalapaññatti and its commentary http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=6144&view=unread#p96594 AND http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=6144&view=unread#p96595 with metta Chris #111431 From: "sukinderpal" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 12:06 am Subject: Re: A Discussion about Sukinder's discussions sukinderpal Hi Herman, > > "Now while reading this email, there is seeing and there is thinking, > > are these real?" > > > > > Herman: No. > > Seeing without a seen object is anywhere from careless talk to abject > nonsense, and so is thinking without a corresponding thought. There never is > just seeing or thinking. Suk: Well, this is thinking and although a statement of fact, refers to that which is never the object of direct experience. When wisdom arises, as with the consciousness and accompanying mental factors, there is ever only one object of experience. ========== > Herman: Further, why your question needs to be put is beyond me, because you already > acknowledge that reading this email is what is real. Suk: Nope, that was only a reference point to draw the attention to those particular realities. Metta, Sukinder #111432 From: Herman Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 12:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Discussion about Sukinder's discussions egberdina Hi Sukin, On 2 November 2010 18:06, sukinderpal wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > > > > "Now while reading this email, there is seeing and there is thinking, > > > are these real?" > > > > > > > > Herman: No. > > > > > Seeing without a seen object is anywhere from careless talk to abject > > nonsense, and so is thinking without a corresponding thought. There never > is > > just seeing or thinking. > > Suk: Well, this is thinking. > No, it is not. What is experienced is the object. Thinking, seeing, hearing are not an object, they are explanations for an object. > and although a statement of fact, refers to that which is never the object > of direct experience. > What are you talking about? > When wisdom arises, as with the consciousness and accompanying mental > factors, there is ever only one object of experience. > This is not a discussion about reading emails at all, is it? It smells very much like yet another repeat of your particular regurgitation of a particular theory of perception. Cheers Herman > > ========== > > Herman: Further, why your question needs to be put is beyond me, because > you already > > > acknowledge that reading this email is what is real. > > Suk: Nope, that was only a reference point to draw the attention to those > particular realities. > Which particular realities? Cheers Herman #111433 From: Sukinderpal Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 1:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Discussion about Sukinder's discussions sukinderpal Hi Herman (and Robert Ep), >> Suk: Well, this is thinking. >> > No, it is not. > > What is experienced is the object. Thinking, seeing, hearing are not an > object, they are explanations for an object. > S: You were not thinking when you said: "> Seeing without a seen object is anywhere from careless talk to abject > nonsense, and so is thinking without a corresponding thought. There never is > just seeing or thinking." So what was in fact happening? ======== >> and although a statement of fact, refers to that which is never the object >> of direct experience. >> > What are you talking about? S: When I asked Robert Ep if there is seeing , sure I could as well have asked if there was "visible object", but this wasn't necessary. You came out and objected, saying that there can't be seeing without its object. So I responded with the suggestion that although what you said is true, it is not what the point of my discussion was, which is understanding what appears one at a time. ========= >> When wisdom arises, as with the consciousness and accompanying mental >> factors, there is ever only one object of experience. >> > This is not a discussion about reading emails at all, is it? It smells very > much like yet another repeat of your particular regurgitation of a > particular theory of perception. S: It isn't and never was intended to be. It is you who brought up in your own thread this topic about the experience of emails. I only wished to discuss about seeing and thinking with Robert Ep. Your stating that I'm regurgitating does not help, because I know what I'm doing. Metta, Sukinder #111434 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 3:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. nilovg Dear Ann, I am glad you come in with your comments, always useful, I think. Op 1-nov-2010, om 23:33 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven: > things did come to mind - things like "It feels better", as in it > makes me feel good, I like listening. The loba of it all - the > pleasant feeling. Reminded me of Phil's comment about pablum. So, > realistically there is a mix of kusala and akusala motivation. And > without really knowing moments of kusala from akusala, impossible > to pinpoint which. Often I just sit down and start reading the DSG > site - like a routine and never even think about why I am doing it. ------- N: good to think of Phil's comments as a reminder. There is a mix, it is so common. --------- > A: "Anything else" - a good question, something to think about from > time to time. > > As for sacca parami - are you saying, Nina, that this is > truthfulness in terms of only being motivated by understanding the > truthfulness of realities, or truthfulness in terms of being > truthful about why one is interested in listening to / reading > about the Dhamma, whether it be purely for better understanding of > realities or being truthful about there being akusala motivation as > well (subtle or not so subtle)? I had understood it to be the > latter, however, perhaps I have been mistaken in this. ------- N: We have to think also of sincerity as to kusala. Sincere in the development of kusala, development of it for the sake of dhamma. Perhaps you remember: we can develop kusala for our own sake, for the sake of others (society) or for the sake of dhamma. The last one is the purest. We also should be sincere as to our akusala motivation, or our lack of understanding. -------- Nina. #111435 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 3:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. nilovg Dear Sukin, Op 2-nov-2010, om 5:58 heeft Sukinderpal het volgende geschreven: > Like Ann, I am curious about what exactly A. Sujin was referring to > when > she said, "this is the perfection of truthfulness". > Would it be correct to say that Truthfulness is the inclination not to > misinterpret the present reality, for example, if there are akusala > motives, we shouldn't think that it is kusala? -------- N: I tried to explain more in my recent post to Ann. The context was sincerity in one's motive to listen: not wishing for anything else but right understanding of realities. No gains for oneself. Nina. #111436 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 3:19 am Subject: What I heard. Pa~n~naa in a sense-door process. nilovg Dear friends, from a Thai recording. 1. Vipassanaa pa~n~naa must know the characteristics of naama dhamma and ruupa dhamma that are appearing one at a time. Insight knowledge knows the objects in a mind-door process, but sense-door processes are not lacking. Sound appears and insight knows that it is not naama dhamma. Naama dhamma appears as naama dhamma, as an element that experiences something, not a person. Ruupa dhamma appears as ruupa dhamma, not naama dhamma. Insight knowledge clearly knows the difference between the characteristics of naama dhamma and ruupa dhamma. There is also a sense-door process of cittas, otherwise ruupa dhamma could not appear. When the sense-door process is over, there are bhavangacittas in between and then the mind-door process cittas arise which know the ruupa dhamma after it has been known by the sense-door process cittas. The mind-door process cittas can know all types of realities, naama and ruupa, but for the cittas that know ruupa there must also be sense-door process cittas. Pa~n~naa must also arise in a sense-door process. People have doubts about the distinction between sense-door process and mind-door process. These are different and bhavanga-cittas arise in between. They doubt whether mahaa-kusala citta with pa~n~naa can arise in a sense-door process. It does arise when ruupa is the object. Cittas in the different processes arise and fall away extremely rapidly. When the first stage of insight knowledge arises, not only naama dhamma appears but also ruupa dhamma. How could the sense-door process be lacking? Cittas of the sense-door process are aware of and ‘consider’ the object, but not through thinking. If they would not, there would not be satipa.t.thaana. --------- Nina. #111437 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddha: "tiresome & troublesome for me" nilovg Dear Ken H, Herman and Alex, Op 1-nov-2010, om 23:00 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > Herman: So when the Buddha has a bad back, why does he change > posture >and >recline, if he has no aversion to pain? If pleasure > and pain are >all >of the same value, there is no need to react, is > there? > > > > That is an interesting question, Herman. I don't know the answer. > I wonder how would KS, Nina, Sarah, Jon, KenH, Sukin answer? > > > ------------ > Hi Alex, > > Ken: The Buddha had a lot of work to do - constantly walking from > town to town, teaching thousands of people. He had to maintain his > health for that. And pain is nature's warning; when the body is > complaining something needs to be done about it. ------ N: Very good. He had no aversion about pain. He also gave an opportunity to Sariputta to explain the Dhamma when he said that his back was aching. Nina. #111438 From: Herman Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 3:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 egberdina Hi Rob E, On 2 November 2010 15:06, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > You appear to be saying that some concepts have referents, some don't, > > and that concepts are namas, and I have no problem with that. > > In terms of what you are saying, I agree. I have discovered, however, that > "concept" is not used to describe the act of thinking in dhamma theory, but > instead to define the imaginary object of the thought; ie, you would not say > that the thought of unicorn = the concept of unicorn, therefore, the concept > is a nama; but you would say that the thought is a nama, and the object of > the thought - the unicorn - is the concept being referenced by that thought; > ie, the thought is real and is a nama; its object, the unicorn is imaginary, > and is a concept. > > Interesting. It sounds like dhamma theory defines what is and isn't real well before it discovers what the case may be. > > > > By the way, I disagree with Ken H. that since only namas and rupas > exist, a > > > stream of namas and rupas cannot exist, and is a concept. That is not > > > logical. A stream of namas and rupas refers to how the namas and rupas > are > > > organized, not to another existent other than namas and rupas. No one > is > > > saying there are namas and rupas and streams, just that namas and rupas > are > > > organized in different streams, which is the only way to explain why > you and > > > I experience a different set of namas and rupas. Each of us is like a > > > separate portal through which come certain experiences. We don't > experience > > > the same ones. > > > > > > > > I wonder how you can say that namas and rupas are organised in streams, > and > > yet deny there are streams? > > I'm not denying that there are streams of namas and rupas; I am denying > that "stream" is an existential category, rather than a further > specification of how namas and rupas occur. In other words, if water comes > in waves, I would not deny that there are waves, but waves is not a category > separate from the water, it is a form that water appears in, and is its > constituent element. Streams exist, but are only composed of namas and > rupas, nothing else. They are not a substance in their own right; therefore, > the existence of streams does not add another existential category to namas > and rupas. > > You talk in terms of namas and rupas ie in the plural form, as though that is their default manifestation, yet if we take water in its irreducible form ie one single molecule, it does not have the property of being a liquid, liquidity is a function of how multiple molecules are arranged. And the same goes with gases and solids. It seems to me that how constituent elements are arranged within a complex is very much part and parcel of the characteristic of things. > > > > If I "stream" video to you over the internet, the only thing that > exists in > > > the stream is video, there is not a "stream" on the one hand, and a > "video" > > > on the other hand; > > > > > > > > > The specific stream is the specific relations between the specific video > > bits. Without those relations (eg clock rates) you would be streaming > noise. > > Sure, and if water was dispersed in some other ways, you would not have > coherent waves, but only splashing or foam, or still water or whatever; but > whatever form the water appears in, there's nobody in there but water; and > the streams have nothing in them but nama and rupa. > > A reductionist might get a kick out of saying that all the variety in the world is just protons, neutrons and electrons. But I see no practical value at all in equating, say, an ice cube with liquid in a glass with steam coming out of a kettle. > > > streaming is just the method of delivery of the video, not another > object > > > that contains the video. So a stream of namas and rupas would just be > > > composed of namas and rupas, nothing else. > > > > > > > > > I disagree. Relationships between nama and rupa are neither nama or rupa. > > Are relations a "thing?" > No, they are relations between things. > Do they have substance without their constituent elements? > Relations don't have substance. What makes a pile of parts a pile of chariot parts? > Do waves exist as something other than water? > I would sooner ask whether water exists without some specific form it is encountered in. > If so, what is the additional element that makes a wave a "wave?" > A wave is water arranged in a certain form or pattern. But can you tell me anything at all about water in general, that is water without specific form or pattern. > And what would be the analogous element that makes a stream of nama and > rupa a "stream?" > > I think these are all leading questions, Rob. :-) It is not about elements, it is about relationships between elements. And unrelated elements simply do not exist. Cheers Herman #111439 From: Herman Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 4:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? egberdina Hi Rob E, On 2 November 2010 15:14, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > > The end of suffering for Buddhists is death without rebirth. The 4th > > > noble > > > > truth is the way that leads to that extinction. > > > > > > Hm. I don't see permanent extinction as the end of the path. > > > > > > > That's fine, of course. What is paranibbana, in your opinion? > > Extinction of the kandhas, ie, the All, and graduation of consciousness > You are excluding consciousness from the khandas. Not fair :-) to a state of perfect emptiness and peace. However, one doesn't get to > cessation without a transformation of consciousness via nibbana, and I am > not convinced that transformed consciousness, eg, impersonal awareness, is > extinguished in parinibbana. > > Yes, it is clear you see an ongoing role for consciousness. > > > > I see extinction of the kandhas as the end of the path, but nibbana is > not > > > included in the kandhas, and no one achieves extinction of the kandhas > > > without experiencing nibbana. > > > > > > > Experience and the khandas are synonymous. How can the khandas be > > extinguished and yet there be an experience of something? > > If nibbana is not experienced, or in some other way realized, what is > nibbana and what kind of existence does it have, in your view? > Nibbana is. It is undifferentiated being. As opposed to experience, which is always the fleeting knowing of something differentiated. > > There are suggestions in sutta that there is a state of experience that is > nibbanic and is beyond the kandhas. It would have nothing in common with > what we normally consider experience. > > Yes AN 10:6 and AN 10:7 come to mind. > > > > And so, one's awareness is transformed by experiencing nibbana before > the > > > kandhas stop arising. That is a little different than simple extinction > - > > > well, a lot different. > > > > > > > > It would be, if it were possible :-) > > Do you know that it's not? > For there to be a knowing of that state, it would have had to be a temporary, temporal state only. And that is how it is presented in AN 10:6 and 10:7 "'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding — the cessation of becoming — Unbinding': One perception arose in me, friend Ananda, as another perception ceased. Just as in a blazing woodchip fire, one flame arises as another flame ceases, even so, 'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding — the cessation of becoming — Unbinding': One perception arose in me as another one ceased. I was percipient at that time of 'The cessation of becoming — Unbinding.'" Despite the supposed cessation of becoming, Sariputta became back to tell the tale. > > > > I have no doubts about the reality of nibbana, but I left the space > > > > intentionally blank because liberation from samsara is a moot point > while > > > I > > > > am still alive. > > > > > > Hm. I don't see it as a totally moot point. I may know nothing about > > > California, but if I'm planning to drive there, I would not leave the > > > "California" part of the map "intentionally blank," I'd want to at > least > > > have a diagram of where I am heading, in order to get there accurately. > > > > > > > If you believe that it is possible to remain alive and yet be free from > all > > craving whatsoever, then I would have to disagree with you there. > > I am not sure one would be alive at that point in the usual sense. One > would no longer be a participant in personhood on any level, so most likely > it would be beyond any participation in form. > > > In other > > words, I would think that the bit of the map that has your intended > > destination on it, is a concept without a referent. > > I would put it a different way - if such a destination does exist, upon > reaching it the traveller would no longer exist as such. It's a destination > one becomes rather than reaches. Same thing happens when you approach the > speed of light in physics. > > Interesting stuff to think about. Cheers Herman #111440 From: Herman Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 4:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? egberdina Hi Rob E, On 2 November 2010 15:47, Robert E wrote: > > > > Herman wrote: > > > > > > > When one is engaged in any activity of daily life, both feet are > firmly > > > > planted in the world of the five senses. That is not the case when > > > engaged > > > > in meditation. > > When engaged in meditation, what is one mainly engaged with? > > Disengaging from and then not engaging with anything and everything, to the limits of its possibility. > > > I think the intention to be free of ignorance is delusional, and cannot > bear > > fruit :-) (a bit like intending to become intelligent) > > What do you consider to be the purpose of Buddhist study and meditation? > > The purpose of Buddhist meditation, for me, is to spend time in the most harmless way possible. Cheers Herman #111441 From: Herman Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 5:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality egberdina Hi Rob E, On 2 November 2010 16:14, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Now while reading this email, there is reading this email. > > > > Does anyone have any problems with that? > > No problem with that - however, that statement can be further broken down > and specified, as to what is involved in experiencing this. > > Yes, sure. And that would entail no longer describing it as just reading an email, we would describe some of its aspects, while relating them back to our overriding intention. If we only analysed, without some corresponding synthesis, then we would be fundamentally altering what we were doing, we would no longer be reading an email. Cheers Herman #111442 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 1:00 am Subject: The Nature of Mindfulness (Re: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman & Ken - In a message dated 11/1/2010 11:03:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Ken H, On 2 November 2010 13:28, Ken H wrote: > > > > Hi Herman, > > ------ > <. . .> > KH: >> If that wasn't about an analysis of reading an email, what was it > about? > >> > > H: > I do not consider mindfulness to be analysis. It sounds like you do. > ------ > > No, I consider mindfulness - in the conventional sense of the word - to > mean "thinking about". So, had you said, "Now while reading this email, > there is thinking about "this email"" I would have agreed. > > Oh, OK. I consider mindfulness to be reflective awareness. I doubt very much that reading an email is even possible without some mindfulness of my variety. Reading an email includes being aware that this is happening. On the other hand, thinking about this email is a different activity altogether, isn't it? >In the paramattha-dhamma sense, mindfulness is sati - mindfulness of the application of kusala consciousness. I don't think you meant that, did you? No, I didn't. And from what people have been writing lately, no-one actually knows what they mean when they say stuff like that. > ---------------- > <. . .> > > > H: >>> You will note, perhaps, that what is defining of my descriptions, > is the act. > >>> > > KH: >> Sorry, that one has gone over my head, > >> > > H: > Perhaps the following will clarify: > > > > Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing > out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he > discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I > am breathing out short.' > ---------------- > > I think at that stage in the Satipatthana Sutta the Buddha was referring to > discernment of nama and rupa. > > Hmmm, that is an interesting, and perplexing interpretation of some very plain, non-perplexing Pali sentences. So, had you said, "Now while reading this email, I understand there are > really only the presently arisen namas and rupas," I would have agreed. > > If I had said that, I would have been a liar. Because that is not at all what is being understood as I am reading the email and aware of that fact. > ----------- > <. . .> > H: > When there is believing in right belief, that's what there is. When > there is believing in wrong belief, that's what there is. > ----------- > > Believing in right belief and wrong belief can mean believing there are > absolute realities known as 'right view' and 'wrong view'. I'd agree with > that. > > Believing is something we are all prone to. When mindful, there is a knowable difference between believing and knowing, though. Cheers Herman ===================================== Just to add my 2 cents on mindfulness: I consider it to be the monitoring faculty that keeps the mind "present". I believe it is being "unforgetful"of staying with (i.e., maintaining attention on) whatever is present, avoiding getting lost in thought, in excitement, or in sloth & torpor. The consequences of it, I believe, are manifold and include at least clarity & alertness, clear comprehension, and increasing calmness. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111443 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 1:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/2/2010 12:25:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > I think the sticking point here is that people believe that they are to > > develop Right View, which the Buddha said leads all the other factors in the > > path, and that No View is not Right View. So what would you say to such > > folks to reconcile these two ideas? > > > > > I would say that I read exactly the same sources as they do. ...IMO an a-historical view of the dhamma could never be > a right view of it. Well the statement from the sutta is beautifully clear and suggestive: "...for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the least notion. That brahmana who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the world?" So let me ask you: If it is true that the prerequisite for being an arahat is "not grasping at views" and having no "fixed viewpoint," how would you define Right View, the forerunner of all the views in the Eightfold Noble Path? And is there any way that thinking of any theory of reality as Right View can be reconciled with the statement above from the sutta? It seems that the sutta is advocating not having a fixed doctrine of any kind, but to rely on direct, unmitigated awareness. Best, Robert E. ===================================== How about this? Proposal: All "wrong views" are mere opinions or positions or adopted perspectives, but in "right view" the view is the direct apprehension of reality; i.e., the "view" is the direct and flawless seeing of what is. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111444 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep truth_aerator Hi Sukin, all, > Suk: As I suggested in the last post, given the understanding that >there are only conditioned realities and that these are to be known, >the question to ask is, "how is the Satipatthana Sutta to be >interpreted"? The way described in the suttas and explained further in the commentaries. Please forgive me, but neither do the suttas nor the commentary talk about "don't do anything. Just read and understand." VsM and Suttas have plenty of "shoulds" and NOWHERE do they state that those phrases are metaphorical and one shouldn't take those instructions to be instructions of action. It seems unbelievable how some take a plain statement and make it to mean the opposite of what it says ("do X" becomes, "don't do X"). None of your logical justifications will count. Bring the suttas or commentary passages. I don't think that you know better than the Buddha or Buddhaghosa. > Suk: Why should a suggestion to understand whatever arises now, >lead to the conclusion that one is allowing oneself to indulge in >akusala? A moment of dosa arises and falls away in an instant; this >is how it is known to panna. Why should one then think to do >something about that which is not there? Would not the thought `to >do', in fact be a case of having not understood, but gone on to feed >the illusion of lastingness and a `self' who must act? But this understanding "to be known by panna" (a volitional action), how is it different from following satipatthana and its commentary? It is an action that doesn't happen randomly, certain volitional actions are required. With metta, Alex #111445 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. glenjohnann Hello Nina (Ken H.,Sukin and others) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > N: We have to think also of sincerity as to kusala. Sincere in the > development of kusala, development of it for the sake of dhamma. > Perhaps you remember: we can develop kusala for our own sake, for the > sake of others (society) or for the sake of dhamma. The last one is > the purest. We also should be sincere as to our akusala motivation, > or our lack of understanding. > -------- A: THank you for the reminder here - the motivations for developing kusala. This pretty much sums it up - and clearly shows the motivations that can arise, one moment at a time, both kusala and akusala. And to know which is which, we need to follow the ever-continuing reminder about developing understanding of the present moment. Ann #111446 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 9:00 am Subject: What is satipatthana? (was: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [6]) epsteinrob Hi Phil and All - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: If my interest in satipatthana ever returns, it is almost surely to be through formal meditation, I suspect, that feels more suitable to us, our defilements, our need for comfort, so strong, too strong to aspire to satipatthna out in the world, in daily life. I am subverting your purpose a bit here, Phil, but I have been waiting for a while to understand the Abhidhamma definition of satipatthana, and have never gotten an answer to this question. Can someone - anyone - tell me in a succinct way what satipatthana is according to Abhidhamma, Vism and commentary? My own understanding of it is of the mundane variety - the practice of becoming aware through development of mindfulness of (1)presence of physical body and sensation [rupa], (2)vedana, (3)mental states [nama] and (4)understanding of Dhamma through direct observation of mental objects. The fulfillment of satipatthana would be complete direct awareness of nama and rupa, with direct understanding of anicca, anatta and dukkha. Perhaps that is where it intersects with the Abhidhamma understanding of satipatthana...? Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - #111447 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 9:24 am Subject: Re: A discussion about reality epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > Hi Herman, > > ------ > <. . .> > KH: >> If that wasn't about an analysis of reading an email, what was it about? > >> > > H: > I do not consider mindfulness to be analysis. It sounds like you do. > ------ > > No, I consider mindfulness - in the conventional sense of the word - to mean "thinking about". Jumping in here - I do not agree with that definition at all, Ken. One can think about something without mindfulness. Mindfulness is paying special awareness to something, not thinking about it. It is like someone very carefully trying to copy the lines of a face in a portrait, or someone carefully examining a piece of cloth to find a minute hole. It requires super-close dedicated attentiveness, rather than thinking. In many cases, thinking can interfere with mindfulness, distract from mindfulness, or be the exact opposite of mindfulness - thinking of what you *think* something is, or what you think about it, rather than seeing it clearly and accurately with attentive awareness. In many cases, mindfulness is a silent observation or perception of exactly what something is, often noticing its details or attributes. So mindfulness of anicca in a perceptual object would be tracking the constant changes in the object of perception and noticing as much as possible about its details and its changing qualities from moment to moment. No thought required, but very careful perception. When Buddha says to put "mindfulness to the fore," I believe he means to be super-attentive to everything that is being experienced from moment to moment with dedicated watchfulness. If someone says "Be mindful of where you step," they mean "pay attention to where you are walking." Mindfulness = careful attention or attentiveness. This also applies to the additional function of mindfulness as the "gatekeeper" which is given the assignment to "guard the senses." ... > In the paramattha-dhamma sense, mindfulness is sati - mindfulness of the application of kusala consciousness. I don't think you meant that, did you? Mindfulness is given the assignment to promote awareness of the nature of dhammas through careful attention or awareness, and to guard the senses against akusala influences. If I have it right, in the former role it works with vittaka and other mental operations to investigate the nature of objects more thoroughly. In the latter role it distinguishes between kusala and akusala and guards against akusala - [in coordination with panna...?] Is that what you mean? > ---------------- ... > > Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' > ---------------- > > I think at that stage in the Satipatthana Sutta the Buddha was referring to discernment of nama and rupa. Where is the distinguishing of nama and rupa in that passage, Ken? He is talking about discerning the specific qualities of the breath-sensation and movement. Rather than distinguishing nama from rupa, I think he is clearly developing mindful awareness by clearly discerning specific rupas - a long movement of breath or a short movement of breath are two rupas are they not? The sensation of movement of the breath is a rupa, is it not? So I think this is about distinguishing and becoming aware of specific rupas. It is often said that "breath is a concept" in this group, but in actual practice the breath is treated as a sensation, and that sensation can be a feeling of hardness or release/softening against a part of the body [tip of nose, abdomen or chest], or a sensation of movement in a part of the body, and these are not concepts but clearly rupas. It is not necessary to treat the breath as a concept. One can become aware of specific sensations in the body that attend "the breath" at any given moment, and that is precisely how anapanasati is taught. It is a concrete practice, not abstract. Of course by becoming clearly aware of constantly changing rupas that are clear and discernible, but not static, one can also become aware of the namas that are arising to apprehend and register those rupas, as well as the very clear demonstration of anicca which these movements and sensations make apparent. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111448 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 9:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > Believing is something we are all prone to. When mindful, there is a > knowable difference between believing and knowing, though. Yes, mindfulness can distinguish between that which is currently and directly seen and known, and that which is thought about. Thinking cannot easily make that distinction, as it is often not in touch with the object it thinks it is. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #111449 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 9:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddha: "tiresome & troublesome for me" epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > And not only did the Buddha suffer physical pain, and reacted to minimise > that, he also suffered the mental pain that comes with being surrounded by > complete pains in the ass, and reacted accordingly. > > > > Udana IV:5 > > Then, while the Lord was in solitude and seclusion, this thought arose in > his mind: "Formerly I was living hemmed in by bhikkhus and bhikkhunis... and > I was living in discomfort and not at ease. But now I live not hemmed in by > bhikkhus and bhikkhunis... in comfort and at ease." And also this thought > arose in that bull elephant's mind: "Formerly I was living hemmed in by > elephants and she-elephants... and I was living in discomfort and not at > ease, but now I live not hemmed in by elephants and she-elephants... I eat > unbroken grass and (others) do not eat the branches which I break down. I > drink clear water and on going down and coming out of the water I am not > jostled by she-elephants, and I live in comfort and at ease." > > Then the Lord, on observing his own solitude, understood with his mind the > thought in the mind of that bull elephant, and uttered on that occasion this > inspired utterance: > > *This unites mind with mind, > The perfected one and the bull elephant > With tusks as long as chariot-poles: > That each delights in being alone in the forest.* On the day of what will probably be one of the stupidest elections in U.S. history, this gave me my laugh of the day - and maybe of the month. The Buddha could have a pretty sardonic bent at times. I am glad to see this droll expression of his humor. Thanks, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111450 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 12:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hello Nina, Ann, Ken H, > > > Thank you for your input. > > > > But of course the actual reference is to the arising of panna, a > > > > conditioned reality, beyond control. And while in the case of Dhamma > > > > study there is no claim to such things as 'setting up conditions' or > > > > that panna is more likely to arise at such times than any other > > > time, > > > > > > Then why do it? If that is the case, please tell me your exact > > > motivation for studying Dhamma. > > ------- > > N: I just take out one sentence which i find of interest. > > I was listening to a Thai DVD where this came up. The subject was the > > perfection of truthfulness. > > Kh Sujin asked someone what his motive for listening to the Dhammas > > was: answer: to have more understanding of realities. She asked > > whether he wanted to get anything else. His answer was: nothing else. > > Kh Sujin: this is the perfection of truthfulness, sacca parami. > > > > When the perfection of truthfulness develops, we do not want to get > > any advantage for ourselves, not even a happy rebirth. We see the > > benefit of understanding of realities, since this leads to having > > less clinging to self and eventually to the eradication of all > > defilements. > > > > Like Ann, I am curious about what exactly A. Sujin was referring to when > she said, "this is the perfection of truthfulness". > Would it be correct to say that Truthfulness is the inclination not to > misinterpret the present reality, for example, if there are akusala > motives, we shouldn't think that it is kusala? > What about remembering wrong and therefore misinforming? This would be > carelessness for sure, but would it also reflect lack of Truthfulness? I don't know A. Sujin as well as you do, but my impression is that she was saying that the person answered exactly what was the truth for him, just an acknowledgment of what existed in his awareness at that moment without any hesitation or interpretation. In that sense it's not a question of whether he was aware of paramatha or concept, it was his truth as he experienced it. If you ask me what I'm experiencing right now and I say "concept," that is the simple truth, and you can go from there. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111451 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 12:21 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > A bit of a ramble, cuz i am interested in the pleasant vipaka>mindless craving>akusala kamma patha galore> animal realm/hell rebirth chain and aspire to avoid it. The key for me is to find a way to also maintain a gentle, generous, friendly attitude towards people even as I toughen my attitude towards sense pleasures. That's possible. Meditation and the safely pleasant mind states it conditions makes it possible, without meditation I'd be screwed, I think. I would agree. Meditation seems to create a mild pleasantness in my mind which I don't crave or cling to - it's just easy to be there. I would worry if I felt addicted to it, but I don't. And enjoying a bit of samatha instead of carnal or other cravings seems like a pretty good trade. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111452 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 12:29 pm Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal" wrote: > Suk: And it talks about activities such as bending forward, sideways and backwards, wearing the robes, defecating, etc. So why is it that you highlight and particularly follow `sitting' in a particular posture? And regarding object, I was talking about the chosen object such as breath, and asking why if understanding nama and rupa is the objective, that one chooses to focus on or use as anchor, that one object? Why don't you ask Buddha why he said it was the supreme, ultimate meditation object? It's his system, so maybe he knew something... Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111453 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 12:59 pm Subject: Re: A Discussion between Robert Ep. and Sukinder epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinderpal" wrote: > > Hi Robert Ep, > > > =========== > > > "Now while reading this email, there is seeing and there is thinking, > > > are these real?" > > > > R: They are real, insofar as they are taking place, for sure. > > S: Next question. > > What does seeing experience and what does thinking experience? Do you want details? I don't understand the question. > ============ > > > "If so why, if not why?" > > > > R: What is experienced is a real experience. > > S: This is confusing. Do you not distinguish the experience from that which is experienced? What do you mean? > ============ > > R: To go beyond this, one must leave experience and access analysis, which is always second-hand. > > S: Or you could begin to understand that which otherwise is not apparent and this must necessarily begin at the conceptual level. You can say it however you like, it is still second-hand. Plus I don't agree with you that understanding must "necessarily begin at the conceptual level." I don't think that's the path. The path is to "look and see," not to "think and see what you think." Pariyatti is part of the path, but it is not the extent of the path. You overemphasize it to the detriment of seeing. > There shouldn't be a problem about anything being second-hand, if we take it that we are on the path of a Savaka. Well you can explain better to me why that is a reassurance against intellectualizing the path. To me it is a problem, a big one, and if you don't know how to examine what your eyes see and what your ears hear, thinking about conceptual Right View all day will get you exactly nowhere. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111454 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 1:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > On 2 November 2010 15:06, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Herman. > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > Herman wrote: > > > > > You appear to be saying that some concepts have referents, some don't, > > > and that concepts are namas, and I have no problem with that. > > > > In terms of what you are saying, I agree. I have discovered, however, that > > "concept" is not used to describe the act of thinking in dhamma theory, but > > instead to define the imaginary object of the thought; ie, you would not say > > that the thought of unicorn = the concept of unicorn, therefore, the concept > > is a nama; but you would say that the thought is a nama, and the object of > > the thought - the unicorn - is the concept being referenced by that thought; > > ie, the thought is real and is a nama; its object, the unicorn is imaginary, > > and is a concept. > > > > > Interesting. It sounds like dhamma theory defines what is and isn't real > well before it discovers what the case may be. It's my unschooled impression, but I think I'm correct that I've approximated the view. It's a generic distinction, rather than in situ. :-) ... > > > I wonder how you can say that namas and rupas are organised in streams, > > and > > > yet deny there are streams? > > > > I'm not denying that there are streams of namas and rupas; I am denying > > that "stream" is an existential category, rather than a further > > specification of how namas and rupas occur. ... > > > I disagree. Relationships between nama and rupa are neither nama or rupa. > > > > Are relations a "thing?" > > > > No, they are relations between things. > > > > > Do they have substance without their constituent elements? > > > > Relations don't have substance. What makes a pile of parts a pile of chariot > parts? > > > > > Do waves exist as something other than water? > > > > > I would sooner ask whether water exists without some specific form it is > encountered in. > > > > > If so, what is the additional element that makes a wave a "wave?" > > > > A wave is water arranged in a certain form or pattern. But can you tell me > anything at all about water in general, that is water without specific form > or pattern. Well I can say things about water without getting into its form or pattern, unless you think that properties like "wetness" and "transparency" are in the "form" category. But that is not the same as how water behaves. In any case, my point is that the pattern is not another element, it is the arrangement the elements happen to be in. I'm not denying that there is an arrangement, and that there is always a configuration of some kind, but if I were listing all the elements that existed, the arrangement wouldn't be on the list. I'd say "there are namas and rupas and X is what they are doing," not "namas + rupas + X." It doesn't seem that complicated to me. If you and I are going down the street, "going down the street" isn't another thing along with us; it's what you and I are doing. Water is made of Hydrogen and Oxygen, not Hydrogen and Oxygen and 'Flowing Down the Hillside.' > > And what would be the analogous element that makes a stream of nama and > > rupa a "stream?" > > > > > > I think these are all leading questions, Rob. :-) Not meant to be. I am trying to get at what is there, and asking specific questions, but I don't have an answer in mind on your behalf. I'm really looking for your explanation, not being Socratic. I may be cross-examining, and have my own view of the issue, but I'm not anticipating where you may wind up. > It is not about elements, it is about relationships between elements. And > unrelated elements simply do not exist. I don't think that's the issue in this case. The question is how many elements there are, and if there is anything else other than nama and rupa, not whether they are arranged in streams or pools or single-file - unless you are saying that an additional vehicle or substance is necessary for them to be patterned or arranged. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111455 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 1:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is "path" and why is it important? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > You are excluding consciousness from the khandas. Not fair :-) :-) I came across a sutta - actually think it came from Howard - that speaks of boundless radiant consciousness beyond the All - sounds like Nibbanic pure awareness to me. > Yes, it is clear you see an ongoing role for consciousness. Yes, but I could be wrong. I am still agnostic - about almost everything. :-) Including whether the floor beneath my feet actually exists. Or my feet. > Nibbana is. It is undifferentiated being. Thank for that little gift, Herman - that will get on my list of favorite definitions of Nibbana, and is very much aligned with what I think about it. As opposed to experience, which is > always the fleeting knowing of something differentiated. > > There are suggestions in sutta that there is a state of experience that is > > nibbanic and is beyond the kandhas. It would have nothing in common with > > what we normally consider experience. > > > > > Yes AN 10:6 and AN 10:7 come to mind. > ... > Despite the supposed cessation of becoming, Sariputta became back to tell > the tale. Well these guys can cease and come back - you know they have extraordinary powers once they've gone beyond the realm of the perception of nothingness and all that. :-) ... > > I would put it a different way - if such a destination does exist, upon > > reaching it the traveller would no longer exist as such. It's a destination > > one becomes rather than reaches. Same thing happens when you approach the > > speed of light in physics. > > > > > Interesting stuff to think about. Yes. Probably even more interesting to become it. :-))) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111456 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 1:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > When engaged in meditation, what is one mainly engaged with? > > > > > Disengaging from and then not engaging with anything and everything, to the > limits of its possibility. > > What do you consider to be the purpose of Buddhist study and meditation? > > > > > The purpose of Buddhist meditation, for me, is to spend time in the most > harmless way possible. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111457 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 1:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > Now while reading this email, there is reading this email. > > > > > > Does anyone have any problems with that? > > > > No problem with that - however, that statement can be further broken down > > and specified, as to what is involved in experiencing this. > > > > > Yes, sure. And that would entail no longer describing it as just reading an > email, we would describe some of its aspects, while relating them back to > our overriding intention. > > If we only analysed, without some corresponding synthesis, then we would be > fundamentally altering what we were doing, we would no longer be reading an > email. I think that's my sense of mindfulness - being fully aware of something without substantially altering or obscuring its "itness." I wonder what kind of synthesis would balance out the analysis of an existent activity? I am curious what you have in mind. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111458 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 1:33 pm Subject: The Nature of Mindfulness (Re: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality) epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ===================================== > Just to add my 2 cents on mindfulness: I consider it to be the > monitoring faculty that keeps the mind "present". I believe it is being > "unforgetful"of staying with (i.e., maintaining attention on) whatever is present, > avoiding getting lost in thought, in excitement, or in sloth & torpor. The > consequences of it, I believe, are manifold and include at least clarity & > alertness, clear comprehension, and increasing calmness. That's a very good description with which I would agree. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111459 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 1:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > And is there any way that thinking of any theory of reality as Right View > can be reconciled with the statement above from the sutta? It seems that > the sutta is advocating not having a fixed doctrine of any kind, but to rely > on direct, unmitigated awareness. > > Best, > Robert E. > > ===================================== > How about this? Proposal: All "wrong views" are mere opinions or > positions or adopted perspectives, but in "right view" the view is the direct > apprehension of reality; i.e., the "view" is the direct and flawless seeing > of what is. Yes, that seems correct to me too. Any opinion or position in that formulation would be a "wrong view." That would take away "right view" as an intellectual formulation. The sutta calls for direct seeing without any view at all. But then what happens to pariyatti? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111460 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 10:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/2/2010 4:36:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > And is there any way that thinking of any theory of reality as Right View > can be reconciled with the statement above from the sutta? It seems that > the sutta is advocating not having a fixed doctrine of any kind, but to rely > on direct, unmitigated awareness. > > Best, > Robert E. > > ===================================== > How about this? Proposal: All "wrong views" are mere opinions or > positions or adopted perspectives, but in "right view" the view is the direct > apprehension of reality; i.e., the "view" is the direct and flawless seeing > of what is. Yes, that seems correct to me too. Any opinion or position in that formulation would be a "wrong view." That would take away "right view" as an intellectual formulation. The sutta calls for direct seeing without any view at all. But then what happens to pariyatti? -------------------------------------------------------- My opinion: It is preparatory. And any (intellectual) position adopted as a result should be held lightly, and not clung to. ----------------------------------------------------- Best, Robert E. ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111461 From: "Huajun" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 1:39 pm Subject: With "no" or without "no", which translation is correct ? huajun_tang Hi everyone, In one sentence in the "Fundamentals of Vipassana Meditation" by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw, the online version is without "no", but the version I previously obtained from Ven. Sayadaw U Silananda has "no" in the sentence: "The three Morality Constituents, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood, have been perfected before you take up insight meditation - when you take the precepts. Besides, there can be NO wrong speech, wrong action, or wrong livelihood in respect of the object noted. So whenever you note, you perfect the Morality Constituents of the Path as well." The question is which one is correct? The above sentences is in the paragraph under the title "Noble Path". The book I got from Ven. Sayadaw Silananada is published in 1991, which was given to me by the Sayadaw when I first visited the Halfmoon Bay monastory. This version is edited by Sayadaw U Silananda. The online versio can be download from Buddhanet.net http://www.buddhanet.net/ftp10.htm . I also checked some other online verions, there are the same. #111462 From: Herman Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 2:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 egberdina Hi Rob E, On 3 November 2010 07:19, Robert E wrote: > > > > > Do waves exist as something other than water? > > > > > > > > > I would sooner ask whether water exists without some specific form it is > > encountered in. > > > > > > > > > If so, what is the additional element that makes a wave a "wave?" > > > > > > > A wave is water arranged in a certain form or pattern. But can you tell > me > > anything at all about water in general, that is water without specific > form > > or pattern. > > Well I can say things about water without getting into its form or pattern, > unless you think that properties like "wetness" and "transparency" are in > the "form" category. > Yes, but in so doing you are talking about water in general, abstract water, the concept of water. > But that is not the same as how water behaves. In any case, my point is > that the pattern is not another element, it is the arrangement the elements > happen to be in. > All I'm saying is that all experience is of patterns or wholes, not unrelated elements. Experience is specific, it is of this or that, not something in general. > I'm not denying that there is an arrangement, and that there is always a > configuration of some kind, but if I were listing all the elements that > existed, the arrangement wouldn't be on the list. I'd say "there are namas > and rupas and X is what they are doing," > OK. And you would probably acknowledge that this was a listing of abstract things. > not "namas + rupas + X." It doesn't seem that complicated to me. If you and > I are going down the street, "going down the street" isn't another thing > along with us; it's what you and I are doing. Water is made of Hydrogen and > Oxygen, not Hydrogen and Oxygen and 'Flowing Down the Hillside.' > > The elements and elementists may not like it, but experience is experience in situation. Perception occurs as wholes, not as concatenated sequences of individual elements. And even in that scenario, the elementists would have to concede that the composition of the sequence is a characteristic of the stream, not the elements. A theoretical X followed by a theoretical Y would be different to Y followed by X. > > > And what would be the analogous element that makes a stream of nama and > > > rupa a "stream?" > > > > > > > > > > I think these are all leading questions, Rob. :-) > > Not meant to be. I am trying to get at what is there, and asking specific > questions, but I don't have an answer in mind on your behalf. I'm really > looking for your explanation, not being Socratic. I may be cross-examining, > and have my own view of the issue, but I'm not anticipating where you may > wind up. > > > > It is not about elements, it is about relationships between elements. And > > unrelated elements simply do not exist. > > I don't think that's the issue in this case. The question is how many > elements there are, and if there is anything else other than nama and rupa, > not whether they are arranged in streams or pools or single-file - unless > you are saying that an additional vehicle or substance is necessary for them > to be patterned or arranged. > > I am not saying there's anything wrong with analysis of wholes into component elements. But if we were to then believe that we had arrived at "a reality" that was something other than just abstract thought we would be mistaken. MN 43 leaves us in no doubt about this: "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them." There are no separate components of reality, except in thought. It is not I who needs to make a case for the experience of wholes, it is those who insist on the existence of unrelated elements as distinct "realities" who need to make their case. Cheers Herman #111463 From: Herman Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 3:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality egberdina Hi Rob E, On 3 November 2010 07:31, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > > > Now while reading this email, there is reading this email. > > > > > > > > Does anyone have any problems with that? > > > > > > No problem with that - however, that statement can be further broken > down > > > and specified, as to what is involved in experiencing this. > > > > > > > > Yes, sure. And that would entail no longer describing it as just reading > an > > email, we would describe some of its aspects, while relating them back to > > our overriding intention. > > > > If we only analysed, without some corresponding synthesis, then we would > be > > fundamentally altering what we were doing, we would no longer be reading > an > > email. > > I think that's my sense of mindfulness - being fully aware of something > without substantially altering or obscuring its "itness." > > I wonder what kind of synthesis would balance out the analysis of an > existent activity? I am curious what you have in mind. > > Any analysis can only occur on the basis of there already being some synthetic whole. We can strip all the petals of a rose, and then jubilantly exclaim there is in fact no rose, only a pile of petals. Of course, we would be ignoring the fact that we started of with a rose, and our kamma in demolishing that whole. We could then proceed, and shred a petal into dust, and again jubilantly and ignorantly proclaim that there are no petals, only dust. This can continue ad infinitum. This occurs in the analysis of experience as well. As concentration develops and one climbs up the jhana ladder, more and more features fall away from what is experienced. But even at the very limits of experience, there remains a compounded reality : eg MN121 "Further, Ananda, the monk — not attending to the perception of the dimension of nothingness, not attending to the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — attends to the singleness based on the theme-less concentration of awareness. His mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, settles, & indulges in its theme-less concentration of awareness. "He discerns that 'This theme-less concentration of awareness is fabricated & mentally fashioned.' So, what becomes clear is that whatever is experienced is always already a whole, a synthetic, fabricated whole, and that the level of complexity is a function of what is being done or not done to experience that. In the sensuous world, every sense is contributing to the present complex percept, and in jhanas this is progressively reduced. But we never arrive at anything irreducible. There is always already a synthetic whole, and the search for irreducible elements to be known as they really are is a wild goose chase :-) Cheers Herman #111464 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 3:14 pm Subject: Re: A discussion about reality kenhowardau Hi Herman, ------------ <. . .> KH: > > I consider mindfulness - in the conventional sense of the word - to mean "thinking about". So, had you said, "Now while reading this email, there is thinking about "this email"" I would have agreed. >> H: > Oh, OK. I consider mindfulness to be reflective awareness. -------------- And what is that if not "thinking about"? --------------------- H: > I doubt very much that reading an email is even possible without some mindfulness of my variety. Reading an email includes being aware that this is happening. On the other hand, thinking about this email is a different activity altogether, isn't it? --------------------- No, it's all thinking. 'Reading' and 'email' are concepts. They are created by thinking. ----------------------------- KH: >In the paramattha-dhamma sense, mindfulness is sati - mindfulness of the application of kusala consciousness. I don't think you meant that, did you? >> H: > No, I didn't. And from what people have been writing lately, no-one actually knows what they mean when they say stuff like that. ------------------------------- There you go again with the sour grapes. :-) You may not know what sati means - and I may have only a slight grasp of it - but some people know precisely what it means. ------------------------------------------- <. . .> H: >>>Perhaps the following will clarify: > > Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' >>> KH: >> I think at that stage in the Satipatthana Sutta the Buddha was referring to discernment of nama and rupa. >> H: > Hmmm, that is an interesting, and perplexing interpretation of some very plain, non-perplexing Pali sentences. --------------------------------------------- I was not saying anything new to you or to the rest of DSG. No sutta has been discussed here more often than the Satipatthana sutta. Surely by now everyone knows how it is about discerning conditioned dhammas or "knowing the world as it really is" etc. Can't someone refer to it without having to go back to the beginning every time? (Reinventing the wheel!) In that sutta a monk, who had been practising jhana, understood the world as just a presently arisen nama or rupa. Similarly, a monk who had been walking (or talking or getting dressed or being angry etc) also had right understanding of the present ultimate reality. ------------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> So, had you said, "Now while reading this email, I understand there are really only the presently arisen namas and rupas," I would have agreed. >> H: > If I had said that, I would have been a liar. Because that is not at all what is being understood as I am reading the email and aware of that fact. ------------------------------------------- More's the pity! ----------- > <. . .> H: >>> When there is believing in right belief, that's what there is. When there is believing in wrong belief, that's what there is. >>> HK: >> Believing in right belief and wrong belief can mean believing there are absolute realities known as 'right view' and 'wrong view'. I'd agree with that. >> H: > Believing is something we are all prone to. When mindful, there is a knowable difference between believing and knowing, though. ----------- It's all just thinking. In reality - while that thinking is going on - there are namas and rupas arising and performing their momentary functions. Those are the things we should be learning about. Ken H #111465 From: Herman Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 3:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality egberdina Hi Ken H, On 3 November 2010 09:14, Ken H wrote: > > > > ----------------------------- > KH: >In the paramattha-dhamma sense, mindfulness is sati - mindfulness of > the application of kusala consciousness. I don't think you meant that, did > you? > >> > > H: > No, I didn't. And from what people have been writing lately, no-one > actually knows what they mean when they say stuff like that. > ------------------------------- > > There you go again with the sour grapes. :-) > No, sorry, that's not it at all. It is having carefully listened to and considered what has been said. You may not know what sati means - and I may have only a slight grasp of it > - but some people know precisely what it means. > > I gather from what I have been told that panna knows sati, and other kusala from akusala. But apparently there's cheating dhammas around, and I gather that there's some cheating panna in amongst that. So the question is, what knows panna? And nobody seems to know. > ------------------------------------------- > <. . .> > > H: >>>Perhaps the following will clarify: > > > Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing > out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he > discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I > am breathing out short.' > >>> > > KH: >> I think at that stage in the Satipatthana Sutta the Buddha was > referring to discernment of nama and rupa. > >> > > H: > Hmmm, that is an interesting, and perplexing interpretation of some > very plain, non-perplexing Pali sentences. > --------------------------------------------- > > I was not saying anything new to you or to the rest of DSG. No sutta has > been discussed here more often than the Satipatthana sutta. Surely by now > everyone knows how it is about discerning conditioned dhammas or "knowing > the world as it really is" etc. Can't someone refer to it without having to > go back to the beginning every time? (Reinventing the wheel!) > > In that sutta a monk, who had been practising jhana, understood the world > as just a presently arisen nama or rupa. > What, there's long and short presently arisen nama or rupa? > Similarly, a monk who had been walking (or talking or getting dressed or > being angry etc) also had right understanding of the present ultimate > reality. > > ------------------------------------------- > <. . .> > KH: >> So, had you said, "Now while reading this email, I understand there > are really only the presently arisen namas and rupas," I would have agreed. > >> > > H: > If I had said that, I would have been a liar. Because that is not at > all what is being understood as I am reading the email and aware of that > fact. > ------------------------------------------- > > More's the pity! > > ----------- > > <. . .> > H: >>> When there is believing in right belief, that's what there is. When > there is believing in wrong belief, that's what there is. > >>> > > HK: >> Believing in right belief and wrong belief can mean believing there > are absolute realities known as 'right view' and 'wrong view'. I'd agree > with that. > >> > > H: > Believing is something we are all prone to. When mindful, there is a > knowable difference between believing and knowing, though. > ----------- > > It's all just thinking. In reality - while that thinking is going on - > there are namas and rupas arising and performing their momentary functions. > Those are the things we should be learning about. > > Well, I do consider what people tell me. I would hope that my questions were a sign of that. Perhaps my problem is that I distinguish between rote learning and understanding? Cheers Herman #111466 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 3:49 pm Subject: Re: With "no" or without "no", which translation is correct ? kenhowardau Hi Huajun, ------ H: > In one sentence in the "Fundamentals of Vipassana Meditation" by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw, the online version is without "no", but the version I previously obtained from Ven. Sayadaw U Silananda has "no" in the sentence: "The three Morality Constituents, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood, have been perfected before you take up insight meditation - when you take the precepts. Besides, there can be NO wrong speech, wrong action, or wrong livelihood in respect of the object noted. So whenever you note, you perfect the Morality Constituents of the Path as well." The question is which one is correct? ------- Not knowing anything about Ven. Mahasi's method, my guess would be the following: If "no" was meant to be included, the sentence would mean, "there should be no wrong speech ." If "no" was *not* meant to be included, the sentence could mean "there can be wrong speech so be careful that there isn't." Either way the meaning is the same, is it not? ------------------------------------ H: > The above sentences is in the paragraph under the title "Noble Path". > The book I got from Ven. Sayadaw Silananada is published in 1991, which was given to me by the Sayadaw when I first visited the Halfmoon Bay monastory. This version is edited by Sayadaw U Silananda. > The online versio can be download from Buddhanet.net http://www.buddhanet.net/ftp10.htm . I also checked some other online verions, there are the same. ----------------------------------- Thanks for the information. If I may change the subject for a moment: Here at Dhamma Study Group some of us are learning to understand the Dhamma in a way that is found in the ancient Pali texts. That way doesn't have "noting" or any other formal practice. It simply has right understanding of the present conditioned reality. If you are interested we can discuss it. If not, there are plenty of us who would like to discuss Ven. Mahasi's method too. :-) Ken H #111467 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 4:48 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi Rob > And enjoying a bit of samatha instead of carnal or other cravings seems like a pretty good trade. Exactly. Happiness without bait, happiness without debt. Might also be happiness without much in the way of bhavana, because (in my case) of all the lobha involved, but that is fine with me. And I think any variant of pleasant samattha, even far short of the jhanas, provides protection for sila to be fostered, and thanks to the non-remorse that provides, concentration can deepen, and there may be better conditions for deeper bhavana at some point down the road thanks to that, that's the way I see it in my hopelessly narrative, hopelessly conventional mind! ;} Metta, Phil #111468 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 5:04 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? philofillet Hi again Rob and all >The key for me is to find a way to also maintain a gentle, generous, friendly attitude towards people even as I toughen my attitude towards sense pleasures. That's possible. Meditation and the safely pleasant mind states it conditions makes it possible, without meditation I'd be screwed, I think. I'd just like to clarify about what I wrote above. I personally don't think it's essential that all Buddhists meditate, obviously there are wonderfully generous, friendly-mannered and knowledgeable (in decreasing order of importance in my book) people here who don't meditate. It's only in my paricular case where there is such an inherited interest in renouncing sense pleasures that I'd be screwed without that pleasure. Metta, Phil #111469 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 5:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality kenhowardau Hi Herman, ----- <. . .> KH: >> I was not saying anything new to you or to the rest of DSG. No sutta has been discussed here more often than the Satipatthana sutta. Surely by now everyone knows how it is about discerning conditioned dhammas or "knowing the world as it really is" etc. Can't someone refer to it without having to go back to the beginning every time? (Reinventing the wheel!) >> In that sutta a monk, who had been practising jhana, understood the world as just a presently arisen nama or rupa. >> H: > What, there's long and short presently arisen nama or rupa? ----- :-) In other words, I do have to go back to the beginning - reinvent the wheel. Fair enough, I don't mind doing that. The Buddha became enlightened when he discovered there were, in ultimate reality, only dhammas - no self. (That meant all conventionally known realities - people, places, long breaths, short breaths, in breaths, out breaths - were just concepts.) The Satipatthana Sutta described how monks directly knew that ultimate reality while going about their normal daily lives. Ken H #111470 From: Herman Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 7:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality egberdina Hi Ken H, On 3 November 2010 11:15, Ken H wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > ----- > <. . .> > KH: >> I was not saying anything new to you or to the rest of DSG. No sutta > has been discussed here more often than the Satipatthana sutta. Surely by > now everyone knows how it is about discerning conditioned dhammas or > "knowing the world as it really is" etc. Can't someone refer to it without > having to go back to the beginning every time? (Reinventing the wheel!) > > > >> In that sutta a monk, who had been practising jhana, understood the > world as just a presently arisen nama or rupa. > >> > > H: > What, there's long and short presently arisen nama or rupa? > ----- > > :-) In other words, I do have to go back to the beginning - reinvent the > wheel. Fair enough, I don't mind doing that. > > The Buddha became enlightened when he discovered there were, in ultimate > reality, only dhammas - no self. (That meant all conventionally known > realities - people, places, long breaths, short breaths, in breaths, out > breaths - were just concepts.) > > The Satipatthana Sutta described how monks directly knew that ultimate > reality while going about their normal daily lives. > > As has been pointed out to you and others on countless occasions, yours is a totally unnecessary and unsustainable interpretion of some foundational Buddhist material. It is not necessary to convince me of the rectitude of your interpretation, Ken H, really. If your oft-repeated assertions and arguments had any coherence, I am confident I would have understood already, honestly. Thanks all the same :-) Cheers Herman #111471 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 3:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Herman) - In a message dated 11/2/2010 8:15:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: The Buddha became enlightened when he discovered there were, in ultimate reality, only dhammas - no self. (That meant all conventionally known realities - people, places, long breaths, short breaths, in breaths, out breaths - were just concepts.) ===================================== Ken, I would like to know a sutta in which that is stated! My reading suggests that the Buddha awakened when, through transcendent wisdom he directly came to know the tilakkhana and paticcasamuppada, and then realized nibbana and uprooted all defilements. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111472 From: Sukinderpal Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Alex, > > > Going to the gym, practicing a skill (such as playing a piano), does > > > happen because of impersonal conditions. > > > > > > > S: Again here we need to be precise, 'going to the gym' and > >'practicing the piano' are concepts and we need to take care not >to > give it any value beyond that. > > I used a simile. > Suk: Yes, I understand that you were using a simile. But I also understood that it was to justify following meditation. The point of the Dhamma is the development of understanding of ultimate realities and this is got not by analyzing concepts in terms of namas and rupas. This is why in comparing playing the piano when awake to when dreaming, I was pointing to the fact of the concept being the same. This being the case, then the whole idea of setting up time for meditation etc. must more urgently be known to be just that, a concept. ========== Alex: > > Furthermore, in one of our favourite suttas (satipatthana sutta) it > does talk about > > Being aware of 4 postures & minor movements > 4 elements contemplation > Cemetery contemplation of body in decay > Anapanasati > 32 bodyparts contemplation > Suk: No, it talks about being aware of nama and rupa no matter what one is doing and in which posture. That there is awareness of realities while sitting down does not preclude any thinking which happens in between. So if one were to be practicing say, anapanasati as a samatha practice, there would be at times, thinking in terms of long and short breath which doesn't stop were satipatthana to arise and know any of the namas and rupas arsing and falling away. You need to take note of the underlying message Alex. It is "Satipatthana" that the Sutta is all about. The mention of anapanasati, body parts contemplation, cemetery contemplations, contemplation on the 4 elements etc. is not an encouragement to practice these as support for the development of the kind of wisdom. The fact of wearing robes, eating, bending, defecating etc. also being mentioned in this same Sutta should indicate to you that the whole point is to develop satipatthana in every and all situations. All these mundane activities, including the different samatha practices were what the bhikkhu community were engaged in as part of their daily life. It is hard to accept the logical conclusion that the Buddha never intended anyone to do anything special with regard to the development of understanding. A monk is a monk because he has the accumulations for it, and the lay person is what he is because this is what his accumulations allow for. Both have to come to understand this, instead of being moved by some ideal which not only obscures everything, but leads also to more attachment and wrong understanding. When we hear about something worthwhile, the knee-jerk reaction is to think along the lines of, "what must we do in order to get this?". This happens with Dhamma as well, and to be expected. However with some understanding, we come to see that the kind of question arises in fact due to attachment to 'self' which is the very obstacle to that kind of understanding. ========== > > >however, in both cases concept is product of thinking and all > > the realities that are in fact there, are equally conditioned and > > fleeting. It is these realities that are to be known, and the only > > worthy skills to have is this ability to understand them. > > Alex: Right. Understanding is a must. But does this means that one > rejects what our favourite sutta, satipatthana sutta, says? > Suk: I hope that you can now see that I wasn't rejecting anything but just interpreting it differently from you. ========= > > > > Do you suggest that because there is no control, one should > indulge in > > > whatever mind wants (surfing, watching TV, etc etc) without trying to > > > control reality? Please explain. > > > > > > > S: Because dhammas arise and fall away by conditions and hence not > > within any control, trying to make particular dhammas arise by > > following some conventional idea about 'practice' is reflection of > >wrong understanding. > > Alex: It seems to me that indulging in kilesas is an example of > indulgence and rational justification. I don't remember Buddha saying > anywhere something like "if you want to do kilesas, do them." > Suk; Of course not, why would he. Can you please point out a statement made by anyone suggesting the encouraging of akusala and giving a rational justification for it? What you may find is an emphasis on the development of Right Understanding. This goes against *not* the idea of developing more kusala but "doing" something for the purpose. I hope that you see this difference now. ========= Alex: > > And it seems that that kind of belief is one of the factors > responcible for kilesas to arise and strengthen. > Suk: An encouragement to develop Right Understanding opens the way for kusala of other kinds being developed as well. Indeed the Perfections leading to enlightenment, these can't grow in strength without the development of right understanding. On the other hand, a proactive stance towards the development of kusala of all kinds, if this is motivated by 'self view' not recognized, will lead to much mischief down the road. But of course being that this must be accompanied by some 'cheating dhamma', it will make the person think otherwise. ========= > > > S: Satipatthana is Right View at the level of direct understanding. > >It is of the opposite nature to the understanding which sees the > >importance of particular time, place, posture and object in order to > >develop the skill. > Alex: > > Near the begining of Satipatthana sutta it does say: > ""There is the case where a monk --- having gone to the wilderness, to > the shade of a tree, or to an empty building --- sits down folding his > legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the > fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; > mindful he breathes out." