#112000 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 7. nilovg Dear Rob E and Sarah, I appreciate your reactions. Lodewijk also found this diary very human. Op 19-nov-2010, om 0:33 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > It is very beautiful, and it is a case of hearing the direct > application of the Dhamma to our "conventional" attachments and > desires, rather than a technique discussion. I am happy to hear K. > Sujin speaking this way, in such a moving personal exchange. > > I wonder if this tape is around? This is one that would be very > good to hear "live." ------- N: No, it is not a tape. It is a book in Thai language. Khun Bong's husband made her diary into a book. I had a lot of trouble with the colloquial words and expressions. I am used to dhamma Thai. So, I did not translate the whole book, only some passages. I kept looking into my Thai dictionary. -------- > > K. Bong showed a lot of courage. This is a moving and honest talk. ------ N: Yes, and in the diary I read about all her visits to the hospital and doctor's consults, very uncertain what her illness was exactly and whether the medicines would help. Difficult what to decide and all the painful symptoms she had. But she did not complain. As Sarah said, we never know what will happen to us. It is Dhamma in a life story. Nina. #112001 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:55 am Subject: Khun Bong's Diary, no 8. nilovg Dear friends, Kh Sujin: When people who have everything they like unexpectantly become like Khun Bong at this moment, can they bear it? Can they bear it if they have beauty, good fortune but no Dhamma? Kh Bong: That is true. The subject of detachment is deep and people who die deluded are in trouble. Kh Sujin: When there is right understanding, no matter where one is, this makes one free. Kh Bong: Pa~n~naa is of the greatest benefit. I wish that people would study Dhamma and have such understanding. But this is something I keep to myself. I can say to myself that I should understand dying, pain and sickness, but if I would say this to someone else it is not “done”, not generally accepted. Kh Sujin: Everything is anattaa. Kh Bong: Formerly I was healthy, I was strong every day. Now, when I get up I look as usual, but when I start walking I become tired, my legs are heavy and swollen. But I am thinking that I will not die yet and this is again a story I am thinking of. I am seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting... I do not know until when, but it has to be until that time. Kh Sujin: When that time comes you may be at ease, really at ease. Nobody knows. Kamma is varied and one should not think or dream about it. All that thinking is only thinking. When it really happens it may not be as you thought. Kh Bong: That is true. I have conditions to think in this or that way and I do not realize that it is only a reality that thinks. If I would understand that thinking is a dhamma it would be all right. One cannot prevent thinking. Kh Sujin: There must be sati and pa~n~naa in order to know the characteristic of the citta that thinks. Kh Bong: Thinking is so strange, it just arises. Many words enter and it seems that the story one thinks about is longer that other realities. I wish to have understanding of this. Only through the development of pa~n~naa will I know thinking as dhamma. Kh Sujin: This is the only way to let go of ignorance and the other defilements. If this way is not followed we will be deluded every life time. ---------- (the end) Nina. #112002 From: Herman Date: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 7. egberdina Hi Rob E, On 19 November 2010 10:33, Robert E wrote: > > Thanks for this transcript. > > It is very beautiful, and it is a case of hearing the direct application of > the Dhamma to our "conventional" attachments and desires, rather than a > technique discussion. I am happy to hear K. Sujin speaking this way, in such > a moving personal exchange. > > I wonder if this tape is around? This is one that would be very good to > hear "live." > > K. Bong showed a lot of courage. This is a moving and honest talk. > I agree it was an honest talk. That is what makes it the tragedy that it is. Where did you detect Dhamma in this tragedy, Rob? One minute, we have a dying person and her mentor discussing the uncertainty of the next moment. Next thing you know, the mentor predicts deva status, with certainty. I know it may appear to be manipulative, but you disappoint me, Rob :-) Cheers Herman #112003 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Which one is the right order in the conceptualization processesŁż nilovg Dear Huajun, Op 18-nov-2010, om 19:29 heeft Huajun het volgende geschreven: > I find that the description part of the conceptualization processes > is inconsistent with the examples in that the naming process is in > the fourth place in the description part but in the third place in > the examples. ------- N: In one of my books, a preface to the translation of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, the order is as you said. But we should not think that each of these phases occurs in only one process, these processes are so fast. There can be, for example, more mind-door processes that experience just the colour or sound that was experienced in a sense-door process. The whole scheme should not be taken too rigidly. It is really hard to pinpoint the different processes of cittas. --------- > > H: These may develop further into more abstract ideas especially > when associated with other sense doors and ideas. But from here we > may say that to note ˇ°seeingˇ± without thinking would cut off a > lot of concepts. It would also help to disregard the shape and > forms as far as possible. ------- N: Nobody could do any cutting off, the processes of cittas take their own course, all cittas are non-self, beyond control. In the development of vipassanaa there is awareness of all that naturally appears. If it is thinking of concepts, O.K. than that reality should be seen as it is, as a dhamma that appears because of its own conditions. No self who is thinking. ------- > > H: Similarly, by just noting ˇ°hearingˇ± we cut off concepts. It > would also help to disregard the ˇ°wordsˇ± if we are to arrive at > the Vipassana object faster. -------- N: If there is any thought of arriving faster there is attachment and this is does not help to know realities as they are. It is not helpful to disregard realities or to try to interfere. And even when attachment arises, this is conditioned, and it shoule be known too as just a reality. > --------- > > H: The processes follow one another so quickly that they make > whatis complex seem solid and as a whole. ------- N: Yes, you are right. We keep on seeing wholes of persons and things, we are deluded. In reality there are only naama and ruupa. Even thinking of concepts of wholes is a kind of naama. It arises already because there are conditions for its arising. Nina. #112004 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 7. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: ...in the diary I read about all her visits to the hospital > and doctor's consults, very uncertain what her illness was exactly > and whether the medicines would help. Difficult what to decide and > all the painful symptoms she had. But she did not complain. > As Sarah said, we never know what will happen to us. It is Dhamma in a life story. That seems like a very good way of putting it. It seems like she took her own death as a Dhamma lesson. That is a very strong conviction in the Dhamma, and quite a striking example of how a commitment to the path can give us strength in the face of life and death. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #112005 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 7. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 19-nov-2010, om 15:20 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > That is a very strong conviction in the Dhamma, and quite a > striking example of how a commitment to the path can give us > strength in the face of life and death. ------- N: And a commitment to the Path means: understanding the present moment. If this is thinking of our last moment it is only thinking, a kind of naama. Sometimes we would discuss death with Kh Sujin and she would keep on reminding us of this moment now. What else can be done? Nina. #112006 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:50 pm Subject: Calm no 3. nilovg Dear Rob E, > > R: So these three kandhas are tranquilized in samatha, which is a > kusala thing to happen. I wonder what is the citta like, or what > qualities other than samatha does it have, when vedana, sanna and > formations are tranquilized? This sounds like a very tranquil state. ---------- > N: The three khandhas, these are just cetasikas. This is another > way to describe calm of cetasikas, not just in samatha, but with > regard to the cetasikas that accompany each kusala citta. --------- > I would guess that pleasant vedana would probably have greater > calm and other positive qualities? But is pleasant vedana always > kusala? This has come up before, but now I am unsure about it > again. I would not guess that pleasant vedana is always accompanied > by samatha, for instance, because I would think that pleasant > vedana can often rise with clinging - attachment. ------- N: Yes, that is so most of the time. When it accompanies akusala citta with attachment there is no calm. > > > > Text Vis.: Their function is to crush disturbance of the [mental] > > body and of consciousness. > > They are manifested as inactivity and coolness of the [mental] > body and > > consciousness. > > So to tranquilize the mental fabrications [?] the mental body and > consciousness are cooled and stilled by the tranquilization of > samatha on the material and mental bodies, ------ N: Mental fabrications, is a translation of sa"nkhaarakkhandha, the khandha of the cetasikas (other than feeling and sa~n~naa). Instead of samatha I prefer calm, since this pertains to all kusala. ------- > R: One can see how crushing agitation, anxiety and other painful > disturbances in the body and mind, that samatha would allow for > kusala in the citta at that moment, or in that group. [?] [Not sure > if there is a grouping of sequential rupas and/or namas in the > "kaayos" or if the grouping is only between the khandas that are > stilled *in* the kayas at a single moment.] -------- N: When there is calm of citta and of cetasikas it means that there is no disturbance of akusala, there is no akusala citta and cetasikas. -------- > > > > N: Kaaya passadhi, calm of body, has the function of calming > > cetasikas, and citta passadhi has the function of calming citta. > > The Tiika explains that by crushing disturbance they are manifested > > as being unwavering, without agitation and as coolness. > > I note there that "unwavering" is probably a pretty good synonym > for equanimity and that samatha of a degree to cause equanimity is > being described here. [?] ------ N:Unwavering means no agitation, no restlessness. Equanimity, tatramajjhattataa, is another sobhana cetasika accompanying each kusala citta, not just the citta that develops samatha. > > > > When one performs daana which also includes the appreciation of > > someone else's kusala, there are calm of citta and cetasikas. One is > > not disturbed by stinginess or jealousy, defilements that are > > accompanied by unpleasant feeling. > > We now see that stinginess and jealousy are also included in > defilements that accompany negative vedana, and that the lack of > samatha is far-ranging, causing disturbance not only in calm of > material and mental fabrications, but even making dana impossible. ------- N: Again: the lack of calm (not just samatha) and all the other sobhana cetasikas that assist each kusala citta. Also alobha, non- attachment, and adosa, non-aversion are indispensable. ------ > R: It would seem from this that samatha is much more important than > just being an accompanying factor to kusala, but a very important > ingredient of kusala. It seems that some degree of samatha is > necessary to perform any kusala function, such as dana, and I would > guess this would be true of siila as well. Without a certain > degree of calm and equanimity, restlessness, agitation, greed and > jealousy, and other turbulent qualities that are the opposite of > calm, acceptance and peacefulness, are able to arise and cause > disturbance and akusala. ------- N: It is not so that calm has to arise first to perform any kind of kusala. It arises already with the kusala citta and at that very moment it performs its function of calming. And not just the cetasika calm as I said. Many helpers assist, a whole army of them. -------- > (to be continued) Nina. > #112007 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 7. epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > On 19 November 2010 10:33, Robert E wrote: > > > > > Thanks for this transcript. > > > > It is very beautiful, and it is a case of hearing the direct application of > > the Dhamma to our "conventional" attachments and desires, rather than a > > technique discussion. I am happy to hear K. Sujin speaking this way, in such > > a moving personal exchange. > > > > I wonder if this tape is around? This is one that would be very good to > > hear "live." > > > > K. Bong showed a lot of courage. This is a moving and honest talk. > > > > > I agree it was an honest talk. That is what makes it the tragedy that it > is. > > Where did you detect Dhamma in this tragedy, Rob? > > One minute, we have a dying person and her mentor discussing the uncertainty > of the next moment. Next thing you know, the mentor predicts deva status, > with certainty. I know it may appear to be manipulative, but you disappoint > me, Rob :-) Sorry to disappoint, Herman! :-) My focus, and what touched me, was the human exchange, and the understanding of life as uncontrollable and not-self, expressed in a personal way. I find that moving. I did not pay special attention to the deva reference, except to see it as someone comforting a friend. As to whether there are devas or not, or whether K. Sujin knows whether someone becomes a deva, I am agnostic. That is beyond my experience, but I do believe that supernatural events and knowledge are possible in some cases, based on my own experience. Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = = = #112008 From: "Huajun" Date: Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Which one is the right order in the conceptualization processesŁż huajun_tang --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Huajun, > Op 18-nov-2010, om 19:29 heeft Huajun het volgende geschreven: > > > I find that the description part of the conceptualization processes > > is inconsistent with the examples in that the naming process is in > > the fourth place in the description part but in the third place in > > the examples. > ------- > N: In one of my books, a preface to the translation of the > Abhidhammattha Sangaha, the order is as you said. But we should not > think that each of these phases occurs in only one process, these > processes are so fast. There can be, for example, more mind-door > processes that experience just the colour or sound that was > experienced in a sense-door process. The whole scheme should not be > taken too rigidly. It is really hard to pinpoint the different > processes of cittas. > --------- H:Thank you for the comments. > > > > H: These may develop further into more abstract ideas especially > > when associated with other sense doors and ideas. But from here we > > may say that to note ˇ°seeingˇ± without thinking would cut off a > > lot of concepts. It would also help to disregard the shape and > > forms as far as possible. > ------- > N: Nobody could do any cutting off, the processes of cittas take > their own course, all cittas are non-self, beyond control. In the > development of vipassanaa there is awareness of all that naturally > appears. If it is thinking of concepts, O.K. than that reality should > be seen as it is, as a dhamma that appears because of its own > conditions. No self who is thinking. > ------- H: Perhaps there is some misunderstanding. Actually no one assumes there is anybody doing the cutting off.This is directly related to meditation experiences. Many people have the experience that when a wondering thought arises,you note it,it will disappear immdediately when you have good mindfulness. The stop or disappearance of the wondering thoughts means cutting off. Even for a sense door process, this kind of cut-off can happen. One meditator said in his meditation report that the itching duo to mosquito bite disappeared when he noted it. So this kind of cut-off is a natural phenomenon that happens in the vipassana meditation when the mindfulness is strong enough. I also experienced it in my own meditation. > > > > H: Similarly, by just noting ˇ°hearingˇ± we cut off concepts. It > > would also help to disregard the ˇ°wordsˇ± if we are to arrive at > > the Vipassana object faster. > -------- > N: If there is any thought of arriving faster there is attachment and > this is does not help to know realities as they are. It is not > helpful to disregard realities or to try to interfere. And even when > attachment arises, this is conditioned, and it shoule be known too as > just a reality. H:It does not refer to something thought of, but to vipassana experience. When mindfulness is strong, the mind responds more quickly. Best regards, Huajun #112009 From: Herman Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi Jon, On 14 November 2010 00:07, jonoabb wrote: > > > Thanks for the heads-up. I accept that we cannot say anything about heard > > sound, only about listened-to sound. > > =============== > > J: I'm not familiar with the terminology 'heard sound' and 'listened-to > sound'. > > To my understanding, the teachings contemplate there being audible data > ('sound') that is experienced by hearing consciousness followed by the > processing of that audible data/sound, this latter being performed through > the mind-door. > > For each moment of sound that is the object of hearing consciousness there > are multiple moments of processing by which the sound is recognised and > given meaning. (However, the object of those moments of subsequent > processing is no longer the actual audible object but a remembered concept > of it.) > > > =============== > > > What I meant was that all we know of the Buddha is from listening to the > > Buddha. We know nothing from the Buddha from hearing him. If listening is > a > > perversion of the way things really are ie hearing, then I'm afraid that > in > > daily life we're stuck with perversion :-) > > =============== > > J: I'm not sure I'm with you here. Are you saying that the remembered > concept of the audible data is a perversion? > No, I was paraphrasing what I thought you were saying. I personally don't believe there is unprocessed experience that precedes processed experience. I don't doubt there are causes for what is experienced, but I don't experience causes, I think them. > If so, then so would be the remembered concepts of the rupas experienced > through the other sense-doors. > Is that how you see it? > > No. I don't experience or remember rupas impinging on sense doors. I experience whatever I experience as wholes, and that experience is not a perversion of some underlying, more fundamental experience of elements. I would sooner say that it is the quest for an underlying, fundamental experience of elements that perverts. Cheers Herman #112010 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. ptaus1 Hi Herman, Re 110965 I've been meaning to discuss this for a while, also because it ties into a discussion we started in Manly but didn't have time to finish. > H: In my experience, it is only during effective meditation that there is > mindfulness as well as no intention to control. > > The alternative to meditation is to either not be mindful and/or be occupied > with arranging means towards ends ie daily life. Basically, my experience is somewhat different. I mean, while I can agree that in proper meditation mindfulness can be present, as well as no intention to control (what would signify presence of panna at the time) - I can't also discount the arising of sati and panna outside of meditation session, so pretty much anytime anywhere. E.g. consider an occasional moment of metta for example. It can certainly arise anytime, anywhere, like while driving, or walking, or talking to someone. In abhidhamma, such moment would be classified as both having sati (which arises with every kusala citta) as well as panna (though not necessarily - not every kusala citta is accompanied by panna). So no meditation session necessary at the time for that metta to arise. And that moment of metta certainly doesn't impair my ability to drive, walk or talk to others. I would think that the same would apply to a moment of insight arising. For example, consider the many discourses in the suttanata when people listen the the Buddha and become sotapanna or higher at the time. Again, they are not really in a meditation session there as far as I can tell, just listening, considering what was heard and there arise sati and panna and nibbana for them, and neither seem to impair their ability to listen and consider what they are hearing at the time. So to sum up, in theory or practice, I don't really see any antagonism between occasional momentary arising of kusala (anytime anywhere), and kusala arising during a meditation session (provided that what's arising at the time of such session are really moments of kusala). Further, based on the example of people attaining while listening to a discourse, I also don't see any evidence that sati and panna can't be very strong/deep in such individual moments of arising anytime anywhere, as compared to arising in a meditation session where sati and panna arise (ideally) in an uninterrupted manner for some time. Best wishes pt #112011 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:52 am Subject: Re: Calm no 3. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > Text Vis.: Their function is to crush disturbance of the [mental] > > > body and of consciousness. > > > They are manifested as inactivity and coolness of the [mental] > > body and > > > consciousness. > > > > So to tranquilize the mental fabrications [?] the mental body and > > consciousness are cooled and stilled by the tranquilization of > > samatha on the material and mental bodies, > ------ > N: Mental fabrications, is a translation of sa"nkhaarakkhandha, the > khandha of the cetasikas (other than feeling and sa~n~naa). Instead > of samatha I prefer calm, since this pertains to all kusala. Can I ask you what is the difference between calm that accompanies all kusala cittas, and samatha in particular? What is the special situation in which samatha arises, and why is it different from the calm that accompanies kusala cittas in general? > > > N: Kaaya passadhi, calm of body, has the function of calming > > > cetasikas, and citta passadhi has the function of calming citta. > > > The Tiika explains that by crushing disturbance they are manifested > > > as being unwavering, without agitation and as coolness. > > > > I note there that "unwavering" is probably a pretty good synonym > > for equanimity and that samatha of a degree to cause equanimity is > > being described here. [?] > ------ > N:Unwavering means no agitation, no restlessness. Equanimity, > tatramajjhattataa, is another sobhana cetasika accompanying each > kusala citta, not just the citta that develops samatha. I wonder what is the difference between equanimity and "unwavering?" They seem pretty similar. Do they have different functions? > > R: It would seem from this that samatha is much more important than > > just being an accompanying factor to kusala, but a very important > > ingredient of kusala. It seems that some degree of samatha is > > necessary to perform any kusala function, such as dana, and I would > > guess this would be true of siila as well. Without a certain > > degree of calm and equanimity, restlessness, agitation, greed and > > jealousy, and other turbulent qualities that are the opposite of > > calm, acceptance and peacefulness, are able to arise and cause > > disturbance and akusala. > ------- > N: It is not so that calm has to arise first to perform any kind of > kusala. It arises already with the kusala citta and at that very > moment it performs its function of calming. And not just the cetasika > calm as I said. Many helpers assist, a whole army of them. > -------- Okay. I guess I am confused about the difference between general kusala calm and samatha. The calm arising with the citta I can understand, ie, it is not a causal condition; it is a characteristic of a kusala citta. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112012 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 2:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 7. epsteinrob Hi again Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E, > > > > On 19 November 2010 10:33, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for this transcript. > > > > > > It is very beautiful, and it is a case of hearing the direct application of > > > the Dhamma to our "conventional" attachments and desires, rather than a > > > technique discussion. I am happy to hear K. Sujin speaking this way, in such > > > a moving personal exchange. > > > > > > I wonder if this tape is around? This is one that would be very good to > > > hear "live." > > > > > > K. Bong showed a lot of courage. This is a moving and honest talk. > > > > > > > > > I agree it was an honest talk. That is what makes it the tragedy that it > > is. > > > > Where did you detect Dhamma in this tragedy, Rob? > > > > One minute, we have a dying person and her mentor discussing the uncertainty > > of the next moment. Next thing you know, the mentor predicts deva status, > > with certainty. I know it may appear to be manipulative, but you disappoint > > me, Rob :-) > > Sorry to disappoint, Herman! :-) My focus, and what touched me, was the human exchange, and the understanding of life as uncontrollable and not-self, expressed in a personal way. I find that moving. I did not pay special attention to the deva reference, except to see it as someone comforting a friend. As to whether there are devas or not, or whether K. Sujin knows whether someone becomes a deva, I am agnostic. That is beyond my experience, but I do believe that supernatural events and knowledge are possible in some cases, based on my own experience. Let me just clarify a bit further that it was the humanity of this exchange that I was moved by. As for the devas - even if this is a mistaken notion, or her pronouncement the equivalent of promising Heaven to someone who is about to die, I don't expect anyone to be perfect, or to resist the desire to make a friend feel better when they are mortally ill, not even K. Sujin. Best, Robert E. = = = == = = = = #112013 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > No. I don't experience or remember rupas impinging on sense doors. I > experience whatever I experience as wholes, and that experience is not a > perversion of some underlying, more fundamental experience of elements. I > would sooner say that it is the quest for an underlying, fundamental > experience of elements that perverts. Do you think these experienced wholes are, in whole or in part, an expression of delusion, according to either you or Buddha, and if so, what do you think is the right way to regard these experienced wholes in order to follow the Buddha's path? I guess I am trying to figure out what your basic stand is on human experience in relation to Buddhism, and it's not academic to me. I think you have a strong radical view, and a clear way of looking at things; but I have a hard time understanding exactly what it is. I think Buddha clearly made the connection between suffering and delusion. If we didn't think that things could somehow be changed or held onto and were also able to give us happiness, "if only...", we wouldn't cling to them or crave them, and wouldn't have the degree of psychological fear and pain that all of that causes. So are you saying that the delusion is only in relation to anicca and anatta, and that the Abhidhamma interpretation is wrong to say that delusion is seeing concepts instead of reality? Where is it that you disagree, and where do you see the real path that the Buddha made available? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112014 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:32 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > So to sum up, in theory or practice, I don't really see any antagonism between occasional momentary arising of kusala (anytime anywhere), and kusala arising during a meditation session (provided that what's arising at the time of such session are really moments of kusala). Further, based on the example of people attaining while listening to a discourse, I also don't see any evidence that sati and panna can't be very strong/deep in such individual moments of arising anytime anywhere, as compared to arising in a meditation session where sati and panna arise (ideally) in an uninterrupted manner for some time. I guess I should apologize for jumping in again, although an apology doesn't mean much if one doesn't intend to reform the behavior in question. The idea that deep moments of sati or panna are going to arise individually out of the blue does not make sense to anything that happens in real life. In practice, mindfulness and discernment are the result of concentrated accumulations, not random ones. Clear intellectual discernment comes from continued exposure to and contemplation of the Dhamma. Direct discernment comes from studying experience with mindful attention. Nobody doubts that past causes combine and accumulate to cause certain tendencies, directions and manifestations to arise, but they do not happen one moment at a time in random order. The depth of mindfulness that is developed through concentrated practice has no resemblance to a moment here or there that arises in relation to a random object. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112015 From: Herman Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 7. egberdina Hi Rob E, On 20 November 2010 13:57, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi again Herman. > > > > Where did you detect Dhamma in this tragedy, Rob? > > > > > > One minute, we have a dying person and her mentor discussing the > uncertainty > > > of the next moment. Next thing you know, the mentor predicts deva > status, > > > with certainty. I know it may appear to be manipulative, but you > disappoint > > > me, Rob :-) > > > > Sorry to disappoint, Herman! :-) My focus, and what touched me, was the > human exchange, and the understanding of life as uncontrollable and > not-self, expressed in a personal way. I find that moving. I did not pay > special attention to the deva reference, except to see it as someone > comforting a friend. As to whether there are devas or not, or whether K. > Sujin knows whether someone becomes a deva, I am agnostic. That is beyond my > experience, but I do believe that supernatural events and knowledge are > possible in some cases, based on my own experience. > > Let me just clarify a bit further that it was the humanity of this exchange > that I was moved by. As for the devas - even if this is a mistaken notion, > or her pronouncement the equivalent of promising Heaven to someone who is > about to die, I don't expect anyone to be perfect, or to resist the desire > to make a friend feel better when they are mortally ill, not even K. Sujin. > > Thanks Rob. I had written a reply to your initial reply, but I scrapped it, because the last thing I want is for people to stop sharing their real life experiences. I'm like you, I'm touched by humanity, as anatta as it all is. Another reason I scrapped my reply is that it could easily have been construed as an attack on K Sujin. But you have here essentially said what I intended, K Sujin is a a human being, like the rest of us. And if that is construed as an attack, so be it. I have no problems with devas, or with run-of-the-mill, living and dying people which we all are (a fact on which the reality of anatta has no bearing). I have problems with the creation of heros, and the subsequent worship of them. My unsolicited advice to K Sujin would be to tell her followers to wake up to themselves. But then again, she's probably been saying that for years :-) Thanks again, Rob. Cheers Herman #112016 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ptaus1 Dar Nina, > > pt: So, just like the cone, the ear-drum membrane simply moves back and > > forth - and it's position at one instance is basically a sum-total > > of all the sound coming from outside onto the membrane. Then, to > > perceive a 440Hz, a violin or an airplane, a lot of these membrane > > positions are necessary over some time, with a lot of processing > > and conceptualising to shape it all into "the sound of a violin", > > "airplane", etc. > > > > How does that sound to you? > ----- > N: I think all this is difficult for me to understand since I am very > ignorant of science. Science is a subject far removed from what I > know. Quite different from what I learn through the Abhidhamma. > How is sound experienced. without having to think of it? I learnt > from Kh Sujin: it has a degree of loudness, and I find this quite > clear. pt: Yeah, sorry for confusing you, I mostly had Herman in mind when I was writing that post as he also knows a lot when it comes to science of sound. For me, it's difficult to understand "degree of loudness" as well, because based on what I know of sound in scientific terms, I'd assign loudness to some level of processing/thinking as well. So probably the term "loudness" for you and K.Sujin stands for something else, just like when you use the term "color" to designate visual object, but the term doesn't stand for color as in black and red, but more likely for "just all that appears when our eyes are open". > N: I have been thinking again of this scientific approach. One is thinking of the different causes for hearing a sound. Is there not a danger here of losing out of sight the goal of it all: detachment? pt: Yes quite possible, though I think I agree here with what I understood Herman to mention here recently in that trying to approach the subject scientifically is probably the best degree of detachment available to someone studying this area. I mean, to me it seems it's our first point of reference in trying to understand intellectually what sound as a rupa may be, since there's no direct recognition of an experience of sound as a dhamma yet. So, I mean, trying to understand intellectually first what's the difference between sound as thinking/concept and sound as rupa or dhamma seems like the only possible step to take in absence of direct experience of dhammas. > N: As to visible object: I am not thinking of light or of > anything. Just all that appears when our eyes are open, but not yet > defining it. There is not yet thinking of it. But when we try to know > it, there is thinking, not just plain seeing. pt: Thanks, I think I see what you mean, though of course, I crave more precision. All that appears when our eyes are open can stand for many things, including many moments of thinking/processing, long before the first verbal thought appears so to speak. Though as you often say, only panna can know, but in the meantime I feel I have to ask more. I'll get to this topic of seeing a bit later in another post where you and Herman address this topic specifically. Best wishes pt #112017 From: Herman Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 7. egberdina Hi Rob E, On 20 November 2010 14:50, Herman wrote: > Hi Rob E, > > On 20 November 2010 13:57, Robert E wrote: > >> >> >> Hi again Herman. >> >> I thought I'd add something too :-) > > > Where did you detect Dhamma in this tragedy, Rob? >> > > >> > > One minute, we have a dying person and her mentor discussing the >> uncertainty >> > > of the next moment. Next thing you know, the mentor predicts deva >> status, >> > > with certainty. I know it may appear to be manipulative, but you >> disappoint >> > > me, Rob :-) >> > >> > Sorry to disappoint, Herman! :-) My focus, and what touched me, was the >> human exchange, and the understanding of life as uncontrollable and >> not-self, expressed in a personal way. I find that moving. I did not pay >> special attention to the deva reference, except to see it as someone >> comforting a friend. As to whether there are devas or not, or whether K. >> Sujin knows whether someone becomes a deva, I am agnostic. That is beyond my >> experience, but I do believe that supernatural events and knowledge are >> possible in some cases, based on my own experience. >> >> Let me just clarify a bit further that it was the humanity of this >> exchange that I was moved by. As for the devas - even if this is a mistaken >> notion, or her pronouncement the equivalent of promising Heaven to someone >> who is about to die, I don't expect anyone to be perfect, or to resist the >> desire to make a friend feel better when they are mortally ill, not even K. >> Sujin. >> >> > Thanks Rob. I had written a reply to your initial reply, but I scrapped it, > because the last thing I want is for people to stop sharing their real life > experiences. I'm like you, I'm touched by humanity, as anatta as it all is. > > Another reason I scrapped my reply is that it could easily have been > construed as an attack on K Sujin. But you have here essentially said what I > intended, K Sujin is a a human being, like the rest of us. And if that is > construed as an attack, so be it. > > I have no problems with devas, or with run-of-the-mill, living and dying > people which we all are (a fact on which the reality of anatta has no > bearing). I have problems with the creation of heros, and the subsequent > worship of them. My unsolicited advice to K Sujin would be to tell her > followers to wake up to themselves. But then again, she's probably been > saying that for years :-) > > Thanks again, Rob. > > Cheers > > > Herman > > >> Best, >> Robert E. >> >> Another thing K Sujin could do is to cease teaching, and to withdraw everything she has ever said. To the extent that such an act would create a vacuum for some folks, there could arise the understanding that being a dhamma junkie is just that, craving in disguise. Cheers Herman #112018 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:41 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. ptaus1 Hi RobE, pt: I think there's a few problems with terminology here, so more precision is needed. > RE: The idea that deep moments of sati or panna are going to arise individually out of the blue does not make sense to anything that happens in real life. pt: If "out of the blue" means unconditioned, then that's not what I was saying. If "out of the blue" means independent of/outside of meditation session (though still conditioned by previous kusala, wise considering, etc), then that is what I meant. I took Herman's main point to be that sati and panna can arise only in meditation session, so that's what I was countering. > RE: In practice, mindfulness and discernment are the result of concentrated accumulations, not random ones. pt: Not sure what's "concentrated accumulations". > RE: Clear intellectual discernment comes from continued exposure to and contemplation of the Dhamma. pt: ok > RE: Direct discernment comes from studying experience with mindful attention. pt: Not sure what's "studying experience"? > RE: Nobody doubts that past causes combine and accumulate to cause certain tendencies, directions and manifestations to arise, but they do not happen one moment at a time in random order. pt: Hm, well, everything happens one moment at a time, but it depends what you mean by "in random order"? If unconditioned, then that's not what I was saying. What I was trying to say is that they need not happen inside a meditation session as the main condition. > RE: The depth of mindfulness that is developed through concentrated practice has no resemblance to a moment here or there that arises in relation to a random object. pt: It does in my experience. But that doesn't make it unconditioned by previous consideration, accumulations, etc, if that's what you're implying. Best wishes pt #112019 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 7. epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > I have no problems with devas, or with run-of-the-mill, living and dying > people which we all are (a fact on which the reality of anatta has no > bearing). I have problems with the creation of heros, and the subsequent > worship of them. My unsolicited advice to K Sujin would be to tell her > followers to wake up to themselves. But then again, she's probably been > saying that for years :-) > > Thanks again, Rob. :-) Enjoyed the exchange. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #112020 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong's Diary, no 7. epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > I thought I'd add something too :-) Cool! > Another thing K Sujin could do is to cease teaching, and to withdraw > everything she has ever said. To the extent that such an act would create a > vacuum for some folks, there could arise the understanding that being a > dhamma junkie is just that, craving in disguise. Your thoughts are always fun. It's an interesting point, but as long as we are worldly beings we will be craving and averting a lot of the time, so if we get involved with Dhamma we are likely to cling to it as well. What's the solution? What I like about meditation is that to some extent it has its effect despite what I think about it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #112021 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:26 pm Subject: Agitation and Worry! bhikkhu5 Friends: Restlessness and Regret Agitates the Mind! A Brahmin Priest once asked the Blessed Buddha: Master Gotama, what is the cause of being unable to remember something that has been memorized over a long period and also that, which has not been memorized? Brahmin, when the mind is agitated by restlessness and regret, stressed, agitated, troubled and tyrannized by restlessness and regret, & one does neither know, nor understand any actual safe escape from this dominating restlessness and regret, in that moment, then one can neither see, nor ever understand what is advantageous, neither for oneself, nor for others, nor for both oneself and for others. Then, consequently, even texts, that have been memorized long, cannot be remembered. Why is this blind neglect so? Imagine a bowl of water with the surface stirred up by wind into ripples, undulations, & small wavelets. If a man with good eye-sight were to inspect the reflection of his own face in it, he would neither see, nor recognize it, as it really is! So too, brahmin, when the mind is distracted by restlessness and regret, excited, anxious, distressed, worried, perturbed and upset by restlessness and regret, on any such occasion even texts long memorized do not recur to the mind, not to speak of those texts, events & knowledge, that have not been memorized at all… <....> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:123] section 46: The Links. 55: To Sangarava... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112022 From: "Lukas" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:00 am Subject: Be kind szmicio Dear friends, Recently I think this is good to be kind. Leave it all to people, give them to do what they want. Hovewer, I am not sure even this is kusala. This kindness I think can stil be akusala. What kind of cetasika right speach, nice speach is? Is this the kind of mentality that arises when proper conditions are present. I read about commitment to the Path, is this awarness of nama and rupa at the present moment? How to be more with Dhamma, how to read more? Best wishes Lukas #112023 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas, Pali, attention to Scott. ptaus1 Dear Nina, > > ''Change while standing''? > > > > Friends, the arising of matter [...of feelings; ...of > > perception; ...of > > conditions; ...of consciousness] is manifest, ceasing is manifest, > > change > > while standing is manifest. â€" S. XXII,37: iii,38. > ... > As to the words: the becoming otherness of what persists is > discerned, this is the ageing of what lives. > ... > As to becoming otherness, this is ageing. > ... > Ageing is the becoming otherness (instability), and subsisting life's > maintenance. > ... > Thus, as far as I understand, the becoming otherness is ageing, also > as regards citta, cetasika and ruupa, all five khandhas. > Citta is strong at its arising moment, it can produce ruupa, but not > at the moment of its presence and falling away, then it is weaker. > The lesson we can learn is that as soon as a conditioned naama and > ruupa has arisen it is already ageing, going towards its ending. pt: So, I was wondering then - ageing would then still stand for some sort of changing, right? I mean, while the function and manifestation of a dhamma probably would not change during that sub-moment of "ageing", still, it wouldn't be a static state as such either? Best wishes pt #112024 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ptaus1 Hi Herman (Sarah), > > Sarah: The Buddha conveyed the meaning, just as we do, because different cittas > > condition different rupas so that different sounds are uttered and heard. No > > titillating paradox, just sounds to be understood for what they are - rupas > > experienced through the ear-door by hearing. > > > Herman: A siren is still a siren to be understood as "get out the way, someone is in > greater need than you", and a red light still means "stop if you value your > life and the life of others". It is only when one is meditative that one can > safely dispense with greed and distress with reference towards the world. If > one did so in daily life, that would be extremely negligent. pt: I think it might help the discussion if you take Sarah's words in the context of how the process of cognition is described in abhidhamma and commentaries. I.e. that: 1. first there's a sense-door process of cittas - when the object of cittas is a rupa like a sound, 2. then after this come mind-door process(es) of cittas when the object of cittas is a nimitta of a dhamma that fell away, 3. and then follow other processes of cittas with concepts as object related to the dhamma experienced - like shape, color, meaning, etc, of what was experienced through the sense door. I think these three follow eachother invariably most of the time because that's just how cognition works (according to abhidhamma commentaries). So I think when Sarah says "sound understood as rupa", she refers to the first two kinds of processes of cittas, which are hopefully accompanied by panna so that there can be actual awareness at the time. But, even if there isn't panna during these two kinds of processes, they would still happen because that's how process of cognition works according to abhidhamma, and they would then be followed by the third kind of processes that use concepts (thinking) to make sense of what was experienced. Importantly though, and going counter to your conclusion that awareness in daily life is negligent and dangerous, if there's panna during the first two kinds of processes of cittas (that are concerned with a dhamma), that would still not impede one's ability to understand a siren as "get out of the way", because this understanding "get out of the way" would happen in the processes of cittas concerned with concepts, which follow after the first two kinds of processes that are concerned with the dhamma of sound (rupa). Best wishes pt #112025 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:24 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. ptaus1 Hi RobE, Re 111153 Thanks for your thoughts. > RE: I do not accept that meditation below a certain level is bound to be kusala because if you can't tell the difference between kusala and akusala as it arises, then you can't develop samatha. I think that is a tortured intellectual formula that has nothing to do with actual practice, and I don't live my life by formulas that I can't prove or experience because a particular set of commentaries has set it out. It doesn't appear in the Buddha's words that we know he said. It is not the way he taught. pt: Well, as I explained before to Herman, for me this issue is very simple - I think right at the beginning of the sutta it's said that the monk establishes mindfulness in front of him. "Establishes" I think means that it is continuous. This doesn't happen for me. So, if that doesn't happen, then the rest of the things that are mentioned in the sutta are unlikely to happen either. I can imagine that they do, try to make them happen, reinterpret my experiences so that it appears that they happen, but that probably won't be it. > RE: To take a few phrases out of the suttas regarding meditation and conclude from them that only the most advanced monks were advised to meditate... seems absurd to me. pt: Well, I don't think it's the most advanced monks, it's those who can have established mindfulness. It doesn't happen to me, so I wonder why. As I understood Sarah and Jon, it's because I can't really tell when akusala arises compared to kusala, i.e. the difference is still not well known. > RE: I think you'd be better off doing everything the Buddha advised in sutta and in Abhidhamma, instead of doing practically none of it, or thinking the Buddha's mundane path [the one he actually taught in sutta] is "mostly akusala" and be restricted to reading, talking and thinking only. pt: Well, I'm just saying, since I can't have established mindfulness, it would be unrealistic, if not even false/foolish of me to claim/expect that I'm experiencing what's described in the sutta in the lines following the established mindfulness thing, which is, well, right at the beginning. > RE: According to the dhamma theory, to see kusala and akusala and recognize them as they are arising will not take place until very close to enlightenment, so that would be a pretty restrictive prerequisite ofr meditation. Do you really think that Buddha only advised meditation for those who were already past stream entry? pt: I think someone here mentioned that the distinction between a/kusala must be known quite well for samatha development, so this is not strictly dependent on insight at all, so could be before even the first stage of tender insight as I understand, so still far before stream-entry. Best wishes pt #112026 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:59 pm Subject: Re: Science as antidote to misunderstanding ptaus1 Hi Herman, > H: It is said that citta can produce rupa. This is said in relation to > bodily and speech intimation. > > Hook up a battery to an organism. Observe the bodily intimation. > > Therefore, citta is electrical current? pt: I think the difference is that bodily intimation is produced by citta which is also accompanied with intention (to move for example). When the body is shocked into movement by electricity, that is involuntary movement, so I don't think it would classify as bodily intimation. Further, I might be wrong here, but I think it's not the bodily intimation that actually moves the body, but it's the winds (wind element), which are affected (or actually further produced) by bodily intimation and which is what actually moves the body. So, if electricity moves the body through electric shock, I'd guess it affects directly the wind element... Not sure. Best wishes pt #112027 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction ptaus1 Hi Herman, > H: I just wanted to make doubly sure that I have understood you correctly. Are > you saying that anicca is a characteristic of a single dhamma? If so, how > can any dhamma be known as being single? pt: I think this again goes down to how the process of cognition is explained in abhidhamma and commentaries - when insight happens, a dhamma (or rather a nimitta of it) is said to be the object of several mind-door process of cittas. So, I'd guess that in that sense it could be said that a single dhamma is the object of citta. In relation to your question on anicca, a dhamma is said to have general and individual characteristics by which it is known as a particualr dhamma. So anicca would be one of the 3 general characteristics (annata, anicca and dudkkha). Best wishes pt #112028 From: Kevin F Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] DSG: Musical playlist of sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Nina, Thanks for the message. That is true. Naama and rupa are not absent. Take care, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin The business of an intellectual is to think. Most people think religion is staring at the perfection of a rose bud. They don't understand the decay of the rose bud nor of the mind that admires it and then quickly decays. - me Kevin's discussion forum = http://www.dhammasnippets.webs.com/ #112029 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:30 pm Subject: Il Poya: The coming Buddha Metteyya! bhikkhu5 Friends: How to be a Real Buddhist through Observance? Il Poya day is the full-moon of November. This sacred day celebrates: 1: The Buddha Gotama 's declaration of the next Buddha Metteyya . 2: The sending out in the world of the first 60 missionary Arahats . 3: The passing away of the general of the Dhamma: Sariputta . 4: The Buddha's 1st explanation of Anapanasati Breathing Meditation . More on the Significance of Il Poya Day: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_Importance_of_Il_Poya.htm The next Buddha Metteyya : The Friendly One! More on this last perfectly self-enlightened one in this universe: Metteyya! The Coming Buddha: Ariya Metteyya. Sayagyi U Chit Tin: BPS Wheel 381/383 http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/Metteyya/arimet00.htm On how to meet Buddha Metteyya in the future: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/How-2-Meet_Buddha_Metteyya.htm On such Full-Moon Uposatha Poya Observance days: Any Lay Buddhist simply joins the Three Refuges and undertakes the Five Precepts like this: Newly bathed, shaved, white-clothed, with clean bare feet, one kneels at a shrine with a Buddha-statue, and bows first three times, so that feet, hands, elbows, knees & head touch the floor. Then, with joined palms at the heart, one recites these memorized lines in a loud, calm and steady voice: As long as this life lasts: I hereby take refuge in the Buddha. I hereby take refuge in the Dhamma. I hereby take refuge in the Sangha. I hereby seek shelter in the Buddha for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Dhamma for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Sangha for the 2nd time. I hereby request protection from the Buddha for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Dhamma for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Sangha for the 3rd time. I will hereby respect these Three Jewels the rest of my life! I accept to respect and undertake these 5 training rules: I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs. As long as this life lasts, I am thus protected by these 5 precepts... Then, one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's own eyes and children!, since they protect you & all other beings much better than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world! So is the start towards Nibbana: the Deathless Element! This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Ease, to Happiness, initiated by Morality , developed further by Dhamma-Study & fulfilled by training of Meditation ... Today indeed is Pooya or Uposatha or observance day, where any lay Buddhist normally keeps even the Eight Precepts from sunrise until the next dawn... If any wish an official recognition by the Bhikkhu-Sangha, they may simply forward the lines starting with "I hereby ..." signed with name, date, town & country to me or join here . A public list of this new quite rapidly growing global Saddhamma-Sangha is set up here! <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112030 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] DSG: Musical playlist of sotapanna sarahprocter... Hi Kevin, --- On Thu, 18/11/10, Kevin F wrote: >This is a musical play-list that a sotapanna might listen to. This one is mine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4gJN2NhSNI .... S: Great to see you around again! I tried clicking on your first link and got a message to say that the content was censored (for copyright purposes) in my country! So I may never know what a sotapanna might listen to:-)) .... Why share such a play list? Well, if you think about it you might find an answer. What I've done today: generally enjoyed sense pleasures including taking a walk outdoors in the wilderness, petting someones golden retriever dog, seeing women and being attracted to them, wanting to talk to them and spend some time with them, listening to all the above songs in a row. At the end of this day, I will enjoy more creature comforts. .... S: Yes, we all have a lot of attachment to what is experienced through all the sense doors, but even now, there can be awareness of just the reality appearing - a moment of not being lost in the waves of samsara. Says Sarah off to Big Wave Bay..... Metta Sarah ========= #112031 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:56 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > pt: I think there's a few problems with terminology here, so more precision is needed. > > > RE: The idea that deep moments of sati or panna are going to arise individually out of the blue does not make sense to anything that happens in real life. > > pt: If "out of the blue" means unconditioned, then that's not what I was saying. If "out of the blue" means independent of/outside of meditation session (though still conditioned by previous kusala, wise considering, etc), then that is what I meant. I took Herman's main point to be that sati and panna can arise only in meditation session, so that's what I was countering. I guess what "out of the blue" means to me is that, given the influence of past kamma and conditions, rather than immediate conditionality, the arising of moments of kusala, panna, etc., are disassociated from each other and completely unpredictable. That may be true to a certain extent, but it seems to me that while past influences may resurface at a later time, and while we may not have the means to know when those past influences may combine with immediately-arising conditions to create the conjoined conditions that lead to a particular kind of moment arising, when conditions do lead to various kinds of moments arising they play out in more of a pattern than individual moments that are individually conditioned, but more like logical groupings that lead from one group of moments to another, and that there is a logical and understandable relation between what comes up at one point and what comes up right after that. There may be little moments of this or that inbetween, but the strong groupings are there. It seems like we talk about various kinds of moments as if they are totally individual, rather than grouped, totally random-seeming and individually-conditioned, rather than arising in a logical sequence, and this seems questionable to me. If I am angry, I'm usually angry for a while - certainly not for one moment of anger, another moment of calm, followed by a moment of fear, etc. I am probably angry in a slightly different way and to a different degree from moment to moment, but the anger ranges over a large grouping of moments, rather than dotted individual ones that come up without a sequence. Hope this makes sense. Although I cannot observe individual dhammas, I think that whatever those dhammas are doing are going to have some correspondency to what I can observe, ie, the obvious patterns of arising that are experienced. They are not just "concepts," but imprecise and distorted versions of what is really there, so they don't have a total lack of relation. If I am angry for five minutes, I don't expect that the "realities" that arise are going to be something extremely different, but that there will be plenty of moments in reality in which anger is the main ingredient. So there is in fact some predictability to what arises, at least over a period of time. I don't think that mindfulness only arises in meditation - I think mindfulness can arise and can even be cultivated [uh oh bad word] in everyday life, just that consistent practice of mindfulness in meditation is stronger and will give more consistent and more powerful results, ie, more moments of mindfulness in a row, and thus a deepening understanding and experience of mindfulness. So I agree with Herman that meditation is the natural cultivation-ground of mindfulness, even though it can arise and be applied elsewhere. > > RE: In practice, mindfulness and discernment are the result of concentrated accumulations, not random ones. > > pt: Not sure what's "concentrated accumulations". Concentrated means consistent, repeated production, deepening and experiencing of mindfulness through practice, ie, more time, more experience, more skill, more mindfulness. > > RE: Clear intellectual discernment comes from continued exposure to and contemplation of the Dhamma. > > pt: ok > > > RE: Direct discernment comes from studying experience with mindful attention. > > pt: Not sure what's "studying experience"? Repeatedly returning to and treating experience with mindful attention so that the nature of arising dhammas becomes more clear. I don't buy the idea that concentrated, repeated intention and practice to develop mindfulness does not lead to greater mindfulness. That not only defies logic but experience as well. There is nothing in the world that does not increase with practice and repeated experience. Randomness and indirect means do not equal the effect of concentrated practice of anything. If the lack of self and the truth of anatta made it impossible to practice anything, one could not practice the piano and get better any more than one could practice mindfulness and get better at it. There is no reason why practice cannot be accomplished without the need for a self. > > RE: Nobody doubts that past causes combine and accumulate to cause certain tendencies, directions and manifestations to arise, but they do not happen one moment at a time in random order. > > pt: Hm, well, everything happens one moment at a time, but it depends what you mean by "in random order"? If unconditioned, then that's not what I was saying. What I was trying to say is that they need not happen inside a meditation session as the main condition. What I mean by random order is one at a time, with no logical connection between moment a, moment b and moment c. I just don't think reality on any level works that way. When one domino knocks another down, they are related to one another, not unrelated, or randomly associated. > > RE: The depth of mindfulness that is developed through concentrated practice has no resemblance to a moment here or there that arises in relation to a random object. > > pt: It does in my experience. But that doesn't make it unconditioned by previous consideration, accumulations, etc, if that's what you're implying. If you are saying that you experience spontaneous arising of mindfulness due to everyday life conditions, I would not deny that possibility. It may be that your various practices and studies have conditioned your awareness to have that potential, but a/ I doubt that mindfulness arises for no reason, and b/ I doubt that it arises one moment here and one moment there, rather than during a more prolonged period of time, whether it be a few seconds, a minute or 20 minutes. It would not be a flitting dhamma followed by 50 unrelated moments, and then another flitting dhamma followed by a bunch of other unrelated things, if you see what I mean. I think the patterns of arising dhammas have a lot more in common with everyday experience and its broader patterns and longer groupings of moments than the dhamma theory will allow. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #112032 From: Kevin F Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] DSG: Musical playlist of sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Sarah, S:Great to see you around again! I tried clicking on your first link and got a message to say that the content was censored (for copyright purposes) in my country! Kevin: Hi Sarah, good to talk to you! I had no idea the youtube links might be censored in your country. The first link was a song from Daughtry. The second one was by Wham. The third and fourth from the Mighty Mighty Bosstones. The fifth from Peter, Bjorn, and John, the sixth, Four Non-blondes, the seventh, Life of Agony, and the last from Mary Chapin Carpenter (Down at the Twist and Shout -- the best one :) Talk to you soon, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin The business of an intellectual is to think. Most people think religion is staring at the perfection of a rose bud. They don't understand the decay of the rose bud nor of the mind that admires it and then quickly decays. - me Kevin's discussion forum = http://www.dhammasnippets.webs.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5vuTToYN8M&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVpYcc7BCj8 __ #112033 From: Kevin F Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] DSG: Musical playlist of sotapanna farrellkevin80 S: Yes, we all have a lot of attachment to what is experienced through all the sense doors, but even now, there can be awareness of just the reality appearing - a moment of not being lost in the waves of samsara. Kevin: Never is there a being lost in [the waves of] samsara. There is just delusion. Samsara is just a concept as well, and one that is not experienced by a being. Nibbana is neither here nor there. Samsara is neither here nor there either, but just appears to be. Just some thoughts and comments. That is all. Yours, Kevin F. #112034 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:14 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. ptaus1 Hi RobE, > RE:... when conditions do lead to various kinds of moments arising they play out in more of a pattern than individual moments that are individually conditioned, but more like logical groupings that lead from one group of moments to another, and that there is a logical and understandable relation between what comes up at one point and what comes up right after that. pt: I have no problems with this. All I was trying to say is that panna and sati can arise outside of meditation session, which was to counter Herman's obesrvation that they can't arise in daily life (if I understood him right). > RE: There may be little moments of this or that inbetween, but the strong groupings are there. It seems like we talk about various kinds of moments as if they are totally individual, rather than grouped, totally random-seeming and individually-conditioned, rather than arising in a logical sequence, and this seems questionable to me. pt: ok, my bad there, i was using a single moment example for the sake of simplicity. Sure there's usually going to be a lot of moments (or we can say cittas) of one kind (usually akusala) interspersed here and there by flashes (or little groups of moments) that are kusala. > ...RE: just that consistent practice of mindfulness in meditation is stronger and will give more consistent and more powerful results, ie, more moments of mindfulness in a row, and thus a deepening understanding and experience of mindfulness. pt: Though I'm not questioning the validity of your experience, as far as I can tell, your experience doesn't seem to be necessarily a universal experience. I.e. some do seem to experience moments of strong(er) sati and panna outside of (or in complete absence of) meditation session practice. For me personally, meditation practice seems to progress only thanks to moments of understanding that occur outside of the actual practice, as a consequence of studying and discussing. > RE: Concentrated means consistent, repeated production, deepening and experiencing of mindfulness through practice, ie, more time, more experience, more skill, more mindfulness. pt: ah ok, well i think i addressed this above re difference in experience, so i'll avoid at this point going into the whole issue of whether developing a skill is possible if one can't really tell whether the development is actually going in the good (kusala) direction or not. > RE: I don't buy the idea that concentrated, repeated intention and practice to develop mindfulness does not lead to greater mindfulness. That not only defies logic but experience as well. pt: ok :) now it's really hard to avoid going into that whole issue of whether kusala can be developed in the first place if one can't really tell what he's developing at the moment... Anyway, in terms of a logical explanation, I feel that the way Jon and Sarah express it makes more sense than what anyone else from the meditator camp said so far. But, I still maintain a meditation practice so that i can see for myself who's right and to what degree. Though that'll take a decade or two at least to verify from experience... > RE: What I mean by random order is one at a time, with no logical connection between moment a, moment b and moment c. I just don't think reality on any level works that way. When one domino knocks another down, they are related to one another, not unrelated, or randomly associated. pt: Ok, i think we cleared this up in the beginning of the message - i was not trying to assert randomness but just that kusala can arise outside of meditation session. Sometimes, kusala moments (or little groups of kusala moments) can appear to arise our of the blue (say when driving a car or in the middle of anger), but I'd say that this arising would still be conditioned by kusala in the near or distant past, and sometimes even by the preceding akusala. > RE: a/ I doubt that mindfulness arises for no reason, pt: I hope that I addressed this above. > RE: b/ I doubt that it arises one moment here and one moment there, rather than during a more prolonged period of time, whether it be a few seconds, a minute or 20 minutes. pt: I think here we're again comparing differing experiences. For me personally, I don't think I ever really experienced mindfulness that lasts more than half a second or something like that. Maybe I'm confusing mindfulness with something else, but that's how I'd describe it at the moment. Sometimes it does happen (I think) that more of such moments arise in close proximity, but never continuous. Best wishes pt #112035 From: Herman Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Be kind egberdina Hi Lukas, On 20 November 2010 19:00, Lukas wrote: > > > Dear friends, > Recently I think this is good to be kind. Leave it all to people, give them > to do what they want. Hovewer, I am not sure even this is kusala. This > kindness I think can stil be akusala. > What kind of cetasika right speach, nice speach is? > Is this the kind of mentality that arises when proper conditions are > present. I read about commitment to the Path, is this awarness of nama and > rupa at the present moment? > How to be more with Dhamma, how to read more? > Not being sure what is kusala is like not knowing whether to give up smoking. "When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected." (AN 3:61) I could give you handy advice like, beware of the company you keep, Lukas, or, there is no need to read more, Lukas. But if you are not aware of or concerned by the precipice that awaits you, why are you asking these questions? Just do as you see fit. The Buddha's message is not for happy, shiny, satisfied people. It is for such as these: On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha at Vulture's Peak. Then he said to the monks, "Come, monks, let's go to Inspiration Peak for the day's abiding." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. Then the Blessed One together with a large number of monks went to Inspiration Peak. One of the monks saw the huge drop-off from Inspiration Peak and, on seeing it, said to the Blessed One, "Wow, what a huge drop-off! What a really huge drop-off! Is there any drop-off more huge & frightening than this?" "There is, monk, a drop-off more huge & frightening than this." "And which drop-off, lord, is more huge & frightening than this?" "Any priests or contemplatives who do not know, as it actually is present, that 'This is stress'; who do not know, as it actually is present, that 'This is the origination of stress'... 'This is the cessation of stress'... 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': They revel in *(thought-)* fabrications leading to birth; they revel in fabrications leading to aging; they revel in fabrications leading to death; they revel in fabrications leading to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Reveling in fabrications leading to birth... aging... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, they fabricate fabrications leading to birth... aging... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Fabricating fabrications leading to birth... aging... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, they drop over the drop-off of birth. They drop over the drop-off of aging... the drop-off of death... the drop-off of sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. They are not totally released from birth, aging, death, sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. They are not totally released, I tell you, from suffering & stress. (SN 56:42) ----- If you are not sure whether you are suffering or not, just do whatever you want. Cheers Herman #112036 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:42 am Subject: Re: find sutta/comy quotes, please. ptaus1 Hi Alex, > Alex: 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 " 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." pt: The way I understand Sarah and others really relates to the last two sentences you quote from the sutta: "...and setting mindfulness to the fore.[1] Always mindful, he breathes in;" So, the issue is really simple - can I be "always mindful" or not? If yes, then things will happen as the sutta describes them to happen further on. If not, then they just won't happen despite all the trying - because one basically can't tell whether one is mindful or not, and so, whether one is actually developing/engaging in kusala or akusala at the time. So, in that case, I'm just not qualified to engage in anapanasati practice so to speak. To attempt an illustration, if one is not a nuclear physicist (is not always mindful), he probably isn't qualified to implement the instructions on how to start a nuclear reactor (practice anapanasati), even though he might be an aspiring nuclear physicist and can read the instructions/description of how it's done. To do it anyway would most likely be dangerous (develop akusala) even though he might hope it will not happen. So, that's a sort of a simplified black-and-white explanation as far as I can tell. I think a more tricky situation is when one thinks he is mindful all/most of the time, while in fact he is not, so what's being developed is just more akusala that's being confused with kusala. Finally, I guess the most relevant situation to most of us is when there actually is a bit of mindfulness arising here and there, in what case I think it's possible to develop anapanasati based on trial and error so to speak - so developing a bit of kusala along with a lot of akusala initially - but I'm just speculating here really. I mean, I guess this sort of scenario can play out in many different directions - i.e. some people actually managing to develop kusala properly, others not quite, yet other giving up, yet others going slightly deranged for a time, yet others going quite insane, etc. Best wishes pt #112037 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? ptaus1 Hi Alex, > >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. > > Alex: 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. pt: As I understand it, it's important to always have in mind that when abhidhamma and commentaries talk about nama and rupa - it's not in order to describe the structure of the world or a person in the way that science does with atoms and electrons. Rather, it's in order to describe and encourage insight. Because, in a moment of insight, a dhamma (nama or rupa - like feeling or visual object) and the characteristics (anatta, anicca, dukkha) are said to be experienced - and that experience is what actually brings about awakening. So insight is not about being able to analize wholes into parts, but about experiencing a dhamma to be anatta, anicca and dukkha. So, for me it's the same thing as when the Buddha in the suttas says that there are 5 aggregates, and that feeling is anatta, formations are anatta, etc. He too is not analizing what parts the world or a person are made up of, but he is describing/encouraging us towards an experience of insight - to actually experience that the feeling that arises at the time is anatta - because this is what actually brings about awakening. So, it's not about just repeating as a sort of a belief or scientific theory that every person consists of 5 parts/aggregates. So, I think that when Sarah, KenH and others here also say that there are only namas and rupas, etc, they too are not trying to analize the world/person, or posit a philosophy about what things are made of, but rather, they are trying to remind us of how insight is described in the suttas, abhidhamma and commentaries. To employ an illustration that you often mention - when you say that people shouldn't drive into trees, and then KenH says that there are no trees and people, only namas and rupas - what I think KenH is saying is this: 1. if I don't drive into a tree, that might save my life, but whether I drive into a tree or not will have nothing to do with insight and awakening. 2. what does have to do with insight is if panna becomes aware of thinking about trees for example - thinking (vitaka) for example would be a nama, and if there's awareness of a nama, then its characteristic of anatta can also be understood, and that would in essence be an instance of insight. Or there can be awareness of visual object - awareness of a rupa - and that too would then be insight, both of which would lead to (eventual) awakening. 3. finally there is the issue of whether being aware of nama and rupa impedes our ability to operate in the conventional world - avoid driving into trees for example. I don't think that's the case. As I described to Herman, accroding to how the process of cognition is described in the abhidmma and commentaries - let's say in case of an experience of a rupa - then rupa will be the object of the first two processes of cittas no matter what. And at the time, there will either be panna or not (and this panna would basically be aware of what KenH was trying to stress in the first place - of a nama or rupa - in this case a rupa). After this, there will come other processes of citas that will think about what was experienced - and during this time it will be conceptually understood - "ah ok, that's a tree and I need to avoid it", in simple terms. So, I don't see any antagonism between conventional and ultimate words/worlds. Ultimate words are simply employed by some in order to remind us about the experience of insight - not in order to argue the existence or non-existence of the conventional world, trees and cars. Best wishes pt #112038 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Which one is the right order in the conceptualization processesŁż nilovg Dear Huajun, Op 20-nov-2010, om 0:13 heeft Huajun het volgende geschreven: But from here we > > may say that to note ˇ°seeingˇ± without thinking would cut off a > > lot of concepts. It would also help to disregard the shape and > > forms as far as possible. > H: Perhaps there is some misunderstanding. Actually no one assumes > there is anybody doing the cutting off.This is directly related to > meditation experiences. So this kind of cut-off is a natural > phenomenon that happens in the vipassana meditation when the > mindfulness is strong enough. I also experienced it in my own > meditation. ------ N: Thank you for your clarification. I think that you rightly stress that it is important to distinguish seeing from thinking about what is seen and naming it. It is easy to have misunderstandings about words or translations. I find that the term 'noting' may create misunderstandings. Some people may believe that thinking of naming is mindfulness. When they 'note' seeing or attachment it is gone already for a long time. I do not know the Pali or Chinese for noting you use when addressing your pupils. ------ > > > H: Similarly, by just noting ˇ°hearingˇ± we cut off concepts. It > > > would also help to disregard the ˇ°wordsˇ± if we are to arrive at > > > the Vipassana object faster. > > -------- > > N: If there is any thought of arriving faster there is attachment > and > > this is does not help to know realities as they are. It is not > > helpful to disregard realities or to try to interfere. And even when > > attachment arises, this is conditioned, and it shoule be known > too as > > just a reality. > > H:It does not refer to something thought of, but to vipassana > experience. When mindfulness is strong, the mind responds more > quickly. ------- N: I am inclined to emphasize above all understanding. I am sure that you help your pupils with Abhidhamma study. Understanding that all that is dealt with in the Abhidhamma occurs in daily life is a condition eventually for pa~n~naa and sati to directly experience the characteristics of naama and ruupa. But as I learnt, first seeing (and other realities that appear) have to be understood as a dhamma that does not belong to anyone. It helps to understand seeing as a conditioned reality, dependent on visible object and eyesense, and then it will be clearer that nobody can make it arise. The term anattaa will become more meaningful, I think. Nina. #112039 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:03 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (111971) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > Right intellectual understanding and understanding of the level of direct experience are on the same continuum (both are the mental factor of panna). > > I think it is a misunderstanding of panna to think that it is of the intellect in the usual sense. Panna is on the continuum with awakening, not on the continuum with thought. It is of the nature of realization, not of intellectual understanding. Intellectual understanding can set the table, but it cannot create food out of ideas. > =============== J: I don't particularly disagree with the above. Are you suggesting there is any difference between what you say here and my earlier comment as quoted by you that "Right intellectual understanding and understanding of the level of direct experience are on the same continuum (both are the mental factor of panna)"? > =============== > > > As previously explained, there cannot be right intellectual understanding without an appreciation of how what is being considered is applicable to the present moment. So the element of 'application' is there already; there is no need for some separate 'bridge'. > > Thinking about how intellectual knowledge applies to the present moment is as far from seeing the present moment, or developing the ability to see, as recipe-reading is to cooking. They are not of the same dimension, since the object of intellectual knowing is always a concept and not a presence in the moment. Mistaking one for the other is like being trapped in one's head. > =============== J: Obviously if one were to mistake the intellectual understanding for the direct realisation, that would not be the development of the path. But I don't think that accounts for any part of the difference between us. > =============== > > J: We are not being asked to 'believe' in conditions that cannot be directly verified at this stage of our development. > > Well, I'm not a big fan of accepting, believing - whatever you want to call it - something that neither be logically demonstrated nor proven through direct evidence or experience. One either believes such a doctrine or not. How is it borne out in experience? If not demonstrated in the quality of experience or the direct realization of the stuff of life, it is an article of faith. > =============== J: I don't agree ;-)) Things that cannot immediately be verified by direct experinece simply remain unverified, neither embraced nor rejected (much like a working hypothesis). It sounds very much like you're saying "If I can't verify it by direct experience now, it must be ignored/discounted". Doesn't this place rather a high store on one's own level of discernment? > =============== > > > On the other hand, it's inevitable is it not that such conditions are postulated in the teachings (after all, if everything was readily apparent, there'd be no need for a Buddha to have to explain everything in such detail ;-)). > > What is explained in great detail in sutta are the difficult changes and engagements that must be undertaken in real life in order to transform ordinary consciousness and life experience into consciousness that becomes gradually more free and then liberated from suffering. It is complicated to undestand the workings of reality, but it is equally necessary and difficult to follow the path in practical living and practice. For some, as for me, the work of meditative practice is the core of the path, and intellectual understanding's main purpose is to design the framework for practice. > =============== J: I don't see anything in the teachings that requires or even suggests 'changes and engagements that must be undertaken in real life'. It is a question of developing a greater understanding of dhammas as they appear in one's life however that may be lived. Jon #112040 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:07 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (111971) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > =============== > Similarly, one cannot find it said in sutta that we should not practice and that we should be restricted to Dhamma study. There is nowhere where a disciple, monk or householder is told to refrain from meditation. There are many places where right concentration and right mindfulness are clearly attached to meditation, and yet you have no problem reinterpreting those instructions to suit your philosophy. If we are to deny nothing, we should take account of that which doesn't fit into our view as well. > =============== J: Since you've raised the question of 'reinterpretation of the texts to suit one's philosophy' ;-)), would you mind clarifying whether you're taking the position that, as a matter of the doctrine expounded in the suttas, the development of awareness/insight requires meditation (and, if so, to what extent). Are you saying that a certain amount of meditation is a prerequisite, that is to say, as a matter of doctrine (rather than as, for example, an aid to speedier development)? If so, to what extent is that the case (given that you've already said that not all development of the path need occur during meditation)? > =============== > It is said directly over and over again. When Buddha describes the detailed path of meditation in anapanasati and various other suttas, or when he says "go and practice jhana" how could anything be more direct? You just have a convenient way of reinterpreting what he says. If you take it at face value, he is very direct indeed. > =============== J: I agree that there are many instances in the suttas where the development of jhana is extolled and encouraged. But the question as I see it is whether it can be said as a matter of doctrine that mundane jhana is a prerequisite for either the development of awareness/insight or the attainment of enlightenment. You would agree I think that there are numerous instances in the suttas of enlightenment by individuals without any suggestion of their having first attained mundane jhana. > =============== > > J: You are perhaps looking for an 'application to experience' that is in the form of step-by-step instructions to be followed. What if there was no such application explained by the Buddha? > > You mean in addition to the hundreds of instructions and admonitions that are throughout the sutta body, and even in the Vis? I realize you reinterpret these to *not* be instructions, but they are in the form of suggestions, teachings or sometimes commands, so it takes very special acrobatics to reinterpret what are clearly imperatives in any language. "If a person wishes to develop X, [which happens to be a path factor,] he should do Y, and do it with as much fervor and dedication as possible," is not a description but an instruction and admonition to *do.* > =============== J: Where it's said "If a person wishes to develop X, [which happens to be a path factor,] he should do Y", the Y is always a reference to kusala, as I understand it. I don't see how a 'practice' that is partly or perhaps even wholly akusala can be a condition for the development of awareness/insight. Jon #112041 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:10 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (111971) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > "And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? ... There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions." > > Please note that Buddha talks about good and bad actions, this world and the next world, and says about them "There is...", not "these are mere concepts." "There is mother and father, there are...beings; there are priests and contemplatives..." He speaks of all of these different types of people and actions as real, not as concepts, and he says that the right view with effluents - the mundane path - is indeed acknowledging the existence of these people and these actions; so it is the opposite of what you are saying, that there is only the paramatha path. That is not what the Buddha says. > > Do you have an alternate way of explaining why Buddha says that these people are real and these actions lead to good and bad results and are real, and that this is right view? Can you explain it in any other way than by saying that the world of actions and people is indeed part of right view and part of the path? > =============== J: The Buddha is talking about the view that "There is mother and father" as an instance of right view as a factor of the (mundane) path. If we were to interpret this as an assertion that mother and father exist and are real, then everyone in the world would qualify as having right view ;-)). It hardly needs a Buddha to teach this!! As understand it, the development of the path does not require a denial of the world of people and things; only the seeing of things as they truly are (see further comments below). > =============== > Abhidhamma and commentary may break the worldly path down into its constituent parts so that one sees on a deeper level, I don't deny that possibility, and in many cases, that reality; but it does not replace or dismiss the worldly path, it supplements and expands our understanding of it. This gnostic view of the path, that it is only paramatha and that there is nothing to be done about this world of action and people, seems to be quite wrong according to the Buddha's own words in sutta. > =============== J: For the person developing the path the world continues to be a world of people and things. But to the extent that there is a gradual development of understanding of the phenomena called 'dhammas' (as uniquely explained in the Buddha's teaching), there is less and less taking the concepts as being real *in the ultimate sense*. Even the enlightened person relates to people and things in the world as if they were 'real', but there is no more taking of concepts as being real in the ultimate sense; dhammas are truly seen as dhammas, concepts are known as concepts. Jon #112042 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:11 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (111972) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > I see it as it is stated, and don't reinterpret it. If the Buddha wished to say that practice only consists of non-active, non-volitional arising of mindstates, he would not have said the opposite, that "he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing." There is no way to interpret that as a non-volitional arising. It is clearly a practice being advocated by the conventional self, in order to transcend the self. If that seems contradictory, so be it. In samsara we do things in order to realize that there is no one that does them. That's the way it is. > > Look at it again. He says: "He should attend carefully...through mindfulness of in and out breathing." "He should attend carefully" does not mean he should not do anything and wait for kusala mindstates to arise. You are adding that from your own way of thinking. It is not what he said. > =============== J: I don't see how any kind of attending with akusala could constitute "attending carefully" in this context. Jon #112043 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! jonoabb Hi Herman (111975) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Jon, > ... > The passage I quoted specifies the three pre-requisite conditions necessary > for the persistence of the state. There is a separate section on the > pre-requisite conditions for the emergence from the state. > > "There are two conditions for the emergence from the theme-less > awareness-release: attention to all themes and lack of attention to the > theme-less property. These are the two conditions for the emergence from the > theme-less awareness-release." > > There is thus no hint of a suggestion that the prior act of will is > connected with the emergence from the state, but solely with the persisting > of the state. > > Being a reasonable man :-), it continues to be plain fact, not requiring > interpretation, that in this case specific intentional activity is an > absolute must. > =============== J: I'm still not sure exactly what this "theme-less awareness-release" is; it is clearly some form of higher attainment. In the sutta, separate sets of conditions are given for the following different aspects of "theme-less awareness-release": - its attainment (2 conditions), - its perseverance (the 3 conditions you mention) and - the emergence from it (2 conditions). The reference to a prior act of will appears only in the second of these. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't see this as being inconsistent with the idea that conventional deliberate acts are neither a support for nor a hindrance to the development of the path. On the question of support for the development of the path, I notice that earlier in the same sutta there is the following: "Right View "Friend, how many conditions are there for the arising of right view?" "Friend, there are two conditions for the arising of right view: the voice of another and appropriate attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of right view." Note that the 2 conditions mentioned here – the voice of another and appropriate attention – are an abbreviated form of the 4 factors for stream-entry that are mentioned in SN 55:5: "Association with people of integrity is a factor for stream-entry. "Listening to the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry. "Appropriate attention is a factor for stream-entry. "Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry." — SN 55.5 Jon #112044 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:51 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Calm no 3. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 20-nov-2010, om 3:52 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > Okay. I guess I am confused about the difference between general > kusala calm and samatha. The calm arising with the citta I can > understand, ie, it is not a causal condition; it is a > characteristic of a kusala citta. ------- N: I start with your last remark. Yes, in this context it is calm arising with kusala citta, but it has many levels, depending on the citta and other cetasikas it accompanies. It is conditioned and also a conditioning factor: citta and cetasikas that arise together condition one another. ------- > R: Can I ask you what is the difference between calm that > accompanies all kusala cittas, and samatha in particular? What is > the special situation in which samatha arises, and why is it > different from the calm that accompanies kusala cittas in general? ------ N: Samatha is the development of calm which is the temporary freedom from the hindrances and from sense pleasures. Pa~n~naa of the level of samatha and concentration on the meditation subject of samatha are essential. -------- > > ------ > > N:Unwavering means no agitation, no restlessness. Equanimity, > > tatramajjhattataa, is another sobhana cetasika accompanying each > > kusala citta, not just the citta that develops samatha. > > I wonder what is the difference between equanimity and > "unwavering?" They seem pretty similar. Do they have different > functions? ------- N: See my Cetasikas, Ch 30: The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 153) states about equanimity : It has the characteristic of conveying citta and cetasikas evenly. Its function is to prevent deficiency and excess, or its function is to inhibit partiality. It is manifested as neutrality. It should be regarded as like a conductor (driver) who looks on with equanimity on thoroughbreds progressing evenly. The Atthasalini (I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 133) gives a similar definition. When there is equanimity there is neither elation nor depression. The object which is experienced is viewed with impartiality and neutrality, just as a charioteer treats with impartiality his well-trained horses. Equanimity effects the balance of the citta and the other cetasikas it arises together with. ---------- Nina. #112045 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:12 pm Subject: Q. Calm, no 4. nilovg Dear Rob E, > R: > Calm suppresses the hindrances and it is opposed to restlessness, > > uddhacca. > > The aim of samatha is to be free from sense impressions that are > > bound up with defilements. > > Now we see the purpose of jhana in creating a high degree of kusala > leading to understanding, in this simple sentence. .... > To me it even gives a view of the disturbing waves of the kandhas > always leading to more disturbances and defilements in the absence > of samatha, and how one can shut the door on samsara so to speak at > the level of jhana, and create kusala conditions for citta. It > seems to me in this sense that the experience of jhana is a very > important moment in the accumulation of kusala, as it teaches the > citta what it is like to be free from defilements, free from the > negative influence of samsara for a brief or longer period, and > thus gives citta a foreshadowing of nibbana. ------- N: I think that jhaana 'shutting the door on samsara' and 'foreshadowing of nibbaana' is too much. Only the arahat will be free from samsara as you will agree. ------ > > Right understanding is necssary for the > > development of calm, there has to be precise understanding of the > > characteristic of calm so that it is known when kusala citta with > > calm arises and when there is attachment to calm. > > There is also calm in the development of insight. > > R: This expresses the connection between samatha/jhana and > satipatthana/vipassana. There is an important mutual dependence > here, which I think the Vis is acknowledging here, even though it > gives right understanding the leading role. > > > When there is right > > understanding of naama and ruupa, the six doors are guarded at that > > moment. > > So right understanding and samatha really arise as part of the same > detachment and clear seeing, which leads to peacefulness. Yet a > certain degree of samatha expressed earlier is necessary to push > aside and calm the defilements to the point where this is possible. ------ N: Well, I see this differently but I do not like to repeat what was said earlier and many times on dsg. ----------- R to pt: RE: I do not accept that meditation below a certain level is bound to be kusala because if you can't tell the difference between kusala and akusala as it arises, then you can't develop samatha. I think that is a tortured intellectual formula that has nothing to do with actual practice, and I don't live my life by formulas that I can't prove or experience because a particular set of commentaries has set it out. It doesn't appear in the Buddha's words that we know he said. It is not the way he taught. ------- N: Let me add just a little. All kinds of bhaavana, mental development, need to be done with pa~n~naa. Pa~n~naa does not make mistakes and clearly distinguishes kusala from akusala. When there is concentration with clinging to a meditation subject, the subduing of the hindrances cannot be reached. In the begibnning there cannot be clear understanding of the difference between kusala and akusala, but understanding can grow. Understanding grows by studying the teachings and considering them. All this is not a tortured intellectual formula, I think that it is according to reality. For the development of samatha one should change one's lifestyle, there should be a total dedication to a life of fewness of wishes. -------- Nina. #112046 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] DSG: Musical playlist of sotapanna truth_aerator Hello Kevin, do you watch movies? If so, which are your favorite? Which movies can a sotapanna watch? With metta, Alex #112047 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? truth_aerator Hello Pt, Thank you very much for your post. With metta, Alex #112048 From: Lukas Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Be kind szmicio Thanks Herman, this was helpful. Best wishes Lukas --- On Sun, 11/21/10, Herman wrote: > From: Herman > Subject: Re: [dsg] Be kind > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Date: Sunday, November 21, 2010, 6:29 AM #112049 From: Herman Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. egberdina Hi pt and Rob E, On 20 November 2010 13:44, ptaus1 wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > Re 110965 > > I've been meaning to discuss this for a while, also because it ties into a > discussion we started in Manly but didn't have time to finish. > > > H: In my experience, it is only during effective meditation that there is > > > mindfulness as well as no intention to control. > > > > The alternative to meditation is to either not be mindful and/or be > occupied > > with arranging means towards ends ie daily life. > > Basically, my experience is somewhat different. I mean, while I can agree > that in proper meditation mindfulness can be present, as well as no > intention to control (what would signify presence of panna at the time) > Just as an aside, the notion of control is a red herring in my opinion. No need to discuss it here, but just to give some evidence, there is this from DN15: "Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward order, in reverse order, in forward and reverse order, when he attains them and emerges from them ***wherever he wants, however he wants, and for as long as he wants***, when through the ending of the mental fermentations he enters and remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release and discernment-release, having directly known it and realized it in the here and now, he is said to be a monk released in both ways. And as for another release in both ways, higher or more sublime than this, there is none." > - I can't also discount the arising of sati and panna outside of meditation > session, so pretty much anytime anywhere. > > E.g. consider an occasional moment of metta for example. It can certainly > arise anytime, anywhere, like while driving, or walking, or talking to > someone. In abhidhamma, such moment would be classified as both having sati > (which arises with every kusala citta) as well as panna (though not > necessarily - not every kusala citta is accompanied by panna). So no > meditation session necessary at the time for that metta to arise. And that > moment of metta certainly doesn't impair my ability to drive, walk or talk > to others. > > I would think that the same would apply to a moment of insight arising. For > example, consider the many discourses in the suttanata when people listen > the the Buddha and become sotapanna or higher at the time. Again, they are > not really in a meditation session there as far as I can tell, just > listening, considering what was heard and there arise sati and panna and > nibbana for them, and neither seem to impair their ability to listen and > consider what they are hearing at the time. > > So to sum up, in theory or practice, I don't really see any antagonism > between occasional momentary arising of kusala (anytime anywhere), and > kusala arising during a meditation session (provided that what's arising at > the time of such session are really moments of kusala). Further, based on > the example of people attaining while listening to a discourse, I also don't > see any evidence that sati and panna can't be very strong/deep in such > individual moments of arising anytime anywhere, as compared to arising in a > meditation session where sati and panna arise (ideally) in an uninterrupted > manner for some time. > Thanks for your post. I'm pretty sure that my objection to this is the same as Rob E's. If something comes out of the blue, to only disappear into the blue, neither the causes of it's coming or going are known. It may as well be a random event, like the blind turtle poking its head through a buoy. In no sense of the word could such a random event be construed as development of any kind. If you won the lottery tomorrow, it would be silly to say that you were developing the skill of how to be a millionaire, or to value any of your preceding acts (except somehow getting a ticket :-)) more highly than any other act. Cheers Herman #112050 From: Herman Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi Rob E, On 20 November 2010 14:08, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > No. I don't experience or remember rupas impinging on sense doors. I > > experience whatever I experience as wholes, and that experience is not a > > perversion of some underlying, more fundamental experience of elements. I > > would sooner say that it is the quest for an underlying, fundamental > > experience of elements that perverts. > > Do you think these experienced wholes are, in whole or in part, an > expression of delusion, according to either you or Buddha, and if so, what > do you think is the right way to regard these experienced wholes in order to > follow the Buddha's path? > > Thanks for the questions. There is no need to have views or theories about what is experienced. Right view is attachment to no view. The Buddha says as much in the Sutta Nipata 4:5. > I guess I am trying to figure out what your basic stand is on human > experience in relation to Buddhism, and it's not academic to me. I think you > have a strong radical view, and a clear way of looking at things; but I have > a hard time understanding exactly what it is. I think Buddha clearly made > the connection between suffering and delusion. If we didn't think that > things could somehow be changed or held onto and were also able to give us > happiness, "if only...", we wouldn't cling to them or crave them, and > wouldn't have the degree of psychological fear and pain that all of that > causes. > > In 56:31. the Buddha says there's an awful lot he knows by direct insight, but nevertheless didn't teach, because they do not lead to dispassion, disenchantment, calm etc. So, what did He teach? "And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them. "Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'" > So are you saying that the delusion is only in relation to anicca and > anatta, and that the Abhidhamma interpretation is wrong to say that delusion > is seeing concepts instead of reality? Where is it that you disagree, and > where do you see the real path that the Buddha made available? > The Buddha didn't teach that one should have a certain theory of perception. (That would include the theory of perception as first set forth in the Abhidhamma commentaries, some 1000 years after the Buddha walked the earth). He taught, as you say, that whatever formations arise are impermanent and a source of stress/angst, and that all phenomena are not-self. And he taught a total disinterest in the world, as an antidote. Such a teaching cannot possibly appeal to anyone who is quite happy with formations as they come and go, so those who follow the Buddha's teachings are a self-selecting set, driven by dukkha aka existential angst. I don't have a problem with people relishing life or wealth or relishing the pursuit of knowledge of various kinds etc, and I don't propose that people ought to have, or could learn, a sense of dukkha, but it doesn't hurt to be clear about what the Buddha did and didn't teach, and why. Cheers Herman #112051 From: Herman Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi pt, On 21 November 2010 00:39, ptaus1 wrote: > > > > > Herman: A siren is still a siren to be understood as "get out the way, > someone is in > > greater need than you", and a red light still means "stop if you value > your > > life and the life of others". It is only when one is meditative that one > can > > safely dispense with greed and distress with reference towards the world. > If > > one did so in daily life, that would be extremely negligent. > > pt: I think it might help the discussion if you take Sarah's words in the > context of how the process of cognition is described in abhidhamma and > commentaries. I.e. that: > > OK. I'll try to be charitable in my approach :-) 1. first there's a sense-door process of cittas - when the object of cittas > is a rupa like a sound, > 2. then after this come mind-door process(es) of cittas when the object of > cittas is a nimitta of a dhamma that fell away, > 3. and then follow other processes of cittas with concepts as object > related to the dhamma experienced - like shape, color, meaning, etc, of what > was experienced through the sense door. > > I think these three follow eachother invariably most of the time because > that's just how cognition works (according to abhidhamma commentaries). > > So I think when Sarah says "sound understood as rupa", she refers to the > first two kinds of processes of cittas, which are hopefully accompanied by > panna so that there can be actual awareness at the time. > OK so far. But my understanding of panna / wisdom is that it's function is to cut off, not to be aware. > But, even if there isn't panna during these two kinds of processes, they > would still happen because that's how process of cognition works according > to abhidhamma, and they would then be followed by the third kind of > processes that use concepts (thinking) to make sense of what was > experienced. > > Importantly though, and going counter to your conclusion that awareness in > daily life is negligent and dangerous, if there's panna during the first two > kinds of processes of cittas (that are concerned with a dhamma), that would > still not impede one's ability to understand a siren as "get out of the > way", because this understanding "get out of the way" would happen in the > processes of cittas concerned with concepts, which follow after the first > two kinds of processes that are concerned with the dhamma of sound (rupa). > > That is where we differ. IMO, panna cuts of all proliferation, but as we both know, proliferation is essential in the world of cars and traffic lights :-) Guarding the senses, if only momentary, while driving at 105 kmh, can be lethal. Cheers Herman #112052 From: Herman Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Science as antidote to misunderstanding egberdina Hi pt, On 21 November 2010 02:59, ptaus1 wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > > H: It is said that citta can produce rupa. This is said in relation to > > > bodily and speech intimation. > > > > Hook up a battery to an organism. Observe the bodily intimation. > > > > Therefore, citta is electrical current? > > pt: I think the difference is that bodily intimation is produced by citta > which is also accompanied with intention (to move for example). > Yes, good point. > When the body is shocked into movement by electricity, that is involuntary > movement, so I don't think it would classify as bodily intimation. > OK. > Further, I might be wrong here, but I think it's not the bodily intimation > that actually moves the body, but it's the winds (wind element), which are > affected (or actually further produced) by bodily intimation and which is > what actually moves the body. So, if electricity moves the body through > electric shock, I'd guess it affects directly the wind element... Not sure. > My current neurological understanding of movement is that there is an action potential (whether chemical or electrical) that is transmitted from the brain through the nerves to a muscle somewhere. The question for me then becomes - is it intention that somehow initiates a chemical / electrical impulse, and if so, how?. Or is intention one thing, and electrical impulses another thing altogether? Cheers Herman #112053 From: Herman Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction egberdina Hi pt, On 21 November 2010 03:14, ptaus1 wrote: > > > > Hi Herman, > > > H: I just wanted to make doubly sure that I have understood you > correctly. Are > > > you saying that anicca is a characteristic of a single dhamma? If so, how > > can any dhamma be known as being single? > > pt: I think this again goes down to how the process of cognition is > explained in abhidhamma and commentaries - when insight happens, a dhamma > (or rather a nimitta of it) is said to be the object of several mind-door > process of cittas. So, I'd guess that in that sense it could be said that a > single dhamma is the object of citta. In relation to your question on > anicca, a dhamma is said to have general and individual characteristics by > which it is known as a particualr dhamma. So anicca would be one of the 3 > general characteristics (annata, anicca and dudkkha). > > It sounds like you also equate sankhara with dhamma. It is sankharas that are anicca, not dhammas, and I do not equate the two. It is necessary to not intermingle the two, because singleness cannot apply to an irreducible something that is changing whilst being what it is. That translates into an irreducible thing not being what it is, while being what it is. It would mean that either irreducibility or singleness is meaningless. Cheers Herman #112054 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:52 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best to get out of a burning house? kenhowardau Hi pt and Alex, --------- <. . .> pt: > 3. finally there is the issue of whether being aware of nama and rupa impedes our ability to operate in the conventional world - avoid driving into trees for example. I don't think that's the case. As I described to Herman, accroding to how the process of cognition is described in the abhidmma and commentaries - let's say in case of an experience of a rupa - then rupa will be the object of the first two processes of cittas no matter what. And at the time, there will either be panna or not (and this panna would basically be aware of what KenH was trying to stress in the first place - of a nama or rupa - in this case a rupa). After this, there will come other processes of citas that will think about what was experienced - and during this time it will be conceptually understood - "ah ok, that's a tree and I need to avoid it", in simple terms. --------- That's a good way of putting it. One moment there is the sure knowledge, "There is only this rupa; there is no tree or anything else," and the next moment there is the thought "Look out for that tree!" Neither the right understanding nor the thinking could be controlled. Perhaps another order of things would be to have panna arising not in the early stages (where the object was a rupa) but before the later stages (where the object was the concept of a tree). It would have a concept of a dhamma as its object and there would be pariyatti-panna instead of patipatti-panna. (Still followed by "Look out for that tree!") -------------------------- pt: > So, I don't see any antagonism between conventional and ultimate words/worlds. Ultimate words are simply employed by some in order to remind us about the experience of insight - not in order to argue the existence or non-existence of the conventional world, trees and cars. -------------------------- I agree, pt, it's a tricky distinction but an important one. In ultimate reality there is no conventional world, but that is not the same as saying the conventional world does not exist in ultimate reality. So it is hard - or maybe impossible - to get the wording exactly right. Any way can be taken the wrong way. But once a degree of right-understanding has been established, precise wording is not so important. Ken H #112055 From: Kevin F Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] DSG: Musical playlist of sotapanna farrellkevin80 Hi Alex, Alex: do you watch movies? If so, which are your favorite? Which movies can a sotapanna watch? With metta, Alex Kevin: Hi Alex. I guess it just depends on accumulations. Kevin #112056 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Nov 21, 2010 11:02 pm Subject: Tranquillity... bhikkhu.sama... Friends: What is the Tranquillity Link to Awakening? The Tranquillity Link to Awakening (passaddhi-sambojjhanga) has the characteristic of peace, and the function of stilling, which manifests as absence of restless trembling. Stillness of feeling, perception and mental construction is the factor that induces bodily Tranquillity. Stillness of consciousness itself induces mental Tranquillity. The proximate cause of Tranquillity is the satisfaction within Joy! The resulting effect of Tranquillity is the bliss within Happiness! The Buddha once said: What mental fermentations (asava) should be overcome by development? If a Bhikkhu by careful & rational attention develops the Tranquillity Link to Awakening based on seclusion, based on disillusion, based on ceasing, and culminating in cool relinquishment, then neither can mental fermentation, nor any fever, nor any discontent ever arise in him. MN2 [i 11] In one who is joyous, the body becomes calm & the mind becomes calm. The Tranquillity Link to Awakening emerges right there. He develops it, & for him it goes to the culmination of its development. MN118 [iii 85] CALMED Calm is his thought, calm is his speech, and calm is his deed, who, truly knowing, is wholly freed, perfectly tranquil and wise. Dhammapada 96 CONTENT The one who eliminates discontent, tearing it out by the roots, utterly cuts it out, such one spontaneously becomes absorbed in the calm of tranquillity both day & night. Dhammapada 250 COMPOSED The one who is tranquil in movement, calmed in speech, stilled in thought, collected & composed, who sees right through & rejects all allurements of this world, such one is truly a 'Peaceful One'. Dhammapada 378 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112057 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:15 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > Re 111153 > > Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate the conversation, and apologize a little bit for pushing my view so hard. Thanks for your indulgence, which I may tax again in this post. > > RE: I do not accept that meditation below a certain level is bound to be kusala because if you can't tell the difference between kusala and akusala as it arises, then you can't develop samatha. I think that is a tortured intellectual formula that has nothing to do with actual practice, and I don't live my life by formulas that I can't prove or experience because a particular set of commentaries has set it out. It doesn't appear in the Buddha's words that we know he said. It is not the way he taught. > > pt: Well, as I explained before to Herman, for me this issue is very simple - I think right at the beginning of the sutta it's said that the monk establishes mindfulness in front of him. "Establishes" I think means that it is continuous. This doesn't happen for me. So, if that doesn't happen, then the rest of the things that are mentioned in the sutta are unlikely to happen either. I can imagine that they do, try to make them happen, reinterpret my experiences so that it appears that they happen, but that probably won't be it. Buddha doesn't say that the rest of the sequence is dependent on putting mindfulness in front of him perfectly. If one has the intention to be mindful and puts that to the fore - has that purpose in the forefront of his attention - that is the establishment of mindfulness to the extent he is capable of. I guess it is a critical factor in interpreting most scriptures as to whether one thinks everything that is to be done is dependent on perfection, or whether that which is to be done is a gradual, developmental process. It seems to me that everything in Buddhism is a gradual, developmental process. I can't imagine the Buddha teaching for forty years and only putting forth a meditation instruction that was dependent on prior perfection to perform it with nothing that covers an earlier phase in which one would develop the capability. Why would he write only for experienced monks? I think, as I have said to Jon, that he is describing the ideal, what the monk is aspiring for, not what he has already accomplished, but I realize that is open to interpretation. > > RE: To take a few phrases out of the suttas regarding meditation and conclude from them that only the most advanced monks were advised to meditate... seems absurd to me. > > pt: Well, I don't think it's the most advanced monks, it's those who can have established mindfulness. It doesn't happen to me, so I wonder why. As I understood Sarah and Jon, it's because I can't really tell when akusala arises compared to kusala, i.e. the difference is still not well known. I appreciate your take on this, and you may be right. I just don't personally believe much in perfection. I pay more attention to process than product, and I think that if you follow the right principles and engage in a sincere practice, you will get the right results in the fullness of time. That expression "Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good," says a lot to me. If one has to wait to be able to establish mindfulness fully before one can engage in the only direct mindfulness practice the Buddha taught, to me that would be a perversion of the path. One has to be able to develop, not start practice when one is already perfect. How do you get to tell the difference between kusala and akusala if you're not allowed to engage in that which generates kusala? If Right View through Dhamma study were enough by itself to get one to that point, wouldn't some of us be there by now and be practicing satipatthana "with mindfulness in front" of us? Waiting lifetimes to find out whether practice is developmental or not while not practicing does not make much sense to me. > > RE: I think you'd be better off doing everything the Buddha advised in sutta and in Abhidhamma, instead of doing practically none of it, or thinking the Buddha's mundane path [the one he actually taught in sutta] is "mostly akusala" and be restricted to reading, talking and thinking only. > > pt: Well, I'm just saying, since I can't have established mindfulness, it would be unrealistic, if not even false/foolish of me to claim/expect that I'm experiencing what's described in the sutta in the lines following the established mindfulness thing, which is, well, right at the beginning. In the anapanasati sutta, in the beginning description of the sutta it says: "On that occasion the elder monks were teaching & instructing. Some elder monks were teaching & instructing ten monks, some were teaching & instructing twenty monks, some were teaching & instructing thirty monks, some were teaching & instructing forty monks. The new monks, being taught & instructed by the elder monks, were discerning grand, successive distinctions." Note that the *new* monks, being taught and instructed, were discerning "grand, successive distinctions." Then he says, about that: ""Monks, I am content with this practice. I am content at heart with this practice. So arouse even more intense persistence for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized." So he says that the practice in question is okay with him. Then he says to "arouse even more intense persistence" to attain that which has not yet been attained. In other words, he is not saying to start with perfection, but to keep practicing and keep trying until you reach a higher level of practice. So far so good? In response to Buddha's admonition to try even harder, it is then said: "Then the elder monks taught & instructed the new monks even more intensely." So the elder monks increased the intensity of their training of the new monks. So far, a very directed, volition-based, "Right Effort" based form of developmental practice. He then compliments the assembly of monks, and notes the different levels of attainment among the monks present - remembering that there were many "new" monks in the earlier description, being trained by more experienced monks: "In this community...there are monks who are arahants,... there are monks who are are due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound,...there are monks who — on returning only once more to this world — will make an ending to stress..., there are monks who are stream-winners,...headed for self-awakening..., there are monks who...remain devoted to the development of the four frames of reference...etc., there are monks who...remain devoted to the development of good will... compassion... appreciation... equanimity..., [the perception of the] foulness [of the body]... etc. Then he says: ""In this community of monks there are monks who remain devoted to mindfulness of in-&-out breathing." It is clear that Buddha is working his way down from arahant in his description. You've got arahants, non-returners, once-returners, stream-enterers. Then you have those who are devoted to satipatthana - those are clearly none of the above. So we can see from this that those "devoted to satipatthana" are below the level of stream entry. One thus assumes that a stream enterer has already mastered satipatthana and it's no longer an issue. After that you have those who focus on the development of the brahmavihāras and perceiving foulness of the body. My impression is that those are practicing something either equivalent or below that of those practicing satipatthana. Finally, after all that, we get those who are practicing anapanasati. It strikes me that, given the context, that it is the "new" monks who are going to be practicing anapansati, and thus working their way up the chain to satipatthana and then to stream entry. Buddha, to my mind confirming this, next says: "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit." It seems to me that this is not the most advanced practice, but the most simple practice in his list. In-and-out, in-and-out; long or short; etc. The practice starts out very simply, much more simply than the other practices. All it requires is simple attention on the breath to get started. And the fact that it is at the bottom of the chain and is the practice being explained in detail to this assembly of many, many new monks, seems to confirm this to me. Remember what Buddha said about the numbers: Of all the very experienced monks there, "Some elder monks were teaching & instructing ten monks, some were teaching & instructing twenty monks, some were teaching & instructing thirty monks, some were teaching & instructing forty monks." So let's say for every hundred elder monks, there may have been 2500 new monks who were being taught. In other words, the large multitude of the assembly were new monks in training. And Buddha chose to teach them anapanasati and urge them to practice it. I think this gives a different picture than Jon and others have given of anpanasati being for the advanced monks. The crucial factor here is that the very experienced monks were the ones teaching a large large body of inexperienced monks, and teaching them anapanasati. So perhaps satipatthana practice was a more advanced stage of discernment, for more experienced monks. If so, it looks like simple anapanasati was the starting ground for new monks, and which the Buddha then said: "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." So anapanasati starts with simple attention to breath, develops capabilities for satipatthana and then continues to the culmination of the path. True, later Buddha says in his description of the monk practicing: "...setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." But given the above, this seems to me to be a setting of intention, not an ideal case. What about all those new monks? I don't think they were expected to be "always mindful" at every moment. It was an instruction, not an expectation of perfection, in my view. In my view, Buddha is saying to practice diligently, not to refrain from practice until after attainment! BTW, there is *nothing* here to suggest that one must distinguish kusala from akusala *before* starting practice. This is in no way suggested in any of Buddha's meditation instructions. This is a presumption by those who otherwise think it necessary, and *not* based on anything the Buddha said. > > RE: According to the dhamma theory, to see kusala and akusala and recognize them as they are arising will not take place until very close to enlightenment, so that would be a pretty restrictive prerequisite for meditation. Do you really think that Buddha only advised meditation for those who were already past stream entry? > > pt: I think someone here mentioned that the distinction between a/ kusala must be known quite well for samatha development, so this is not strictly dependent on insight at all, so could be before even the first stage of tender insight as I understand, so still far before That may be so, but it seems to contradict the idea then that no one around here is qualified to meditate. Surely some of us should be practicing anapanasati by now. Anyway, I wouldn't base my reading of the sutta on what others have concluded from other sources about the necessity for discerning kusala. The Buddha's teaching here is quite consistent here, and the context is clear in its own right. He said: ""Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit." And the way in which to do this is to be always mindful of the in-breath and the out-breath. He did *not* say that in order for the practice to be of great fruit and benefit, one must always be aware of what is kusala and akusala. I think the message here is that continued mindfulness of breathing will *develop* kusala, not that it is dependent on it in advance. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #112058 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. nilovg Dear pt, Op 20-nov-2010, om 13:50 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > N: The lesson we can learn is that as soon as a conditioned naama and > > ruupa has arisen it is already ageing, going towards its ending. > > pt: So, I was wondering then - ageing would then still stand for > some sort of changing, right? I mean, while the function and > manifestation of a dhamma probably would not change during that sub- > moment of "ageing", still, it wouldn't be a static state as such > either? ------ N: The word ageing is used to show that the dhamma has to fall away. We do not have to think of what kind of change there is, it is all so fast. Nothing is static. ------ pt: N: I learnt > from Kh Sujin: it has a degree of loudness, and I find this quite > clear. pt: For me, it's difficult to understand "degree of loudness" as well, because based on what I know of sound in scientific terms, I'd assign loudness to some level of processing/thinking as well. So probably the term "loudness" for you and K.Sujin stands for something else, just like when you use the term "color" to designate visual object, but the term doesn't stand for color as in black and red, but more likely for "just all that appears when our eyes are open". ------ N: You are quite right about colour. As to sound having a degree of loudness, this only means that it can be heard. We should not think too much about it, such as what kind of loudness, etc. -------- > N: I have been thinking again of this scientific approach. One is thinking of the different causes for hearing a sound. Is there not a danger here of losing out of sight the goal of it all: detachment? pt: Yes quite possible, though I think I agree here with what I understood Herman to mention here recently in that trying to approach the subject scientifically is probably the best degree of detachment available to someone studying this area. I mean, to me it seems it's our first point of reference in trying to understand intellectually what sound as a rupa may be, since there's no direct recognition of an experience of sound as a dhamma yet. So, I mean, trying to understand intellectually first what's the difference between sound as thinking/concept and sound as rupa or dhamma seems like the only possible step to take in absence of direct experience of dhammas. ------- N: When sound is heard just now, we do not have to think about it or try to understand it intellectually or in a scientific way. But where pa~n~naa comes in is here: understanding sound as a dhamma, as a kind of ruupa. All scientific knowledge will not help us here. This kind of pa~n~naa is conditioned by hearing, study and considering the Dhamma. It arises when the time is ripe, and nobody can make it arise. 'We' cannot do anything. Your conclusion is right: <...trying to understand intellectually first what's the difference between sound as thinking/concept and sound as rupa or dhamma seems like the only possible step to take in absence of direct experience of dhammas.> Your remark here shows, that you have rightly understood condiitons, that you are on the right way. No science needed. ----------- Nina. > N: As to visible object: I am not thinking of light or of > anything. Just all that appears when our eyes are open, but not yet > defining it. There is not yet thinking of it. But when we try to know > it, there is thinking, not just plain seeing. pt: Thanks, I think I see what you mean, though of course, I crave more precision. All that appears when our eyes are open can stand for many things, including many moments of thinking/processing, long before the first verbal thought appears so to speak. Though as you often say, only panna can know, but in the meantime I feel I have to ask more. I'll get to this topic of seeing a bit later in another post where you and Herman address this topic specifically. #112059 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:59 am Subject: Latent Tendencies, Ch 3, no 3. nilovg Dear Han and friends, Latent Tendencies Ch 3, no 3. Text of the commentary: “The expression ‘anuseti’, lies dormant, in connection with ‘what is not eradicated’ is a term designating what is existing, and it does not refer to the present moment. It refers to what cannot yet be eradicated. As to the question, ‘Does to (every) one to whom the Bias of Sensuous Craving lies dormant, also the Bias of Anger lies dormant?’, one should understand it in this way: sense-desire someone cannot eradicate, and evenso anger of that person that he cannot eradicate yet are realities that are lying dormant. What has been answered with ‘yes’ refers to arising in the future. And then, as stated above as to arising, when it was asked, ‘Does to (every) one to whom the Bias of Sensuous Craving arises, also the Bias of Anger arises?’, this was answered with ‘Yes.’ How should the meaning be taken? This also refers to their non-eradication. This was said with regard to the non-obstruction to their arising when there would be a condition for their arising. Just as in the case of a painter or a woodsculptor who begins with sketching the outline. When he has not yet finished his work at that moment, friends ask him: ‘What did you do these days?’ They answer: ‘I am doing painting, I am doing woodsculpting.’ They take it that they are doing these things, because they think of the time they have worked at it and have to continue doing it [1]. Evenso it is with the latent tendencies in a continuity (of cittas) that cannot yet be eradicated. When there is for the latent tendencies in a continuity a condition for their arising, their arising cannot be prevented. It should be understood with regard to the moment the latent tendencies do not arise as follows: they are arising for someone because they also arose in the past and they arise meanwhile. In this way the meaning can be understood of the saying: ‘To whom the Bias of Sensuous Craving arises, also the Bias of Anger arises.’ It is the same with regard to other similar questions and answers.” (end commentary) What was just quoted shows that the latent tendencies are akusala dhammas which are lying dormant in the citta. They do not arise and perform functions and they cannot yet be eradicated. When they are medium defilements (pariyutthaana kilesas, arising with the akusala citta), sensuous desire arises only with lobha-muula-citta, and anger arises only with dosa-muula-citta. They cannot arise at the same moment of citta. But for the person who is not yet anaagaami (non- returner), there are still the latent tendencies of sensuous desire and anger lying dormant in each citta. The latent tendencies are realities that do not arise and that cannot yet be eradicated (which is the point that needs to be explained here). But when there is a condition the latent tendencies cause the arising of akusala citta, as was said: “It refers to the defilements that cannot yet be eradicated. When there are conditions it should be taken that there is no obstruction to their arising.” As to the statement that sensuous desire is arising for someone because it also arose in the past and in the time in between (when there are still latent tendencies) and also the latent tendency of anger, it means that they are arising, and this refers to the fact that sensuous desire cannot yet be eradicated. In the past that is already gone it arose and it can also arise in the future. If someone has the latent tendency of sensuous desire he has also the latent tendency of anger, because these latent tendencies are only eradicated by the magga-citta of the anaagaami at the same time. -------- footnote 1: They are sure to finish their work in the future. Evenso, when there are the right conditions the latent tendencies will cause the arising of akusala citta in the future. ********* Pali text: appahiinata~nhi sandhaaya aya.m ``anusetii''ti vattamaanavohaaro vutto, na kha.napaccuppannata.m. yasmaa ca appahiinata.m sandhaaya vutto, tasmaa ``yassa kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti, tassa pa.tighaanusayo anusetii''ti pucchaaya yassa kaamaraagaanusayo appahiino, na anuppattidhammata.m aapaadito, tassa pa.tighaanusayopi appahiinoti evamattho da.t.thabbo. yasmaa ca tesu yasseko appahiino, tassa itaropi appahiinova hoti, tasmaa ``aamantaa''ti vutta.m. yadi eva.m, ya.m upari uppajjanavaare `yassa kaamaraagaanusayo uppajjati, tassa pa.tighaanusayo uppajjatii'ti pucchitvaa `aamantaa'ti vutta.m; tattha katha.m attho gahetabboti? tatthaapi appahiinavaseneva uppattipaccaye sati uppattiyaa anivaaritavasena vaa. yathaa hi cittakammaadiini aarabhitvaa aparini.t.thitakammantaa cittakaaraadayo tesa.m kammantaana.m akara.nakkha.nepi mittasuhajjaadiihi di.t.thadi.t.tha.t.thaane ``imesu divasesu ki.m karothaa''ti vuttaa, ``cittakamma.m karoma, ka.t.thakamma.m karomaa''ti vadanti. te ki~ncaapi tasmi.m kha.ne na karonti avicchinnakammantattaa pana katakha.na~nca kattabbakha.na~nca upaadaaya karontiyeva naama honti. evameva yamhi santaane anusayaa appahiinaa, yamhi vaa pana nesa.m santaane uppattipaccaye sati uppatti anivaaritaa, tattha anuppajjanakkha.nepi uppannapubba~nceva kaalantare uppajjanaka~nca upaadaaya yassa kaamaraagaanusayo uppajjati, tassa pa.tighaanusayo uppajjatiyeva naamaati evamattho veditabbo. ito paresupi evaruupesu vissajjanesu eseva nayo. --------------- Nina. #112060 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Be kind nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 20-nov-2010, om 9:00 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > Recently I think this is good to be kind. Leave it all to people, > give them to do what they want. Hovewer, I am not sure even this is > kusala. This kindness I think can stil be akusala. ----- N: It depends on the citta at that moment, nobody else can tell. ------- > L:What kind of cetasika right speach, nice speach is? Is this the > kind of mentality that arises when proper conditions are present. ------- Sammaa vaca. It is the virati cetasika, abstinence cetasika. You may be about to say an unkind word, but virati cetasika can perform its function, and then you refrain from saying it. Mostly we take it for 'my abstinence', clinging to it, having conceit about it, but pa~n~naa can see it as only a conditioned dhamma. This will take a long time. You need to have patience. ------ > L: I read about commitment to the Path, is this awarness of nama > and rupa at the present moment? ------ N: Yes, and also right understanding. Sati and pa~n~naa cannot arise whenever we want them to. Understanding this is also commitment to the Path. There can be a beginning. -------- > L: How to be more with Dhamma, how to read more? ------- N: Remember what Kh Sujin said about all questions starting with 'how to'. Does it not show some attachment? When there are conditions you are reading already. No need to think of how to. Taking part of the dsg discussions is also a good way for you to be busy with all kinds of Dhamma subjects. Nina. #112061 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. jonoabb Hi Herman (111977) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Jon, > ... > The present moment and it's alleged content is a furphy. > =============== J: The teachings are not concerned with "the present moment and its content" but with phenomena which exhibit a characteristic that can be directly experienced. As I read the teachings, it is ignorance of or wrong view in relation to such phenomena that is the root cause of our being bound in samsara. And it's the understanding of such phenomena as they truly are that leads to the dispelling of that ignorance and wrong view. > =============== What there > is for an intentional being ( ie you, me and everybody) is a constant effort > towards states of affairs which do not (yet) exist. States that are being > intended are not there, they are not given, they are being intended to be > there. Intended states, because they do not exist (yet), cannot be the > content of the present moment. > =============== J: I think you're saying that our actions are influenced by deeply held unwholesome views and inclinations of which we are unaware (known in the teachings as the latent tendencies). While I agree with this as a general proposition, I would not see it as affecting the development of the path by way of awareness of the characteristic of presently arising phenomena (as mentioned above). Jon #112062 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:53 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (111979) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > > "If a monk should wish: 'May I remain percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. > > > > > > "If a monk should wish: 'May I remain percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. ... > > > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.008.than.html > ... > > J: To my understanding, the only 'developmental practice' recommended by the Buddha is various moments of kusala. > > Well you're contradicting what's in the text of the suttas in saying that. So I don't know what "to my understanding" means. If you do not accept what the Buddha says, what do you understand him to mean? As far as I can see, you are saying the Buddha's statements here are wrong. I don't know how else to interpret your response. You don't show evidence for this understanding. You say that your understanding is the opposite of what I have quoted you, and I am quoting the Buddha. > =============== J: I'm reading the reference to "attending carefully" as being a reference to kusala, that's all ;-)). Jon #112063 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:56 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (111981) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > All I was trying to demonstrate, and all I was obligated to show, was that conventional actions and abstentions in the material world are included prominently in the Buddha's program for development, and this sutta amply demonstrates that. Of course, mental states are also included and change the quality of actions. > =============== J: This last sentence is just the point I was making, namely, that the ethical quality of an action depends on the ethical quality of the individual mental states that make up the action, rather than on any conventional assessment of the action as 'good', 'bad' or 'neutral' or on the perceived impact of the action as positive/negative/neutral, etc. To my understanding, whenever the Buddha speaks of a 'wholesome' conventional action he is referring in fact to kusala mental states (only) and not to a version of that action that is done with mixed kusala and akusala mental states. Jon #112064 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:56 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb 18.09 Hi Robert E (111982) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > My understanding of the theory is that it would be a nimitta for the first few mind-door processes that follow the original sense-door experience and then a concept for the many processes after that. > > > > Not sure if that makes 'nimittas' any easier to come to terms with ;-)) > > I guess since we are only able to see nimittas or concepts, that makes all of us sort of "nimwits," doesn't it. :-( > =============== J: Yes. And that explains a lot, doesn't it! Jon #112065 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:22 am Subject: Re: Latent Tendencies, Ch 3, no 3. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your explanations, which are very clear, and very useful. As regards Pali text I found the following: [Han] As regards â€anuseti’ I found the following in 2. Mahaavaaro 1. anusayavaaro 3. (Ka) yassa kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti tassa pa.tighaanusayo anusetiiti? AAmantaa. (Kha) yassa vaa pana pa.tighaanusayo anuseti tassa kaamaraagaanusayo anusetiiti? AAmantaa. ------------ [Han] As regards â€uppajjati’ I found the following in 6. Uppajjanavaaro 330. (Ka) yassa kaamaraagaanusayo uppajjati tassa pa.tighaanusayo uppajjatiiti? AAmantaa. (Kha) yassa vaa pana pa.tighaanusayo uppajjati tassa kaamaraagaanusayo uppajjatiiti? AAmantaa. ------------ [Han] As regards *puggala* such as the anaagaami, I found the following in relation to â€anuseti’. 1. nusayavaaro, paragraph 3 (continuation) (Ka) yassa kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti tassa maanaanusayo anusetiiti? AAmantaa. (Kha) yassa vaa pana maanaanusayo anuseti tassa kaamaraagaanusayo anusetiiti? Anaagaamissa maanaanusayo anuseti, no ca tassa kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti, ti.n.na.m puggalaana.m maanaanusayo ca anuseti kaamaraagaanusayo ca anuseti. (Ka) yassa kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti tassa di.t.thaanusayo anusetiiti? Dvinna.m puggalaana.m kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti, no ca tesa.m di.t.thaanusayo anuseti. Puthujjanassa kaamaraagaanusayo ca anuseti di.t.thaanusayo ca anuseti. (Kha) yassa vaa pana di.t.thaanusayo anuseti tassa kaamaraagaanusayo anusetiiti? AAmantaa. (Ka) yassa kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti tassa vicikicchaanusayo anusetiiti? Dvinna.m puggalaana.m kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti, no ca tesa.m vicikicchaanusayo anuseti. Puthujjanassa kaamaraagaanusayo ca anuseti vicikicchaanusayo ca anuseti. (Kha) yassa vaa pana vicikicchaanusayo anuseti tassa kaamaraagaanusayo anusetiiti? AAmantaa. (Ka) yassa kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti tassa bhavaraagaanusayo anusetiiti? AAmantaa. (Kha) yassa vaa pana bhavaraagaanusayo anuseti tassa kaamaraagaanusayo anusetiiti? Anaagaamissa bhavaraagaanusayo anuseti, no ca tassa kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti, ti.n.na.m puggalaana.m bhavaraagaanusayo ca anuseti kaamaraagaanusayo ca anuseti. (Ka) yassa kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti tassa avijjaanusayo anusetiiti? AAmantaa. (Kha) yassa vaa pana avijjaanusayo anuseti tassa kaamaraagaanusayo anusetiiti? Anaagaamissa avijjaanusayo anuseti, no ca tassa kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti, ti.n.na.m puggalaana.m avijjaanusayo ca anuseti kaamaraagaanusayo ca anuseti. ------------ [Han] As regards *puggala* such as the anaagaami, I found the following in relation to â€uppajjati’. 6. Uppajjanavaaro, paragraph 330 (continuation) (Ka) yassa kaamaraagaanusayo uppajjati tassa maanaanusayo uppajjatiiti? AAmantaa. (Kha) yassa vaa pana maanaanusayo uppajjati tassa kaamaraagaanusayo uppajjatiiti? Anaagaamissa maanaanusayo uppajjati, no ca tassa kaamaraagaanusayo uppajjati, ti.n.na.m puggalaana.m maanaanusayo ca uppajjati kaamaraagaanusayo ca uppajjati (vitthaaretabba.m). ------------ Han: I do not know whether we are looking at the same thing. Respectfully, Han #112066 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and pt) - In a message dated 11/22/2010 4:10:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear pt, Op 20-nov-2010, om 13:50 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > N: The lesson we can learn is that as soon as a conditioned naama and > > ruupa has arisen it is already ageing, going towards its ending. > > pt: So, I was wondering then - ageing would then still stand for > some sort of changing, right? I mean, while the function and > manifestation of a dhamma probably would not change during that sub- > moment of "ageing", still, it wouldn't be a static state as such > either? ------ N: The word ageing is used to show that the dhamma has to fall away. We do not have to think of what kind of change there is, it is all so fast. Nothing is static. ================================= I don't find this answer very satisfying, Nina. Are you saying that ageing is the quality of being certain to fall away? If so, then ageing occurs while arising and not only after it, and it is not an occurrence, but a nature - an unobservable one, in fact. Is ageing not a process of degradation? Does it not take time? It is not just an inclination, is it? Also, what do you mean in saying that we do not "have" to think of what kind of change there is? Do not the commentaries have something in particular in mind? Are you saying that we should NOT consider the matter? Is it "safer" in some way not to think about what could be meant by ageing? Why would donning blinders be of use? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112067 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Latent Tendencies, Ch 3, no 3. nilovg Dear Han, Op 22-nov-2010, om 12:22 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > [Han] As regards ‘anuseti’ I found the following in 2. Mahaavaaro > 1. anusayavaaro > > 3. (Ka) yassa kaamaraagaanusayo anuseti tassa pa.tighaanusayo > anusetiiti? AAmantaa. > (Kha) yassa vaa pana pa.tighaanusayo anuseti tassa > kaamaraagaanusayo anusetiiti? AAmantaa. ------ N: You gave a very complete Pali text, thank you very much. My Thai study will get later on to some of these subjects, but first it deals with the Pa.tisambidhamagga also, and with the Kathavatthu, not only with the Yamaka commentary. Many things are repeated but I do not mind this. I like an approach from all sides. It is very long! Thank you for your interest, Nina. #112068 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:51 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. nilovg Op 22-nov-2010, om 13:44 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > N: The word ageing is used to show that the dhamma has to fall away. > We do not have to think of what kind of change there is, it is all so > fast. Nothing is static. > ================================= > I don't find this answer very satisfying, Nina. Are you saying that > ageing is the quality of being certain to fall away? If so, then > ageing > occurs while arising and not only after it, and it is not an > occurrence, but a > nature - an unobservable one, in fact. Is ageing not a process of > degradation? Does it not take time? ------ N: I understand your point of view, you think of a situation as expressed in conventional language. There is nothing against it. But here we are speaking of the briefest moments of citta and also of ruupa. This does not pertain to what we call a process that takes time. -------- > H: It is not just an inclination, is it? > Also, what do you mean in saying that we do not "have" to think of > what kind of change there is? Do not the commentaries have > something in > particular in mind? Are you saying that we should NOT consider the > matter? Is it > "safer" in some way not to think about what could be meant by > ageing? Why > would donning blinders be of use? ------- N: In the commentary also conventional language is used to denote the characteristic of ageing. We should consider the matter but keep in mind that the characteristic of ageing refers to the briefest moment we cannot even imagine. I quote from my 'Physical phenomena', C h 8: Thus, we have to remember that the characteristics are taught by different methods: according to the very short duration of one rupa that arises and continues before it decays and falls away or in a more general way, in conventional sense. The characteristics of rúpa are taught in a conventional sense in order to help people to have more understanding of these characteristics of rúpa which denote the arising, the continuity, the decay and the falling away. The teaching was adapted to the capabilities to understand of different people. < Decay, jaratĺ rúpa, is the characteristic indicating the moment close to its falling away and impermanence, aniccatĺ rúpa, is the characteristic indicating the moment of its falling away. ... We read in the “ Visuddhimagga” (Ch XIV, 68) about decay or ageing: “ 'Ageing' has the characteristic of maturing (ripening) material instances. Its function is to lead on towards [their termination]. It is manifested as the loss of newness without the loss of individual essence, like oldness in paddy. Its proximate cause is matter that is maturing (ripening). This is said with reference to the kind of ageing that is evident through seeing alteration in teeth, etc., as their brokenness, and so on (cf. Dhs. 644)...” The Commentary to the Visuddhimagga explains as to the simile of the paddy, that paddy, when it is ageing, becomes harsh, but that it does not lose its nature, that it is still paddy. It states: “The ageing is during the moments of its presence, then that dhamma does not abandon its specific nature.” Thus, here the Commentary does not speak in a general, conventional way, but it refers to decay as one of the four characteristics of a single rúpa, to the moment that is close to its falling away. After a rúpa such as visible object has arisen, there are the moments of its presence, it is decaying and then it falls away. It is the same visible object that is present and decaying, it does not lose its specific nature....