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html > > It does talk about a specific posture: > "sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect" > > It does talk about a specific place: > "having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty > building" > > And it definitely talk about specific objects: > Anapanasati > 4 major and minor postures > 4 elements > cemetery contemplations > 32 body parts contemplation. > Suk: Talking about them does not mean "go do those things". Metta, Sukinder #111473 From: Sukinderpal Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. sukinderpal Hi Nina, ( and Ann), > N: I tried to explain more in my recent post to Ann. The context was > sincerity in one's motive to listen: not wishing for anything else > but right understanding of realities. No gains for oneself. > Thanks for exaplaining it. I think I get the idea now. But just to be sure, could we say that the statement is more about the manifestation of the particular accumulation (of Truthfulness) and not necessarily about what the person knows at that moment? Metta, Sukinder #111474 From: Sukinderpal Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Alex, > > Suk: As I suggested in the last post, given the understanding that > >there are only conditioned realities and that these are to be known, > >the question to ask is, "how is the Satipatthana Sutta to be > >interpreted"? > > > Alex: The way described in the suttas and explained further in the > commentaries. Please forgive me, but neither do the suttas nor the > commentary talk about "don't do anything. Just read and understand." > > VsM and Suttas have plenty of "shoulds" and NOWHERE do they state that > those phrases are metaphorical and one shouldn't take those > instructions to be instructions of action. > > It seems unbelievable how some take a plain statement and make it to > mean the opposite of what it says ("do X" becomes, "don't do X"). > > None of your logical justifications will count. Bring the suttas or > commentary passages. I don't think that you know better than the > Buddha or Buddhaghosa. > S: You and others often make the kind of statement which I think is out of place. I realize that you all consider the Suttas to be quite clear, but still in all these years you must have got the impression that it all comes down to the matter of the difference in interpretation don't you? And this means that neither side is rejecting what the Suttas or commentaries are saying, let alone that he or she knows better than the Buddha or the commentators? Indeed the kind of comment sounds quite silly to me, and I hope that it doesn't in fact serve the purpose of a prop for you. ========== > > > > Suk: Why should a suggestion to understand whatever arises now, > >lead to the conclusion that one is allowing oneself to indulge in > >akusala? A moment of dosa arises and falls away in an instant; this > >is how it is known to panna. Why should one then think to do > >something about that which is not there? Would not the thought `to > >do', in fact be a case of having not understood, but gone on to feed > >the illusion of lastingness and a `self' who must act? > > > But this understanding "to be known by panna" (a volitional action), > how is it different from following satipatthana and its commentary? It > is an action that doesn't happen randomly, certain volitional actions > are required. > S: The 'volitional action' that I think you are talking about is not the same as the idea that volition arises with each citta, nor is it a reference specifically to javana cittas as a conditioned reality. Panna arises by causes and conditions which include, hearing the Dhamma, association with the wise, wise reflection and practice in accordance with the dhamma. None of this is about "certain volitional actions" which must be deliberately undertaken. They all refer to the arising of conditioned realities, in this case panna cetasika. But you've discussed this many times with others. So I hope you don't mind that I don't wish to go any further into this. Besides we are having another discussion and both these are related. Metta, Sukinder #111475 From: Sukinderpal Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, > > Like Ann, I am curious about what exactly A. Sujin was referring to > when > > she said, "this is the perfection of truthfulness". > > Would it be correct to say that Truthfulness is the inclination not to > > misinterpret the present reality, for example, if there are akusala > > motives, we shouldn't think that it is kusala? > > What about remembering wrong and therefore misinforming? This would be > > carelessness for sure, but would it also reflect lack of Truthfulness? > > I don't know A. Sujin as well as you do, but my impression is that she > was saying that the person answered exactly what was the truth for > him, just an acknowledgment of what existed in his awareness at that > moment without any hesitation or interpretation. In that sense it's > not a question of whether he was aware of paramatha or concept, it was > his truth as he experienced it. If you ask me what I'm experiencing > right now and I say "concept," that is the simple truth, and you can > go from there. > S: Thanks for your comment. The example you give may be a case of reflection of some sincerity. But I think that when we talk about Truthfulness as a perfection, this being that it is a result of a development which must go together with Right Understanding, I think there is more to it. I liked Nina's explanation which she gave to Ann. Metta, Sukinder #111476 From: Sukinderpal Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, > > Suk: And it talks about activities such as bending forward, sideways > and backwards, wearing the robes, defecating, etc. So why is it that > you highlight and particularly follow `sitting' in a particular > posture? And regarding object, I was talking about the chosen object > such as breath, and asking why if understanding nama and rupa is the > objective, that one chooses to focus on or use as anchor, that one object? > > Why don't you ask Buddha why he said it was the supreme, ultimate > meditation object? It's his system, so maybe he knew something... > S: The discussion was about the Satipatthana Sutta and how the mention of all those different activities including the different samatha practices need to be understood within this particular context. Metta, Sukinder #111477 From: Sukinderpal Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Discussion between Robert Ep. and Sukinder sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, > > > > "Now while reading this email, there is seeing and there is > thinking, > > > > are these real?" > > > > > > R: They are real, insofar as they are taking place, for sure. > > > > S: Next question. > > > > What does seeing experience and what does thinking experience? > > Rob: Do you want details? I don't understand the question. > Suk: I wanted to find out if you'd just say visible object and concept or something else and proceed from there. So stop thinking too much and just answer! ;-) ========== > > > > "If so why, if not why?" > > > > > > R: What is experienced is a real experience. > > > > S: This is confusing. Do you not distinguish the experience from > that which is experienced? > > Rob: What do you mean? > Suk: You said, "What is experienced is a real experience" which sounded to me like you were not differentiating between say, consciousness and its object. Do you not make this kind of distinction? ========== > > R: To go beyond this, one must leave experience and access analysis, > which is always second-hand. > > > > S: Or you could begin to understand that which otherwise is not > apparent and this must necessarily begin at the conceptual level. > > Rob: You can say it however you like, it is still second-hand. Plus I > don't agree with you that understanding must "necessarily begin at the > conceptual level." I don't think that's the path. The path is to "look > and see," not to "think and see what you think." Pariyatti is part of > the path, but it is not the extent of the path. You overemphasize it > to the detriment of seeing. > > > There shouldn't be a problem about anything being second-hand, if we > take it that we are on the path of a Savaka. > > Rob: Well you can explain better to me why that is a reassurance > against intellectualizing the path. To me it is a problem, a big one, > and if you don't know how to examine what your eyes see and what your > ears hear, thinking about conceptual Right View all day will get you > exactly nowhere. > Suk: I was a bit hesitant to make the comment, because I wanted to go slowly and gain some foothold, and not to start philosophizing and being sidetracked. So I'll not comment on what you wrote above. Metta, Sukinder #111478 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: ...For what one feels, that one perceives. What one > perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not > disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, > to delineate the difference among them." > > There are no separate components of reality, except in thought. It is not I > who needs to make a case for the experience of wholes, it is those who > insist on the existence of unrelated elements as distinct "realities" who > need to make their case. I think you make an excellent case in favor of synthetic wholes, rather than analytic lists of elements, and in a debate with elementalists, it is an important point. I am a phenomenalist, an an analyst and a synthesist at the same time, or at various times. I agree with your point, but also can sometimes obsessively want to breatk things down into component parts to examine their constituent elements more carefully. But you are right, after looking at all the parts of a motor and how they work together, you need to put them back together again to have a working whole. In this case, I was just obsessively listing the component elements of reality, and separating that which were the "parts" from that which is the "process." But once that is established, I'm ready to move on to more process-oriented conversation. Sometimes it's hard to live with myself. :-( Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111479 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > Any analysis can only occur on the basis of there already being some > synthetic whole. We can strip all the petals of a rose, and then jubilantly > exclaim there is in fact no rose, only a pile of petals. Of course, we would > be ignoring the fact that we started of with a rose, and our kamma in > demolishing that whole. We could then proceed, and shred a petal into dust, > and again jubilantly and ignorantly proclaim that there are no petals, only > dust. This can continue ad infinitum. An excellent analogy. I get your point. > This occurs in the analysis of experience as well. As concentration develops > and one climbs up the jhana ladder, more and more features fall away from > what is experienced. But even at the very limits of experience, there > remains a compounded reality : eg MN121 > > "Further, Ananda, the monk — not attending to the perception of the > dimension of nothingness, not attending to the perception of the dimension > of neither perception nor non-perception — attends to the singleness based > on the theme-less concentration of awareness. His mind takes pleasure, finds > satisfaction, settles, & indulges in its theme-less concentration of > awareness. > "He discerns that 'This theme-less concentration of awareness is fabricated > & mentally fashioned.' > > So, what becomes clear is that whatever is experienced is always already a > whole, a synthetic, fabricated whole, and that the level of complexity is a > function of what is being done or not done to experience that. In the > sensuous world, every sense is contributing to the present complex percept, > and in jhanas this is progressively reduced. But we never arrive at anything > irreducible. There is always already a synthetic whole, and the search for > irreducible elements to be known as they really are is a wild goose chase > :-) I would say two things: 1. It seems that in a sense you are saying that we cannot analyze anything without destroying it. In physics they had that problem with the effect of observation on sub-atomic particles. I understand they found a way to account for the variance this creates and to correct for it. Could the same be done with analysis of experiential wholes? 2. Nibbana is the only element that would be inherently irreducible, since by definition it is unconditioned. Whether it can be "known" is a separate issue... Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #111480 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:42 pm Subject: Re: A discussion about reality epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > I was not saying anything new to you or to the rest of DSG. No sutta has been discussed here more often than the Satipatthana sutta. Surely by now everyone knows how it is about discerning conditioned dhammas or "knowing the world as it really is" etc. Can't someone refer to it without having to go back to the beginning every time? (Reinventing the wheel!) > > In that sutta a monk, who had been practising jhana, understood the world as just a presently arisen nama or rupa. Similarly, a monk who had been walking (or talking or getting dressed or being angry etc) also had right understanding of the present ultimate reality. For someone who's read the sutta thousands of times, you have a little syntax problem. The sutta is not the story of a monk who did something. It is written in the present tense as a possible scenario, not in the past tense as something that happened one time. your desire to make this a description rather than a prescription has caused you to warp the sutta into a story. "There is a the case where a monk does X" is the consideration of a possible situation and what would be done within it to get a particular result. It is completely different than saying: "Once upon a time, a monk, due to conditions, had satipatthana arise..." Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111481 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:49 pm Subject: Re: hot Asian girls in violent movies: part of path? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob > > > And enjoying a bit of samatha instead of carnal or other cravings seems like a pretty good trade. > > Exactly. Happiness without bait, happiness without debt. Might also be happiness without much in the way of bhavana, because (in my case) of all the lobha involved, but that is fine with me. And I think any variant of pleasant samattha, even far short of the jhanas, provides protection for sila to be fostered, and thanks to the non-remorse that provides, concentration can deepen, and there may be better conditions for deeper bhavana at some point down the road thanks to that, that's the way I see it in my hopelessly narrative, hopelessly conventional mind! ;} Well in my book you get credit for being practical. Inbetween having philosophical arguments, we have to make some actual progress on the path. Your emphasis on meritorious behavior has given me a bit of pragmatic focus to think about. I think it's a healthy thing as a daily-life foundation, whatever other Dhamma preoccupations you may have. Achieving it may not be so easy for me. I am pretty self-indulgent in conventional behavior, and you were helpful in pointing out that thinking about rarified philosophy does not protect you from that reality. At least I can take stock of what my daily life is like in terms of the path. [Lot of work to do.] Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111482 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 8:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Herman, > > ----- > <. . .> > KH: >> I was not saying anything new to you or to the rest of DSG. No sutta has been discussed here more often than the Satipatthana sutta. Surely by now everyone knows how it is about discerning conditioned dhammas or "knowing the world as it really is" etc. Can't someone refer to it without having to go back to the beginning every time? (Reinventing the wheel!) > > >> In that sutta a monk, who had been practising jhana, understood the world as just a presently arisen nama or rupa. > >> > > H: > What, there's long and short presently arisen nama or rupa? > ----- > > :-) In other words, I do have to go back to the beginning - reinvent the wheel. Fair enough, I don't mind doing that. > > The Buddha became enlightened when he discovered there were, in ultimate reality, only dhammas - no self. (That meant all conventionally known realities - people, places, long breaths, short breaths, in breaths, out breaths - were just concepts.) Gee, then why did he keep talking and teaching about them all the time after he was already enlightened? To continue the delusion of others while teaching them? Weird! Buddha is the one who came up with "long breath, short breath," not Herman! So what happened to Buddha's smashing realization that there was no long breath or short breath. So much for reinventing the wheel! I think you may have a couple of loose spokes there. > The Satipatthana Sutta described how monks directly knew that ultimate reality while going about their normal daily lives. Then what's up with the long breaths and short breaths? After all, that is the *Buddha's* method. He gave the talk to the monks, yes? How is all that stuff teaching the monks about ultimate realities, since you say they are just concepts? Is Buddha trying to teach the monks or delude them? He can't be doing both at the same time, can he? You say he is teaching them about ultimate realities, but he keeps talking about concepts, so how does that work? I'm confused - unless you are. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #111483 From: Herman Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 9:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep egberdina Hi Sukin, On 3 November 2010 14:17, Sukinderpal wrote: > > It is hard to accept the logical conclusion that the Buddha never > intended anyone to do anything special with regard to the development of > understanding. A monk is a monk because he has the accumulations for it, > and the lay person is what he is because this is what his accumulations > allow for. > Have you any shame, Sukin? Sutta Nipata Adhered to for a long time are the views of the ignorant, the ignorant tell us, one is a Brâma*n*a by birth / accumulation. (649) Not by birth is one a Brâma*n*a, nor is one by birth no Brâma*n*a; by actions (kammanâ) one is a Brâma*n*a, by actions one is no Brâma*n*a. (650) By actions one is a husbandman, by actions one is an artisan, by actions one is a merchant, by actions one is a servant. (651) By actions one is a thief, by actions one is a soldier, by actions one is a sacrificer, by actions one is a king. (652) So the wise, who see the dependent arising of things and understand the result of kamma, know this kamma as it really is*. (653) By kamma the world exists, by kamma mankind exists, beings are bound by kamma as the linch-pin of the rolling cart . (654) * Evam eta*m* yathâbhûta*m* ** Kamma*m* passanti pa*nd*itâ Pa*t*i*kk*asamuppâdadasâ Kammavipâkakovidâ. Accumulations, how dare you repeat it? Cheers Herman #111484 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 9:10 pm Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: ...I was talking about the chosen object > > such as breath, and asking why if understanding nama and rupa is the > > objective, that one chooses to focus on or use as anchor, that one object? > > > > Why don't you ask Buddha why he said it was the supreme, ultimate > > meditation object? It's his system, so maybe he knew something... > > > > S: The discussion was about the Satipatthana Sutta and how the mention > of all those different activities including the different samatha > practices need to be understood within this particular context. The satipatthana sutta begins with anapanasati, as the foundation for the other practices in the sutta. It is the meditation object which is praised and highlighted by the Buddha. Here's the sutta: "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long,...or breathing out...or breathing in short... "He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body...and...out... "He [breathes] in calming bodily fabrication...and [breathes] out... "...the monk, when breathing in long, discerns that he is breathing in long,...out short...he discerns...out short... He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication, and to breathe out... He then goes on to body awareness, body postures, going and returning, bending and extending, eating, drinking, urinating, defecating, walking, standing, sitting, waking sleeping, etc., parts of body, mindfulness of death, vedana, mental conditions and states, and mental qualities with reference to the Dhamma. Starts and continues with the breath, with mindfulness of breathing, with anapanasati, the Buddha's main method and main object for developing mindfulness. Learn to accept it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111485 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 2:57 pm Subject: Without Possessions! bhikkhu5 Friends: Clinging to Possessions always entails Misery! The Buddha encouraged relinquishing possessions thereby ending suffering: Those who are greedy and needy for cherished things cannot ever end grief, sorrow, and miserliness. Seeking security the recluse therefore relinquishes all possessions and wanders forth into homelessness. Dwelling withdrawn and remote, secluded in senses, he finds it agreeable not show himself anywhere! Not dependent upon anything, the sage finds nothing pleasant or unpleasant. Neither possessiveness, nor lamentation, nor what is seen or heard or thought clings to his mind, just as water cannot ever cling to a lotus-leaf... Sutta-Nipata 809-812 Edited excerpt. <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #111486 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 9:43 pm Subject: Re: A Discussion between Robert Ep. and Sukinder epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Robert Ep, > > > > > > > "Now while reading this email, there is seeing and there is > > thinking, > > > > > are these real?" > > > > > > > > R: They are real, insofar as they are taking place, for sure. > > > > > > S: Next question. > > > > > > What does seeing experience and what does thinking experience? > > > > Rob: Do you want details? I don't understand the question. > > > > Suk: I wanted to find out if you'd just say visible object and concept > or something else and proceed from there. > So stop thinking too much and just answer! ;-) I think you're the one who's thinking too much. I'm not the one who said "What does seeing experience and what does thinking experience?" Seeing experiences seeing, and thinking experiences thinking. Seeing experiences what is seen, and thinking experiences what is thought. And if I eat oatmeal, that is what is in my stomach. > ========== > > > > > > "If so why, if not why?" > > > > > > > > R: What is experienced is a real experience. > > > > > > S: This is confusing. Do you not distinguish the experience from > > that which is experienced? > > > > Rob: What do you mean? > > > > Suk: You said, "What is experienced is a real experience" which sounded > to me like you were not differentiating between say, consciousness and > its object. Do you not make this kind of distinction? I can differentiate them theoretically. But in this context, why would I want to? Why don't you differentiate them for me, since it's your idea. I don't see what any of this has to do with the simple verity of experiencing what one experiences. One really and actually experiences their actual experience, and nothing else. I mean, it's a tautology, experience = experience, but one wants to make more of it via analysis and one's pet theory. I wanted to start with a simple statement of fact; you want to re-expand it into the usual complexity without even establishing the fact. > > > R: To go beyond this, one must leave experience and access analysis, > > which is always second-hand. > > > > > > S: Or you could begin to understand that which otherwise is not > > apparent and this must necessarily begin at the conceptual level. > > > > Rob: You can say it however you like, it is still second-hand. Plus I > > don't agree with you that understanding must "necessarily begin at the > > conceptual level." I don't think that's the path. The path is to "look > > and see," not to "think and see what you think." Pariyatti is part of > > the path, but it is not the extent of the path. You overemphasize it > > to the detriment of seeing. > > > > > There shouldn't be a problem about anything being second-hand, if we > > take it that we are on the path of a Savaka. > > > > Rob: Well you can explain better to me why that is a reassurance > > against intellectualizing the path. To me it is a problem, a big one, > > and if you don't know how to examine what your eyes see and what your > > ears hear, thinking about conceptual Right View all day will get you > > exactly nowhere. > > > > Suk: I was a bit hesitant to make the comment, because I wanted to go > slowly and gain some foothold, and not to start philosophizing and being > sidetracked. So I'll not comment on what you wrote above. Well, I said that intellectualizing was second-hand. You said "that is not a problem" if one is on the path of a Savaka. So tell me why it doesn't matter that it is second-hand, and how the path inoculates you from being on an intellectual wavelength. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #111487 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 11:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality kenhowardau Hi Howard, ---- <. . .> KH: >> The Buddha became enlightened when he discovered there were, in ultimate reality, only dhammas - no self. (That meant all conventionally known realities - people, places, long breaths, short breaths, in breaths, out breaths - were just concepts.) >> H: > Ken, I would like to know a sutta in which that is stated! My reading suggests that the Buddha awakened when, through transcendent wisdom he directly came to know the tilakkhana and paticcasamuppada, and then realized nibbana and uprooted all defilements. ---- You are just repeating what I said. The only trouble is that you, and all the other formal-meditation-Buddhists, have your own heterodox interpretations of it. I happen to like the interpretation that is found in the Theravada Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries. To each his own. :-) Ken H #111488 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 11:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > When one is engaged in any activity of daily life, both feet are firmly > planted in the world of the five senses. That is not the case when engaged > in meditation. .... S: Are you sure? Metta Sarah ====== #111489 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 11:40 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: Hmm... Temperature is a reality, experienced as temperature(heat/cold). Anatta is a characteristic of a reality - no atta in that reality at all. In other words there can be the experience of the anattaness of temperature, but not just of anatta, "like looking into the abyss"! > > This starts to make some sense of the dispute. Anatta is a "characteristic of X" rather than a "thing" that can be apprehended in its own right. Still, it seems like an observation of what X does *not* have, rather than something "about" X itself. ... S: Yes, I tend to agree - what X does *not* have - that's its nature or 'characteristic', just as it's nature is also that of lacking any permanence or satisfactoriness. Metta Sarah ======== #111490 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Nov 2, 2010 11:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (1) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, (Connie & Jon) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > Oh, I didn't know there were taped discussions to listen to. I will definitely check them out! Will be fun to hear you all talking, and some of what you are saying may even penetrate my consciousness! :-) .... S: You're always very kind and encouraging, Rob. This is the link: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ Scroll down to "audio", under all the DSG archived messages, patiently preserved by Connie. I suggest starting with the first sets of audio in the list. You'll know many of the participants from DSG. Remember Eric from DSG? Let us know any bits you find of interest, agree with/disagree with or transcribe anything for further discussion. I'd like to hear any of your comments. A side-not to Connie & Jon - a friend just wrote off-list that he'd down-loaded all the audio, but there was a problem with the down-loading of "Savatthi E1, 2004)". Perhaps you can check it out. Metta Sarah ======= #111491 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 12:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] With "no" or without "no", which translation is correct ? sarahprocter... Hi Huajun, Welcome to DSG! --- On Wed, 3/11/10, Huajun wrote: >In one sentence in the "Fundamentals of Vipassana Meditation" by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw, the online version is without "no", but the version I previously obtained from Ven. Sayadaw U Silananda has "no" in the sentence: >"The three Morality Constituents, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood, have been perfected before you take up insight meditation - when you take the precepts. Besides, there can be NO wrong speech, wrong action, or wrong livelihood in respect of the object noted. So whenever you note, you perfect the Morality Constituents of the Path as well." >The question is which one is correct? .... S: I would think that "NO" was intended to be in the passage. I'd like to add a few comments of my own. The 5 precepts are perfected at the stage of sotapanna only, but at any moments of awareness (including moments of vipassana insight), there cannot be any wrong speech, action, livelihood or anything else 'wrong', at such moments. However, after the awareness (even the insight), has fallen away, there can be wrong speech and so on again. A sotapanna will not tell lies ever again, but even they can still utter other kinds of wrong speech, such as gossip, for example. As for the 'noting', this too will depend on the cittas at the time. Now we may be 'noting' the words we read wisely. If we try to 'note' the realities appearing, however, it may be with desire or a wish to be aware. Only Right understanding can know. At any moments of wise consideration, it's true again that there cannot be any harm, any breaking of the precepts at auch a time. Would you care to introduce yourself and let us know where you live? Is Huajun your name? Metta Sarah ======== #111492 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 12:22 am Subject: Re: mandala / thanka for 4 contemplations? sarahprocter... Hi Basil,(Pt & Nina) I meant to welcome you to DSG before now as well! I hope you're still around. Pls also introduce yourself a little too. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "turncoatgreen" wrote: > > After 5 or so years of casual interest I have left the beach and hope to walk to the dropoff. :) > > I have been drawn to Sati-Patthana and am looking for resources to help me hold in awareness the various elements of the 4 contemplations - so I can "label and move on" as i hear taught. To this goal, I have begun "The Heart of Buddhist Meditation." Perhaps my Qs will be answered there but I also want to begin to engage a Sangha (albeit virtual :) [actually i'm impatient] .... S: Please do engage us and develop a little patience at the same time! I don't think the Buddha's teachings are for "holding in awareness the various elements", but for understanding these elements in our lives, slowly and gradually. .... > > MAIN?: To become skillful at the filing/labeling; is there a *visual* that helps in remembering the classifications? I have assumed that Tibetan Thankas or other such elaborations represent these kind of things. If that is the case, is there one for this application? Other resource (book/audio) suggestions also valued. .... S: I don't know really. In the back of Nyantiloka's dictionary, there are various charts. Also throughout B.Bodhi's edited translation of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, there are many charts by U Silananda which you may find helpful. I'm not sure if the charts are on line. Also, if you look in the DSG files, you'll see some charts which Rob Moult devised for beginners. He may have other ideas. If you respond to this message, I'll bring it to his attention. .... > > CURIOSITY?: If bare attention is to be practiced, isn't the "labeling" process itself an elaboration? Or is this a matter of advanced practice after simple Bare Attention (noting) is solidified? .... S: I would drop the idea of 'labelling'. This was never taught by the Buddha. At this moment, visible object appears and there can be awareness of it. As soon as there's the idea of labeling or labeling itself, this is thinking. It too can be known as another dhamma. .... > > If I am going about this the wrong way (as a beginner) please correct and advise. I know the B has some programmatic ("gradual") methods but I came to Buddhism via my heart and prefer to continue its lead. > > Blessings and THANKS for your valuable resource! ... S: Thank you for your good questions. If you look in "useful posts" in the files under "Abhidhamma- beginners" and "new to the dhamma, new to the list", I think you'll find many helpful resources. I'm also thinking of Nina's book - the one that was published to be put in hotel rooms in Thailand - which would be very helpful. I just can't remember the title and whether it's on-line. Nina or Pt, can you help with this. Meanwhile, Basil, please do continue the discussion and asking of good questions here. Ignore any of the message threads which are too complicated. Metta Sarah ========= #111493 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 12:35 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? sarahprocter... Dear Alex, #109989 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > S: So again, what or who is "we" following the instructions? > > nama follows instructions. .... S: Yes ... > > >Is it volition (cetana?)? Is that cetana conditioned too? > > Volition is conditioned, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't wills. ... S: Yes, conditioned cetana .... > If the house is on fire, a person would try one's best to get out of there ASAP. Same with samsara. .... S: Again, conditioned namas including conditioned cetana (as you answered above), respond according to conditions. The same applies whatever the scenario, including that which is taken to be the escaping from the "house on fire" or samsara. .... > >S:Is it volition that follows and understanding (pa~n~naa) that >understands "action"? What exactly does understanding understand >action to be? > > Understanding understands. Action is a namarupa process that is anicca, dukkha, anatta. .... S: Yes ... > But regardless of it being (anicca, dukkha, anatta) actions does happen. .... S: yes, regardless, namas and rupas arise and fall away. That's all....by conditions, like now! Metta Sarah ======== #111494 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 12:28 am Subject: Re: seclusion sarahprocter... Hi Alex, 3109287 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S: This is why even some devoted bhikkhus who had the Buddha's personal >guidance were advised not to live in forests or caves. > >A: This is because some monks may not have heard enough Dhamma. .... S: Not heard enough Dhamma, or not understood what was heard sufficiently? .... > However with all the books we have now the amount of information is not little. Today it is almost closer to "information overload" rather than not enough instruction. ... S: Again, I don't think it was a matter of under or overload of info, but of insufficient panna. For those like Vikkali, they attended the Buddha, they listened first-hand, but attachment is a dangerous weapon. Metta Sarah ===== #111495 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 1:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mandala / thanka for 4 contemplations? nilovg Dear Basil and Sarah, Op 3-nov-2010, om 8:22 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > I'm also thinking of Nina's book - the one that was published to be > put in hotel rooms in Thailand - which would be very helpful. I > just can't remember the title and whether it's on-line. Nina or Pt, > can you help with this. ------ N: I think this was the 'Buddha's Path'. Basil, you could also try my 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life', see also: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Nina. #111496 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 1:22 am Subject: What I heard. nilovg Dear friends, From Thai recording, no 2. Before there can be satipa.t.thaana there is pa~n~naa of the level of listening, of thinking of what one heard. When sati is directly aware of a characteristic of reality there is no need to think each time. Who thinks in words all the time? When we touch something now do we think in words? When hardness appears, there is no need to think that hardness is ruupa, or that the experience of hardness is naama. When the characteristic of hardness appears there is no idea of table or chair, there is only the reality of hardness or the reality that experiences hardness. There is no need to think in words. When satipa.t.thaana arises it inclines to knowing the characteristic of naama that experiences or the characteristic of ruupa. There is no clinging to hardness as a table; it is known as a reality, no matter where it is contacted, here or in the Jeta Grove. Hardness is a characteristic experienced through the bodysense, and it is not self, not a thing. But clinging to the idea of self has been accumulated for such a long time and that is why there is the idea of ‘we’ who are sitting and contacting hardness. Through satipa.t.thaana the wrong view of self can be eliminated. Then one will not take anything for self or person. There is just the reality that knows one object such as hardness. There is no remembrance of ‘I am sitting or standing’. When hardness is contacted there is no thinking, no thinking of any words. Pa~n~naa and sati tend to know realities and this does not mean that one should think: ‘this is ruupa’. When one thinks, hardness is not known. Pa~n~naa knows what appears through the six doors, not anything else. When the difference between nama and ruupa is discerned there will gradually be less clinging to the self. When one begins to listen, one studies the ‘story’ of Dhamma and there is not yet awareness of characteristics. When sati is aware, characteristics of realities appear and then pa~n~naa begins to develop. It will know at which moment a characteristic of naama appears and at which moment a characteristic of ruupa. But this is not yet insight knowledge. ******* Nina. #111497 From: Sukinderpal Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 1:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Herman, > > It is hard to accept the logical conclusion that the Buddha never > > intended anyone to do anything special with regard to the development of > > understanding. A monk is a monk because he has the accumulations for it, > > and the lay person is what he is because this is what his accumulations > > allow for. > > > Herman: Have you any shame, Sukin? > > Sutta Nipata > > Adhered to for a long time are the views of the ignorant, the ignorant > tell us, one is a Brâma*n*a by birth / accumulation. (649) > S: And have you no shame that you equate the meaning of 'by birth' with the concept of 'accumulation', and end up using the Buddha's teaching on one thing to support your personal understanding on a totally different matter? ;-) > Not by birth is one a Brâma*n*a, nor is one by birth no Brâma*n*a; by > actions (kammanâ) one is a Brâma*n*a, by actions one is no Brâma*n*a. > (650) > > By actions one is a husbandman, by actions one is an artisan, by actions > one is a merchant, by actions one is a servant. (651) > > By actions one is a thief, by actions one is a soldier, by actions one is > a sacrificer, by actions one is a king. (652) > > So the wise, who see the dependent arising of things and understand the > result of kamma, know this kamma as it really is*. (653) > > By kamma the world exists, by kamma mankind exists, beings are bound by > kamma as the linch-pin of the rolling cart . (654) > > * Evam eta*m* yathâbhûta*m* > > ** Kamma*m* passanti pa*nd*itâ > > Pa*t*i*kk*asamuppâdadasâ > > Kammavipâkakovidâ. > S: The Buddha was addressing certain people's beliefs in the division between class of people or caste system. These went by the idea that people belong to this or that caste and remain so by virtue simply of birth into a particular family. Someone probably thought that just because he was labeled Brahman according to this measure, that he must also be morally pure. The Buddha therefore had to straighten him out. Indeed the concept of accumulations is in some way, directly opposed to the above idea. Being that it refers to all that has ever been experienced throughout this endlessly long existence, which would include during life as an insect, a ghost, a deva, a pauper and a king. The relevant part however, is the tendencies for kusala and akusala, which as the Sutta you quote points out, is reflected in the actions. My stating about the difference between a monk and layperson, does not contradict any of this. A monk is one because his attitudes are different from the one who is inclined to continue living as a layperson. Those who see the dustiness of the household life will feel more comfortable living the life of a recluse, and those who like company will want to live with others. Those who can do with one meal a day, will not find troublesome living as a monk, but those who are attached to food, will likely feel agitated. A monks life is suitable for those who can do without sex, but not for those who can't. None of this is predetermined, let alone have association with the fact of being born into some particular family. > Accumulations, how dare you repeat it? > S: Yes, how dare. ;-) Change in the accumulations happens with each arising and falling away of a citta. But this citta conditions the next one and passes on all that has ever been accumulated as a result of each of those arisings and falling away. And yes, the only real knowing of one's accumulations is when panna arises to know the present reality. If for example attachment arises, we know that this is because of attachment in the past. Likewise at other times I think it is fair to come to a general conclusion such as that we are who we are, because of tendencies accumulated in the past. So while the real accumulations refer to the moment to moment experiences, we can get some general idea about it and can't expect such things as being able to live the life of a monk simply by making an effort to become one. Of course this does not deny the possibility of becoming one in some future lifetime. Metta, Sukinder #111498 From: Sukinderpal Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 1:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, > ...I was talking about the chosen object > > > such as breath, and asking why if understanding nama and rupa is the > > > objective, that one chooses to focus on or use as anchor, that one > object? > > > > > > Why don't you ask Buddha why he said it was the supreme, ultimate > > > meditation object? It's his system, so maybe he knew something... > > > > > > > S: The discussion was about the Satipatthana Sutta and how the mention > > of all those different activities including the different samatha > > practices need to be understood within this particular context. > > The satipatthana sutta begins with anapanasati, as the foundation for > the other practices in the sutta. It is the meditation object which is > praised and highlighted by the Buddha. > > Here's the sutta: > "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long,...or > breathing out...or breathing in short... > > "He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire > body...and...out... > > "He [breathes] in calming bodily fabrication...and [breathes] out... > > "...the monk, when breathing in long, discerns that he is breathing in > long,...out short...he discerns...out short... He trains himself to > breathe in calming bodily fabrication, and to breathe out... > > He then goes on to body awareness, body postures, going and returning, > bending and extending, eating, drinking, urinating, defecating, > walking, standing, sitting, waking sleeping, etc., parts of body, > mindfulness of death, vedana, mental conditions and states, and mental > qualities with reference to the Dhamma. > > Starts and continues with the breath, with mindfulness of breathing, > with anapanasati, the Buddha's main method and main object for > developing mindfulness. > > Learn to accept it. > Suk: I was tempted to argue, but decided against it. As of now I'd like to stick to the program and discuss the basics with you in that other thread which I started. Metta, Sukinder #111499 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 1:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. nilovg Dear Ann, Op 2-nov-2010, om 16:24 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven: > This pretty much sums it up - and clearly shows the motivations > that can arise, one moment at a time, both kusala and akusala. And > to know which is which, we need to follow the ever-continuing > reminder about developing understanding of the present moment. ------ N: Thank you. It has to be an ever-continuing reminder because we forget. What else can be done. If not the present moment, it is thinking of theory. Characteristics of realities have to be known and that is at the present moment. Nina. #111500 From: Sukinderpal Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 1:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Discussion between Robert Ep. and Sukinder sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, > > > > > > "Now while reading this email, there is seeing and there is > > > thinking, > > > > > > are these real?" > > > > > > > > > > R: They are real, insofar as they are taking place, for sure. > > > > > > > > S: Next question. > > > > > > > > What does seeing experience and what does thinking experience? > > > > > > Rob: Do you want details? I don't understand the question. > > > > > > > Suk: I wanted to find out if you'd just say visible object and concept > > or something else and proceed from there. > > So stop thinking too much and just answer! ;-) > > Robert: I think you're the one who's thinking too much. I'm not the > one who said "What does seeing experience and what does thinking > experience?" > > Seeing experiences seeing, and thinking experiences thinking. Seeing > experiences what is seen, and thinking experiences what is thought. > And if I eat oatmeal, that is what is in my stomach. > Sukin: OK, but how can't I not think too much after reading what you wrote above? ;-) How am I to understand the last three sentences? First you say "seeing expereinces seeing" and then you say that "seeing experiences what is seen" and then you make a comparison with "eating oatmeal and a full stomach". What is the message that you are trying to get across and what was wrong with my question, "What does seeing experience and what does thinking experience?" that it incited such a complicated response? ========== > > > > > > > "If so why, if not why?" > > > > > > > > > > R: What is experienced is a real experience. > > > > > > > > S: This is confusing. Do you not distinguish the experience from > > > that which is experienced? > > > > > > Rob: What do you mean? > > > > > > > Suk: You said, "What is experienced is a real experience" which sounded > > to me like you were not differentiating between say, consciousness and > > its object. Do you not make this kind of distinction? > > Robert: I can differentiate them theoretically. But in this context, > why would I want to? Why don't you differentiate them for me, since > it's your idea. > Sukin: What context are you talking about? Remember, I'm the 'theory man' and it is I who is posing the question to you, so why should you have a problem giving an answer even if this is only theoretical? ========== > > Robert: I don't see what any of this has to do with the simple verity > of experiencing what one experiences. One really and actually > experiences their actual experience, and nothing else. I mean, it's a > tautology, experience = experience, but one wants to make more of it > via analysis and one's pet theory. I wanted to start with a simple > statement of fact; you want to re-expand it into the usual complexity > without even establishing the fact. > Sukin: Perhaps you did make a simple statement, only I failed to understand it. But as I pointed out, to me it seems that you have made two statements that contradict each other. Besides you also appear to question my way of asking questions / discussing and I consider this unfair, given the fact that you agreed to go along with it after being offered to initiate the discussion yourself. You can still change your mind and be the one to lead the discussion or you can even decide not to discuss at all. But if you do wish to continue, I suggest that you answer my question simply and straightforwardly and refrain from making such comments as where I come from with some 'pet theory' etc. You may have many opportunities for that as we proceed, but I don't think the little I've said so far should lead you do so now. Or is there? ========= > > > Suk: I was a bit hesitant to make the comment, because I wanted to go > > slowly and gain some foothold, and not to start philosophizing and > being > > sidetracked. So I'll not comment on what you wrote above. > > Well, I said that intellectualizing was second-hand. You said "that is > not a problem" if one is on the path of a Savaka. So tell me why it > doesn't matter that it is second-hand, and how the path inoculates you > from being on an intellectual wavelength. > Sukin: This is the kind of discussion I wish to avoid at this point. I hope you will understand. And it is not that I do not enjoy such kind of discussion, I do. But that is exactly the problem. Metta, Sukinder #111501 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 1:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [6] nilovg Dear Philip, Op 2-nov-2010, om 1:10 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > One of the things I always remember hearing from A.S, a great talk, > was about the dome of lobha, or something like that. I could really > appreciate, understand, how there is a great dome of lobha and only > a few moments of awareness/understanding that penetrates it. ------ N: Thank you for reminding of the dome of lobha. It encloses us. She said this in Keang Kracan. There is a kind of wooden roof with benches for our meals. It is like a dome. -------- > Ph.... The dome of lobha, a screen of thinking, one conditioning > the other, I don't know. But I feel very, very far from > investigation of realities in a way that is anything but wanting > and trying. So I shy away from it, sensing it would be a bit of an > exploitation for me. Then again, maybe all the thinking does > condition the moments of pure awareness and I am missing out on > satipatthana. ------ N: There can be wrong thinking with lobha or right thinking with a degree of understanding. See my recent posts on 'What I heard': < When one begins to listen, one studies the ‘story’ of Dhamma and there is not yet awareness of characteristics. When sati is aware, characteristics of realities appear and then pa~n~naa begins to develop. > It is of no use if 'we' try to be aware, it is pa~n~naa's task. It will develop in its own time. -------- Ph: I'll just add another thing that occurred to me. It seems to me that in daily life we are always under attack by all kinds of vipaka, it can be so intense and so challenging, so much dosa, so much lobha to get away from that dosa, thus more dosa, and so on. ------ N: Vipaakacitta is so short, and mostly it is not noticed whether it is desirable or not. Just an extremely short moment of seeing, or hearing and then gone. Perhaps you tend to take for vipaaka what is already thinking with lobha. ----- Ph: ... I suspect, that feels more suitable to us, our defilements, our need for comfort, so strong, too strong to aspire to satipatthna out in the world, in daily life. ------- N: I am not thinking of aspiration, to aspire for satipa.t.thaana in daily life. One may have interest to understand the phenomena of one's life, what are they? What are realities? Many things to learn, that is all. ----- Nina. #111502 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 2:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 2-nov-2010, om 20:12 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I don't know A. Sujin as well as you do, but my impression is that > she was saying that the person answered exactly what was the truth > for him, just an acknowledgment of what existed in his awareness at > that moment without any hesitation or interpretation. In that sense > it's not a question of whether he was aware of paramatha or > concept, it was his truth as he experienced it. ------- N: I also watched the DVD and saw the person who asnwered. He was really sincere in his answer that he only intended to have more understanding of realities. He had no other goals in mind. This brings me to your other question about what satipa.t.thaana is according to the Abhidhamma. R: I have been waiting for a while to understand the Abhidhamma definition of satipatthana, and have never gotten an answer to this question. Can someone - anyone - tell me in a succinct way what satipatthana is according to Abhidhamma, Vism and commentary? ------- N: Developing understanding of realities appearing one at a time through the six doors. I do not see a specific Abh view, different from the suttas. ------ R: My own understanding of it is of the mundane variety - the practice of becoming aware through development of mindfulness of (1) presence of physical body and sensation [rupa], (2)vedana, (3)mental states [nama] and (4)understanding of Dhamma through direct observation of mental objects. The fulfillment of satipatthana would be complete direct awareness of nama and rupa, with direct understanding of anicca, anatta and dukkha. Perhaps that is where it intersects with the Abhidhamma understanding of satipatthana...? ------ N: All this amounts to understanding characteristics of naama and ruupa that appear. We have to emphasize characteristics, and this refers not immediately to the three general characteristics, but to the specific characteristics of, for example, the naama that sees and the ruupa that is visible object, lobha, generosity, etc. It is only later on that these are clearly seen as impermanent, dukkha and anattaa. -------- Nina. #111503 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 2:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [6] philofillet Hi Nina > N: Thank you for reminding of the dome of lobha. It encloses us. She > said this in Keang Kracan. There is a kind of wooden roof with > benches for our meals. It is like a dome. Ph: Yes, I really feel it encloses us, and I guess a wall of moha. I don't know if it is the first stirrings of my brain succumbing to Alzheimer's (I don't dread it with aversion, but am aware of the high probability) but I feel more and more that there is not awareness that is aware of fleeting moments, it is all concepts, people, situations. This is where my understanding is, I don't think it can be changed, we have to find Dhamma that suits our inclinations, strengths, be aware of limitations. So much lobha, yes. But I don't mind as long as I turn the lobha towards Dhamma. That is where it is best exercised, if you will. I suppose it could be kusala chanda at times, mostly lobha there, I am very deeply attached to being happy, healthy etc. That won't change. > > It is of no use if 'we' try to be aware, it is pa~n~naa's task. It > will develop in its own time. Ph: Well, I think there are too many reminders from respected teachers and friends, it will condition trying, surely. > -------- > Ph: I'll just add another thing that occurred to me. It seems to me > that in daily life we are always under attack by all kinds of vipaka, > it can be so intense and so challenging, so much dosa, so much lobha > to get away from that dosa, thus more dosa, and so on. > ------ > N: Vipaakacitta is so short, and mostly it is not noticed whether it > is desirable or not. Just an extremely short moment of seeing, or > hearing and then gone. Perhaps you tend to take for vipaaka what is > already thinking with lobha. Ph: Yes, this is a good point. I tend to take for vipaaka that which is already thinking with dosa or lobha. I would say that we all do. If we are tired or sick, we take it as vipaka rather than a situation or concept. That's good, I think, I don't feel concerned if it is not technically vipaka. I guess there are many milllions or billions of vipaka cittas involved in there somewhere, well, that's none of my business. I can only understand situations. So I take the situation as vipaka (if there is enough mindfulness to do so) and that will help me "dry out" that past kamma. I still love my metaphor of the vipaka lightning rod. If we allow the vipaka to play through us and don't respond, we take the vipaka and spare countless beings from the impact of the kamma that we would have released on the world in response. That is a proper teaching, of course, that when we abstain from wrong doing, we provide protection to countless beings. One of the blatantly wrong things I've come across at DSG is the idea that what we do doesn't impact other beings. I don't know what kind of convolution of commentarial interpretation led to that kind of thinking (I remember Scott maintaining it) but I'm glad that I'm not subject to it. Anways, you're right, I tend to take vipaka as the situation rather than having interest in the fleeting, imperceptible cittas that are technically vipaka. That is as far as my panna can go! But good to be reminded of deeper truths now and then. Metta, Phil p.s I always ramble, feel free to choose just one point if you wish to discuss further, or please also feel free to let it drop, either way, I don't want to add to your DSG workload when I am basically just blathering on about the same old things. #111504 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 2:50 am Subject: Khun Bong's Diary, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, Shortly before Khun Bong died she suffered more from pain and when her medicin was finished, it was discussed whether she would receive new medicin. It was not sure whether injections would help. She thought that she should fight against the disease which was so strong. She thought that in a little while she would not be able to write and that she should therefore improve her writing. She wrote: “At first I thought that being brave is not being afraid of death. This is not true, because nobody knows when the dying-consciousness arises. I firmly understand that death is sure to come, but I should have patience while I am still alive. If one understands the way to develop satipa.t.thaana this most beneficial, but I have not developed it much. Therefore, I should do what makes what is left of my life valuable and useful. I should not accumulate akusala because then it would be better not to be alive.” She noticed that the stopping of the medicine she took before had a favorable effect on her, but whether the unfavorable symptoms would return or not was anattaa, she said. She expressed her appreciation to Khun Duangduen and another friend who supported her with food. She wrote: “The giving of food means the giving of life. Anumodana.” The Buddha’s relics would stay in her house for a while. She wrote: “ Is there anything more beneficial than thinking what is right, doing what is right, and continuing to do what is right. Patience is the highest ascetism. Do not forget this. One can die anywhere. On the ground, in an aeroplane, in a car, by accidents. But so long as one is still alive don’t do any harm to anybody, through bodily actions or through the mind. Be alive to perform kusala and to receive the result of kamma.” An elderly person said to her:”Bong, fight”. She thought: “Yes, I must fight.” Khun Bong thought that there is not much difference between someone who is sick and someone who is healthy, because for both there are seeing, hearing etc., kusala citta, akusala citta. These can arise for everyone. She realised that even when speaking about Dhamma there can be akusala citta. She expressed her thanks to Acharn Sujin who had enabled her to understand realities. She wrote: “When sati is developed time and again there will not be the idea of self who has dosa and painful feeling. I am firmly convinced that these are only the dhammas of dosa and painful feeling.” She passed away in hospital with the greatest calm, as she had repeatedly spoken of before. Acharn Sujin and some people who were very close to her were present. Acharn Sujin spoke with respect about Khun Bong’s confidence in the Triple Gem until the last moment of her life. ********* Nina. #111505 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 2:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. nilovg Dear Sukin, Op 3-nov-2010, om 4:17 heeft Sukinderpal het volgende geschreven: > N: I tried to explain more in my recent post to Ann. The context was > > sincerity in one's motive to listen: not wishing for anything else > > but right understanding of realities. No gains for oneself. > > > Thanks for exaplaining it. I think I get the idea now. But just to be > sure, could we say that the statement is more about the > manifestation of > the particular accumulation (of Truthfulness) and not necessarily > about > what the person knows at that moment? ------ N: It was about his motives for studying the dhamma, and I think not about his amount of understanding. Nina. #111506 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 1:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A discussion about reality upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/3/2010 2:31:39 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, ---- <. . .> KH: >> The Buddha became enlightened when he discovered there were, in ultimate reality, only dhammas - no self. (That meant all conventionally known realities - people, places, long breaths, short breaths, in breaths, out breaths - were just concepts.) >> H: > Ken, I would like to know a sutta in which that is stated! My reading suggests that the Buddha awakened when, through transcendent wisdom he directly came to know the tilakkhana and paticcasamuppada, and then realized nibbana and uprooted all defilements. ---- You are just repeating what I said. The only trouble is that you, and all the other formal-meditation-Buddhists, have your own heterodox interpretations of it. ------------------------------------------------------ I am not repeating what you said, and I view you to be playing a one-note tune that picks up on one teaching technique of the Buddha's, analysis, and creates an entire religion of your own from it. So, to summarize: I guess we see matters differently. ;-) ------------------------------------------------------ I happen to like the interpretation that is found in the Theravada Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries. To each his own. :-) ----------------------------------------------------- Yes, to each his own, and the interpretation you like is your own. ----------------------------------------------------- Ken H ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111507 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 12:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma2 upasaka_howard Hi, Robert & Herman - In a message dated 11/2/2010 11:29:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: ...For what one feels, that one perceives. What one > perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not > disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, > to delineate the difference among them." > > There are no separate components of reality, except in thought. It is not I > who needs to make a case for the experience of wholes, it is those who > insist on the existence of unrelated elements as distinct "realities" who > need to make their case. I think you make an excellent case in favor of synthetic wholes, rather than analytic lists of elements, and in a debate with elementalists, it is an important point. I am a phenomenalist, an an analyst and a synthesist at the same time, or at various times. I agree with your point, but also can sometimes obsessively want to breatk things down into component parts to examine their constituent elements more carefully. But you are right, after looking at all the parts of a motor and how they work together, you need to put them back together again to have a working whole. In this case, I was just obsessively listing the component elements of reality, and separating that which were the "parts" from that which is the "process." But once that is established, I'm ready to move on to more process-oriented conversation. Sometimes it's hard to live with myself. :-( Best, Robert E. ======================================= My take: Seeing a homogenous unity and seeing a fragmented diversity counteract each other, each serving as a temporary remedy for the other. But each being ultimately a wrong view makes it impossible for either, on its own, to lead to full awakening. In my opinion, it is only the middle-way blending of discriminative analysis with relational synthesis, reflected in the Abhidhamma by the two books of Dhammasangani and the great book of Patthana, that reveals a panoramic view of unity-in-diversity can lead to it. Vedanta errs, I believe, in cleaving to the homogenous-unity pole, and some early schools of Buddhism tended strongly towards the fragmented-diversity pole, but the Dhamma of the Tipitaka, as I view it, in this respect as in several others, takes the middle way. This is also the perspective I see in Ch'an/Zen Buddhism and in Jewish mysticism with regard to the analysis/synthesis duality. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /"When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that."/ (From the Bodhi Sutta, Udana 1.1) #111508 From: Herman Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 2:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep egberdina Hi Sukin, On 3 November 2010 19:36, Sukinderpal wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > > > > It is hard to accept the logical conclusion that the Buddha never > > > intended anyone to do anything special with regard to the development > of > > > understanding. A monk is a monk because he has the accumulations for > it, > > > and the lay person is what he is because this is what his accumulations > > > allow for. > > > > > > Herman: Have you any shame, Sukin? > > > > > Sutta Nipata > > > > Adhered to for a long time are the views of the ignorant, the ignorant > > tell us, one is a Brâma*n*a by birth / accumulation. (649) > > > > S: And have you no shame that you equate the meaning of 'by birth' with > the concept of 'accumulation', and end up using the Buddha's teaching on > one thing to support your personal understanding on a totally different > matter? ;-) > > > Not by birth is one a Brâma*n*a, nor is one by birth no Brâma*n*a; by > > actions (kammanâ) one is a Brâma*n*a, by actions one is no Brâma*n*a. > > (650) > > > > By actions one is a husbandman, by actions one is an artisan, by actions > > one is a merchant, by actions one is a servant. (651) > > > > By actions one is a thief, by actions one is a soldier, by actions one is > > a sacrificer, by actions one is a king. (652) > > > > So the wise, who see the dependent arising of things and understand the > > result of kamma, know this kamma as it really is*. (653) > > > > By kamma the world exists, by kamma mankind exists, beings are bound by > > kamma as the linch-pin of the rolling cart . (654) > > > > * Evam eta*m* yathâbhûta*m* > > > > ** Kamma*m* passanti pa*nd*itâ > > > > Pa*t*i*kk*asamuppâdadasâ > > > > Kammavipâkakovidâ. > > > > S: The Buddha was addressing certain people's beliefs in the division > between class of people or caste system. These went by the idea that > people belong to this or that caste and remain so by virtue simply of > birth into a particular family. Someone probably thought that just > because he was labeled Brahman according to this measure, that he must > also be morally pure. The Buddha therefore had to straighten him out. > > Indeed the concept of accumulations is in some way, directly opposed to > the above idea. Being that it refers to all that has ever been > experienced throughout this endlessly long existence, which would > include during life as an insect, a ghost, a deva, a pauper and a king. > The relevant part however, is the tendencies for kusala and akusala, > which as the Sutta you quote points out, is reflected in the actions. > <..> > Change in the accumulations happens with each arising and falling away > of a citta. But this citta conditions the next one and passes on all > that has ever been accumulated as a result of each of those arisings and > falling away. And yes, the only real knowing of one's accumulations is > when panna arises to know the present reality. If for example attachment > arises, we know that this is because of attachment in the past. Likewise > at other times I think it is fair to come to a general conclusion such > as that we are who we are, because of tendencies accumulated in the > past. So while the real accumulations refer to the moment to moment > experiences, we can get some general idea about it and can't expect such > things as being able to live the life of a monk simply by making an > effort to become one. Of course this does not deny the possibility of > becoming one in some future lifetime. > > > As the Buddha points out in the sutta I quoted, you are what you are by doing what you do. And it simply is not the case that the past determines what you are doing now. Your assertion that a monk is a monk through accumulations, and thus not through what he is doing, is ignorant, says the Buddha in that sutta. I agree with him. For the ignorant the question is "what are my accumulations?". For the wise it is "what am I doing?" Your defence of ignorance remains shameless. Cheers Herman #111509 From: Herman Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 2:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? egberdina Hi Sarah, On 3 November 2010 17:37, sarah wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > When one is engaged in any activity of daily life, both feet are firmly > > planted in the world of the five senses. That is not the case when > engaged > > in meditation. > .... > S: Are you sure? > > Which bit are you asking about, the daily life bit or the meditation bit? I am definitely certain and sure that the activities of daily life depend on the five senses. I am definitely certain and sure that meditation does not depend on the five senses. So, yes, I am sure :-) Cheers Herman #111510 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 3:20 pm Subject: find sutta/comy quotes, please. truth_aerator Dear Sukin, KenH, Jon, Sarah, all, I would like to ask you to provide me a direct sutta or VsM quote that says that when it says "do anapanasati" what it means is that one shouldn't do anapanasati. That one shouldn't do satipatthana exercises. That one shouldn't " having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore.[1] Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html But what does the Buddha actually says? I hope that nobody here thinks that they are smarter than the Buddha, or that they can express/explain the Dhamma better than Buddha or Ven. Buddhaghosa. Don't give any arguments (they are just that and I take it as a given that worldlings are most often under spell of delusion & kilesas). Show me the direct textual evidence! A typical path is this: 1) Conscience & concern 2) Purity of conduct 3)Restraint of the senses 4) Moderation in eating 5) Wakefulness 6)Mindfulness & alertness 7) Abandoning the hindrances 8) The four jhanas 9) The three knowledges http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html ================================ Conscience & concern "And what, monks, are the qualities that make one a contemplative, that make one a brahman? 'We will be endowed with conscience & concern (for the consequences of wrong-doing)': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. Purity of conduct "And what more is to be done? 'Our bodily conduct will be pure, clear & open, unbroken & restrained. We will not exalt ourselves nor disparage others on account of that pure bodily conduct': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. Our bodily conduct is pure. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. "And what more is to be done? 'Our verbal conduct... our mental conduct will be pure, clear & open, unbroken & restrained. We will not exalt ourselves nor disparage others on account of that pure verbal... mental conduct': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. Our bodily conduct is pure. Our verbal conduct... our mental conduct is pure. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. "And what more is to be done? 'Our livelihood will be pure, clear & open, unbroken & restrained. We will not exalt ourselves nor disparage others on account of that pure livelihood': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. Our bodily conduct is pure. Our verbal conduct... our mental conduct is pure. Our livelihood is pure. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. Restraint of the senses "And what more is to be done? 'We will guard the doors to our sense faculties. On seeing a form with the eye, we will not grasp at any theme or variations by which — if we were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail us. We will practice for its restraint. We will protect the faculty of the eye. We will achieve restraint with regard to the faculty of the eye. On hearing a sound with the ear... On smelling an aroma with the nose... On tasting a flavor with the tongue... On feeling a tactile sensation with the body... On cognizing an idea with the intellect, we will not grasp at any theme or variations by which — if we were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the intellect — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail us. We will practice for its restraint. We will protect the faculty of the intellect. We will achieve restraint with regard to the faculty of the intellect': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. Our bodily conduct is pure. Our verbal conduct... our mental conduct is pure. Our livelihood is pure. We guard the doors to our sense faculties. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. Moderation in eating "And what more is to be done? 'We will have a sense of moderation in eating. Considering it appropriately, we will take food not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, thinking, "I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] & not create new feelings [from overeating]. Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort"': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. Our bodily conduct is pure. Our verbal conduct... our mental conduct is pure. Our livelihood is pure. We guard the doors to our sense faculties. We have a sense of moderation in eating. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. Wakefulness "And what more is to be done? 'We will be devoted to wakefulness. During the day, sitting & pacing back & forth, we will cleanse the mind of any qualities that would hold it in check. During the first watch of the night,[2] sitting & pacing back & forth, we will cleanse the mind of any qualities that would hold it in check. During the second watch of the night[3] reclining on his right side, we will take up the lion's posture, one foot placed on top of the other, mindful, alert, with the mind set on getting up [either as soon as we awaken or at a particular time]. During the last watch of the night,[4] sitting & pacing back & forth, we will cleanse the mind of any qualities that would hold it in check': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. Our bodily conduct is pure. Our verbal conduct... our mental conduct is pure. Our livelihood is pure. We guard the doors to our sense faculties. We have a sense of moderation in eating. We are devoted to wakefulness. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. Mindfulness & alertness "And what more is to be done? We will be possessed of mindfulness & alertness. When going forward and returning, we will act with alertness. When looking toward and looking away... when bending and extending our limbs... when carrying our outer cloak, upper robe, & bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & tasting... when urinating & defecating... when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, we will act with alertness': That's how you should train yourselves. Now the thought may occur to you, 'We are endowed with conscience & concern. Our bodily conduct is pure. Our verbal conduct... our mental conduct is pure. Our livelihood is pure. We guard the doors to our sense faculties. We have a sense of moderation in eating. We are devoted to wakefulness. We are possessed of mindfulness & alertness. That much is enough, that much means we're done, so that the goal of our contemplative state has been reached. There's nothing further to be done,' and you may rest content with just that. So I tell you, monks. I exhort you, monks. Don't let those of you who seek the contemplative state fall away from the goal of the contemplative state when there is more to be done. Abandoning the hindrances "And what more is to be done? There is the case where a monk seeks out a secluded dwelling: a forest, the shade of a tree, a mountain, a glen, a hillside cave, a charnel ground, a jungle grove, the open air, a heap of straw. After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore. "Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of covetousness. Abandoning ill will and anger, he dwells with an awareness devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the welfare of all living beings. He cleanses his mind of ill will and anger. Abandoning sloth and drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth and drowsiness, mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth and drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness and anxiety, he dwells undisturbed, his mind inwardly stilled. He cleanses his mind of restlessness and anxiety. Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful mental qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty. "Suppose that a man, taking a loan, invests it in his business affairs. His business affairs succeed. He repays his old debts and has extra left over for maintaining his wife. The thought would occur to him, 'Before, taking a loan, I invested it in my business affairs. Now my business affairs have succeeded. I have repaid my old debts and have extra left over for maintaining my wife.' Because of that he would gain joy & experience happiness. "Now suppose that a man falls sick — in pain & seriously ill. He does not enjoy his meals and has no measure of strength in his body. At a later time he is released from that sickness. He enjoys his meals and has a measure of strength in his body. The thought would occur to him, 'Before, I was sick....Now I am released from that sickness. I enjoy my meals and have a measure of strength in my body.' Because of that he would gain joy & experience happiness. "Now suppose that a man is bound in prison. At a later time he is released from that bondage, safe & sound, with no loss of property. The thought would occur to him, 'Before, I was bound in prison. Now I am released from that bondage, safe & sound, with no loss of my property.' Because of that he would gain joy & experience happiness. "Now suppose that a man, subject to others, not subject to himself, unable to go where he likes. At a later time he is released from that slavery, subject to himself, not subject to others, freed, able to go where he likes. The thought would occur to him, 'Before, I was a slave....Now I am released from that slavery, subject to myself, not subject to others, freed, able to go where I like.' Because of that he would gain joy & experience happiness. "Now suppose that a man, carrying money & goods, is traveling by a road through desolate country. At a later time he emerges from that desolate country, safe & sound, with no loss of property. The thought would occur to him, 'Before, carrying money & goods, I was traveling by a road through desolate country. Now I have emerged from that desolate country, safe & sound, with no loss of my property.' Because of that he would gain joy & experience happiness. In the same way, when these five hindrances are not abandoned in himself, the monk regards it as a debt, a sickness, a prison, slavery, a road through desolate country. But when these five hindrances are abandoned in himself, he regards it as unindebtedness, good health, release from prison, freedom, a place of security. Seeing that they have been abandoned within him, he becomes glad. Glad, he becomes enraptured. Enraptured, his body grows tranquil. His body tranquil, he is sensitive to pleasure. Feeling pleasure, his mind becomes concentrated. The four jhanas "Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates... this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There's nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. "Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters and remains in the second jhana: rapture and pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought and evaluation — internal assurance. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of composure. Just like a lake with spring-water welling up from within, having no inflow from the east, west, north, or south, and with the skies supplying abundant showers time and again, so that the cool fount of water welling up from within the lake would permeate and pervade, suffuse and fill it with cool waters, there being no part of the lake unpervaded by the cool waters; even so, the monk permeates... this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of composure. There's nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born of composure. "And furthermore, with the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the pleasure divested of rapture. Just as in a lotus pond, some of the lotuses, born and growing in the water, stay immersed in the water and flourish without standing up out of the water, so that they are permeated and pervaded, suffused and filled with cool water from their roots to their tips, and nothing of those lotuses would be unpervaded with cool water; even so, the monk permeates... this very body with the pleasure divested of rapture. There's nothing of his entire body unpervaded with pleasure divested of rapture. "And furthermore, with the abandoning of pleasure and stress — as with the earlier disappearance of elation and distress — he enters and remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity and mindfulness, neither-pleasure nor stress. He sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. Just as if a man were sitting covered from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. There's nothing of his entire body unpervaded by pure, bright awareness. The three knowledges "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives.[5] He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, and then from that village back to his home village. The thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives... in their modes and details. "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, and mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — he sees beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma. Just as if there were a tall building in the central square [of a town], and a man with good eyesight standing on top of it were to see people entering a house, leaving it, walking along the street, and sitting in the central square. The thought would occur to him, 'These people are entering a house, leaving it, walking along the streets, and sitting in the central square.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma... "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There's nothing further for this world.' Just as if there were a pool of water in a mountain glen — clear, limpid, and unsullied — where a man with good eyesight standing on the bank could see shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also shoals of fish swimming about and resting, and it would occur to him, 'This pool of water is clear, limpid, and unsullied. Here are these shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also these shoals of fish swimming about and resting.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There's nothing further for this world.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html ======================================================== At least 1/3 of DN focuses on getting into a Jhana and using that as basis for full Awakening. Plenty of MN suttas do so as well. =========== Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head; in the same way, the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.051.than.html#turban ========== If what I say differs from the Buddha, the Buddha is taken to be correct and the error is my. I take it as a given that Buddha is more correct than I am. I would like the same standard to be used by others. With metta, Alex #111511 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 3:41 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, Thank you for your reply. I understand that everything is conditioned and that there is no choice. This doesn't change the fact that the Buddha did teach instructions on what to do. If there are any suttas or VsM quotes that tell us that "whenever suttas say do XYZ, they do not mean that you should do XYZ". I find it unbelievable that some say that "when the Buddha said X", what he really meant was "not-x". =============== VIII,145. "'Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, gone to the forest or to the root of a tree or to an empty place, sits down; having folded his legs crosswise, set his body erect, established mindfulness in front of him, VIII,153. Gone to the forest ...or to an empty place: this signifies that he has found an abode favourable to the development of concentration through mindfulness of breathing. VIII,158. Herein, gone to the forest is gone to any kind of forest possessing the bliss of seclusion among the kinds of forests characterized thus: 'Having gone out beyond the boundary post, all that is forest' (Ps.i,176; Vbh. 251), and 'A forest abode is five hundred bow lengths distant' (Vin.iv,183). To the root of a tree: gone to the vicinity of a tree. To an empty place: gone to an empty, secluded space. And here he can be said to have gone to an 'empty place' if he has gone to any of the remaining seven kinds of abode (resting place).42 [271] VIII,159. Having thus indicated an abode that is suitable to the three seasons, suitable to humour and temperament,43 and favourable to the development of mindfulness of breathing, he then said sits down, etc., indicating a posture that is peaceful and tends neither to idleness nor to agitation. Then he said having folded his legs crosswise, etc., to show firmness in the sitting position, easy occurrence of the in-breaths and out-breaths, and the means for discerning the object. VIII,160. Herein, crosswise is the sitting position with the thighs fully locked. Folded: having locked. Set his body erect: having placed the upper part of the body erect with the eighteen backbones resting end to end. For when he is seated like this, his skin, flesh and sinews are not twisted, and so the feelings that would arise moment by moment if they were twisted do not arise. That being so, his mind becomes unified, and the meditation subject, instead of collapsing, attains to growth and increase. Anapanasati VsM VIII The above is just an example. Nowhere does VsM say that instructions are not meant to be followed. They describe the path to be taken, and are quite clear on that. With metta, Alex #111512 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 3:46 pm Subject: what is panna truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, > S: Not heard enough Dhamma, or not understood what was heard >sufficiently? > S: Again, I don't think it was a matter of under or overload of >info, >but of insufficient panna. For those like Vikkali, they >attended the >Buddha, they listened first-hand, but attachment is a >dangerous weapon. So if panna is not a matter of "reading a pile of books", or "getting a PhD from accredited Buddhist University of Abhidhamma", then what is it? Actually putting wisdom to action? Being aware of mental qualities that are present and wiping out akusala qualities. Now that would be wisdom in my definition. Doing the right thing even if it is very tough to do. ============================================================== Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head; in the same way, the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.051.than.html#turban ======================================================== "There is the case where an individual doesn't indulge in sensual passions and doesn't do evil deeds. Even though it may be with pain, even though it may be with sorrow, even though he may be crying, his face in tears, he lives the holy life that is perfect & pure. This is called the individual who goes against the flow." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.005.than.html =========================================================== With metta, Alex #111513 From: Herman Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 4:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? egberdina HI Sarah, Alex, all, On 3 November 2010 18:35, sarah wrote: > > > > > > > Understanding understands. Action is a namarupa process that is anicca, > dukkha, anatta. > .... > S: Yes > ... > > But regardless of it being (anicca, dukkha, anatta) actions does happen. > .... > S: yes, regardless, namas and rupas arise and fall away. That's all....by > conditions, like now! > > Who doubts it? So what are you doing / what is being done presently? Cheers Herman #111514 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 7:49 pm Subject: Re: what is panna philofillet Hi Alex and all > So if panna is not a matter of "reading a pile of books", or "getting a PhD from accredited Buddhist University of Abhidhamma", then what is it? > > Actually putting wisdom to action? Being aware of mental qualities that are present and wiping out akusala qualities. Now that would be wisdom in my definition. Doing the right thing even if it is very tough to do. Well said! Of course they are right in saying that there are deeper, more penetrative aspects of panna, but I think we agree that unless the Buddha's training is followed (and unless there are suitable circumstances for that) there will not be the kind of conditions established for that panna to develop. It is a bit naive to think that the samadhi that leads to penetrative panna is the samadhi that accompanies every citta in daily life. At the basic level, panna is what, as you say, guides us away from doing the bad thing that is easy to do and leads us towards doing the good thing that is hard to do. These days I like a definition of this kind of discernment as being that which allows us to overcome the voice that tries to talk us into doing the bad thing, which reminds us of the consequences of the deeds that the deluded mind states are trying to push us into. In a sense, it might be a heightened form of common sense that followers of any moral path might have, but the difference is that in the Buddha's teaching it provides conditions for a gradual deepening of the really liberating wisdom (by conditioning sila, it frees us from remorse, so the mind can settle into the concentration that supports that liberating panna - that progression is explicitly laid out by the Buddha in a way that is a bit silly to try to deny, but people will...) Metta, Phil #111515 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 8:04 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma - small correction epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > S: Hmm... Temperature is a reality, experienced as temperature(heat/cold). Anatta is a characteristic of a reality - no atta in that reality at all. In other words there can be the experience of the anattaness of temperature, but not just of anatta, "like looking into the abyss"! > > > > This starts to make some sense of the dispute. Anatta is a "characteristic of X" rather than a "thing" that can be apprehended in its own right. Still, it seems like an observation of what X does *not* have, rather than something "about" X itself. > ... > S: Yes, I tend to agree - what X does *not* have - that's its nature or 'characteristic', just as it's nature is also that of lacking any permanence or satisfactoriness. That sounds good to me! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111516 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 8:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, (Connie & Jon) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Oh, I didn't know there were taped discussions to listen to. I will definitely check them out! Will be fun to hear you all talking, and some of what you are saying may even penetrate my consciousness! :-) > .... > S: You're always very kind and encouraging, Rob. :-) > This is the link: > http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ > > Scroll down to "audio", under all the DSG archived messages, patiently preserved by Connie. > > I suggest starting with the first sets of audio in the list. You'll know many of the participants from DSG. Remember Eric from DSG? I have a vague memory - it's strange the way everything comes and goes, isn't it? > Let us know any bits you find of interest, agree with/disagree with or transcribe anything for further discussion. I'd like to hear any of your comments. Thanks, Sarah, I am looking forward to it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #111517 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 8:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Topics from Manly (1) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > I suggest starting with the first sets of audio in the list. You'll know many of the participants from DSG. Remember Eric from DSG? > > Let us know any bits you find of interest, agree with/disagree with or transcribe anything for further discussion. I'd like to hear any of your comments. Just starting out listening to the first audio file on the list - from 2007, and enjoying it very much. It's quite unique to be able to listen to K. Sujin speak so clearly about realities in the comfort of my livingroom. Hearing everyone talk and listen is more immediate than reading the transcripts. Quite enjoyable, and able to follow and consider things a bit easier as the flow of conversation comes across. Nice to hear everyone's voices as well. I think I may have identified Sukin in there - that was exciting. :-) The discussion about nimita is very good. I am getting a sense of this, relating to it by comparing it to my own sense of perception. I look at a pillow, and then consider that I am really seeing an image of the pillow, not "it." So in a sense it seems that nimita is part of perception itself, given the way our minds work and the "photographic" way that our eyes and other senses register things. It's always a bit late when things are processed, so we are dealing with lingering images of everything, aren't we? The way that K. Sujin speaks - now talking about the nature of sound - very gentle and taking her time to explain things, I think it is a very nice teaching style. It happens that this tape discusses another of my favorite topics as well, the nature of sati, and K. Sujin explains it very simply as 'being aware' of what is there, pretty much the way I think of it. She explains that if one is aware of hardness with sati, the hardness is exactly the same - no difference at all. The difference is that one is aware of the hardness, which is beyond simply experiencing it without awareness. There was an exchange on dsg today or yesterday on this subject, and the idea that one is just aware of the experience of the moment, and that is sati, that is a good confirmation. As I understand K. Sujin on the tape, there are degrees of sati, and one can be a bit more aware than usual of what is happening, or increasingly more aware, and I think the implication is that sati can develop to a stronger degree, that is my impression. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111518 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 8:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > He then goes on to body awareness, body postures, going and returning, > > bending and extending, eating, drinking, urinating, defecating, > > walking, standing, sitting, waking sleeping, etc., parts of body, > > mindfulness of death, vedana, mental conditions and states, and mental > > qualities with reference to the Dhamma. > > > > Starts and continues with the breath, with mindfulness of breathing, > > with anapanasati, the Buddha's main method and main object for > > developing mindfulness. > > > > Learn to accept it. > > > > Suk: I was tempted to argue, but decided against it. > As of now I'd like to stick to the program and discuss the basics with > you in that other thread which I started. Well, since you do not want to argue, I will assume that you agree with me. The evidence is too strong to argue with, so you have retreated. ;-) You can continue to "instruct" me in the other thread. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111519 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 8:59 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? philofillet Hi Alex > The above is just an example. Nowhere does VsM say that instructions are not meant to be followed. They describe the path to be taken, and are quite clear on that. I agree that it borders on madness to try to deny that the instructions in Vism. are indeed instructions to be followed, really nuts to say otherwise. But what do you make of the Vism. teaching on the 10 impediments (?), health, place of residence etc that are obstacles to following the instructions in the Vism. For me, I sense that there are not condtions for various reasons to practice in line with Vism, but I feel that *any* meditation is still helpful for sila, it conditions more resistance to knee-jerk response to vipaka, so if one were to follow the instructions in Vism despite the impediments, it would not do any harm, and would be helpful in some ways, but deeper liberation wouldn't follow from it. How do you feel about the proposition that yes, of course, Vism contains meditation instructions, but because of circumstances many or most of us cannot follow those instructions properly? Thanks, it's always something I wonder about. Metta, Phil #111520 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 9:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A Discussion between Robert Ep. and Sukinder epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > Sukin: OK, but how can't I not think too much after reading what you > wrote above? ;-) > How am I to understand the last three sentences? First you say "seeing > expereinces seeing" and then you say that "seeing experiences what is > seen" and then you make a comparison with "eating oatmeal and a full > stomach". What is the message that you are trying to get across and what > was wrong with my question, "What does seeing experience and what does > thinking experience?" that it incited such a complicated response? > > ========== It's not complicated at all. I'm just saying that seeing seeing what is seen is self-evident. It's so by definition. If you want to get more specific, you can say that the eye contacts the object and that eye-consciousness apprehends the visual object, and mental consciousness is aware of seeing the object, etc. But basically, you see what you see. I'm not sure what point you're trying to get out of me, so why don't you just say it? > > > > > > > "If so why, if not why?" > > > > > > > > > > > > R: What is experienced is a real experience. > > > > > > > > > > S: This is confusing. Do you not distinguish the experience from > > > > that which is experienced? > > > > > > > > Rob: What do you mean? > > > > > > > > > > Suk: You said, "What is experienced is a real experience" which sounded > > > to me like you were not differentiating between say, consciousness and > > > its object. Do you not make this kind of distinction? > > > > Robert: I can differentiate them theoretically. But in this context, > > why would I want to? Why don't you differentiate them for me, since > > it's your idea. > > > > Sukin: What context are you talking about? Remember, I'm the 'theory > man' and it is I who is posing the question to you, so why should you > have a problem giving an answer even if this is only theoretical? I don't understand the question, my theoretical friend. Yes, theoretically I can distinguish between consciousness and the object, but Herman tells me that in life we never experience them separately. So there is the object of which I am conscious, and I am conscious of that, but I don't experience consciousness of the object, just the object - according to Herman. And experientially that is true. Now if you bring sati or what we call self-awareness into the picture, there may be something else at play, but please tell me - what are you driving at? You are asking these questions, but really, I could answer more intelligently if I knew what your agenda is. > ========== > > > > Robert: I don't see what any of this has to do with the simple verity > > of experiencing what one experiences. One really and actually > > experiences their actual experience, and nothing else. I mean, it's a > > tautology, experience = experience, but one wants to make more of it > > via analysis and one's pet theory. I wanted to start with a simple > > statement of fact; you want to re-expand it into the usual complexity > > without even establishing the fact. > > > > Sukin: Perhaps you did make a simple statement, only I failed to > understand it. But as I pointed out, to me it seems that you have made > two statements that contradict each other. How is that? I don't get that. Besides you also appear to > question my way of asking questions / discussing and I consider this > unfair, given the fact that you agreed to go along with it after being > offered to initiate the discussion yourself. Well that is fine; but if I ask you what you are talking about because I don't understand you, you have to explain it to me, don't you? How can I answer the question if I don't see what it is about? You didn't say you were going to hide your conceptual framework from me while asking the questions, so that I would be confused. > You can still change your > mind and be the one to lead the discussion or you can even decide not to > discuss at all. Does someone have to lead? After all, we're not doing a formal dance. Can't we take turns? But if you do wish to continue, I suggest that you > answer my question simply and straightforwardly and refrain from making > such comments as where I come from with some 'pet theory' etc. You may > have many opportunities for that as we proceed, but I don't think the > little I've said so far should lead you do so now. Or is there? Well even though you initiated the conversation, I don't think you should expect me to passively answer questions as though I were filling out a questionnaire. If I don't understand the question, or have an issue about something, I think I had better bring it up. You seem to want to keep the discussion within a very controlled format. Are you planning to lead me down the garden path? ;-) I'm getting a little nervous. > > ========= > > > > > Suk: I was a bit hesitant to make the comment, because I wanted to go > > > slowly and gain some foothold, and not to start philosophizing and > > being > > > sidetracked. So I'll not comment on what you wrote above. > > > > Well, I said that intellectualizing was second-hand. You said "that is > > not a problem" if one is on the path of a Savaka. So tell me why it > > doesn't matter that it is second-hand, and how the path inoculates you > > from being on an intellectual wavelength. > > > > Sukin: This is the kind of discussion I wish to avoid at this point. I > hope you will understand. And it is not that I do not enjoy such kind of > discussion, I do. But that is exactly the problem. Hm. It seems that my part of the discussion is going to be censored. That doesn't seem too fair, but I'll follow for now. What would you like to know next? Now I know what it's like to deal with leading questions, I'm afraid. Well, carry on. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111521 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 9:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep 4. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------- > N: Developing understanding of realities appearing one at a time > through the six doors. I do not see a specific Abh view, different > from the suttas. > ------ ... > ------ > N: All this amounts to understanding characteristics of naama and > ruupa that appear. We have to emphasize characteristics, and this > refers not immediately to the three general characteristics, but to > the specific characteristics of, for example, the naama that sees and > the ruupa that is visible object, lobha, generosity, etc. It is only > later on that these are clearly seen as impermanent, dukkha and anattaa. Thank you, Nina. With the above in mind, is there a definite distinction between sati in general and satipatthana in particular? My sense is that satipatthana is reserved for a more highly advanced level of development of sati. Is that correct? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111522 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 9:54 pm Subject: My wonderful new Buddhist bifocals glasses! philofillet Hello all I would like to tell you about the wonderful new Buddhist bifocal glasses I acquired the day before yesterday. They are truly remarkable. They allow me to see distant objects more clearly, and they condition metta to arise because when human faces are seen, there is a resultant arising of friendliness and compassion, the glasses seem to allow me to remember that there must have been good kamma in the past to be born as human, and this conditions a "we are worthy beings, let's help each other fulfill our rare human birth" feeling. Now, the dangers is that since the glasses make distant objects more clear, there can be going on from the sign to leech on to the details, there could be, but thankfully the glasses have asubha lenses installed so that when I tilt my head upwards, slightly, the asubha aspect of beings is also revealed. Without the wonderful metta conditioning feature, this could be an unappropriate way to go through life, but now there is great balance, seeing objects through two different lenses. (For an extra fee, I could have had anicca lenses installed instead, but perhaps for a future pair.) I also chose to have the inside of the frame lined in a lovely sky blue colour. Whenever I become aware of it in my peripheral vision, which is often, the lovely color conditions reflection on the teaching that the mind is luminous and is visited by visiting defilements, there is a moment of appreciation and celebration of moments free from visiting defilements, as I take a moment to breathe and intone "bud-dho" in a brief moment of thanks to the Buddha for the awakening he teaches. I was also shown Ariyan glasses at the shop, which allow me to be constantly aware that all people are not people but are only nama and rupa, fleeting dhammas. I may buy a pair to wear on Sundays. This is not a joke, the glasses do allow me to see people with more metta, and the blue lining does condition moments of reflection on the visiting nature of defilements. I will tell you if the asubha lenses work, not sure about that. Metta, Phil #111523 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 10:12 pm Subject: Re: science vs dhamma2 epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > My take: Seeing a homogenous unity and seeing a fragmented diversity > counteract each other, each serving as a temporary remedy for the other. But > each being ultimately a wrong view makes it impossible for either, on its > own, to lead to full awakening. In my opinion, it is only the middle-way > blending of discriminative analysis with relational synthesis, reflected in > the Abhidhamma by the two books of Dhammasangani and the great book of > Patthana, that reveals a panoramic view of unity-in-diversity can lead to it. > Vedanta errs, I believe, in cleaving to the homogenous-unity pole, and > some early schools of Buddhism tended strongly towards the > fragmented-diversity pole, but the Dhamma of the Tipitaka, as I view it, in this respect > as in several others, takes the middle way. This is also the perspective I > see in Ch'an/Zen Buddhism and in Jewish mysticism with regard to the > analysis/synthesis duality. Thanks, that is a very good analysis, I think. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111524 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 10:28 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Alex > > > The above is just an example. Nowhere does VsM say that instructions are not meant to be followed. They describe the path to be taken, and are quite clear on that. > > I agree that it borders on madness to try to deny that the instructions in Vism. are indeed instructions to be followed, really nuts to say otherwise. But what do you make of the Vism. teaching on the 10 impediments (?), health, place of residence etc that are obstacles to following the instructions in the Vism. For me, I sense that there are not condtions for various reasons to practice in line with Vism, but I feel that *any* meditation is still helpful for sila, it conditions more resistance to knee-jerk response to vipaka, so if one were to follow the instructions in Vism despite the impediments, it would not do any harm, and would be helpful in some ways, but deeper liberation wouldn't follow from it. > > How do you feel about the proposition that yes, of course, Vism contains meditation instructions, but because of circumstances many or most of us cannot follow those instructions properly? Jumping in, my opinion goes along with an expression that is popular here in Washington, D.C., in politics: One should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. In other words, we should do the sila, meditation and comprehension that we are capable of now, not think we are not capable of doing real good, and based on this refrain from doing good. I disagree with those who feel it is worse to do meditation imperfectly than to not do it at all. If you don't practice at all, what do you have? Ideas and an untrained instrument of self. If you practice imperfectly at whatever level, you are developing some degree of Right Effort, Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness - maybe not the ultimate noble path factors, but still you are developing the path. To say "I will not do anything until I am perfectly prepared for it," in my view is like saying "I won't take any piano lessons until I can play Chopin Etudes at full speed." It's ridiculous. You can't develop the path without practice. And you can't start out perfect. Engage those things in the path, and in Buddha's arsenal, that you can do, and that you have the desire to do, and you will develop kusala tendencies. Desire for worldly things may be suspect, but desire for the path I think should be followed. Make the corrections as you go along. I knew a Christian woman from South Africa who used to carry her Bible around with her. She'd hold it up and show it to me and say "This is my weapon." She meant that it gave her strength and teaching and allowed her to live the right way, according to her path. Well, the Dhamma, and meditation, and Abhidhamma, whatever tools of the path you have the feeling for, are your weapons. Use them, and put them out in front of you as you move through samsara. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #111525 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 11:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, a few more late replies #109991 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > S: And what do the Vism (and suttas) suggest such effort to be, >Alex? > >A: VsM frequently talks about arousing great effort and doing things such as 13 ascetic practices. .... S: And what is this "great effort" mentioned, if not viriya cetasika, arising with great panna, i.e. conditioned dhammas again. .... > >S:Do they suggest that in truth there are any conditioned dhammas >other than the 5 khandhas? > >A: How is that relevant to this discussion? Everything is made of 1-5 (not more) aggregates and any kind of action by an ardent person can be analyzed in such a fashion. .... S: And what is this "ardent person"? Is it anything other than the same viriya, panna and other conditioned dhammas too? ... >Just because you can disassemble a whole into its constituent parts it doesn't mean that the whole doesn't exist. As conglomeration of dhammas it does exist. .... S: No whole at all, just the various dhammas arising by conditions. The "whole" is just an idea. Metta Sarah ===== #111526 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Nov 3, 2010 11:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? sarahprocter... Hi Howard (Rob E, Alex & all) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > If I may butt in with my perspective on actions: Consider the action > that is any particular case of "some person, P, walking across a room." It > is a mere convention to consider this to be a "thing." The facts are that > there is an ever-changing flow of sights, sounds, and bodily sensations (all > rupas) experienced (vi~n~nana), recognized (sa~n~na), felt (sa~n~na), and > emotionally reacted to and thought about (various sankhara) by P, "the > walker," and there are corresponding experiences occurring "in" others who > might be present witnessing the walking, and all of it is thought of and > referred to as "P walking across the room." So, my answer is that actions are > conceptual constructs but not baseless. .... S: I was glad you did butt in! Yes, just cittas, cetasikas and rupas, in other words. The rest are conceptual constructs. Of course, these conceptual constructs are based on those particula cittas, cetasikas and rupas. There isn't an idea of 'computer' or 'person A' now for no reason. Thanks, Howard Metta Sarah ======== #111527 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 12:07 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, #109997 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > At this point, I have a sense of both ways of thinking of the three marks - in conventional terms as I see myself get older or see a favorite object get broken - and also on a moment-to-moment level. I appreciate your underlining of the importance of where anicca and the other characteristics really take place - in the rising and falling of dhammas that make up human reality itself. ... S: We all have the "conventional sense" of getting older, seeing a favourite item broken and so on before we ever heard the Buddha's teachings. So it is as characteristics of dhammas themselves that has been revealed to us by the Buddha. He didn't need to be enlightened to tell us we were getting older:-)) ... > > These days I have been more inclined to focus on the shifting of everything that seems solid - self, body and other experiences, all held together by conceptual glue; and get a sense of the ground of reality shifting constantly and that there is nothing solid or stable anywhere. As experiences flit in and out of existence, there is no place for a self, no control, and no ultimate satisfaction as vedana constantly shifts without control also. Anyway, I have a sense of that. .... S: I like the "conceptual glue". As you suggest, the closer we get to the various realities taken for a body, a self and so on, the closer we get to an understanding of those realities, those experiences as "no self". In other words, the closer the understanding is to knowing what is experienced at this moment, the closer it gets to the Truths. .... > >S: Can this be known now? First there has to be the precise understanding of visible object when it appears, quite distinct from seeing and quite distinct from thoughts about it. It is not the visible object that fell away and is being labelled now either. > >R: Can you explain this order a little bit more: > first understand rupa - visible object; > then understand seeing - as a nama...? > then understand thoughts about it - concept/proliferation...? .... S: I wouldn't say 'first' this or that. Visible object, seeing, thinking are all different kinds of dhammas, realities which can appear and be known now. Visible object is experienced only, it doesn't know anything. Seeing and thinking are kinds of namas which can experience their respective objects. In order for there to be a clear understanding of the "no self" nature of dhammas, these different realities have to be known directly when they appear. Thoughts, i.e. concepts, are experienced by thinking. They don't actually exist, they're only thought about. So it is the thinking, the name, which can be directly known by awareness, not the concepts. .... > How can one understand "visible object" apart from contact, which involves the seeing...? A little confused. ... S: Good qus. Contact (phassa cetasika) arises with every citta. So at a moment of seeing, seven cetasikas including phassa arise with it and assist it to experience visible object. The visible object can be understood directly as it is by panna, right understanding, with the assistance of awareness and other cetasikas. Pls let me know if this isn't clear and develop some patience whilst you wait for another response! So glad to just see that you're listening to the recordings. You can inspire others at the same time to do the same! Yes,I'm sure you will have heard your good pen-pal, Sukin. At the beginning of each session, we give the names of the "cast" in "order of appearance", so if you jot down the names at the beginning, you'll soon learn who is who:-) Metta Sarah ======= #111528 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 12:25 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, #109967 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > Thanks Sarah, this is excellent and does help to clarify a lot. A couple of questions: > > 1. If concepts have no characteristic [as they are imaginary] how does thinking about them accumulate? I thought that concepts are unable to accumulate because of not having characteristics. I am obviously confused about something here... .... S: You are quite right - the concepts don't themselves accumulate, but the thinking about them does. This is mainly due to sanna (memory) which accumulates with the thinking and marks or remembers particular ideas or concepts. For example, a child learns the meaning of "Daddy". "Daddy" doesn't accumulate, but the thinking and recollection of those sounds and ideas does. .... >R: 2. How is it that one can "wisely attend" concepts, if they are unreal/delusory. This is similar to my first question, but put another way. Can panna arise/develop in relation to concepts, or only in relation to realities? .... S: Now as we reflect and "wisely attend" to ideas about the Dhamma, panna arises and develops, bringing us closer to actually understanding the realities as represented by the words and ideas. When people listened to the Buddha, they were attending to concepts about seeing and visible object. The thinking about such concepts was conditioned by their previous accumulations for thinking wisely and on account of the particular sounds heard at that time, as uttered by the Buddha. Hearing and considering wisely to the Dhamma are given as the conditions for the development of satipatthana. In other words, the pariyatti (wise intellectual understanding of dhammas), conditioning the patipatti (direct understanding or satipatthana), conditioning the pativedha (direct realisations), as your pen-pal Sukin has been discussing. ... >R: 3. Along the same lines, it seems that sati may be able to start observing this pattern of "seeing followed by moments of thinking about what is seen" and start to distinguish the seeing from the concepts. Is this correct? ... S: I think this would be wise consideration with a level of sati, but not the sati of satipatthana which is directly aware of realities. At the moment of direct understanding and awareness, there is an understanding of just one reality such as seeing or thinking. This is, however, how it becomes clearer and clearer that seeing and thinking arise at different moments and that they are quite distinct from the ideas thought about. ... >Is this how panna arises or develops? What is the role of seeing that something is a concept rather than a reality? And can this be seen directly? ... S: Yes, panna arises and develops at moments of wise reflection and particularly, at moments of direct understanding of realities. Usually we're lost in a world of concepts and take this for being reality. By directly understanding realities, we're no longer (at such moments)lost in these dreams. Great qus and reflections again, thx. Metta Sarah ====== #111529 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 12:30 am Subject: Re: concept of concept sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, #109970 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > S: Nothing could be taught by anyone, not even the Buddha, after parinibbana. This is a misunderstanding that somehow some cittas continue on "in higher spiritual planes" after parinibbana. > > > > Parinibbana is the final death of the arahat, the "death" of samsara - no more becoming of any kind in any plane whatsoever. ... >R: Is there an earlier time, prior to parinibbana, when the Buddha is said to have delivered the Abhidhamma on one of the immaterial planes? ... S: Yes, during a rains retreat, the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma to his mother in the Tavatimsa realm. This is the highest deva realm (from memory), not an immaterial realm. ... >R: Also, does parinibbana mean that this particular Buddha cannot come back in any way, shape or form? ... S: Yes, exactly. Metta Sarah ==== #111530 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 12:36 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, #109971 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > S: So again, what or who is "we" following the instructions? Is it volition (cetana?)? Is that cetana conditioned too? Is it volition that follows and understanding (pa~n~naa) that understands "action"? What exactly does understanding understand action to be? Is it understanding an idea or concept, such as sitting or standing, or is it understanding any realities as having "no actor"? > >R: I will admit that I am not sure what the status of actions are in terms of arising realities. That is actually one of my unanswered questions which you may be able to help me with. What is an action? Do they in fact take place, or is that an illusion? ... S: What we take for bodily and verbal actions are various rupas conditioned by cittas, kamma, temperature and nutriment. ... > Although I am not sure what the conditions are that cause Right Intention and Right Effort to arise and lead to certain actions or awareness coming into being, I am basically saying that: > > a/ There is no actor doing whatever actions take place, > > and > > b/ Intentional actions and practices can be allowed to take place without invoking or supporting self-concept. It can be understood even during a practice that there is no self doing anything, and such an understanding would not be "wrong view." .... S: In other words, just like now - various namas and rupas arising by conditions. No self to do anything. Metta Sarah ======== #111531 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 12:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 4-nov-2010, om 8:07 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > So glad to just see that you're listening to the recordings. You > can inspire others at the same time to do the same! ------ N: Rob, what are you listening to now? Then we can compare notes. Nina. #111532 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 1:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? nilovg Dear Rob E, Meanwhile I read your other posts. I look into them more later on. Nina. Op 4-nov-2010, om 8:45 heeft Nina van Gorkom het volgende geschreven: > N: Rob, what are you listening to now? Then we can compare notes. #111533 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 1:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] My wonderful new Buddhist bifocals glasses! sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Sounds like you could make your retirement fortune by marketing these glasses.... maybe a brochure of the different ones for us all to select? I'm sure there'll be plenty of demand here. Hmm, yes, I think I won't be too greedy and just start with the Ariyan ones:-) Metta Sarah ======== #111534 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 7:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is sati. was: More Response to Robert Ep 4. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 4-nov-2010, om 5:09 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > With the above in mind, is there a definite distinction between > sati in general and satipatthana in particular? My sense is that > satipatthana is reserved for a more highly advanced level of > development of sati. Is that correct? ------ N: In order to answer this, I will go first to your remarks about the tape you heard (Eric etc.) on sati. ------- R: It happens that this tape discusses another of my favorite topics as well, the nature of sati, and K. Sujin explains it very simply as 'being aware' of what is there, pretty much the way I think of it. She explains that if one is aware of hardness with sati, the hardness is exactly the same - no difference at all. The difference is that one is aware of the hardness, which is beyond simply experiencing it without awareness. --------- N: People understand the word awareness differently. Awareness, sati, arises with each kusala citta, actually with each sobhana citta. Sati of satipa.t.thaana arises together with pa~n~naa. At that moment sati is mindful, non-forgetful, of a characteristic of a reality appearing at the present moment through one of the six doors. It is aware of a naama or ruupa, not of a concept. At that moment the naama or ruupa is investigated so that it is known as 'just a reality'. Not the hardness of my hand or of a table, for example. -------- R: There was an exchange on dsg today or yesterday on this subject, and the idea that one is just aware of the experience of the moment, and that is sati, that is a good confirmation. As I understand K. Sujin on the tape, there are degrees of sati, and one can be a bit more aware than usual of what is happening, or increasingly more aware, and I think the implication is that sati can develop to a stronger degree, that is my impression. ------ N: I would rather say: understanding develops more, but very, very, very gradually. I am not thinking of strong awareness. There are degrees of sati, but here we can think of: sati of daana, of siila, of samatha or of vipassanaa, as I mentioned in a post before. Sati aware of the experience of the moment, also this can be misunderstood. Some people say: when seeing, know that you are seeing, but this is not sati of satipa.t.thaana. SEeing now, hearing now, these are types of naama and we can learn that they are not self. I heard on a Thai recording more about sati and thinking. I thought of Alex and others who are wondering: when there is the understanding that there are only naama and ruupa, one may drive through a wall or ignore traffic lights. How is that in daily life. O.K. I shall post now. Nina. #111535 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 7:51 am Subject: What I heard. nilovg Dear friends, From a Thai recording. We read in the suttas that one should not cling to the image, nimitta, and to the details of what is seen, heard, etc. When we hear the sound of a car, and it is said that we should not cling, this does not mean that we should not know that this is the sound of a car. When we ‘see’ people, should we not cling, or should we not know this? When we cling, we cling to an idea that there really is a person who is sitting there and that he is lasting. Seeing is real, thinking about shape and form or a person is real. If there would not be seeing, we would not remember what something is. We should know according to the truth, but we should not cling to something as lasting, to an idea of: there are people sitting who really exist and what is seen does not arise and fall away. Experiencing what appears through the eyes is different from thinking of shape and form, but this thinking is real. Thinking about concepts is real, done by cittas arising in a mind-door process. When we do not cling, we know that there is only naama dhamma arising that knows what appears as ruupa dhamma. They all fall away. When one knows in accordance with the truth one does not cling. Do not try not to know what something is. If one tries not to know the meaning of what appears through the eyes, pa~n~naa is not being developed. This is not the way leading to the eradication of defilements. ******** Nina. #111536 From: "sukinderpal" Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 8:17 am Subject: Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Herman, > Change in the accumulations happens with each arising and falling away > of a citta. But this citta conditions the next one and passes on all > that has ever been accumulated as a result of each of those arisings and > falling away. And yes, the only real knowing of one's accumulations is > when panna arises to know the present reality. If for example attachment > arises, we know that this is because of attachment in the past. Likewise > at other times I think it is fair to come to a general conclusion such > as that we are who we are, because of tendencies accumulated in the > past. So while the real accumulations refer to the moment to moment > experiences, we can get some general idea about it and can't expect such > things as being able to live the life of a monk simply by making an > effort to become one. Of course this does not deny the possibility of > becoming one in some future lifetime. Herman: As the Buddha points out in the sutta I quoted, you are what you are by doing what you do. S: And the Buddha was one who achieved samma-sambodhi by virtue of having accumulated the perfections over incalculable lifetimes. He taught us about this and told us of his aspiration to do so 20 + Buddha sasanas ago. So you wouldn't be denying the role of accumulations here, would you? ======== Herman: And it simply is not the case that the past determines what you are doing now. Your assertion that a monk is a monk through accumulations, and thus not through what he is doing, is ignorant, says the Buddha in that sutta. I agree with him. S: We know that the Buddha is the Perfectly Enlightened One because he "taught" the Dhamma. But we also know that this couldn't be had he not developed all those qualities required to be one all through that time that he was the Bodhisatta and before. Can the present citta have arisen without the previous one conditioning it? If metta for example arises now, could this be without metta having arisen in the past? You insist on judging someone based on what he does while denying the role of accumulations. But I would say that you won't come to know what kamma really is if there is no understanding about vipaka. And if this relationship between causes and resultants is to be accepted, so too must the accumulating power of nama dhammas be acknowledged. Besides, when I say that a monk is a monk through accumulations, it goes without saying that this is reflected in all that he does. I wasn't having an image of some dummy wearing yellow robes doing nothing. But your objection is to the idea of accumulations playing a decisive role, and I wonder if you are coming from an idea that everyone is on equal ground in terms of the ability to make progress along the Path? ========== Herman: For the ignorant the question is "what are my accumulations?". For the wise it is "what am I doing?" Your defence of ignorance remains shameless. S: Yes, the wise would see the need to know causes. I would be happy to express agreement with you and leave it at that. But your denial of the role of accumulations is a big problem. And this I see in fact, as an encouragement of ignorance. Your characterizing my position as, "what are my accumulations?" as being the question, is off the mark. The objective is to understand whatever appears, and although I do come to conclusions from time to time, this doesn't take me away from that main objective. I most certainly do not see it as helpful to go by some global idea about who I am or who anyone else is. And when I make the differentiation between the monk and layperson, I don't jump to praise monks over any particular layperson. Yes, it would still come down to the day to day and moment to moment actions of each individual. And besides, monks vs. laypersons is a distinction which does not deny within each of these, a great range of individuals very different to each other. And surely here, you can't deny that this is due to accumulations, can you? Metta, Sukinder #111537 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 8:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep sukinderpal Hi Robert, You said: > > You can continue to "instruct" me in the other thread. > Many mixed motives for sure, but I don't recall this being one of them. Frankly, I am skeptical about you ever coming to agree with me. And although I like to share thinking that it could be useful to some extent, my main motive here is to find out where exactly both of us agree and where we disagree and the reason for this. Metta, Sukinder #111538 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 8:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Discussion between Robert Ep. and Sukinder sukinderpal Hi Robert Ep, > > Sukin: OK, but how can't I not think too much after reading what you > > wrote above? ;-) > > How am I to understand the last three sentences? First you say "seeing > > expereinces seeing" and then you say that "seeing experiences what is > > seen" and then you make a comparison with "eating oatmeal and a full > > stomach". What is the message that you are trying to get across and > what > > was wrong with my question, "What does seeing experience and what does > > thinking experience?" that it incited such a complicated response? > > > > ========== > > R: It's not complicated at all. I'm just saying that seeing seeing > what is seen is self-evident. It's so by definition. > > If you want to get more specific, you can say that the eye contacts > the object and that eye-consciousness apprehends the visual object, > and mental consciousness is aware of seeing the object, etc. But > basically, you see what you see. > > I'm not sure what point you're trying to get out of me, so why don't > you just say it? > Suk: Never mind what went on before this. But would it be correct to conclude now that your answer to my question: "What does seeing experience and what does thinking experience?" is: "Seeing experiences visible object and thinking experiences thoughts".? ========== > R: Yes, theoretically I can distinguish between consciousness and the > object, but Herman tells me that in life we never experience them > separately. So there is the object of which I am conscious, and I am > conscious of that, but I don't experience consciousness of the object, > just the object - according to Herman. And experientially that is true. > Suk: Yes we should at this time just stick to theory, and this was about 'experience' and 'that which is experienced'. In agreeing with Herman, are you by any chance suggesting that we shouldn't be involved with the kind of theoretical discussion? ========== > R: Now if you bring sati or what we call self-awareness into the > picture, there may be something else at play, but please tell me - > what are you driving at? You are asking these questions, but really, I > could answer more intelligently if I knew what your agenda is. > Suk: I think it may clear things up if in fact you answer in the affirmative my question above. ========== > > Sukin: Perhaps you did make a simple statement, only I failed to > > understand it. But as I pointed out, to me it seems that you have made > > two statements that contradict each other. > > R: How is that? I don't get that. > Suk: Not contradicting perhaps, but confusing. In one post you said: "Seeing experiences seeing" and later on you said, "Seeing experiences what is seen". While the second was a correct answer, the first sounded like you were saying that seeing experiences itself....? ========== > Besides you also appear to > > question my way of asking questions / discussing and I consider this > > unfair, given the fact that you agreed to go along with it after being > > offered to initiate the discussion yourself. > > R: Well that is fine; but if I ask you what you are talking about > because I don't understand you, you have to explain it to me, don't > you? How can I answer the question if I don't see what it is about? > You didn't say you were going to hide your conceptual framework from > me while asking the questions, so that I would be confused. > Suk: OK, I understand. But yes, you do need to not presume anything in terms of where I am coming from and where I'm heading. ========== > > You can still change your mind and be the one to lead the discussion > > or you can even decide not to discuss at all. > > R: Does someone have to lead? After all, we're not doing a formal > dance. Can't we take turns? > Suk: But I've hardly even begun, and it feels like I'm being interrupted. You should wait for me to express some opinion at least, and how could I when you have not yet answered those simple and basic questions I've posed. However if by chance, you were in fact trying to make a point against my 'theoretical' questions, but couldn't say so directly, you can do it now and we can discuss that first. =========== > > But if you do wish to continue, I suggest that you > > answer my question simply and straightforwardly and refrain from making > > such comments as where I come from with some 'pet theory' etc. You may > > have many opportunities for that as we proceed, but I don't think the > > little I've said so far should lead you do so now. Or is there? > > R: Well even though you initiated the conversation, I don't think you > should expect me to passively answer questions as though I were > filling out a questionnaire. If I don't understand the question, or > have an issue about something, I think I had better bring it up. You > seem to want to keep the discussion within a very controlled format. > Are you planning to lead me down the garden path? ;-) I'm getting a > little nervous. > Suk: You shouldn't be, although in essence, I'm quite evil. ;-) ========= > > Sukin: This is the kind of discussion I wish to avoid at this point. I > > hope you will understand. And it is not that I do not enjoy such > kind of > > discussion, I do. But that is exactly the problem. > > R: Hm. It seems that my part of the discussion is going to be > censored. That doesn't seem too fair, but I'll follow for now. What > would you like to know next? > > Now I know what it's like to deal with leading questions, I'm afraid. > Well, carry on. > Suk: You'll have lots of chance to express your opinions, but now I don't think it is the right time. Just consider me as giving you the opportunity for developing more patience. ;-) Metta, Sukinder #111539 From: Herman Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep egberdina Hi Sukin, On 5 November 2010 02:17, sukinderpal wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > Herman: > > As the Buddha points out in the sutta I quoted, you are what you are by > doing what you do. > > S: And the Buddha was one who achieved samma-sambodhi by virtue of having > accumulated the perfections over incalculable lifetimes. He taught us about > this and told us of his aspiration to do so 20 + Buddha sasanas ago. So you > wouldn't be denying the role of accumulations here, would you? > > The Buddha rejects that his "aspirations" ie kamma were determined by his prior accumulations. Cheers Herman #111540 From: Herman Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 3:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep egberdina Hi Sukin, On 5 November 2010 02:17, sukinderpal wrote: > > > Yes, it would still come down to the day to day and moment to moment > actions of each individual. And besides, monks vs. laypersons is a > distinction which does not deny within each of these, a great range of > individuals very different to each other. And surely here, you can't deny > that this is due to accumulations, can you? > > Despite what has been said, you continue to look for ways of somehow turning kamma into vipaka. That, in itself, is kamma, not vipaka. Cheers Herman #111541 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 3:10 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? truth_aerator Hello Phil, all, > Hi Alex >But what do you make of the Vism. teaching on the 10 impediments (?), >health, place of residence etc that are obstacles to following the >instructions in the Vism. IMHO, it would be good if one does one's best in whatever circumstances are available, and if it is possible, improve them. There are inspirational suttas such as about a sick layperson (Dighavu?) who did manage to die as a non-returner. And there are inspirational suttas about really sick monks who did reach certain high stages. So obstacles may or may not prevent achievement of certain results - just painful obstacles. Samsara sucks, and that is why there is 1st NT. If everything went well, there wouldn't be 1st NT. With metta, Alex #111542 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 3:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S: And what is this "great effort" mentioned, if not viriya cetasika, >arising with great panna, i.e. conditioned dhammas again. > .... >S: And what is this "ardent person"? Is it anything other than the >same viriya, panna and other conditioned dhammas too? > ... > S: No whole at all, just the various dhammas arising by conditions. >The "whole" is just an idea. But none of the above refute what the Buddha taught and what was said in commentaries such as VsM. Certain actions do occur and they bring certain results. Just because we can disassemble (only in theory!) a person to be a bunch of cittas, cetasikas & rupas, it doesn't mean that specific functional agglomeration of those things doesn't exist. In order to take something apart, that whole has to exist to be taken apart in the first place. Just because a car is composed of millions of components, it doesn't make it non-functional and it doesn't mean that one cannot drive it. With metta, Alex #111543 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 7:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [7] sarahprocter... Dear Friends, [Kaeng Krajan, Thailand, 2008 contd] ***** Sarah: Just coming back to the comments about worldly conditions and suttas about kamma, we read, for example, how because of past kamma, someone was born into a wealthy family or something like that. So we know that it's about cittas, cetasikas and rupas and when it says it's a result of kamma, can we say just kusala vipaka in terms of seeing, hearing, bodily experience and just a variety of javana cittas in response to those vipakas? . K.Sujin: Just concepts. . Sarah: Yes, just concepts in relation to them. In terms of Abhidhamma, just concepts about moments of vipaka and various responses to those moments of vipaka. . K.Sujin: Yes, because you see that [in] what is preached, who is rich? It's only thinking. Seeing, is seeing rich? . Sarah: No. . K.Sujin: Or having 'rich'? . Sarah: No, sense door experiences can't experience 'rich'. So when they say it's conditioned or caused by kamma, it means just indirectly thinking, indirectly caused by moments of vipaka. . K.Sujin: And since the sense objects must be pleasant or unpleasant, either one, that is the concept about whether it's rich - to experience the pleasant objects. . Sarah: And that's what 'rich' means. And if it specifically mentions rich in terms of money, such as 'he was born into a very wealthy household', then is it just rich in terms of sense experience? . K.Sujin: A person who is so sick, who cannot walk, but has a lot of money, is he rich? . Sarah: No. . Jon: He could be in constant pain all the time. . K.Sujin: He cannot experience very pleasant [objects] like other people. . Sarah: So the 'rich' always refers to the concept about pleasant experience through the senses. . K.Sujin: Yes. . Sarah: This is why the Dhamma is so subtle. One can read something which seems very straightforward about kamma and vipaka, but without quite a lot of understanding of Abhidhamma, it's not going to be understood. . K.Sujin: Yes. In reality, was the Buddha richer after his enlightenment? . Sukin: Actually, why even bring the concept of 'rich' into this? . K.Sujin: Because people know concept, they know nothing about realities. Without the sense objects, can anyone say anyone is rich? . Sukin: The idea of being rich or poor is completely different. . K.Sujin: Just the experience of pleasant and unpleasant sense objects. . Sukin: Why call it 'rich'? . K.Sujin: Who is rich in hell? . Sukin: Why bring the concept up? . K.Sujin: In hell, pleasant or unpleasant objects? So, who is rich? **** Metta Sarah ===== #111544 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 8:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What I heard on kamma [8] sarahprocter... Dear Friends, [discussions in Kaeng Krajan, 2008 contd] **** Robert: I'm relating stories in the suttas to ultimate realities and I suggested there is some relationship between conventional reality and ultimate reality. I see the conventional truth, the conventional ideas as being the shadow of the ultimate realities and so the stream of nama and rupa for a rich, healthy person has more likelihood of kusala vipaka arising more frequently than for the person born into a very poor family and in poor health. . K.Sujin: I thaink that is true but it's not as precise as each moment. For example, the poor - what about seeing of the poor and of the rich? . Robert: If the poor person is born in India and lives near an open sewer... . K.Sujin: What about in Thailand? . Robert: In Thailand, they're lucky poor people. If you are going to be poor, Thailand is better! . K.Sujin: And what about other places? . Robert: It depends. The rich person born in the very rich house, he sees beautiful objects, sense objects, more than the poor person. . K.Sujin: OK, let's talk about the servant in the Maharini's palace, the seeing sees the same thing. . Robert: Of course. . K.Sujin: The taste, the same food. . Robert: Maybe. The servant has slightly less good food than the king. . K.Sujin: Maybe better, because she's the cook (laughs)! . Robert: Well, that's getting close. I like to use extremes. You said, generally 'it's true', right? . K.Sujin: Usually I like to use the precise reality, because, for example, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, can we say that they are rich or poor? No. But when we think in terms of how often they can arise, when there are more moments of experiencing pleasant objects, we call it 'rich'. . Robert: Yes. . K.Sujin: But in the Tipitaka, the one who just craves for things cannot be the rich one, never enough, so only those who have bhojanga [S:enlightenment factors], can be called rich. . Robert: Only the enlightened bhojanga... . K.Sujin: So there are many meanings, depending on which aspect we're talking about. That's why there is no self, no one, no thing. . Robert: So we can understand the stories very accurately by means of the Abhidhamma. . K.Sujin: And think most of the words that Anuruddha is like this, but what about Anuruddha when he experienced the unpleasant object, or even the Thai king? . Tom: We don't know the circumstances of who that story was told to, but our own stories we're experiencing now. . Sukin: Ours are mostly conditioned by wrong understanding. . Robert: I would find the stories in the Tipitaka more useful because they are a reflection of genuine wisdom, whereas the stories we assume about ourselves are generally not. . K.Sujin: And in reality is there Anuruddha at the moment of hearing about his life or it's only thinking? . Robert: Thinking. It depends whether it's thinking with right understanding or not. Or it's useful, but it's not as good as understanding the present moment which you're always pointing out. . K.Sujin: Understand while one is listening to his life. what about one's own citta, see? Kusala or akusala? The point of the Teachings is to understand realities as they are. *** Metta Sarah ======== #111545 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 8:21 pm Subject: Re: Bangkok discussions with A.Sujin February 2010 (1) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, #109979 I didn't get round to grading you on the quiz, you so kindly took! Anyway, you did very well, beginning to slip up with the trickier qus at the end:-)) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "epsteinrob" wrote: > > 18. If there's any effort to try and be aware at this moment, in order to understand the presently appearing object, or any trying to develop more kusala, such as more metta, then it's the wrong path again. > > Disagree to some extent. I agree up to a point. > > > > > 19. If the development of understanding is for any purpose other than just the understanding of dhammas, it's wrong again. > > I don't totally agree with that. > > > > > 20. This understanding of the present reality is the Middle Way! > > Don't totally agree with that. > > Tough quiz! :-) .... S: To get full marks, you needed to fully agree, but like most people here, began to raise objects at no. 18! Thanks again for being a good sport! Metta Sarah ======== #111546 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 8:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction sarahprocter... Dear Ari, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "a_true_lotus" wrote: > > As Nina just wrote, Dhamma is everywhere! > > > > Especially in CDs and DVDs, no? :-) .... S: I thought of you when discussing the audio discussions with Rob E. You may also find these discussions helpful to listen to. They can be found here: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ Let me know if you have any trouble listening to them. Metta Sarah ======= Messages 111528 - 111546 of 111546 * Hi, Lisa o Profile o Updates o Account Info o You are signed in as:nichiconn * Sign Out * Help Make Y! Your Homepage * Yahoo! * Mail * My Yahoo! * News * Finance * Sports Yahoo! Groups Search Web Search Yahoo! 1. Drag the "Y!" and drop it onto the "Home" icon. 2. Select "Yes" from the pop up window. 3. Nothing, you're done. If this didn't work for you see detailed instructions Close this window nichiconn · nichicon@hotmail.com | Group Member - Edit Membership Start a Group | My Groups dhammastudygroup · Dhamma Study Group (DSG) * Home * Messages * Post * Attachments * Files * Photos * Links * Groups Labs (Beta) * Applications Yahoo! Groups Tips Did you know... Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there. Best of Y! Groups Check them out and nominate your group. Click here for the latest updates on Groups Message search Messages Messages Help Message # Search: Advanced Start Topic Messages 111547 - 111571 of 111571 Oldest | < Older | Newer > | Newest Messages: Show Message Summaries (Group by Topic) Sort by Date ^ #111547 From: nichicon cp Date: Fri Nov 5, 2010 2:48 am Subject: fixed archive mp3 link nichiconn ?Dear Sarah, Please let your friend know I fixed the link for the Savatthi E1, 2004 discussion. Apologies for the inconvenience and delay. connie #111548 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Nov 5, 2010 4:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: mandala / thanka for 4 contemplations? ptaus1 Hi Basil, > > I'm also thinking of Nina's book - the one that was published to be > > put in hotel rooms in Thailand - which would be very helpful. I > > just can't remember the title and whether it's on-line. Nina or Pt, > > can you help with this. > ------ > N: I think this was the 'Buddha's Path'. Basil, you could also try my > 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life', see also: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Links to these two books on scribd.com: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16743407/BUddhas-Path http://www.scribd.com/doc/3918055/Abhidhamma-in-Daily-Life Best wishes pt #111549 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Nov 5, 2010 5:35 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting ptaus1 Hi Jon, Re 111030 > J: Right, it is how the kammatthaana is perceived/contemplated that brings in the wisdom factor, not the fact of it being the object of concentration. ... > So while at the stage of access concentration the kammatthaana is the object of successive cittas without interruption, the aspect of non-interruption has no relevance at the earlier stages. pt: Ok, that makes sense. > > pt: For me though, I can't quite understand how this sort of contemplation happens in samatha bhavana with breath as object. I mean, it seems more like an intellectual contemplation of sorts, > > J: It's a contemplation that occurs naturally as and when the object appears, rather than a dedicated session of choosing an object and contemplating it. pt: Hm, ok, but then what exactly does the "contemplation" actually takes on for the subject? I'm guessing it's not about verbal thinking like "ok there's the breath, and my life depends on it, etc". I'm guessing there would have to be some sort of understanding there, in that paticular moment of samatha when breath becomes an object. So, I'm guessing it would be the understanding/recognising of breath as... Hm, well it can't be recognised as rupa since that wouldn't be samatha anymore, so I guess it would be more like understanding that breath is, well, ... I don't know. I can't make sense of the sort of understanding that's neither relies on verbal thinking on one hand, nor on insight (dhamma as object) on the other. For sure, a concept of breath wopuld be the object in our case, but what exactly is it that's understood there about breath at the moment of samatha - I can't quite figure that out. From experience, in those moments that I think are kusala, the cleanest I can put it is that there's "awareness" or "knowing" that breath is the object, which has a different "feel" to it than when thinking about breath, or when just focusing or trying to hold onto the breath. I kind of thought that that "knowing" is the sign of kusala - i.e. that that would actually be the "contemplating" of breath. But if that's not it, as you and Sarah seem to suggest, then I'm trying to understnad what else the contemplating could be about. > > pt: While I always thought that in samatha bhavana there'd be only the concept of breath as object more or less continuously (of course, accompanied by panna of the samatha kind, and so a certain degree of detachment), but there would be no other concepts as such. > > J: A common fallacy about samatha (imo). Think for example about the other subjects of contemplation such as foulness of the body, death, virtues of the Buddha, etc. pt: Ok, now that you mention it, that makes sense, especially on the beginning stages. Best wishes pt #111550 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Nov 4, 2010 5:19 pm Subject: Harmless Praxis! bhikkhu5 Friends: Harmlessness is Smart Safety for All Beings! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=corb8EG8G7o How to relocate a Viper. There are ~600 snake bite deaths yearly on Sri Lanka! <...> The meditating Buddha was once protected by the N aga Snake Mucalinda. Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #111551 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 5, 2010 8:32 am Subject: What I heard. nilovg Dear friends, From a Thai recording. We may think that we are together with many people, but when the citta arises that cognizes what appears through the eyes, that citta is actually alone with that object. There are no people at that moment, only the citta that cognizes what appears through the eyes, but we may forget this. Question: how to be aware when we hear the sound of a car or of a frog? Kh Sujin: It does not matter whether there is the sound of a car or of a frog. what appears through the ears is real. Sound appears to hearing which cognizes sound. There is nothing else but the citta that cognizes sound, no person, no animal. This is one moment in the cycle of birth and death, arising in a sense-door process. The cittas of the sense-door process fall away and after there have been bhavanga-cittas, cittas of a mind-door process arise that know the same object. This is the cycle of birth and death: only one citta at a time that lasts extremely briefly. Sati is aware of what appears at this moment, it must be this moment. Question: How to be aware when reading? Kh Sujin: Seeing is one moment and thinking of the words are different moments. When we watch T.V. we can notice that experiencing what appears through the eyes is different from hearing; or in real life we can learn that sound is different from visible object. We can learn first to distinguish the different objects and then sati can begin to be gradually aware of them. It is aware of what naturally appears. It will be known which reality is naama and which reality is ruupa. --------- Nina. #111552 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 5, 2010 8:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Saturday meeting nilovg Dear pt, Op 5-nov-2010, om 13:35 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > Hm, well it can't be recognised as rupa since that wouldn't be > samatha anymore, so I guess it would be more like understanding > that breath is, well, ... I don't know. I can't make sense of the > sort of understanding that's neither relies on verbal thinking on > one hand, nor on insight (dhamma as object) on the other. For sure, > a concept of breath wopuld be the object in our case, but what > exactly is it that's understood there about breath at the moment of > samatha - I can't quite figure that out. ------- N: The meditator has to be aware of breath where it touches the nosetip or upperlip. Yes, there is awareness of this ruupa but the aim is not understanding of it as non-self. As concentration progresses there will be a mental image, a nimitta of it. When jhaana is reached the sign that appears is very subtle. The Visuddhimagga describes it. ------ Nina. #111553 From: nichicon cp Date: Fri Nov 5, 2010 1:23 pm Subject: Sangiiti Sevens, 330/7.1 nichiconn Dear Friends, The Sevens begin: CSCD Sattaka.m 330. <>nti vuttaa. Tiikaa: 330.Sampattipa.tilaabha.t.thenaati siilasampattiaadiina.m sammaasambodhipariyosaanaana.m sampattiina.m pa.tilaabhaapana.t.thena, sampattiina.m vaa pa.tilaabho sampattipa.tilaabho, tassa kaara.na.m sampattipa.tilaabha.t.tho, tena sampattipa.tilaabha.t.thena. Tenevaaha <>ti. Saddhaava ubhayahitatthikehi dhanaayitabba.t.thena dhana.m saddhaadhana.m. Etthaati etesu dhanesu. Sabbase.t.tha.m sabbesa.m pa.tilaabhakaara.nabhaavato, tesa~nca sa.mkilesavisodhanena mahaajutikamahaavipphaarabhaavaapaadanato. Tenaaha <>tiaadi. Tattha pa~n~naaya .thatvaati kammassakataapa~n~naaya pati.t.thaaya sucaritaadiinipuuretvaa sagguupagaa honti. Tattha ceva paaramitaa pa~n~naaya ca .thatvaa saavakapaarami~naa.naadiini pa.tivijjhanti. ...to be continued, connie #111554 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Nov 5, 2010 3:16 pm Subject: Re: My wonderful new Buddhist bifocals glasses! kenhowardau Hi Phil, -------------- Ph: > I would like to tell you about the wonderful new Buddhist bifocal glasses I acquired the day before yesterday. They are truly remarkable. They allow me to see distant objects more clearly, ---------------- I've got a pair like that! We must have gone to the same store. --------------------- Ph: > and they condition metta to arise because when human faces are seen, there is a resultant arising of friendliness and compassion, --------------------- Yes, it's wonderful, isn't it? I can see clearly now, and I'm on cloud nine. It can only be due to the patented metta-conditioning factor, like the salesperson said. ------------------------------ Ph: > the glasses seem to allow me to remember that there must have been good kamma in the past to be born as human, and this conditions a "we are worthy beings, let's help each other fulfill our rare human birth" feeling. ----------------------------- Ah, you paid extra for the kamma-vipakka coating. So did I! -------------------------------------- Ph: > Now, the dangers is that since the glasses make distant objects more clear, there can be going on from the sign to leech on to the details, there could be, but thankfully the glasses have asubha lenses installed so that when I tilt my head upwards, slightly, the asubha aspect of beings is also revealed. ---------------------------------------- My wife says all bifocals do that. What would she know! -------------------------------------------------- Ph: > Without the wonderful metta conditioning feature, this could be an unappropriate way to go through life, but now there is great balance, seeing objects through two different lenses. (For an extra fee, I could have had anicca lenses installed instead, but perhaps for a future pair.) --------------------------------------------------- Me too. I'm definitely going back for those. ------------------------------------------------------------- Ph: > I also chose to have the inside of the frame lined in a lovely sky blue colour. Whenever I become aware of it in my peripheral vision, which is often, the lovely color conditions reflection on the teaching that the mind is luminous and is visited by visiting defilements, there is a moment of appreciation and celebration of moments free from visiting defilements, as I take a moment to breathe and intone "bud-dho" in a brief moment of thanks to the Buddha for the awakening he teaches. ------------------------------------------------------------- Ditto! ------------------------ Ph: > I was also shown Ariyan glasses at the shop, which allow me to be constantly aware that all people are not people but are only nama and rupa, fleeting dhammas. I may buy a pair to wear on Sundays. ------------------------- They're on my wish list, but my credit card is already maxed out. ---------------------------------------- Ph: > This is not a joke, the glasses do allow me to see people with more metta, and the blue lining does condition moments of reflection on the visiting nature of defilements. I will tell you if the asubha lenses work, not sure about that. ---------------------------------------- Spread the word Phil; it's the real thing. Ken H #111555 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Nov 5, 2010 4:24 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? kenhowardau Hi Robert E, Phil and Alex, --- Ph: > > The above is just an example. Nowhere does VsM say that instructions are not meant to be followed. They describe the path to be taken, and are quite clear on that. >> RE: > I agree that it borders on madness to try to deny that the instructions in Vism. are indeed instructions to be followed, really nuts to say otherwise. --- Some of us nutters keep asking you, "By whom are the instructions to be followed?" but you won't answer the question. ----------------------------- RE: > But what do you make of the Vism. teaching on the 10 impediments (?), health, place of residence etc that are obstacles to following the instructions in the Vism. For me, I sense that there are not condtions for various reasons to practice in line with Vism, but I feel that *any* meditation is still helpful for sila, ----------------------------- I am glad you are honest about that, Robert. Formal meditation is the one thing that unites all modern-day Buddhists: they may not know what is in the Tipitaka, and they may not even care, but they all have a ritual practice called meditation. ------------------------------------------- RE: > It conditions more resistance to knee-jerk response to vipaka, so if one were to follow the instructions in Vism despite the impediments, it would not do any harm, and would be helpful in some ways, but deeper liberation wouldn't follow from it. -------------------------------------------- I must admit, if I believed in a self that could practise and a self that could enter nibbana, I would be following a ritual too. -------------------------------- Ph: > > How do you feel about the proposition that yes, of course, Vism contains meditation instructions, but because of circumstances many or most of us cannot follow those instructions properly? >> RE: > Jumping in, ---------------------------------- Before you do, I would just like to point out that *at no stage* do the descriptions ever become instructions. ------------------------------------ RE: > my opinion goes along with an expression that is popular here in Washington, D.C., in politics: One should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. In other words, we should do the sila, meditation and comprehension that we are capable of now, not think we are not capable of doing real good, and based on this refrain from doing good. -------------------------------------- Yes, if there was a controlling self then of course it should do those things. But what if there were no controlling self? What then? --------------------------------------------- RE: > I disagree with those who feel it is worse to do meditation imperfectly than to not do it at all. If you don't practice at all, what do you have? Ideas and an untrained instrument of self. If you practice imperfectly at whatever level, you are developing some degree of Right Effort, Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness - maybe not the ultimate noble path factors, but still you are developing the path. ----------------------------------------------- All of those things might make sense if there was a controlling sense, I don't know. But I do know they no sense when there is not a controlling self. ------------------------------ RE: > To say "I will not do anything until I am perfectly prepared for it," in my view is like saying "I won't take any piano lessons until I can play Chopin Etudes at full speed." It's ridiculous. You can't develop the path without practice. And you can't start out perfect. Engage those things in the path, and in Buddha's arsenal, that you can do, and that you have the desire to do, and you will develop kusala tendencies. Desire for worldly things may be suspect, but desire for the path I think should be followed. Make the corrections as you go along. ---------------------------- These are all good, commonsense, arguments. I would advise you to consider them again in the light of anatta. You will still find good answers, but they won't be anything like the conventional ones. -------------------------------------- RE: > I knew a Christian woman from South Africa who used to carry her Bible around with her. She'd hold it up and show it to me and say "This is my weapon." She meant that it gave her strength and teaching and allowed her to live the right way, according to her path. Well, the Dhamma, and meditation, and Abhidhamma, whatever tools of the path you have the feeling for, are your weapons. Use them, and put them out in front of you as you move through samsara. --------------------------------------- Be warned by those similarities. If your understanding of the Dhamma is basically the same as a conventional understanding, then start again from the beginning; you have taken a wrong turn. Ken H #111556 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 5, 2010 12:24 pm Subject: Something to See, ..., er, Hear upasaka_howard Hi, all - What to infer from this I am unsure, but it is really interesting!! _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypd5txtGdGw&feature=player_embedded_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypd5txtGdGw&feature=player_embedded) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111557 From: Herman Date: Fri Nov 5, 2010 6:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Something to See, ..., er, Hear egberdina Hi Howard, On 6 November 2010 10:24, wrote: > > > Hi, all - > > What to infer from this I am unsure, but it is really interesting!! > > _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypd5txtGdGw&feature=player_embedded_ > (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypd5txtGdGw&feature=player_embedded) > > This is certainly very interesting indeed, and it demonstrates the interconnected nature of the senses in producing experience. Thanks and Cheers Herman #111558 From: "Huajun" Date: Fri Nov 5, 2010 7:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] With "no" or without "no", which translation is correct ? huajun_tang Hi Sara, I am very satisfied with your answer and explanation, I really appreciate it. Yes, Huajun is my first name. I am an old member of this group but have not posted messages here for a few years,so I am just like a new member to most people here now. I have used Mahasi meditation method for 12 years and have attended meditation retreats leading by Sayadaw U. Silananda, Sayadaw U. Pandita and Sayadaw Sujiva. Last few years I spended a lot of time on Chinese Buddhist forums to introduce Mahasi meditation method. One problem I found was that the previous Chinese tranlantion of the "Fundamentals of Vipassana Meditation" by some anonymous translator had many errors so I did a full revision of the translation in 2006. This year with the information I offered,some Buddhist friends in China invited a Chinese-speaking teacher from Malaysia who is a student of Sayadaw U. Pandita to lead meditation retreats and it is quite successful. Two retreats with 50+ students and 60+ have already completed and the third one will be held in December. With best wishes, Huajun #111559 From: "Huajun" Date: Fri Nov 5, 2010 7:33 pm Subject: Re: With "no" or without "no", which translation is correct ? huajun_tang Hi Ken, Thank you for your reply. This forum is very helpful. Best regards, Huajun #111560 From: Herman Date: Fri Nov 5, 2010 11:44 pm Subject: Some more about Manly egberdina Hi all, In a convivial atmosphere (no-one claimed that they were exclusively right), we discussed the differences between seeing and looking, hearing and listening. It's been a while, so rather than running the risk of misrepresenting anyone, I'll just briefly write what I remember of the discussion, without suggesting that others agreed. Seeing occurs all the time, just like hearing. Looking and listening do not occur all the time, they are the selective attending to seeing or hearing. Looking and listening require advertence of some kind, seeing and hearing don't. My own interpretation of these considerations is that attending / adverting is an act. The reality of the present moment. in the realm of the senses, must always include what is seen and heard, for that is never absent. The only thing that changes is the focus of attention. So, what is present is not definable by what is seen or heard, but by what is attended to. Seeing and hearing are necessary and unavoidable. Whatever is attended to is up for grabs, though, it is not determined or necessary. it is simply a reflection of what is valued / craved at any time. Attention, which is always selective, is intention in action. Attention is kamma. Cheers Herman #111561 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 1:44 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sevens, 330/7.1 and commentary. nilovg Dear friends, Walshe DN. 33.2.3. 'There are [sets of] seven things which have been perfectly proclaimed by the Lord... Walshe DN. 33.2.3(1) 'Seven Ariyan treasures (ariya-dhanaani): faith, morality, moral shame (hiri), moral dread (ottappa), learning (suta), renunciation (caaga), wisdom. --------- N: The commentary explains: as to the treasure of confidence, saddhaa, this has the meaning of the attainment of success in it (sampattipa.tilaabha). The Tiika: as to the acquisition of siila etc. this means the acquisition of success in the fulfilment of enlightenment (sammaasambodhi). Therefore he said by reason of the acquisition of success. Commentary: and it is the same for all (treasures). The treasure of pa~n~naa is the best of all (sabbase.t.tha.m). When they are established in pa~n~naa and have accomplished the three kinds of kusala kamma, the five precepts and the ten precepts, they are destined for heaven; they acquire the knowledge of the paramis of the disciple (savaka), of the silent Buddha , of the omniscient Buddha. Pa~n~naa has been called a treasure because of the acquirement of success in these things. Tiika:explains that pa~n~naa is the best of the treasures because of its nature of success in all of these, and because of its purifying from defilements (sa.mkilesavisodhanena) and giving brightness and pervasion. Abiding in pa~n~naa, they are established in the knowledge of ownership of kamma (kammassakataa pa~n~naa), and having accomplished kusala kamma etc., they are destined for heaven. Established in the perfection of pa~n~naa they acquire the perfections of the disciple, etc. ------- Conclusion: The wholesome qualities mentioned as ariyan treasures are more precious than anything else, more precious than wealth or relatives and friends we hold dear. As to the treasure of faith, this is confidence in kusala, including the development of pa~n~naa. If one has no confidence in the benefit of pa~n~naa one will not develop it. As to siila, in the commentary three kinds of kusala kamma (sucarita) are mentioned and these are daana, siila and bhaavana, mental development. Hiri, moral shame, and ottappa, moral dread, see the disadvantage of akusala and prevent the committing of akusala. Learning, this is listening to the Dhamma, the study and investigation of it. If there is no opportunity to listen to the right Dhamma, pa~n~naa cannot be developed. Renunciation, caaga, this includes renunciation of wrong view and all defilements. As to wisdom, this is called the best treasure of all. The commentary and Tiika explain the reasons. Pa~n~naa is the condition for all other kinds of kusala, it purifies from defilements and it gives brightness and pervasion. It illuminates the darkness of ignorance so that the truth of all realities can be realized. Pa~n~naa is one of the perfections and through pa~n~naa all the other perfections are fulfilled. The perfections lead to the other shore, to nibbaana. --------- Nina. #111562 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 3:14 am Subject: Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. nilovg Dear Han and friends, Latent tendencies. Ch 3. no 2. The latent tendencies are lying dormant also in kusala citta and avyaakata citta, but at such moments there are no conditions for the latent tendencies to cause the arising of akusala citta. Even in the magga-citta, the lokuttara kusala citta, there are still latent tendencies that are being eradicated by the magga-citta at that moment. This will be explained in detail later on. In the “Kathavatthu” (Ch XIV) and its commentary, there are questions and answers between Sakavaadin (orthodox theravada) and the Paravaadin (opponent) in order to diminish the wrong view of the Andhaka heritics. They had the wrong view that the defilements that are latent tendencies and those that are “pariyutthaana kilasas” ( medium defilements arising with akusala citta) are of a different nature [1]. . Issue: Do the latent tendencies arise or not? Conclusion of this Issue: The latent tendencies are akusala dhammas that are subtle and lie dormant in the citta. They do not arise together with citta to perform a function, they are free from khandha, khandha vimutta. But when there is a proper condition they cause the arising of pariyutthåna kilesa, akusala citta that is medium defilement. The sources which give the reason for this conclusion: In the “Yamaka” under the latent tendency of sensuous desire (kåmaråganussaya) and anger (paìighanusaya) it is said: “(a)Does to (every) one to whom the Bias of Sensuous Craving adheres, also the Bias of Anger adhere?- Yes. (b) And does to (every) one to whom the Bias of Anger adheres, also the Bias of Sensuous Craving adhere?- Yes.” In the commentary to the Yamaka (mahaavara) it is said: “As to what has been asked: ‘Does to (every) one to whom the Bias of Sensuous Craving adheres, also the Bias of Anger adhere?’, the reply “Yes” appears to be not right. Question:Why is that? Answer: Because sensuous desire and anger do not arise at the same time. Evenso in the case of manåyatana (the ayatana including all cittas) and dhammåyatana (subtle rúpas, cetasikas and nibbåna), and kåyasa.nkhåra (bodily function of breathing) and vaccisa.n khåra (verbal function), it is asked : ‘When manåyatana arises for someone, does also dhammåyatana arise for him?’ and the answer is ‘Yes’. The same is asked in the case of breathing with regard to bodily function, kåyasa.nkhåra and verbal function, vaccisa.nkhåra: when for the person who is breathing in and out this bodily function arises, does also the verbal function arises? [2] These realities may arise at the same time, but sensuous desire and anger do not arise at the same time. Sensuous desire arises with the eight types of lobha-múlacitta, whereas anger arises with the two types of dosa-múlacitta. Therefore these two kinds of dhammas cannot arise at the same time. In this way with regard to the negation [3], the (afore-mentioned) expressions should not be taken with regard to the present moment. The affirmative answer in the Yamaka as mentioned above should be taken in another way. The answer should be affirmative.” Question:”How to take this?” Answer: “ It refers to the defilements that have not yet been eradicated.” [4]. ------------ Footnotes: 1. We read in the commentary (Ch XIV, V): “Inasmuch as an average worldly person, while his thoughts are ethically good or indeterminate, may be said to have latent bias [for the seven vices], but not to be openly manifesting them, some, for instance the Andhakas hold, that latent bias, in any of the seven forms, is different in kind from an open manifestation of the vice...” They are the same akusala cetasikas. As to not openly manifesting, this means: they do not condition the actual arising of akusala citta. At the moment of kusala citta or avyaakata citta they do not cause the arising of akusala citta, but they are still latent, so long as they have not been eradicated by the magga-citta. Here we read that even in kusala citta or avyaakata citta latent tendencies are lying dormant. 2. This is the way the commentary shows the ways of how questions and answers can be taken. It may be asked when this dhamma arises for someone also that dhamma arises for him. When the answer is affirmative, it may mean that they arise at the same time, but in the case of sensuous desire and anger, these cannot arise together. 3. Where it was said that the answer “Yes” was not right. 4. As will be explained further on, they are lying dormant for those who did not eradicate them yet. -------- Pali text: mahaavaaro 1. anusayavaarava.n.nanaa 3. sattanna.m pana mahaavaaraana.m pa.thame anusayavaare yassa kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti, tassa pa.tighaanusayo anusetiiti ettha yadeta.m ``aamantaa''ti pa.tivacana.m dinna.m, ta.m duddinna.m viya khaayati. kasmaa? kaamaraagapa.tighaana.m ekakkha.ne anuppattito. yathaa hi ``yassa manaayatana.m uppajjati, tassa dhammaayatana.m uppajjatiiti `aamantaa', assaasapassaasaana.m uppaadakkha.ne tesa.m kaayasa"nkhaaro ca uppajjati, vaciisa"nkhaaro ca uppajjatii''tiaadiisu manaayatanadhammaayatanaani kaayasa"nkhaaravaciisa"nkhaaraa ca ekakkha.ne uppajjanti, na tathaa kaamaraagapa.tighaa. kaamaraago hi a.t.thasu lobhasahagatacittuppaadesu uppajjati. pa.tigho dviisu domanassasahagatesuuti, natthi nesa.m ekakkha.ne uppatti; tasmaa ettha `no'ti pa.tisedho kattabbo siyaa. ta.m akatvaa pana `aamantaa'ti pa.tivacanassa dinnattaa he.t.thaayamakesu viya ettha kha.napaccuppannavasena vattamaanavohaara.m aggahetvaa a~n~nathaa gahetabbo. katha.m? appahiinavasena. -------- Nina. #111563 From: Herman Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 3:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept of concept egberdina Hi Sarah, On 4 November 2010 18:30, sarah wrote: > > > >R: Is there an earlier time, prior to parinibbana, when the Buddha is said > to have delivered the Abhidhamma on one of the immaterial planes? > ... > S: Yes, during a rains retreat, the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma to his > mother in the Tavatimsa realm. This is the highest deva realm (from memory), > not an immaterial realm. > . > I was interested in this comment, especially because I do not believe there is any overlap between daily life and meditation. Here, you seem to express the notion that the Buddha can be on a rains retreat, and in the Tavatimsa realm, at the same time. To me, you are in one realm or another, not both at once. Cheers Herman #111564 From: Herman Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 4:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? egberdina Hi Sarah, On 4 November 2010 17:44, sarah wrote: > > >Just because you can disassemble a whole into its constituent parts it > doesn't mean that the whole doesn't exist. As conglomeration of dhammas it > does exist. > .... > S: No whole at all, just the various dhammas arising by conditions. The > "whole" is just an idea. > > If you can say that there are various dhammas arising by conditions, than the word "whole" is just a way to refer to that. Various dhammas arising etc is not an idea at all. Cheers Herman #111565 From: han tun Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 3:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much. Please give me time to digest it. I will come back to you later. Respectfully, Han #111566 From: Herman Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 4:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? egberdina Hi Sarah, On 4 November 2010 18:36, sarah wrote: > .. > > S: What we take for bodily and verbal actions are various rupas conditioned > by cittas, kamma, temperature and nutriment. > . > Various rupas, conditioned by cittas, kamma etc is equivalent to bodily and verbal actions. .... > S: In other words, just like now - various namas and rupas arising by > conditions. No self to do anything. > > Yes, bodily and verbal actions, just like now. Self is a red herring that I thought we'd dispensed with a long, long time ago :-) Cheers Herman #111567 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Something to See, ..., er, Hear upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 11/5/2010 9:10:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: This is certainly very interesting indeed, and it demonstrates the interconnected nature of the senses in producing experience. ================================ Yes. What we "hear," I believe, actually comes down to what we *perceive*, and the perception, though called "ear-door perception" or, "speech sounds" in this case, is actually a multi-sense mental construct conditioned by current sound and current sight and current ear-door perception (based on sound-perception memories) and current eye-door perception (based on eye-perception memories) and also by the memory of past associations of such ear-door and eye-door perceptions. It is *extraordinarily* complex, with perceptions built upon perceptions, and memory playing a major role throughout, which is why the Pali 'sa~n~na' means both "perception" and "memory". With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111568 From: "philip" Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 5:12 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? philofillet Hi Alex, thanks for the below. I appreciate your encouragement not to let impediments get in the way, it's good to read that. I think as long as one doesn't let one's frustration about not being able to practice meditation get in the way of understanding that the Buddha's way is not only about meditiation. I may have better circumstances for practicing serious meditation someday, for now, a taste of the peace of mind and protection from bad behaviour that comes from it... Metta, Phil > >But what do you make of the Vism. teaching on the 10 impediments (?), >health, place of residence etc that are obstacles to following the >instructions in the Vism. > > > IMHO, it would be good if one does one's best in whatever circumstances are available, and if it is possible, improve them. > > There are inspirational suttas such as about a sick layperson (Dighavu?) who did manage to die as a non-returner. And there are inspirational suttas about really sick monks who did reach certain high stages. So obstacles may or may not prevent achievement of certain results - just painful obstacles. > > Samsara sucks, and that is why there is 1st NT. If everything went well, there wouldn't be 1st NT. > > #111569 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 5:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. nilovg Dear Han, Op 6-nov-2010, om 11:53 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Thank you very much. > Please give me time to digest it. > I will come back to you later. ------- N: Yes please. I had so much trouble sorting out the examples of the commentary about manaayatana and dhammaayatana, and also kaaysa"nkhaara and vaccisa"nkhaara. It is the style of the commentary at that time to elaborate in this way, but difficult for us now. I made a footnote, thinking it is to show the way a question is posed and an answer is given. I compared the Thai with the Pali text. Perhaps your Burmese books say more? Nina. #111570 From: "philip" Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 5:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] My wonderful new Buddhist bifocals glasses! philofillet Hi Sarah and Ken and all Thanks for your feedback re my wonderful new Buddhist bifocals. Alas, the metta function does not seem to work, the sharper vision provided by the lenses is instead causing that which I feared - leeching onto proliferation on warped perception of beauty in details of the body (for example, glossy sheen of lips) and even when I tilt my head to look through the asubha lenses, no protection. If I want to condition more arising of metta, I will have to do it in the way taught by the Buddha, through the guardian meditation on metta. Or I can rely on my natural tendency for friendliness. The subha vipalassa thing is another issue.... Metta, Phil #111571 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 1:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept of concept upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 11/6/2010 6:59:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Sarah, On 4 November 2010 18:30, sarah wrote: > > > >R: Is there an earlier time, prior to parinibbana, when the Buddha is said > to have delivered the Abhidhamma on one of the immaterial planes? > ... > S: Yes, during a rains retreat, the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma to his > mother in the Tavatimsa realm. This is the highest deva realm (from memory), > not an immaterial realm. > . > I was interested in this comment, especially because I do not believe there is any overlap between daily life and meditation. Here, you seem to express the notion that the Buddha can be on a rains retreat, and in the Tavatimsa realm, at the same time. To me, you are in one realm or another, not both at once. ------------------------------------------------ Adopting the belief in heaven realms for purposes of discussion [I do happen to hold such a belief], it seems to me that "during rains retreat" refers to a time period, typically 3 months, and there would be plenty of time then for the Buddha to "commute". Moreover, time passage in this realm and in other realms is likely to differ, I would suppose. ----------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111572 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 9:15 pm Subject: Where/How is memory stored? truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, Where and how is memory stored? How is the memory retrieved? For example, how can I remember what I done 20 years ago? Why a person can't normally remember what was done in final years of previous life? With metta, Alex #111573 From: Herman Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 10:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept of concept egberdina Hi Howard, On 6 November 2010 23:43, wrote: > > > S: Yes, during a rains retreat, the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma to his > > mother in the Tavatimsa realm. This is the highest deva realm (from > memory), > > not an immaterial realm. > > . > > > I was interested in this comment, especially because I do not believe there > is any overlap between daily life and meditation. Here, you seem to express > the notion that the Buddha can be on a rains retreat, and in the Tavatimsa > realm, at the same time. To me, you are in one realm or another, not both > at > once. > ------------------------------------------------ > Adopting the belief in heaven realms for purposes of discussion [I do > happen to hold such a belief], > Yes, me too. > it seems to me that "during rains retreat" > refers to a time period, typically 3 months, and there would be plenty of > time then for the Buddha to "commute". Moreover, time passage in this realm > > and in other realms is likely to differ, I would suppose. > Yes, me too. Just to clarify, it seems to me that the perspective of being in the Tavatimsa realm during a rains retreat is a third person perspective, not the Buddha's perspective. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that the Buddha is aware of being on the rains retreat and instructing his Mum at the same time. The only reason I am making the point is that people should not expect daily life to be the foundation for anything other than daily life. Cheers Herman #111574 From: "philip" Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 10:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concept of concept philofillet Hi Herman > The only reason I am making the point is that people should not > expect daily life to be the foundation for anything other than daily life. Disagree! Daily life is where sila is developed, thus it where where the foundation of everything that is conditional on proper sila is built. (i.e the entire path.) But I agree with you that having a lot of interest in bhavana in daily life is not in line with the Buddha's gradual way, we can't aspire to development of deep understanding if we are trundling around with ordinary householder lifestyles. There are stirring classical anecdotes (e.g awakening while cooking) exceptions to the rule, but I think people are just playing with wishes if they think they are relevant to us. Metta, Phil #111575 From: Herman Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 10:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? egberdina Hi Ken H On 6 November 2010 10:24, Ken H wrote: > > > > > RE: > I agree that it borders on madness to try to deny that the > instructions in Vism. are indeed instructions to be followed, really nuts to > say otherwise. > --- > > Some of us nutters keep asking you, "By whom are the instructions to be > followed?" but you won't answer the question. > > The question surprises me. Healthy living bodies are quite capable of following instructions. It happens all the time, anywhere you care to look. > ----------------------------- > RE: > But what do you make of the Vism. teaching on the 10 impediments (?), > health, place of residence etc that are obstacles to following the > instructions in the Vism. For me, I sense that there are not condtions for > various reasons to practice in line with Vism, but I feel that *any* > meditation is still helpful for sila, > ----------------------------- > > I am glad you are honest about that, Robert. Formal meditation is the one > thing that unites all modern-day Buddhists: they may not know what is in the > Tipitaka, and they may not even care, but they all have a ritual practice > called meditation. > > ------------------------------------------- > RE: > It conditions more resistance to knee-jerk response to vipaka, so if > one were to follow the instructions in Vism despite the impediments, it > would not do any harm, and would be helpful in some ways, but deeper > liberation wouldn't follow from it. > -------------------------------------------- > > I must admit, if I believed in a self that could practise and a self that > could enter nibbana, I would be following a ritual too. > Red herring. Straw man. Straw herring. Red man. Nobody is claiming there is a self that practices. > > > -------------------------------- > Ph: > > How do you feel about the proposition that yes, of course, Vism > contains meditation instructions, but because of circumstances many or most > of us cannot follow those instructions properly? > >> > > RE: > Jumping in, > ---------------------------------- > > Before you do, I would just like to point out that *at no stage* do the > descriptions ever become instructions. > > ------------------------------------ > RE: > my opinion goes along with an expression that is popular here in > > Washington, D.C., in politics: One should not make the perfect the enemy of > the good. In other words, we should do the sila, meditation and > comprehension that we are capable of now, not think we are not capable of > doing real good, and based on this refrain from doing good. > -------------------------------------- > > Yes, if there was a controlling self then of course it should do those > things. But what if there were no controlling self? What then? > > Well, there never has been a controlling self, yet healthy living bodies can still follow instructions. The world is amazing that way. > --------------------------------------------- > RE: > I disagree with those who feel it is worse to do meditation > imperfectly than to not do it at all. If you don't practice at all, what do > you have? Ideas and an untrained instrument of self. If you practice > imperfectly at whatever level, you are developing some degree of Right > Effort, Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness - maybe not the ultimate > noble path factors, but still you are > developing the path. > ----------------------------------------------- > > All of those things might make sense if there was a controlling sense, I > don't know. But I do know they no sense when there is not a controlling > self. > > ------------------------------ > RE: > To say "I will not do anything until I am perfectly > > prepared for it," in my view is like saying "I won't take any piano lessons > until I can play Chopin Etudes at full speed." It's ridiculous. You can't > develop the path without practice. And you can't start out perfect. Engage > those things in the path, and in Buddha's arsenal, that you can do, and that > you have the desire to do, and you will develop kusala tendencies. Desire > for worldly things may be suspect, but desire for the path I think should be > followed. Make the corrections as you go along. > ---------------------------- > > These are all good, commonsense, arguments. I would advise you to consider > them again in the light of anatta. You will still find good answers, but > they won't be anything like the conventional ones. > The fact that there is no self controlling anything has no import here at all. You still do whatever you do, Ken. And at times that includes following an instruction. Or resolutely not following one. > > -------------------------------------- > RE: > I knew a Christian woman from South Africa who used to carry her > Bible around with her. She'd hold it up and show it to me and say "This is > my weapon." She meant that it gave her strength and teaching and allowed her > to live the right way, according to her path. Well, the Dhamma, and > meditation, and Abhidhamma, whatever tools of the path you have the feeling > for, are your weapons. Use them, and put them out in front of you as you > move through samsara. > --------------------------------------- > > Be warned by those similarities. If your understanding of the Dhamma is > basically the same as a conventional understanding, then start again from > the beginning; you have taken a wrong turn. > > Hmm, the notions of "taking a wrong turn" and anatta seem to me to be mutually exclusive. Perhaps it is you who has not understood a thing or two? Cheers Herman #111576 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 11:09 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > So glad to just see that you're listening to the recordings. You can inspire others at the same time to do the same! Yes,I'm sure you will have heard your good pen-pal, Sukin. At the beginning of each session, we give the names of the "cast" in "order of appearance", so if you jot down the names at the beginning, you'll soon learn who is who:-) It's nice to have the technology to bridge time and space and "sit with you" and hear the discussion. It's very enjoyable, and I'm happy to encourage others to take advantage of the tapes! Best, Robert E. == = = = = = = = = #111577 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 11:18 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: I like the "conceptual glue". As you suggest, the closer we get to the various realities taken for a body, a self and so on, the closer we get to an understanding of those realities, those experiences as "no self". In other words, the closer the understanding is to knowing what is experienced at this moment, the closer it gets to the Truths. I find it encouraging that one can get gradually closer to seeing things as they are. This accords with my sense of becoming more clear over time, and a gradual development of understanding. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111578 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 6, 2010 9:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept of concept upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 11/6/2010 6:01:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Just to clarify, it seems to me that the perspective of being in the Tavatimsa realm during a rains retreat is a third person perspective, not the Buddha's perspective. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that the Buddha is aware of being on the rains retreat and instructing his Mum at the same time. ------------------------------------------------ Okay. ------------------------------------------------- The only reason I am making the point is that people should not expect daily life to be the foundation for anything other than daily life. --------------------------------------------------------- I'm unclear on this point. "Foundation" in what sense? One could awaken in the midst of ordinary circumstances given appropriate prior training and current, triggering conditions, namely an ideal mind set plus, say, a sudden sound or a "turning word" (to use a Zen term). =================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependency /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #111579 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 1:26 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? kenhowardau Hi Herman, ---- <. . .> KH: > "By whom are the instructions to be followed?" <. . .> >> H: > The question surprises me. Healthy living bodies are quite capable of following instructions. It happens all the time, anywhere you care to look. ---- Yes, that is the standard rebuttal of anatta. It's like Alex telling us to drive our cars into a tree: humorous maybe, but completely missing the point. -------------- <. . .> KH: >> I must admit, if I believed in a self that could practise and a self that could enter nibbana, I would be following a ritual too. >> H: > Red herring. Straw man. Straw herring. Red man. --------------- Red straw? :-) ---------------------- H: > Nobody is claiming there is a self that practices. ----------------------- But you just said living bodies were capable of following instructions. If so, why can't they practise satipatthana? -------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > Yes, if there was a controlling self then of course it should do those things. But what if there were no controlling self? What then? >> H: > Well, there never has been a controlling self, yet healthy living bodies can still follow instructions. The world is amazing that way. -------------------------- I'd be interested to know what happened to those "living bodies" when they died. Are the reborn, or are they annihilated? Ken H #111580 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 2:33 am Subject: Should one try one's best to avoid hitting the wall? truth_aerator Hi KenH, all who doubt trees's existence >KH: Yes, that is the standard rebuttal of anatta. It's like Alex >telling us to drive our cars into a tree: humorous maybe, but >completely missing the point. It doesn't miss the point. If complex objects didn't exist, you couldn't drive into a tree at 100 km/h. I don't recommend you testing the reality or behaving in line with what you believe in that way. You could start with walking through a wall. It isn't supposed to exist, so you won't bump yourself against it. Why engage in wrong views that believes in sold walls by walking around it. Behave in accordance with your view that walls don't exist and walk through one. What is the point in believing that "X doesn't exist" and behave like it exists? If it didn't exist, you would have no problem going through it. IMHO, philosophy that totally denies experiential truth and flies in the face of facts like above, isn't very useful. With metta, Alex #111581 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 2:47 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > >R: 2. How is it that one can "wisely attend" concepts, if they are unreal/delusory. This is similar to my first question, but put another way. Can panna arise/develop in relation to concepts, or only in relation to realities? > .... > S: Now as we reflect and "wisely attend" to ideas about the Dhamma, panna arises and develops, bringing us closer to actually understanding the realities as represented by the words and ideas. > > When people listened to the Buddha, they were attending to concepts about seeing and visible object. The thinking about such concepts was conditioned by their previous accumulations for thinking wisely and on account of the particular sounds heard at that time, as uttered by the Buddha. Hearing and considering wisely to the Dhamma are given as the conditions for the development of satipatthana. In other words, the pariyatti (wise intellectual understanding of dhammas), conditioning the patipatti (direct understanding or satipatthana), conditioning the pativedha (direct realisations), as your pen-pal Sukin has been discussing. > ... > >R: 3. Along the same lines, it seems that sati may be able to start observing this pattern of "seeing followed by moments of thinking about what is seen" and start to distinguish the seeing from the concepts. Is this correct? > ... > S: I think this would be wise consideration with a level of sati, but not the sati of satipatthana which is directly aware of realities. > At the moment of direct understanding and awareness, there is an understanding of just one reality such as seeing or thinking. This is, however, how it becomes clearer and clearer that seeing and thinking arise at different moments and that they are quite distinct from the ideas thought about. Thanks for clarifying that. > >Is this how panna arises or develops? What is the role of seeing that something is a concept rather than a reality? And can this be seen directly? > ... > S: Yes, panna arises and develops at moments of wise reflection and particularly, at moments of direct understanding of realities. > > Usually we're lost in a world of concepts and take this for being reality. By directly understanding realities, we're no longer (at such moments)lost in these dreams. > > Great qus and reflections again, thx. Thanks, Sarah. This is helpful. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111582 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 2:50 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > b/ Intentional actions and practices can be allowed to take place without invoking or supporting self-concept. It can be understood even during a practice that there is no self doing anything, and such an understanding would not be "wrong view." > .... > S: In other words, just like now - various namas and rupas arising by conditions. No self to do anything. Yes, but given that, no reason to run away from practice, as some do - it is another situation that arises according to conditions. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #111583 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 2:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 4-nov-2010, om 8:07 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > > > So glad to just see that you're listening to the recordings. You > > can inspire others at the same time to do the same! > ------ > N: Rob, what are you listening to now? Then we can compare notes. > > Nina. So far, just listened to the first recording in the archive, from 2007. I wrote a little report about it, which should appear on the list. Very enjoyable! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111584 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 2:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: What is sati. was: More Response to Robert Ep 4. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: I would rather say: understanding develops more, but very, very, > very gradually. I am not thinking of strong awareness. There are > degrees of sati, but here we can think of: sati of daana, of siila, > of samatha or of vipassanaa, as I mentioned in a post before. > Sati aware of the experience of the moment, also this can be > misunderstood. Some people say: when seeing, know that you are > seeing, but this is not sati of satipa.t.thaana. SEeing now, hearing > now, these are types of naama and we can learn that they are not self. This is a good start - obviously a complex subject, but I will start to absorb this information. I'll watch for your next post on the subject. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #111585 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 3:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: More Response to Robert Ep epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > You said: > > > > You can continue to "instruct" me in the other thread. > > > > Many mixed motives for sure, but I don't recall this being one of them. > Frankly, I am skeptical about you ever coming to agree with me. And > although I like to share thinking that it could be useful to some > extent, my main motive here is to find out where exactly both of us > agree and where we disagree and the reason for this. I appreciate it. Sorry if that comment was too strong - I was teasing. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111586 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 3:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Discussion between Robert Ep. and Sukinder epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinderpal wrote: Robert: > > I'm not sure what point you're trying to get out of me, so why don't > > you just say it? > > > > Suk: Never mind what went on before this. But would it be correct to > conclude now that your answer to my question: > "What does seeing experience and what does thinking experience?" > > is: > "Seeing experiences visible object and thinking experiences thoughts".? Seriously, Sukin, it depends on the context. I really would not separate those two and put them side by side as separate elements. Seeings experiences visible object, but not without a mental element. What makes a visible object a discrete object? It is not just the sensory element, but interpretation of the object. What is visible object? There is more to it. I cannot participate in a multiple choice operation where you are setting up all these little question and answer scenarios. I prefer a direct conversation - say what you think and I'll say what I think back. > > R: Yes, theoretically I can distinguish between consciousness and the > > object, but Herman tells me that in life we never experience them > > separately. So there is the object of which I am conscious, and I am > > conscious of that, but I don't experience consciousness of the object, > > just the object - according to Herman. And experientially that is true. > > > > Suk: Yes we should at this time just stick to theory, and this was about > 'experience' and 'that which is experienced'. That is very vague and general as far as I'm concerned. I would not separate experience from object of experience, not unless you discuss more specifically what you have in mind. > In agreeing with Herman, are you by any chance suggesting that we > shouldn't be involved with the kind of theoretical discussion? I'm suggesting that the theoretical level that you are insisting on may be artificial, and while I don't mind including it, I don't care to be restricted to it. > ========== > > > R: Now if you bring sati or what we call self-awareness into the > > picture, there may be something else at play, but please tell me - > > what are you driving at? You are asking these questions, but really, I > > could answer more intelligently if I knew what your agenda is. > > > > Suk: I think it may clear things up if in fact you answer in the > affirmative my question above. Can't be done. Out with it! What are you up to? > ========== In one post you said: > "Seeing experiences seeing" and later on you said, "Seeing experiences > what is seen". > While the second was a correct answer, the first sounded like you were > saying that seeing experiences itself....? No, I think that it is possible for sati to experience seeing. I wouldn't say that seeing sees itself. > ========== > > > Besides you also appear to > > > question my way of asking questions / discussing and I consider this > > > unfair, given the fact that you agreed to go along with it I didn't agree to go along with only answering questions and not being able to ask or challenge or discuss what you say. If so, I want out of the contract! ... after being > > > offered to initiate the discussion yourself. "Initiate" is not the same thing as "dictate the terms." ...But yes, you do need to not presume anything in > terms of where I am coming from and where I'm heading. ...I've hardly even begun, and it feels like I'm being > interrupted. You're taking too long. Wherever it is you're trying to lead me, I don't like being led. I prefer to have an open discussion. > You should wait for me to express some opinion at least, > and how could I when you have not yet answered those simple and basic > questions I've posed. Time to express your opinion and stop giving me a questionnaire. It's not in my temperament. > However if by chance, you were in fact trying to make a point against my > 'theoretical' questions, but couldn't say so directly, you can do it now > and we can discuss that first. No thanks. ... > Suk: You'll have lots of chance to express your opinions, but now I > don't think it is the right time. Sorry, but I can't cooperate with this format. > Just consider me as giving you the opportunity for developing more > patience. ;-) Time's up. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #111587 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 12:07 am Subject: Mental Hindrances! bhikkhu5 Friends: These are the 5 Mental Hindrances: The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these five kinds of Mental Hindrance. What five? 1: The Mental Hindrance of Desire for Sensing... 2: The Mental Hindrance of Aversion and Ill-Will... 3: The Mental Hindrance of Lethargy and Laziness… 4: The Mental Hindrance of Restlessness and Regret… 5: The Mental Hindrance of Doubt and Uncertainty… These are the 5 kinds of Mental Hindrance! The Noble 8-fold Way should be developed for the direct experience of these five Mental Hindrances, for the full understanding and elimination of them, and for their final and total overcoming, abandoning and leaving all behind! This Noble 8-fold Way is developed for the sake of uprooting all Mental Hindrance! Explanation of the 5 Mental Hindrances: Desire for sights, sounds, smells, flavours, touches, & thoughts is obvious. Aversion is hate, anger, irritation, opposition, resistance, & stubbornness. Lethargy & Laziness is all sluggish indolence, stupor, slow & slack inactivity. Restlessness & Regret is all agitation, anxiety, hurry, remorse, and worry. Doubt & Uncertainty is indecision, hesitation, perplexity, & qualm dilemma. Mental Hindrance means a mental & invisible yet real & ultimately effective obstacle, obstruction, block, impediment, hurdle, and debilitating handicap! For details on the Mental Hindrances – Nivaran?a and their removal: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/AN.I.3-4.htm <...> The unhindered & undefiled mind is calm & luminous! Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:60] section 45: The Way. 177: The 5 Mental Hindrances ... 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 _/\_ * <...> #111588 From: "antony272b2" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 7:10 am Subject: Re: Helpful & Unhelpful Questions (4NT or Self-views) antony272b2 Hi Sarah, What about these questions: "Will I exist after death?" "Will I not exist after death?" "Will I both exist and not exist after death?" "Will I neither exist nor not exist after death?" In Samyutta Nikaya 22.86 the Buddha responds to these four questions about the destiny of Himself (the "Tathagata") after death, But I think that the same logic works for any sentient being. "Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."... "Is consciousness constant or inconstant? "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?" "No, lord." "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" "No, lord." "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?" "No, lord." "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" "No, lord." "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html http://www.suttareadings.net/audio/index.html#sn22.086 Antony: Most teachers seem to say that the Tathagata is a special case because he doesn't cling to the five aggregates, that an ordinary being is defined by the five aggregates (so definitely does exist after death). That idea started only about five hundred years after the Buddha's death according to this article: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/khandha.html I have to admit that I'm only thinking that form, feeling etc. are impermanent according to the theory rather than direct insight. I suspect that the issue is much more immediate than logic and words on a page. With metta / Antony. #111589 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 7:18 am Subject: Re: Metta as purely meditation purpose VS dana without metta? sarahprocter... Hi Andrew, #110196 Just wondering if you're still following....? How's everything going in Sussex? It looks like we'll be visiting next August and hope to meet you then. I meant to respond to your note which I encouraged you to send to the list: ... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "lawstu_uk" wrote: > > > Dear all, > > I have recently visited this website that Bhikkhu Bodhi is organising a walk for those suffering from hunger... (Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, for a week it has only attracted 45 people to support such a knowledgeable and kind Bhikkhu) > > http://www.firstgiving.com/bhikkhubodhi > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q4esl0tTak&feature=related > (B. Bodhi's talks are very touching.. especially when he talked about what breaks his heart) > > My reaction when initially read this news, I immediately felt the need to support such a good cause by a monastic member following the vinaya and studying the suttas. ... S: I have to say that my reaction was the opposite - is this really following the vinaya, is it really the duty of a monastic member to get involved in social issues in this way? As for breaks our hearts, is this anything other than thinking about various concepts with extreme dosa? .... > Then, the thought of those children, died of hunger, made me sad. ... S: Again, very natural. We all feel like this often - but we should know that the reality at such times in akusala, dosa conditioned by lobha. At such times, there is no metta, no compassion, no concern for "those children" or anyone else. .... > This reminds me of the article on metta by Khun Sujin. I then understand, the sadness I felt, was no longer metta but an unwholesome mental state. Am I right? I would really appreciate it if anyone can share your opinions. .... S: Yes, exactly. ... > > The second question is a dilemma. I have been pondering if metta bhavana is restricted to the cushion? By this I mean I only repeat words 'May I be free from physical and mental sufferings' when I am 'doing' metta meditation. .... S: This sounds a lot more like attachment to oneself than to any metta. What friendliness or kindness is there to anyone at such a time? ... >In daily life, I can develop generous act based on loving kindness. Yet I can also only 'send' good wishes eg 'May you be free from hunger' without doing any act of generosity.. .... S: So it depends on the citta at the time, whether there is any loving kindness or not. What about when we help out our colleagues or those around us without thinking of ourselves or trying to be a person with more metta? What about showing friendliness to those we meet or pass by? if we think of those suffering from hunger in Africa and wish them free from such hunger, the cittas may be kusala or akusala, depending. ... >Or even worse, I could be thinking 'YOUR hunger is your kamma and you're the owner of your kamma'. .... S: Again it would depend on whether it's wise or unwise reflection, kusala or akusala. Appreciating how everyone is heir to their kamma can be a condition for equanimity instead of distress. ... > Volitional formations can be expressed in terms of body, speech and mind. > > But what is it that some can practise acts of generosity yet some cannot? .... S: Different accumulations, different inclinations. Why are we concerned about what others are doing/not doing instead of understanding our own intentions and developing kusala? .... > And what is it that propel the thought of metta to the act of metta? ... S: Metta can be just a thought or it can be expressed through deeds, depending on the strength and the inclinations again. At this moment, as we write, is there metta or no metta? Hope to hear more of your reflections, Andrew. Also, why not share more that you find helpful from B.Bodhi's talks. Good to consider. Metta (!) Sarah ====== #111590 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 8:00 am Subject: Re: metta, sarahprocter... Hi Azita, We're in Bkk - had a lovely session as usual at the Foundation yesterday. Hope to share more later.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > >S: 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:)) ... S: Maybe just as difficult to have metta for one's own team if they were winning:)) .... > >S: 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. ... S: The characteristic/nature of metta is kusala, so I think that by understanding its nature when it arises, there is an understanding of the value of kusala. The same would apply to any kind of kusala. Just my thoughts. Anything you (or anyone else) wants raised while we're here, for a few days only? Metta Sarah ======= #111591 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 8:10 am Subject: [dsg] Cutting off at feeling ( was Re: Present Moment...) sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > S: Correct - just mental and physical phenomena, just namas and rupas. The > > proliferation is just one citta after another, one moment of thinking after > > another.... > > .... > > > >H: That is not my experience of proliferation. My proliferation isn't neatly > segmented into discretely packaged chunks. I guess I have wrong > proliferation :-) ... S: By definition, the proliferation is wrong:-) In Pali, papanca - thinking with lobha with or without wrong view. That's why we can't rely on our proliferations to sort the mess out:-) ... > > S: What it means is that, at moments of wise consideration and > > understanding, "body" is just a term, a label, to be used for convenience > > only, just like "car" or "chariot". In fact, what is touched now is only > > solidity, temperature or pressure. What is seen now is only visible object. > > > > >H:> At least you also acknowledge the reality of labeling here. So, as I > understand it, there is for you the reality of whatever is sensed, and then > a different reality which is comprised of thinking, proliferating, labeling > and the like. .... S: Sort of. A moment of seeing of visible object (and other sense door experiences), followed by different kinds of thinking, proliferating, labelling and so on. Just different cittas attaching shape, form, ideas and stories to what has been seen. .... >But we are just not allowed to refer to this latter reality as > reality. Thinking, proliferating and labeling happen, but they are not real. > Is that right? ... S: They are real - all kinds of thinking with various mental states. However, the ideas or labels thought about are just concepts. For example, now there may be thinking about squiggles or ideas about what is read. The thinking is very real. The squiggles or ideas are just, well, ideas. .... Metta Sarah > > Vicki is far wiser than me. She can see no value at all in sitting around > and talking about how sitting around and talking isn't real. > > As for me, I'm a glutton for such frivolity :-) ... S: Oh well, we'll have Vicki join us for a little each time and who knows? Maybe you'll both see the Dhamma as a little more than mere frivolity:-) =========== #111592 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 8:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. sarahprocter... hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: Of course, the reverse is true and pointed out, for one with right view, right thinking, speech, action, living, effort, mindfulness concentration, right knowledge and right release follow. > >R: I have no doubt that Right View leads, and I enjoyed the quotes which are informative. I will note that the other path factors also come into play and that in the overall picture they all have to work together. But I would not doubt the importance of Right View in the process. ... S: A good summary. ... > >R: I just don't think it suffices, for most minds anyway, all by itself. If one had a moment of absolute Right View, perhaps that would lead to the fulfillment of the path right then and there. But waiting for such a moment, or thinking that heading for such a moment is the whole of the path, I think is pretty idealistic, and not the intention of the path as a whole. ... S: Just this moment, now, wherever we find ourselves, for any level of Right View to arise or not. Waiting for it would not be the Path. Nor would trying to make it happen. Metta Sarah p.s Love your Formal Dance with Sukin! Poor Sukin sound like Alice in Wonderland, finding you unwilling to play the rules/steps he's been taught! Hope you both keep it up - we really laughed a lot as we caught up, reading out loud (of course!) this morning to celebrate our wedding anniversary (29!). =========== #111593 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 9:01 am Subject: Re: metta, gazita2002 hallo Sarah, looking forward to reading more when you have the time to post. was jst thinking about metta and a few other kusala moments this morning as I was reading some suttas. was reading from MN the mahavagga where the Buddha is talking to the bhikkhus about the N8FP and how right view must "lead" - having right view can lead onto right intention etc. I realise that the Path factors all arise together when Nibbana is experienced, but the way the Buddha seems to emphasise right view as first and foremost, got me thinking about this right view as the most important factor in our daily lives bec right view,even if on an intellectual level, can be a condition for one to keep ones mouth shut when I know its jst 'crap' that I'm about to sprout. Sometimes it works sometimes not, depends on many conditions as I'm learning from 'Conditionality of Life' I do have a question however, I'm currently at internet cafe [laptop difficulties] and will need to check which sutta I read that I need ot ask quest. about...... regards to all at the foundation patience, courage and good cheer azita #111594 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 9:09 am Subject: wedding aniversary. gazita2002 Hallo Sarah, I have also enjoyed the 'dance' bet Sukin and RobE. They have covered some really good stuff - sorry that's not more explicit but I think I'm a bit dyslexic!! Anyway, happy wedding anniversary, I know its all a concept but I'm sure its been [mostly] a nice one :) patience, courage and good cheer azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Sarah > p.s Love your Formal Dance with Sukin! Poor Sukin sound like Alice in Wonderland, finding you unwilling to play the rules/steps he's been taught! Hope you both keep it up - we really laughed a lot as we caught up, reading out loud (of course!) this morning to celebrate our wedding anniversary (29!). #111595 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 9:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Metta as purely meditation purpose VS dana without metta? nilovg Dear Andrew and Sarah, Op 7-nov-2010, om 8:18 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > Hope to hear more of your reflections, Andrew. Also, why not share > more that you find helpful from B.Bodhi's talks. ------ N: Yes, I think the same. I also thought of you, Andrew, and hoping you would not have too much pain, which makes it difficult for you to read the computer. You observed that well: when there is sadness about someone else's sorrow, there is no mettaa. But it is so natural that mettaa, compassion and sadness alternate. Sadness is even called a near enemy to compassion. Also when there is disappointment about others' reactions to a good cause there is dosa. There is dislike of the object experienced at that moment. Best wishes, Nina. #111596 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 9:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is sati. was: More Response to Robert Ep 4. nilovg Op 7-nov-2010, om 3:59 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > N: I would rather say: understanding develops more, but very, very, > > very gradually. I am not thinking of strong awareness.... > This is a good start - obviously a complex subject, but I will > start to absorb this information. I'll watch for your next post on > the subject. > ---------- N: I heard this: "Sati begins to be aware, but this does not mean that there is clear understanding of realities. This takes a long, long time. Nobody can force sati, it is conditioned, it is anattaa. When there is a moment of awareness it is a condition for being aware again. For some people there is no awareness of what appears through the eyesense, even when seeing arises all the time. When we are reminded about visible object it can perhaps be a condition to begin to be aware, even though visible object is not clearly understood. We can learn that it is a reality that just appears through the eyes, when there is eyesense. The blind cannot see." I agree with you that listening to recordings is perhaps more useful than just reading. Something is lost when just reading. Khun Sujin speaks with so much mettaa and compassion. But I find that I easily forget what I hear and then reading or writing it out helps. I am watching DVD's of the Sri Lanka trip of my Thai friends. Someone said that he realizes that listening a lot is necessary. If one only listens a few times how could the depth of Dhamma be penetrated which is as deep as the ocean? If one wishes to develop pa~n~naa very fast it is not the way. He said this so sincerely and I was impressed. I agree. We hear all the time about seeing and visible object and that we do not see people. We have to hear this again and again so that we eventually will understand that no person is seen. It is also good to realise when we are just a little trying comes in to know specific objects. Lobha again. I was at a house concert last night (a nephew is marvellous with the cello, playing Bach) and I realized that trying to hear just sound, not a melody, is the wrong way. When there are conditions for attachment to the music it is just that, it is conditioned. And we should not try to know lobha, this is not possible before distinguishing clearly the different between naama and ruupa at the first stage of insight. I realized that listening to the Dhamma has helped me a lot. Nina. #111597 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 10:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 7-nov-2010, om 3:47 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > Usually we're lost in a world of concepts and take this for being > reality. By directly understanding realities, we're no longer (at > such moments)lost in these dreams. > > > ------- N: Yes, but do not be afraid to be lost in the world of concepts, and realise: this is also a conditioned naama. It is real, and we should not think we should not, it is bad. The development of pa~n~naa can become more and more natural. I understand this a little better, for example, when enjoying music. Nina. #111598 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 10:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Where/How is memory stored? nilovg Dear Alex, Op 6-nov-2010, om 22:15 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Where and how is memory stored? -------- N: Sa~n~naa, the cetasika remembrance, accompanies each citta, as you know. It marks and recognises the object experienced at that moment. ------- > A: How is the memory retrieved? > > For example, how can I remember what I done 20 years ago? -------- N: Each citta that falls away is a condition for the arising of the following citta. Our life is a succession of cittas arising and falling away and all of these are accompanied by sa~n~naa. It is sa~n~naa arising now that can be a condition to remember deeds in the past. But many, many things we do not remember. On account of certain things we had strong feelings and this is also a condition for sa~n~naa to remember. I would not think too much how sa~n~naa can do this exactly. We learn about sa~n~naa to have more understanding of conditions, of realities being anattaa. --------- > > A:Why a person can't normally remember what was done in final years > of previous life? ------ N: In the previous life, when the dying-consciousness arose, that was the end to being the same individual. Then a new life begins and unless special skills have been developed we do not remember our past life, from where we came, what we did, what we learnt. But sure, when there is an interest in the Dhamma today it shows that there must have been an interest in the past that conditions our interest today. Nina. #111599 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 7, 2010 10:55 am Subject: Bangkok - dicussions with A.Sujin November 2010 (1) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, A few of the topics discussed yesterday which are relevant to DSG threads: 1. Grandmother as naama-ruupa as discussed by Antony and Phil (#111179) The respect is to the good qualities, the good qualities of anyone. What about the Buddha? We pay respect to his qualities, not the person. Why to one's grandmother? Because of greater kusala than others as shown to oneself. Kata~n~nuukatavedii (from kata~n~nu - great obliging and katavedii - one who reciprocates favours), indebted to good qualities with gratitude. It depends on understanding for kusala to arise .Kata~n~nuukatavedii is therefore the quality of being a greatful person, gratitude, one who is thankful for benefits received and reciprocates. 2. Trying to work out the meaning of the Dhamma, di.t.taaunusaya is there conditioning lobha, even though di.t.thi doesn't arise. Who is trying? If there is no doubt, no trying "to work it out". For the sotaapanna, no anusayas of di.t.thi and vicikicchaa (doubt) conditioning the cittas to think like that. Such latent tendencies don't 'manifest' or condition such thinking for the one who hasn't studied the Dhamma! As long as di.t.taanusaya is there, it depends whether it conditions lobha. When wanting to find out, not developing right understanding because of the latent tendency of doubt, just wanting. Useless questions will become one's habit and accumulation next life too. Also conditioned by avijjaanusaya, such as when we want to name or find the right words, not actually understanding the characteristic. The Teachings are about Now! Trying to see what is understood is always "I". 3. Sacca (truthfulness) - the purpose of study. Sudying for understanding only, sacca parami, as discussed recently by Nina, Ann and others. Anytime when we're honest with understanding, it's sacca paramii, because it's the Truth. We cannot know for others when they answer. At that moment, it depends on pa~n~naa whether it's paramii (a perfection). If we just answer by repetition, it's not paramii. Just for the one who studies truthfully. Studying the Teachings for oneself, for others or for the Dhamma - different moments, again, we cannot know for the others. It depends how firm the understanding is, whether it is just for the sake of understanding Dhamma. 4. Nimitta and Nina's quote and qu on nimitta and the reason for mentioning the four great elements (#111313). To know better where visible object comes from, how come visible object without the four great elements? Just that which can be seen. Discussed in this way to understand as just a kind of rupa. Less clinging when more understanding. The shape, form, colour, colours - all ideas about visible object. Seeing colours - ideas about what is seen now. Again, as Ann and I discussed, without the 4 great elements, no visible object at all. Without the 4 great elements, where is Sukin, where is Sarah, where are the other objects we think we see? The ideas are just on account of the visible object conditioned by the 4 great elements and other rupas in a kalapa by sahajaata paccaya. After seeing visible object, immediately there's an idea of shape, form and colour. We don't have to call it nimitta. There couldn't be ideas without the elements. 4. Health issues - we're attached to the idea of good health - very normal! What are we looking for from morning til now? Looking for rupas, just for these rupas of the body. Fear of unpleasant feeling because of this body we're so attached to. Back to the 4 Great Elements again....without these, no ruupas of the body to be so attached to. ***** Metta Sarah p.s Nina, on the first passage on nimitta which you quoted, was there a particular question or aspect you'd like to hear more about? ========