> --------- Nina. #112069 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:27 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/22/2010 10:51:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Op 22-nov-2010, om 13:44 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > N: The word ageing is used to show that the dhamma has to fall away. > We do not have to think of what kind of change there is, it is all so > fast. Nothing is static. > ================================= > I don't find this answer very satisfying, Nina. Are you saying that > ageing is the quality of being certain to fall away? If so, then > ageing > occurs while arising and not only after it, and it is not an > occurrence, but a > nature - an unobservable one, in fact. Is ageing not a process of > degradation? Does it not take time? ------ N: I understand your point of view, you think of a situation as expressed in conventional language. There is nothing against it. But here we are speaking of the briefest moments of citta and also of ruupa. This does not pertain to what we call a process that takes time. ---------------------------------------------- What is brief is not without time. And the word 'ageing' is surely not used to have no reference to what everyone means by "ageing". Should we say "red" when we mean "green"? If ageing takes no time, then the word is WRONG!! Whatever ageing is, it involves change, and change requires passage of time. ----------------------------------------------- -------- > H: It is not just an inclination, is it? > Also, what do you mean in saying that we do not "have" to think of > what kind of change there is? Do not the commentaries have > something in > particular in mind? Are you saying that we should NOT consider the > matter? Is it > "safer" in some way not to think about what could be meant by > ageing? Why > would donning blinders be of use? ------- N: In the commentary also conventional language is used to denote the characteristic of ageing. We should consider the matter but keep in mind that the characteristic of ageing refers to the briefest moment we cannot even imagine. ----------------------------------------------- I don't care how brief. If the duration is non-zero, then it is actually infinite in extent and divisibility. To speak of ageing but not mean it is nonsensical to me. ---------------------------------------------- I quote from my 'Physical phenomena', C h 8: Thus, we have to remember that the characteristics are taught by different methods: according to the very short duration of one rupa that arises and continues before it decays and falls away or in a more general way, in conventional sense. -------------------------------------------- Continuing pertains to positive duration. -------------------------------------------- The characteristics of rĂşpa are taught in a conventional sense in order to help people to have more understanding of these characteristics of rĂşpa which denote the arising, the continuity, the decay and the falling away. The teaching was adapted to the capabilities to understand of different people. ---------------------------------------------- If the characterizations that are given are false and misleading, then better and clearer characterizations using proper terminology should be substituted. If there is something merely *called* ageing but not having the nature of degrading and about which nothing can be elucidated, then it would be best were it not even talked of. ------------------------------------------------ < Decay, jaratĂĄ rĂşpa, is the characteristic indicating the moment close to its falling away and impermanence, aniccatĂĄ rĂşpa, is the characteristic indicating the moment of its falling away. ... ---------------------------------------------- Decay is a moment?? Why in the world call a moment decay"? At any moment a quality or activity may be decaying, meaning that it is *in the midst* of decay, but the decay occurs across an interval of time, however brief. All I can see here is a lot of misleading terminology for which no description of the "reality" is given. It is imprecise to the nth degree. ------------------------------------------------ We read in the “ Visuddhimagga” (Ch XIV, 68) about decay or ageing: “ 'Ageing' has the characteristic of maturing (ripening) material instances. Its function is to lead on towards [their termination]. It is manifested as the loss of newness without the loss of individual essence, like oldness in paddy. Its proximate cause is matter that is maturing (ripening). This is said with reference to the kind of ageing that is evident through seeing alteration in teeth, etc., as their brokenness, and so on (cf. Dhs. 644)...” --------------------------------------------------- This is what everybody means by ageing and decay, and it DOES indicate a continuous temporal process. No mystery here. No hidden things without description or explanation. ---------------------------------------------------- The Commentary to the Visuddhimagga explains as to the simile of the paddy, that paddy, when it is ageing, becomes harsh, but that it does not lose its nature, that it is still paddy. It states: “The ageing is during the moments of its presence, then that dhamma does not abandon its specific nature.” ----------------------------------------------------- This discusses a period of time during which some qualities alter but the one that people use to conventionally identify the complex continues. --------------------------------------------------- Thus, here the Commentary does not speak in a general, conventional way, but it refers to decay as one of the four characteristics of a single rĂşpa, to the moment that is close to its falling away. --------------------------------------------------- There is nothing other than conventional in the foregoing. And non-conventional descriptions with regard to ageing and decay are so far missing. To speak of characteristics using particular words, but to add that we really don't mean those words is not to convey information. I'm sorry, Nina, but so far I cannot find any content given on this matter. ---------------------------------------------------- After a rĂşpa such as visible object has arisen, there are the moments of its presence, it is decaying and then it falls away. ------------------------------------------------- What does that "decaying" mean? If it does not mean degradation across a period of time, then it is nonsense to use the word. ---------------------------------------------------- It is the same visible object that is present and decaying, it does not lose its specific nature....> --------------------------------------------------- I never discussed "its specific nature". That is not the issue. ---------------------------------------------------- --------- Nina. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112070 From: "Huajun" Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Which one is the right order in the conceptualization processesŁż huajun_tang Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Huajun, > Op 20-nov-2010, om 0:13 heeft Huajun het volgende geschreven: > But from here we > > > may say that to note ˇ°seeingˇ± without thinking would cut off a > > > lot of concepts. It would also help to disregard the shape and > > > forms as far as possible. > > > H: Perhaps there is some misunderstanding. Actually no one assumes > > there is anybody doing the cutting off.This is directly related to > > meditation experiences. So this kind of cut-off is a natural > > phenomenon that happens in the vipassana meditation when the > > mindfulness is strong enough. I also experienced it in my own > > meditation. > ------ > N: Thank you for your clarification. I think that you rightly stress > that it is important to distinguish seeing from thinking about what > is seen and naming it. > It is easy to have misunderstandings about words or translations. I > find that the term 'noting' may create misunderstandings. Some people > may believe that thinking of naming is mindfulness. When they 'note' > seeing or attachment it is gone already for a long time. I do not > know the Pali or Chinese for noting you use when addressing your pupils. H: One more clarification. As I said at the beginning that I am doing translation, I have never meant that I am teaching. Huajun #112071 From: Kevin F Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:26 pm Subject: On Revilers of Noble Persons farrellkevin80 "Revilers of noble ones: being desirous of harm for noble ones consisting of Buddhas, Paccekabuddhas, and disciples, and also of householders who are stream-enterers, they revile them with the worst accusations or with denial of their special qualities (see Ud. 44 and M. Sutta 12); they abuse and upbraid them, is what is meant. 83. Herein, it should be understood that when they say, 'They have no asceticism, they are not ascetics', ** they revile them with the worst accusation; and when they say, 'They have no jhana or liberation or path of fruition, etc.', they revile them with denial of their special qualities. And whether done knowingly or unknowingly it is in either case reviling of noble ones; it is weighty kamma resembling that of immediate result, ** and it is an obstacle both to heaven and to the path. But it is remediable. 84. The following story should be understood in order to make this clear. An elder and a young bhikkhu, it seems, wandered for alms in a certain village. At the first house they got only a spoonful of hot gruel. The elder's stomach was paining him with wind. He thought, 'This gruel is good for me; I shall drink it before it gets cold'. People brought a wooden stool to the doorstep, and he sat down and drank it. The other was disgusted and remarked, 'The old man has let his hunger get the better of him and has done what he should be ashamed to do'. The elder wandered for alms, and on returning to the monastery he asked the young bhikkhu, 'Have you any footing in this Dispensation, friend?'.— 'Yes, venerable sir, I am a stream-enterer'.—'Then, friend, do not try for the higher paths; one whose cankers are destroyed has been reviled by you'. The young bhikkhu asked for the elder's forgiveness and was thereby restored to his former state." .... So one who reviles a noble one, even if he is one himself, should go to him; if he himself is senior, [426] he should sit down in the squatting position and get his forgiveness in this way, 'I have said such and such to the venerable one; may he forgive me'. If he himself is junior, he should pay homage, and sitting in the squatting position and holding out his hands palms together, he should get his forgiveness in this way, 'I have said such and such to you, venerable sir, forgive me'. If the other has gone away, he should get his forgiveness either by going to him himself or by sending someone such as a co-resident. 86. If he can neither go nor send, he should go to the bhikkhus who live 421 XHI, 87 The Path of Purification in that monastery, and, sitting down in the squatting position if they are junior, or acting in the way already described if they are senior, he should get forgiveness by saying, 'Venerable sirs, I have said such and such to the venerable one named so and so; may that venerable one forgive me\ And this should also be done when he fails to get forgiveness in his presence. 87. If it is a bhikkhu who wanders alone and it cannot be discovered where he is living or where he has gone, he should go to a wise bhikkhu and say, 'Venerable sir, I have said such and such to the venerable one named so and so. When I remember it, I am remorseful. What shall I do?'. He should be told, 'Think no more about it; the elder forgives you. Set your mind at rest*. Then he should extend his hands palms together in the direction taken by the noble one and say, 'Forgive me'. 88. If the noble one has attained the final nibbana, he should go to the place where the bed is, on which he attained the final nibbana, and should go as far as the charnel ground to ask forgiveness. When this has been done, there is no obstruction either to heaven or to the path. ___________ With metta Kevin The business of an intellectual is to think. Most people think religion is staring at the perfection of a rose bud. They don't understand the decay of the rose bud nor of the mind that admires it and then quickly decays. - me Kevin's discussion forum = http://www.dhammasnippets.webs.com/ #112072 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Be kind szmicio Dear Nina What's the characteristic of this mental thinking? I used to take the word of people and things for mine. Recently there is so much lobha in my life, I am not concerned about realities. This only brings misery and I dont know it. It fully takes me in. Best wishes Lukas #112073 From: Kevin F Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:37 pm Subject: Three Aspects of Mother, Maiden, and Crone. farrellkevin80 I enjoy researching various religions. This has been a hobby of mine of for a very long time. One of the religions I have been reading a lot about lately is Pre-Christian Paganism. I found some very interesting things out. First starters, all the same elements are found in Paganism as are found in Buddhism (and Hinduism) and play a prominent role in it. They are understood almost exactly the same way as they are in Buddhist thought. The earth element represents what is solid and stable and so on, the water all that is flowing, the fire element all that is hot or ripening, and the wind element movement and thought. The last element void or space is understood differently in Paganism and these days at least, in neo sects, it is called "spirit" and is supposed to encapsulate everything and represent the Goddess and the God together. Other than that, the representation of the elements is pretty much the same the same. The elements were a major part of life for Pagans. The elements were understood to be both outside of the body and what the body is made up of and comprised of. I can't stress how big a part of life they were for Pagans. Another interesting fact: pagans believed in rebirth, or rather reincarnation, but they did believe in an ongoing, continuous cycle of life. Unlike Brahmanism and later Hindu beliefs, they did not try to attain union with Brahma or "God" to attain release. They only sought to live in harmony with nature again and again. Now the third very interesting thing is that they had a trinity of their own-- the Triple Goddess. The moon was representative of the Goddess and her power. The Goddess had three forms: Maiden, Mother, and Crone. The Maiden aspect represented youth and spring when new harvests were being born. The Mother aspect represented adulthood, the full moon, nurturing, and the full harvest time, a time of abundance and fertility, a time of life. The Crone aspect represented old age and death, the winter season when plant life died and things went cold, and the waning crescent moon. These three faces of the Goddess were worshiped. So we see that ancient people were in tune with the elements and realized that everything consists of these basic elements, although of course they held some wrong views about them. We also see that not only did they believe in continuous becoming, but that they also understood very clearly the aspects of birth, full fruition, and death and knew that all things went by these particular cycles. It is amazing to see how clear they were about so many things. However, because of lack of a good teacher, they did not come to understand the release beyond the elements, and could not come to see that their cycles of birth, fruition, and decay were happening again and again at unsatisfactory minute levels within body and mind. In one sense, I feel that this is the closest set of religious beliefs to Buddhism that I have come across, although it lacked panna to the degree that truly sees things clearly. They certainly did not believe in union with God or Brahma as release from ongoing rebirth, nor did they believe in an eternal afterlife or any other salvation. All the best, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin The business of an intellectual is to think. Most people think religion is staring at the perfection of a rose bud. They don't understand the decay of the rose bud nor of the mind that admires it and then quickly decays. - me Kevin's discussion forum = http://www.dhammasnippets.webs.com/ #112074 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:19 pm Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi pt. Sorry for the length of my responses. Hope I'm not making the conversation a full time job. I learned all that from my penpal Sukin! ;-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > pt: I have no problems with this. All I was trying to say is that panna and sati can arise outside of meditation session, which was to counter Herman's obesrvation that they can't arise in daily life (if I understood him right). I think it's worthwhile to consider what panna and sati are. We use the terms as arising factors but I think we need to think about what they are in experiential reality, in order to consider the conditions within which they can exist. My working definition of sati is something like "conscious attention to the actuality of what is happening in the moment," although it might need a little more to really be true mindfulness - like "discerning, wise attention." There's a sense that mindfulness is investigative in a way, but also totally accepting of what is there without proliferation, but basic sati I think is basically staying with what is, and not going off to thought or reaction. Panna is a little tougher. I would say that is direct and clear knowing or understanding of the nature of what is there, but I think it may have more to it also. In meditation, there is a consistent experience of gradually deepening attention, concentration and awareness, as well as calm. If that is interrupted, well then that's an obstacle, but in general being still and focused for a period of time is a different experience than having a moment or a few moments of mindfulness or calm in the midst of everyday life. Having spiritual experiences in everyday life is a great experience - I'm not knocking it. It's just that it is a not a gradual, concentrated, deepening period of time in which awareness and relaxation are cultivated. I don't personally see how a moment of clarity while doing activities can be equated with a longer period of time on a regular basis in a state of focused awareness. They don't seem to me to have much in common. In the piano analogy, it's hard for me to avoid thinking that unpredictable moments of awareness in everyday life is like running over to the piano every now and then and playing a few keys, then running off again, compared to someone who sits down at the piano every day and learns to play skillfully for long periods of time. So I don't think it's an issue of whether one can have some mindfulness or moments of calm in everyday life. I'm sure one can. But it is a much less extended experience than found in regular meditation. I've had some experiences in my life that spontaneously arose and were spiritually significant to me, moments of clear awareness, or an experience of anatta that was quite radical. But it is precisely the fact that the experiences were fleeting that made them less than totally transformative. I really think that it is prolonged periods of time with spiritual factors arising to one extent or another than gradually transforms the sense of self and reality, not the fleeting experiences, however strong they may be. > > RE: There may be little moments of this or that inbetween, but the strong groupings are there. It seems like we talk about various kinds of moments as if they are totally individual, rather than grouped, totally random-seeming and individually-conditioned, rather than arising in a logical sequence, and this seems questionable to me. > > pt: ok, my bad there, i was using a single moment example for the sake of simplicity. Sure there's usually going to be a lot of moments (or we can say cittas) of one kind (usually akusala) interspersed here and there by flashes (or little groups of moments) that are kusala. I was not just responding to you, but the overall understanding that folks have in this group that the whole of reality is a "one-moment" reality. Even though passing on of accumulations is acknowledged, and nimitas and other things bridge one citta to another, basically each citta is looked at as an independent reality. I just think the boundaries between cittas and the domino effect between them is more direct. Most cittas, if not all, are part of a logical sequence, and so I was stating a general theme there. The fact that you acknowledge "little groups of moments" that my be kusala is kind of unusual compared to some of the "single-moment" talk. I am glad to see it! > > ...RE: just that consistent practice of mindfulness in meditation is stronger and will give more consistent and more powerful results, ie, more moments of mindfulness in a row, and thus a deepening understanding and experience of mindfulness. > > pt: Though I'm not questioning the validity of your experience, as far as I can tell, your experience doesn't seem to be necessarily a universal experience. I.e. some do seem to experience moments of strong(er) sati and panna outside of (or in complete absence of) meditation session practice. I would wonder what the person is doing when that occurs, how long these experiences last, and how they define sati and panna. It's possible, but there has to be a setting in which more than a random occurrence takes place. And if it's a random occurrence, even if it is related to some stored kusala from the past, it doesn't seem to me that it will have the same value as a prolonged, deep development of sati or panna. > For me personally, meditation practice seems to progress only thanks to moments of understanding that occur outside of the actual practice, as a consequence of studying and discussing. Not to challenge this, but is there a reason that you reach this conclusion? If something happens in meditation, what makes you think it is the result of moments that occurred outside of practice, or the result of studying, rather than something in the moments of practice itself? Do you have good reason to believe this is the case? I mean, in that case you are making a connection between what is actually happening now and some other event at some other time. > > RE: Concentrated means consistent, repeated production, deepening and experiencing of mindfulness through practice, ie, more time, more experience, more skill, more mindfulness. > > pt: ah ok, well i think i addressed this above re difference in experience, so i'll avoid at this point going into the whole issue of whether developing a skill is possible if one can't really tell whether the development is actually going in the good (kusala) direction or not. Some skills are just skills. I guess skills can be used in a kusala or akusala way or with kusala or akusala accompaniments, but skill is sometimes discernible as skill, regardless of that. For instance, if focus is maintained on the breath without interruption for a longer period of time, that is a skill, regardless of kusala. It's a capability. If the body gets more relaxed in response to slowed breathing, then the body is more relaxed, and that is a capability. You may have a definition of calm or samatha that determines "that's not real samatha," but it's still a capability to relax the body or mind. So I guess it's a question of what skills are significant and how they are defined. I personally think that if one can see more clearly what is happening, for instance, identify a sensation as pleasant or unpleasant in the moment, one has gotten a little closer to mindfulness of vedana, period. I don't see how that skill can be akusala in its own right. Again, there may be something else that is akusala coming up at around the same time, but I would think the ability to pick up vedana - a clear increase in mindfulness - would be kusala. The mindfulness that is developed is an ability to discern namas and rupas more clearly. If you can discern more clearly, skillfulness has increased. Maybe my view is too simple, but it seems reasonable enough. The tendency for some to say that one cannot possibly know if that is kusala or not I think is too mystical and obscurantist. I think some things are clear enough on their face, and then as awareness gets stronger, we may pick up more subtle defilements and be mindful of those as well. I have faith in the process, and I don't put much stock in waiting for clear discernment of some abstract "kusala" that is not "kusala x" or "kusala y" before developing skill and positive qualities that reduce ignorance and suffering. I don't want to be too brusque about it, but that approach seems ridiculous to me. I understand the desire to have better understanding and see more clearly where we are fooling ourselves and where there are hidden defilements, but not to the expense of following the path that we're supposedly following. > > RE: I don't buy the idea that concentrated, repeated intention and practice to develop mindfulness does not lead to greater mindfulness. That not only defies logic but experience as well. > > pt: ok :) now it's really hard to avoid going into that whole issue of whether kusala can be developed in the first place if one can't really tell what he's developing at the moment... I would throw in that it's really hard to develop kusala if one is avoiding the conditions that create kusala. One can't be an armchair philosopher and expect that to somehow convert into kusala realities. I suspect that is why you practice meditation, even though you're not sure if it's kusala or not at any given moment. > Anyway, in terms of a logical explanation, I feel that the way Jon and Sarah express it makes more sense than what anyone else from the meditator camp said so far. I don't see why, but if it makes sense to you that is great. I have gotten a lot from all the great understandings that Sarah, Nina, Jon and others contribute, but I don't confuse that with my own responsibility to practice and see for myself what is what. > But, I still maintain a meditation practice so that i can see for myself who's right and to what degree. I'm doing the same thing in the opposite way. I'm doing my practice while keeping a foot in Right View development so that I won't fall into further delusion. :-) > Though that'll take a decade or two at least to verify from experience... Please keep in touch. :-) I'm sure this list will still be here. We'll be up to 300 or 400,000 messages, but I'm sure we'll be discussing the same topics! Samsara is long, isn't it? > > RE: What I mean by random order is one at a time, with no logical connection between moment a, moment b and moment c. I just don't think reality on any level works that way. When one domino knocks another down, they are related to one another, not unrelated, or randomly associated. > > pt: Ok, i think we cleared this up in the beginning of the message - i was not trying to assert randomness but just that kusala can arise outside of meditation session. Sure, kusala can arise anytime. There is a difference between general kusala and sati and samatha, which I feel are more often meditation skills. But kusala can arise from a moment of selfless giving, or appreciation for someone else, or a moment when one is happy for someone's high school graduation, or when being generous or when the wind hits your face in the right way and there is pleasant vedana without clinging. > Sometimes, kusala moments (or little groups of kusala moments) can appear to arise our of the blue (say when driving a car or in the middle of anger), but I'd say that this arising would still be conditioned by kusala in the near or distant past, and sometimes even by the preceding akusala. That may very well be so. I guess the question for our current topic is whether the best akusala is the "informal" akusala or the "formal" akusala, or whether they are both of equal value and depth, or how much kusala is gotten through cultivation of Dhamma, cultivation through meditation, cultivation through totally non-intentional conditions in everyday life. And I think there is some openness, some unknown quantity in that discussion. It may very well be that someone who has the right temperament and past accumulations may find many moments of everyday reality to be illuminating, filled with sati and panna, but I would think that was a highly developed individual, whereas I would think that even an ordinary person can make gradual progress through engaged attention to the breath and arising dhammas in meditation. > > RE: a/ I doubt that mindfulness arises for no reason, > > pt: I hope that I addressed this above. At least preliminarily. I think there's some question for me - maybe because I haven't studied conditions well enough - as to how this connection between past conditions and past kusala arises at another time and causes moments of kusala to arise later, and that this seemingly "thin field" of kusala somehow accumulates into great kusala over time. I'd need to know more about that to buy into it as a real pathway to development. > > RE: b/ I doubt that it arises one moment here and one moment there, rather than during a more prolonged period of time, whether it be a few seconds, a minute or 20 minutes. > > pt: I think here we're again comparing differing experiences. For me personally, I don't think I ever really experienced mindfulness that lasts more than half a second or something like that. Maybe I'm confusing mindfulness with something else, but that's how I'd describe it at the moment. Sometimes it does happen (I think) that more of such moments arise in close proximity, but never continuous. I think it might be a good idea to discuss the real definitions and experience of sati and panna, whether we have them or not. I'm not sure I've experienced much if any panna, but I may have experienced a little sati and occasional fleeting vipassana [at least as it would seem in my experience at the time.] Best, Robert = = = = = = = = = = #112075 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:33 pm Subject: Re: Q. Calm, no 4. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > > > R: > Calm suppresses the hindrances and it is opposed to restlessness, > > > uddhacca. > > > The aim of samatha is to be free from sense impressions that are > > > bound up with defilements. > > > > Now we see the purpose of jhana in creating a high degree of kusala > > leading to understanding, in this simple sentence. .... > > To me it even gives a view of the disturbing waves of the kandhas > > always leading to more disturbances and defilements in the absence > > of samatha, and how one can shut the door on samsara so to speak at > > the level of jhana, and create kusala conditions for citta. It > > seems to me in this sense that the experience of jhana is a very > > important moment in the accumulation of kusala, as it teaches the > > citta what it is like to be free from defilements, free from the > > negative influence of samsara for a brief or longer period, and > > thus gives citta a foreshadowing of nibbana. > ------- > N: I think that jhaana 'shutting the door on samsara' and > 'foreshadowing of nibbaana' is too much. Only the arahat will be free > from samsara as you will agree. > ------ Sure, I agree, but I think "foreshadowing" may be fair - it's not meant to suggest full release. > > Right understanding is necssary for the > > > development of calm, there has to be precise understanding of the > > > characteristic of calm so that it is known when kusala citta with > > > calm arises and when there is attachment to calm. > > > There is also calm in the development of insight. > > > > R: This expresses the connection between samatha/jhana and > > satipatthana/vipassana. There is an important mutual dependence > > here, which I think the Vis is acknowledging here, even though it > > gives right understanding the leading role. > > > > > When there is right > > > understanding of naama and ruupa, the six doors are guarded at that > > > moment. > > > > So right understanding and samatha really arise as part of the same > > detachment and clear seeing, which leads to peacefulness. Yet a > > certain degree of samatha expressed earlier is necessary to push > > aside and calm the defilements to the point where this is possible. > ------ > N: Well, I see this differently but I do not like to repeat what was > said earlier and many times on dsg. > ----------- I can understand calm as a component of a kusala citta also. I would want to know how these cetasikas come together to form a kusala citta. There must be some conditions that cause them to arise together...? > R to pt: RE: I do not accept that meditation below a certain level is > bound to be kusala because if you can't tell the difference between > kusala and akusala as it arises, then you can't develop samatha. I > think that is a tortured intellectual formula that has nothing to do > with actual practice, and I don't live my life by formulas that I > can't prove or experience because a particular set of commentaries > has set it out. It doesn't appear in the Buddha's words that we know > he said. It is not the way he taught. > ------- > N: Let me add just a little. All kinds of bhaavana, mental > development, need to be done with pa~n~naa. Pa~n~naa does not make > mistakes and clearly distinguishes kusala from akusala. When there is > concentration with clinging to a meditation subject, the subduing of > the hindrances cannot be reached. In the beginning there cannot be > clear understanding of the difference between kusala and akusala, but > understanding can grow. Understanding grows by studying the teachings > and considering them. All this is not a tortured intellectual > formula, I think that it is according to reality. For me the question is whether the teachings themselves are the only pathway, or whether they are studied in conjunction with practice, whether it is meditation practice, metta practice, or doing meritorious deeds, etc. It seems to me there has to be some application of the Dhamma in life to develop the path. > For the development of samatha one should change one's lifestyle, > there should be a total dedication to a life of fewness of wishes. Hm....I may have to be content with the extent of calm I can experience in my livingroom. Not sure if isolation or fewness of wishes will arise for me anytime soon. I'll let you know what happens! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #112076 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi pt and Rob E, > > On 20 November 2010 13:44, ptaus1 wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Herman, > > > > Re 110965 > > > > I've been meaning to discuss this for a while, also because it ties into a > > discussion we started in Manly but didn't have time to finish. > > > > > H: In my experience, it is only during effective meditation that there is > > > > > mindfulness as well as no intention to control. > > > > > > The alternative to meditation is to either not be mindful and/or be > > occupied > > > with arranging means towards ends ie daily life. > > > > Basically, my experience is somewhat different. I mean, while I can agree > > that in proper meditation mindfulness can be present, as well as no > > intention to control (what would signify presence of panna at the time) > > > > Just as an aside, the notion of control is a red herring in my opinion. No > need to discuss it here, but just to give some evidence, there is this from > DN15: > > "Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward order, in > reverse order, in forward and reverse order, I like this, Herman. It sounds a lot like driving a car though. ;-) > ...when he attains them and > emerges from them ***wherever he wants, however he wants, and for as long as > he wants***, when through the ending of the mental fermentations he enters > and remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release and > discernment-release, having directly known it and realized it in the here > and now, he is said to be a monk released in both ways. And as for another > release in both ways, higher or more sublime than this, there is none." This is a good reference for skillful control as part of the attainment of the Dhamma, indeed. This is a different kind of control than personal life-control. It has to do with skill. I think there is a worthy distinction of some kind there. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #112077 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:55 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > On 20 November 2010 14:08, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Herman. > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > Herman wrote: > > > > > No. I don't experience or remember rupas impinging on sense doors. I > > > experience whatever I experience as wholes, and that experience is not a > > > perversion of some underlying, more fundamental experience of elements. I > > > would sooner say that it is the quest for an underlying, fundamental > > > experience of elements that perverts. > > > > Do you think these experienced wholes are, in whole or in part, an > > expression of delusion, according to either you or Buddha, and if so, what > > do you think is the right way to regard these experienced wholes in order to > > follow the Buddha's path? > > > > > Thanks for the questions. > > There is no need to have views or theories about what is experienced. Right > view is attachment to no view. The Buddha says as much in the Sutta Nipata > 4:5. > > > > > I guess I am trying to figure out what your basic stand is on human > > experience in relation to Buddhism, and it's not academic to me. I think you > > have a strong radical view, and a clear way of looking at things; but I have > > a hard time understanding exactly what it is. I think Buddha clearly made > > the connection between suffering and delusion. If we didn't think that > > things could somehow be changed or held onto and were also able to give us > > happiness, "if only...", we wouldn't cling to them or crave them, and > > wouldn't have the degree of psychological fear and pain that all of that > > causes. > > > > > In 56:31. the Buddha says there's an awful lot he knows by direct insight, > but nevertheless didn't teach, because they do not lead to dispassion, > disenchantment, calm etc. > > So, what did He teach? > > "And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of > stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice > leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why > have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate > to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to > dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, > to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them. > > "Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the > origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the > contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of > stress.'" > > > > So are you saying that the delusion is only in relation to anicca and > > anatta, and that the Abhidhamma interpretation is wrong to say that delusion > > is seeing concepts instead of reality? Where is it that you disagree, and > > where do you see the real path that the Buddha made available? > > > > > The Buddha didn't teach that one should have a certain theory of perception. > (That would include the theory of perception as first set forth in the > Abhidhamma commentaries, some 1000 years after the Buddha walked the earth). > He taught, as you say, that whatever formations arise are impermanent and a > source of stress/angst, and that all phenomena are not-self. And he taught a > total disinterest in the world, as an antidote. > > Such a teaching cannot possibly appeal to anyone who is quite happy with > formations as they come and go, so those who follow the Buddha's teachings > are a self-selecting set, driven by dukkha aka existential angst. > > I don't have a problem with people relishing life or wealth or relishing the > pursuit of knowledge of various kinds etc, and I don't propose that people > ought to have, or could learn, a sense of dukkha, but it doesn't hurt to be > clear about what the Buddha did and didn't teach, and why. Wow. More later. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112078 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > There is no need to have views or theories about what is experienced. Right > view is attachment to no view. The Buddha says as much in the Sutta Nipata > 4:5. "[He]...doesn't fall back on any view whatsoever. One who isn't inclined toward either side — becoming or not-, here or beyond — who has no entrenchment when considering what's grasped among doctrines, hasn't the least preconceived perception with regard to what's seen, heard, or sensed. By whom, with what, should he be pigeonholed here in the world? — this brahman who hasn't adopted views. They don't conjure, don't yearn, don't adhere even to doctrines." I note that Buddha says in there, "when considering what's grasped among doctrines." In other words, Buddha seems to be allowing that this Brahman, who has no preconceptions and holds onto no view of his own, can then render a judgment on whether doctrines he considers grasp the truth or not. It is because he is free from doctrines himself that he has an objective access to whether doctrines are worthwhile or not. Would you agree that this is what that means? Even if a doctrine is correct, however, Buddha says he "does not adhere to [it.]" So he does not even hold onto or cling to a correct view. So he can't be pigeonholed - he can't be associated with any particular doctrine. He is not entrenched, attached, anchored to any view. I think, without having comparative translations at hand, I would guess that he is saying that a doctrine may grasp A or B, and the Brahman can acknowledge this, but he doesn't then conclude "Oh A is correct," or "Oh B is correct," as any view, while it might be correct, is necessarily limited. Given what you said above, that "right view is attachment to no view," what is the status then of the doctrines and communications of the Buddha through sutta with respect to correct understanding of his teaching? Does Right View not include a correct understanding of the path to dispassion and beyond suffering? ... > The Buddha didn't teach that one should have a certain theory of perception. > (That would include the theory of perception as first set forth in the > Abhidhamma commentaries, some 1000 years after the Buddha walked the earth). Just to question that, what do you think about the idea that to detach from something, you have to have some clarity about what it is? I think that is the basis of the Abhidhamma commentarial tradition, that by knowing the mechanics of conditionality and how things arise independent of self, one understands clearly that all those conditions and arising phenomena are anatta, and in realizing this, one detaches from them and is eventually liberated from all such attachments, from the whole mechanism. If you disagree with that notion, what do you think constitutes the conditions for greater and greater detachment from all phenomena? In other words, another way of saying "what is the path" with respect to deepening and finally concluding dispassion for all phenomena and the world. > He taught, as you say, that whatever formations arise are impermanent and a > source of stress/angst, and that all phenomena are not-self. And he taught a > total disinterest in the world, as an antidote. I think below you are suggesting that a crisis of worldly involvement is a necessary condition for such disinterest, but I don't think you'd say that this is enough by itself to complete the removal of oneself from worldly attachment and involvement... So how is such disinterest cultivated? The commentarial tradition would say through discernment of the nature of phenomena through understanding and then direct seeing. I guess the meditation tradition would say that one both calms formations and detaches from phenomena through jhana and mindfulness leading to insight... > Such a teaching cannot possibly appeal to anyone who is quite happy with > formations as they come and go, so those who follow the Buddha's teachings > are a self-selecting set, driven by dukkha aka existential angst. I found this striking and contemplated it a bit. I had a pretty severe crisis at one point that challenged my identity pretty thoroughly, and I wondered, after reading what you wrote, why that hadn't sent me off onto a path of renunciation. I mean it did take me some years to integrate back into the world - at least to some extent - but didn't reduce my interest in the world, or my basic enjoyment of being alive, despite a real period of serious suffering. And then it occurred to me that there is a big difference between a crisis of any kind, even if it crushes you, and the development of real nibbida, disenchantment with life itself. I realized that I have not developed this, and it's really fascinating for me to see this. In a way I have felt detached from life from the time I was a little child, but always fascinated with it. Looking at myself in the third person, it's really strange and interesting combination - like a visitor from somewhere who likes to watch what's happening, and participate a little bit too. But no real disgust for living, even though I am aware of all the brutality of this world. Strange. So my relationship with Buddhism is a very developmental one, rather than a desire to end anything. My craving is more for enlightenment than relief. > I don't have a problem with people relishing life or wealth or relishing the > pursuit of knowledge of various kinds etc, and I don't propose that people > ought to have, or could learn, a sense of dukkha, but it doesn't hurt to be > clear about what the Buddha did and didn't teach, and why. Very illuminating. I think - or maybe hope - there are more or less radical ways of approaching the path. There's dispassion leading to retreat from the world, and then there's gradual insight leading to greater detachment and equanimity - more my situation. Not sure how they relate to each other, but perhaps they are different phases of the same thing, or maybe they are different ways of approaching the Buddha's message and pathway based on temperament. Am I copping out? :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112079 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:25 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (111979) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > > "If a monk should wish: 'May I remain percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. > > > > > > > > "If a monk should wish: 'May I remain percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. ... > > > > > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.008.than.html > > ... > > > J: To my understanding, the only 'developmental practice' recommended by the Buddha is various moments of kusala. > > > > Well you're contradicting what's in the text of the suttas in saying that. So I don't know what "to my understanding" means. If you do not accept what the Buddha says, what do you understand him to mean? As far as I can see, you are saying the Buddha's statements here are wrong. I don't know how else to interpret your response. You don't show evidence for this understanding. You say that your understanding is the opposite of what I have quoted you, and I am quoting the Buddha. > > =============== > > J: I'm reading the reference to "attending carefully" as being a reference to kusala, that's all ;-)). If that is the basis for saying it is not practice, but is "various moments of kusala," I have to repeat my objection that you are contradicting the words of the Buddha. He did not say "attending carefully" in a passive context, as in "careful attending will arise in such a case," but said directly "...then he should attend carefully." It is precisely this wording which directly states that he is recommending a volitional action to be taken on by the practitioner, *not* something that happens by itself. "Then he should attend..." is an imperative, not a description of something that may happen. If you feel comfortable changing the syntax to mean what you want it to mean, I would like to know the basis for doing so, other than your own preference. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112080 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:33 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (111981) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > All I was trying to demonstrate, and all I was obligated to show, was that conventional actions and abstentions in the material world are included prominently in the Buddha's program for development, and this sutta amply demonstrates that. Of course, mental states are also included and change the quality of actions. > > =============== > > J: This last sentence is just the point I was making, namely, that the ethical quality of an action depends on the ethical quality of the individual mental states that make up the action, rather than on any conventional assessment of the action as 'good', 'bad' or 'neutral' or on the perceived impact of the action as positive/negative/neutral, etc. > > To my understanding, whenever the Buddha speaks of a 'wholesome' conventional action he is referring in fact to kusala mental states (only) and not to a version of that action that is done with mixed kusala and akusala mental states. Well that still goes to my point, and once again you are revising the words of the Buddha to suit your own philosophy. I just established that Buddha said *both,* that there are both kusala and akusala actions and kusala and akusala mental states, not just kusala or akusala mental states. He did not say what you are saying, that the quality of the mental state makes the action kusala or akusala, that is exactly what was demonstrated in the quote, but you have chosen to take the second sentence that agrees with you, and dismiss the sentence that does not agree with you. Unfortunately, the first sentence of my reply that you do not agree with, "...conventional actions and abstentions in the material world are included prominently in the Buddha's program for development, and this sutta amply demonstrates that," reflects the actual sutta, not just the last one. So I think it is fair to say that: The Buddha states in the sutta that there are both kusala and akusala actions AND mental states, and that both are important in his program for development. However, Jon states, in contradiction to the Buddha, that there are only kusala or akusala mental states, and that material actions are only kusala or akusala depending on the ethical quality of the mental state that accompanies them. In this regard, Buddha and Jon are in disagreement. Buddha inventoried specific actions and abstentions in the material world that he categorized as kusala or akusala on their face, NOT dependent on accompanying mental states, so he is clearly not saying what you would like him to say. If you have a basis for holding the view that you do about this in the face of the sutta, that you can reference from the actual sutta, I would like to know what it is. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #112081 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:34 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > 18.09 > > Hi Robert E > > (111982) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > > My understanding of the theory is that it would be a nimitta for the first few mind-door processes that follow the original sense-door experience and then a concept for the many processes after that. > > > > > > Not sure if that makes 'nimittas' any easier to come to terms with ;-)) > > > > I guess since we are only able to see nimittas or concepts, that makes all of us sort of "nimwits," doesn't it. :-( > > =============== > > J: Yes. And that explains a lot, doesn't it! Yes, it does... :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #112082 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation. nilovg Dear Rob E, a very interesting discussion you have with pt. Op 22-nov-2010, om 22:19 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > Rob E: I don't see why, but if it makes sense to you that is great. > I have gotten a lot from all the great understandings that Sarah, > Nina, Jon and others contribute, but I don't confuse that with my > own responsibility to practice and see for myself what is what. ------ N: Yes, it is good to always verify for yourself, that is what the Buddha told us to do. ------ Rob E: At least preliminarily. I think there's some question for me - maybe because I haven't studied conditions well enough - as to how this connection between past conditions and past kusala arises at another time and causes moments of kusala to arise later, and that this seemingly "thin field" of kusala somehow accumulates into great kusala over time. I'd need to know more about that to buy into it as a real pathway to development. ------ N: This remark is very essential. You are wondering how understanding could ever grow from moments in daily life and omitting meditaton sessions. Even if there is a short moment of sati and pa~n~naa, but it is the right kind, no manipulating by a self who wants to have them, it is very beneficial. Why? Because it is accumulated so that there is a condition for their arising again later on. Our life is a long series of cittas that succeed one another and thus kusala and akusala can be accumulated from moment to moment. The good you learnt as a child from your parents is never lost. It is a condition for the arising again of what is good and wholesome. Our aim is understanding all phenomena of our life, cittas, cetasikas and ruupas. I do not see the additional benefit that would come from sitting, since a reality such as seeing also arises when standing. Who counts moments of awareness, it arises because of its own conditions, not because we are sitting. ------- Nina. #112083 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. Calm, no 4. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 22-nov-2010, om 22:33 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > N: I think that jhaana 'shutting the door on samsara' and > > 'foreshadowing of nibbaana' is too much. Only the arahat will be > free > > from samsara as you will agree. > > ------ > > Sure, I agree, but I think "foreshadowing" may be fair - it's not > meant to suggest full release. ------ N: In the suttas the Buddha said that ruupa-jhaana is an 'abiding at ease here and now'. He exhorted people who had developed jhaana not to neglect vipassanaa so that they could attain nibbaana. > > ----------- > > Rob E: I can understand calm as a component of a kusala citta also. > I would want to know how these cetasikas come together to form a > kusala citta. There must be some conditions that cause them to > arise together...? ------ N: Kusala citta cannot arise without at least nineteen sobhana cetasikas. It is in its nature. For instance there is no kusala citta without alobha, its nature is not to cling. No kusala citta without adosa, its nature is non-aversion. If there would be clinging and aversion the citta would be akusala instead of kusala. And so it is with all the other accompanying cetasikas. There must be calm, otherwise it would be disturbed, akusala. ------- > > R: For me the question is whether the teachings themselves are the > only pathway, or whether they are studied in conjunction with > practice, whether it is meditation practice, metta practice, or > doing meritorious deeds, etc. It seems to me there has to be some > application of the Dhamma in life to develop the path. ------ N: What we learn has to be applied. What we learn is not theoretical, it pertains to life. We learn about citta, there is citta now, such as seeing. It sees. It should be investigated, to know its true nature. There is seeing while sitting, lying down, walking or standing. ------- > > R: > For the development of samatha one should change one's lifestyle, > > there should be a total dedication to a life of fewness of wishes. > > Hm....I may have to be content with the extent of calm I can > experience in my livingroom. Not sure if isolation or fewness of > wishes will arise for me anytime soon. I'll let you know what happens! ------ N: The Visuddhimagga: the development of jhaana is incompatible with a life of sensepleasures. Nina. #112084 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:48 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 22-nov-2010, om 17:27 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > What is brief is not without time. And the word 'ageing' is surely not > used to have no reference to what everyone means by "ageing". > Should we > say "red" when we mean "green"? If ageing takes no time, then the > word is > WRONG!! Whatever ageing is, it involves change, and change requires > passage of > time. ------- N: Your remarks, understandably, pertain to the conventional aspect of life, whereas I look at the paramatic aspect. That is our difference in outlook. Take seeing, it seems that we see immediately a table. No, only visible object is seen and noticing the table is thinking of concepts arising later on. It is all in a flash. If we have no clear understanding of what citta is, no way to understand submoments of arising, being present and ceasing. No way of seeing any ageing. The same for ruupa. ----- H: To speak of ageing but not mean it is nonsensical to me. ------- N: It is there, but let us understand it in the right way. It is a word used to denote that as soon as a citta or ruupa arises, it is destined for its fall. That is all. Nothing more behind it. No use trying to find out about the changing. First of all, let us understand the present moment, that is already difficult enough. ------- Nina. #112085 From: nichicon cp Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:03 pm Subject: Sangiitisutta 7.2-3 nichiconn ?Dear Friends, section 330 continues: CSCD < Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Be kind nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 22-nov-2010, om 18:32 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > What's the characteristic of this mental thinking? > I used to take the word of people and things for mine. > Recently there is so much lobha in my life, I am not concerned > about realities. This only brings misery and I dont know it. It > fully takes me in. ------ N: Yes, that is the characteristic of lobha, it takes us in completely. And at that moment we do not know that it leads to sorrow. It is conditioned, a conditioned dhamma. We cannot make it arise and we cannot prevent it when it has arisen already. The anaagaami has eradicated sense desire and the arahat has eradicated all lobha. What do you expect? A life without lobha? Impossible. You say that you are not concerned about realities, but while you speak about lobha there is already a reality. Whethere we like it or not our life is full of realities, it consists of realities, we cannot escape them. There is seeing now and we cling already to seeing and visible object. There is hearing and we cling already to hearing and sound. There can be more understanding of all these realities. As to lobha, maybe we find ourselves too good to have lobha, there is conceit about it. When we have aversion about 'our lobha' it shows clinging to ourselves. All these realities are to be understood as just dhammas, conditioned dhammas. Kh Sujin said in Sri Lanka: ----- Nina. #112087 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:19 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/23/2010 8:48:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 22-nov-2010, om 17:27 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > What is brief is not without time. And the word 'ageing' is surely not > used to have no reference to what everyone means by "ageing". > Should we > say "red" when we mean "green"? If ageing takes no time, then the > word is > WRONG!! Whatever ageing is, it involves change, and change requires > passage of > time. ------- N: Your remarks, understandably, pertain to the conventional aspect of life, whereas I look at the paramatic aspect. That is our difference in outlook. ---------------------------------------------- No, it isn't, Nina. One issue is the choice of misleading language. Another, more important, one is the issue of precision of description. What is the UN-conventional meaning of 'decay'?? I have seen none given that in any way properly explains the usage of the term 'decay'. --------------------------------------------- Take seeing, it seems that we see immediately a table. ---------------------------------------------- Not me. I *conceive* of a table, but I see sights (or "visible objects"). The only sort of thing that I consider as being the content of seeing is a sight, the content of visual experience. ------------------------------------------------ No, only visible object is seen and noticing the table is thinking of concepts arising later on. ----------------------------------------------- Why do you presume that this is not my perspective? I have never indicated anything to the contrary. ---------------------------------------------- It is all in a flash. --------------------------------------------- Not especially relevant. Slow or fast, what is SEEN is never a table. That is just a way of speaking. A host of moments of seeing, perceiving, and conceiving are combined by further thought and merely *described* as "seeing a table" because of the central role played by eye-door in all that processing. But only sights, i.e., eye-door objects, are seen. And this is not a matter of my reading about the subject and acceding to a teaching but is a matter of my directly apprehending and understanding this. There is no question that all that one ever literally sees are what appears to eye-door consciousness. -------------------------------------------- If we have no clear understanding of what citta is, no way to understand submoments of arising, being present and ceasing. No way of seeing any ageing. The same for ruupa. ----- H: To speak of ageing but not mean it is nonsensical to me. ------- N: It is there, but let us understand it in the right way. It is a word used to denote that as soon as a citta or ruupa arises, it is destined for its fall. --------------------------------------------------- Decay is NOT a "being destined" for anything. It is not a propensity. It is a process of degrading and decline over time. There IS such propensity, but that is not the same thing. It is not decay. ------------------------------------------------------- That is all. Nothing more behind it. No use trying to find out about the changing. ------------------------------------------------------ There is much use in observing the way things actually are, with precision. ------------------------------------------------------ First of all, let us understand the present moment, that is already difficult enough. ------------------------------------------------------- Yes. Let us do that. It is done by paying attention to what actually occurs. ------------------------------------------------------ ------- Nina. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112088 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:22 pm Subject: Sangiitisutta [dsg] Sangiiti Sevens, 330/7, suttas 2 and 3, and commentary. nilovg Dear friends, sutta 2: Walshe DN. 33.2.3(2) 'Seven factors of enlightenment (sambhojjhangaa): mindfulness, [iii 252] investigation of phenomena, energy, delight (piiti), tranquillity, concentration, equanimity. (Satta bojjha'ngaa - satisambojjha'ngo, dhammavicayasambojjha'ngo , viiriyasambojjha'ngo, piitisambojjha'ngo, passaddhisambojjha'ngo, samaadhisambojjha'ngo, upekkhaasambojjha'ngo). ------- N: Dhammavicaya, investigation of realities, is another term for pa~n~naa. The enlightenment factors develop together with pa~n~naa that understands more and more the true nature of naama and ruupa that appear at the present moment. All factors develop together and are leading to enlightenment and in that case they are still mundane. When enlightenment has been attained, they are lokuttara and nibbaana is the object experienced at that moment. The commentary states that they are lokiya and lokuttara combined. Co sutta 2:Sattapi cetaani lokiyalokuttaramissakaaneva kathitaani. Bojjha'ngakathaa kathitaava. ------- sutta 3. Walshe DN. 33.2.3(3) 'Seven requisites of concentration: right view, thought, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness. (Satta samaadhiparikkhaaraa - sammaadi.t.thi, sammaasa'nkappo, sammaavaacaa, sammaakammanto, sammaaaajiivo, sammaavaayaamo, sammaasati). N: The co: the requisites of samaadhi, meaning, the retinue of samaadhi. Those are right understanding (sammaadi.t.thi) and the other factors of the Path as was stated. Also these seven are said to be mundane or supranatural. The Tika states that these requisites condition samaadhi, and that right understanding of the eightfold Path etc. have become the necessary requisites of samaadhi. N: Sammaasamaadhi is a factor of the eightfold Path only if it arises together with the other Path factors. When the Path is mundane, the object is a naama or ruupa appearing at the present moment. When the Path is lokuttara, the object is nibbaana. This sutta and commentary shows that right concentration is not developed separately, but in association with the other Path factors. They all develop together. When insight is developed there is also calm. One is not disturbed by unwholesome thoughts about persons and situations when right understanding of dhammas is developed, one begins to see them as impersonal elements devoid of self. Right concentration as path-factor performs its function in vipassanaa. Sammaa-samaadhi focusses on the object of vipassanaa in the right way. When there is mindfulness of one object at a time as it appears through the sense-doors or the mind-door, right concentration focusses on that object, and at that moment right understanding can investigate it so that it will be seen as it really is. When right understanding arises, there is right concentration which is conascent with it. There are many types of concentration and many levels of it. We can be easily deluded and take for sammaa-samaadhi what is miccha- samaadhi. When it is conascent with lobha it is wrong concentration. We are inclined to take samaadhi for ‘my concentration’, and therefore, it is important to remember that it is only a dhamma conditioned by many different factors. It is conditioned by the citta it accompanies and by the conascent cetasikas. ---------- Co: 3:Samaadhiparikkhaaraati samaadhiparivaaraa. Sammaadi.t.thaadiini vuttatthaaneva. Imepi satta parikkhaaraa lokiyalokuttaraava kathitaa. -------- Nina. #112089 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Be kind szmicio Thank you Nina, this was very helpful. You remind me what I forget. I'll try to stay more on DSG. I am also apt to hear you more. Best wishes Lukas > N: Yes, that is the characteristic of lobha, it takes us in > > #112090 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:00 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. kenhowardau Hi Howard (and Nina), In a message dated 11/23/2010 8:48:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 22-nov-2010, om 17:27 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > What is brief is not without time. And the word 'ageing' is surely not > used to have no reference to what everyone means by "ageing". > Should we > say "red" when we mean "green"? If ageing takes no time, then the > word is > WRONG!! Whatever ageing is, it involves change, and change requires > passage of > time. ------- N: Your remarks, understandably, pertain to the conventional aspect of life, whereas I look at the paramatic aspect. That is our difference in outlook. ---------------------------------------------- No, it isn't, Nina. ----------------------------------------------------- KH: Sorry, Howard, but Nina is right. :-) There is only one ultimate reality. If you and Nina are talking about two different things then only one of you can be talking about ultimate reality. ------------------ H: > One issue is the choice of misleading language. Another, more important, one is the issue of precision of description. What is the UN-conventional meaning of 'decay'?? I have seen none given that in any way properly explains the usage of the term 'decay'. ------------------- Nina mentioned "going towards its ending," does that qualify? --------------------- N: >> Take seeing, it seems that we see immediately a table. >> H: > Not me. I *conceive* of a table, but I see sights (or "visible objects"). The only sort of thing that I consider as being the content of seeing is a sight, the content of visual experience. --------------------- (!) Surely the assertion, "it seems that we immediately see a table," is one we can all agree on. -------------------------- N: >> No, only visible object is seen and noticing the table is thinking of concepts arising later on. >> H: > Why do you presume that this is not my perspective? I have never indicated anything to the contrary. --------------------------- Speaking for myself, I would say it was because you have rejected the reality of namas and rupas. You have always insisted that visible object was a "component of the experience of seeing". According to you there are ultimately no namas or rupas. ------------------------------------ N: >> It is all in a flash. >> H: > Not especially relevant. Slow or fast, what is SEEN is never a table. That is just a way of speaking. ------------------------------------- It is relevant to what Nina was saying. The seeing of visible object is followed in a flash by thinking about a table. And so "it seems that we immediately see a table." -------------------------------------------- H: > A host of moments of seeing, perceiving, and conceiving are combined by further thought and merely *described* as "seeing a table" because of the central role played by eye-door in all that processing. But only sights, i.e., eye-door objects, are seen. --------------------------------------------- The word you are clearly trying to avoid is "rupa," which is a paramattha dhamma. Without right understanding of paramattha dhammas, all talk about the way things are is just speculative thinking. ----------------------------- H: > And this is not a matter of my reading about the subject and acceding to a teaching but is a matter of my directly apprehending and understanding this. There is no question that all that one ever literally sees are what appears to eye-door consciousness. ----------------------------- No, of course there is no question about that. But what is eye-door consciousness, and what is eye-door object? That is the question. -------------------- N: >> If we have no clear understanding of what citta is, no way to understand submoments of arising, being present and ceasing. No way of seeing any ageing. The same for ruupa. >> H: > To speak of ageing but not mean it is nonsensical to me. -------------------- In this context some of us speak of, and mean, ageing in the paramattha sense. ---------------------------- N: >> It is there, but let us understand it in the right way. It is a word used to denote that as soon as a citta or ruupa arises, it is destined for its fall. >> H: > Decay is NOT a "being destined" for anything. It is not a propensity. It is a process of degrading and decline over time. There IS such propensity, but that is not the same thing. It is not decay. ----------------------------- Ultimate meanings are known only to the wise, and so they must be profoundly different from conventional meanings. The difficulty lies in explaining ultimate meanings to us worldlings, who only know the conventional ones. --------------------------------------- N: >> That is all. Nothing more behind it. No use trying to find out about the changing. >> H: > There is much use in observing the way things actually are, with precision. --------------------------------------- That can only be done by panna. And panna is developed by studying the Buddha's teaching, not by sitting and looking. -------------------------- N: >> First of all, let us understand the present moment, that is already difficult enough. >> H: > Yes. Let us do that. It is done by paying attention to what actually occurs. -------------------------- You are talking about two different ways of paying attention to what actually occurs. Only one can of them be the Dhamma. Ken H #112091 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:20 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/23/2010 6:00:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard (and Nina), In a message dated 11/23/2010 8:48:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 22-nov-2010, om 17:27 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > What is brief is not without time. And the word 'ageing' is surely not > used to have no reference to what everyone means by "ageing". > Should we > say "red" when we mean "green"? If ageing takes no time, then the > word is > WRONG!! Whatever ageing is, it involves change, and change requires > passage of > time. ------- N: Your remarks, understandably, pertain to the conventional aspect of life, whereas I look at the paramatic aspect. That is our difference in outlook. ---------------------------------------------- No, it isn't, Nina. ----------------------------------------------------- KH: Sorry, Howard, but Nina is right. :-) There is only one ultimate reality. ----------------------------------------------------- I agree with that, Ken, though I'd drop the superfluous 'ultimate'. And ageing that requires no change is not an aspect of reality. ------------------------------------------------------ If you and Nina are talking about two different things then only one of you can be talking about ultimate reality. ---------------------------------------------------- Or neither of us, of course. (Or each in part.) ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------ H: > One issue is the choice of misleading language. Another, more important, one is the issue of precision of description. What is the UN-conventional meaning of 'decay'?? I have seen none given that in any way properly explains the usage of the term 'decay'. ------------------- Nina mentioned "going towards its ending," does that qualify? ---------------------------------------------------- That phrase provides no clatificarion. What is meant by "going towards"? If not "undergoing change," then nothing at all. -------------------------------------------------- --------------------- N: >> Take seeing, it seems that we see immediately a table. >> H: > Not me. I *conceive* of a table, but I see sights (or "visible objects"). The only sort of thing that I consider as being the content of seeing is a sight, the content of visual experience. --------------------- (!) Surely the assertion, "it seems that we immediately see a table," is one we can all agree on. ----------------------------------------------------- I certainly do not!! We are simply misusing language for convenience. That is just a manner of speaking, as I have explained. ------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- N: >> No, only visible object is seen and noticing the table is thinking of concepts arising later on. >> H: > Why do you presume that this is not my perspective? I have never indicated anything to the contrary. --------------------------- Speaking for myself, I would say it was because you have rejected the reality of namas and rupas. ------------------------------------------------------ I reject them as separate, self-existent "things." They, as delineable entities, are as much concepts as are trees. Just simpler ones. ------------------------------------------------------ You have always insisted that visible object was a "component of the experience of seeing". ---------------------------------------------------- What are seen are sights. When one is seeing, they are what is seen. But I don't worship them as gods and honor them with the religious name of "realities". And, BTW, apart from being seen, where are "visible objects"? ----------------------------------------------------- According to you there are ultimately no namas or rupas. ----------------------------------------------------- As delineable entities, they are fictions. They are conventional phenomena only. ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ N: >> It is all in a flash. >> H: > Not especially relevant. Slow or fast, what is SEEN is never a table. That is just a way of speaking. ------------------------------------- It is relevant to what Nina was saying. The seeing of visible object is followed in a flash by thinking about a table. And so "it seems that we immediately see a table." ------------------------------------------------------ It doesn't seem so to me. Speak for yourself, Ken. ----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- H: > A host of moments of seeing, perceiving, and conceiving are combined by further thought and merely *described* as "seeing a table" because of the central role played by eye-door in all that processing. But only sights, i.e., eye-door objects, are seen. --------------------------------------------- The word you are clearly trying to avoid is "rupa," which is a paramattha dhamma. ---------------------------------------------- Sights are material phenomena of a particular sort. As for rupas, are they your gods or just demi-gods? There is ZERO understanding gained in reciting "nama, rupa, nama, rupa, ... . It's a mediocre mantra (Pali manta). ----------------------------------------------- Without right understanding of paramattha dhammas, all talk about the way things are is just speculative thinking. -------------------------------------------------- I consider that to be nonsense. Talking of phenomena that are not observed as "realities" is the rankest of speculation. You have turned the Buddha's radical teaching of emptiness into a theory of a world of self-existent dust particles, closer to the old physics than anything else. The Dhamma is all about relinquishing attachment to dreamed up "realities" and coming to realize that all these supposedly oh-so-solid dream things are completely without self. ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- H: > And this is not a matter of my reading about the subject and acceding to a teaching but is a matter of my directly apprehending and understanding this. There is no question that all that one ever literally sees are what appears to eye-door consciousness. ----------------------------- No, of course there is no question about that. But what is eye-door consciousness, and what is eye-door object? That is the question. ------------------------------------------------ It's not a question that *I* am asking! Don't you know what seeing is, and what is seen? ----------------------------------------------- -------------------- N: >> If we have no clear understanding of what citta is, no way to understand submoments of arising, being present and ceasing. No way of seeing any ageing. The same for ruupa. >> H: > To speak of ageing but not mean it is nonsensical to me. -------------------- In this context some of us speak of, and mean, ageing in the paramattha sense. ------------------------------------------------- You cannot explain what "paramattha sense" means at all. It is just verbiage. I have been very much involved for years with attending to the senses, consciousness, and what is sensed. I know the difference, and I know it first hand. ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- N: >> It is there, but let us understand it in the right way. It is a word used to denote that as soon as a citta or ruupa arises, it is destined for its fall. >> H: > Decay is NOT a "being destined" for anything. It is not a propensity. It is a process of degrading and decline over time. There IS such propensity, but that is not the same thing. It is not decay. ----------------------------- Ultimate meanings are known only to the wise, and so they must be profoundly different from conventional meanings. ------------------------------------------------- Are you one of "the wise"? You're playing a card game looking in a book instead of the hand you are holding. ------------------------------------------------- The difficulty lies in explaining ultimate meanings to us worldlings, who only know the conventional ones. ------------------------------------------------ How do you know this, Ken? You have faith without experience. That is exactly what is called "blind faith". ----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- N: >> That is all. Nothing more behind it. No use trying to find out about the changing. >> H: > There is much use in observing the way things actually are, with precision. --------------------------------------- That can only be done by panna. And panna is developed by studying the Buddha's teaching, not by sitting and looking. -------------------------------------------------- I consider that to be utter, harmful nonsense. (But I mean that in the nicest sense! ;-) ---------------------------------------------- -------------------------- N: >> First of all, let us understand the present moment, that is already difficult enough. >> H: > Yes. Let us do that. It is done by paying attention to what actually occurs. -------------------------- You are talking about two different ways of paying attention to what actually occurs. Only one can of them be the Dhamma. ----------------------------------------------- Argh! ----------------------------------------------- Ken H ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112092 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:09 am Subject: How can killiing or stealing not be a conventional deed? philofillet Hi all > > To my understanding, whenever the Buddha speaks of a 'wholesome' conventional action he is referring in fact to kusala mental states (only) and not to a version of that action that is done with mixed kusala and akusala mental states. Does the above (from Jon) only refer to the akusala side? Can it be denied also that the Buddha taught about unwholesome deeds in the conventional sense in addition (at a deeper level) to the mental states involved? I am confused about how it can be denied that conventional deeds are taught by the Buddha. How can killing be anything but a conventional deed? How can stealing be anything but a conventional deed? How can having sex with a married woman be anything but a conventional deed? I suppose that sort of thing has been discussed many times on DSG, but I find it baffling that anyone would deny that there is a valuable understanding of deeds on the conventional level. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Perhaps it is only the most extremely misguided DSG members who believe that the Buddha didn't teach about conventional deeds. Metta, Phil #112093 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:35 pm Subject: Lethargic Laziness... bhikkhu5 Friends: How does Lethargy & Laziness Suppress Mind? A Brahmin Priest once asked the Blessed Buddha: Master Gotama, what is the cause of being unable to remember even something that has been memorized over a long period & also that which has not been memorized? Brahmin, when mind is retarded by lethargy & laziness, dimmed, detained & dominated by lethargy and laziness, and one does not understand any actual safe escape from this arisen lethargy and laziness, in that very moment, one can neither see, nor understand, what is advantageous, neither for oneself, nor for others, nor for both oneself and others. Consequently, whatever have been memorized, cannot be rememberedďż˝ Why is this neglect so? Imagine a bowl of water covered with moss, water plants and algae. If a man with good eye-sight were to inspect the reflection of his own face in it, he would neither see, nor recognize it, as it really is! So too, brahmin, when mind is slowed down by lethargy and laziness, dimmed, detained and handicapped by lethargy & laziness, on such occasions even texts long memorized do not recur to the mind, not to speak of those texts, events and information, that have not been actively memorized at allďż˝ How to cure Laziness: Attention to these 3 elements of: initiative, launching and endurance! <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:122-3] section 46: The Links. 55: To Sangarava... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112094 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:22 am Subject: On Suicide by Ariyan Disciples farrellkevin80 Hi all. We have discussed this before, but I have found some new material that sheds a lot of light on the subject, IMO. The offence of parajika is for killing another human being; the Samantapasadika categorically states that there is no parajika for the bhikkhu who kills himself or has some obliging fellow kill on request. 28 However, such an action, suicide, is an offence of dukkata according to the Vinitavatthu, but, according to the Samantapasadika, when done for the appropriate reasons suicide is no offence at all. The Samantapasadika gives two examples: • A bhikkhu is chronically sick with little sign of recovery and he wishes to end his own life so that he will no longer be a burden on the bhikkhus who are nursing him – in this case suicide is appropriate. ***•A bhikkhu who is enlightened already becomes gravely ill with a painful disease from which he suspects he will not recover. As the disease is burdensome to him and he has nothing further to do, he thinks to end his life – in this case also suicide is appropriate16.** Source: http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/A...inaya_Notes.pdf Thanks, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin The business of an intellectual is to think. Most people think religion is staring at the perfection of a rose bud. They don't understand the decay of the rose bud nor of the mind that admires it and then quickly decays. - me #112095 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:38 am Subject: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. philofillet Hi Nina and Sarah I saw Howard and Nina and others were discussing the topic of decay, and perhaps ageing? I would like to confirm that Nina and Sarah (I choose you because I sense you as the students of A.S that are the most important Dhamma friends to me, personally) agree that the Buddha did want worldlings to reflect on ageing, illness and death in the conventional sense. If there are conditions for deeper recollections on the paramattha level, wonderful, but that the recollection is is also correctly made when the object of recollection is the topic of conventional ageing, illness and death. I am assuming that the conventional recollection does not inspire aversion, fear, anxiety, etc. It certainly doesn't for me, it inspires samvega, and confidence that I am fulfilling this rare human birth by following the Buddha's teaching in the way most suitable to one such as me. So would you agree, Nina and Sarah, that the recollection of ageing, ilness and death in their conventional, non-paramattha forms is a correct one? Metta, Phil p.s yes, this is a kind of test. Dhamma friends are very, very valuable in life, but if you can't agree that the conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death was taught by the Buddha, I will have to doubt your ability to be a Dhamma friend whose advice can be trusted. Please pass the test! Please! :) #112096 From: Kevin F Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:44 am Subject: On Suicide by Ariyan Disciples farrellkevin80 Hi all. I know we have discussed this topic before, but I would like to revisit it after gaining some interesting information and quotes. The offence of parajika is for killing another human being; the Samantapasadika categorically states that there is no parajika for the bhikkhu who kills himself or has some obliging fellow kill on request. 28 However, such an action, suicide, is an offence of dukkata according to the Vinitavatthu, but, according to the Samantapasadika, when done for the appropriate reasons suicide is no offence at all. The Samantapasadika gives two examples: • A bhikkhu is chronically sick with little sign of recovery and he wishes to end his own life so that he will no longer be a burden on the bhikkhus who are nursing him – in this case suicide is appropriate. • A bhikkhu who is enlightened already becomes gravely ill with a painful disease from which he suspects he will not recover. As the disease is burdensome to him and he has nothing further to do, he thinks to end his life – in this case also suicide is appropriate16. Source: http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/Ajahn_Brahmavamso_Vinaya_Notes.pdf With metta, Kevin ___________ With metta Kevin The business of an intellectual is to think. Most people think religion is staring at the perfection of a rose bud. They don't understand the decay of the rose bud nor of the mind that admires it and then quickly decays. - me Kevin's discussion forum = http://www.dhammasnippets.webs.com/ #112097 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:16 am Subject: Re: meditation. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ...You are wondering how understanding > could ever grow from moments in daily life and omitting meditaton > sessions. > Even if there is a short moment of sati and pa~n~naa, but it is the > right kind, no manipulating by a self who wants to have them, it is > very beneficial. Why? Because it is accumulated so that there is a > condition for their arising again later on. Our life is a long series > of cittas that succeed one another and thus kusala and akusala can be > accumulated from moment to moment. The good you learnt as a child > from your parents is never lost. It is a condition for the arising > again of what is good and wholesome. I appreciate this explanation. It does explain how this can happen, but not how or why these accumulations are "stored" and how or why they arise again at a particular time. > Our aim is understanding all phenomena of our life, cittas, cetasikas > and ruupas. I do not see the additional benefit that would come from > sitting, since a reality such as seeing also arises when standing. > Who counts moments of awareness, it arises because of its own > conditions, not because we are sitting. In theory, if you believe that kusala and akusala are equally accumulated under all conditions of life, this would make sense. I just don't think it's the case that everyday life arisings are equal to those in meditation. In the actuality of existence, one has to practice the piano to accumulate piano skills, not have random moments of playing the piano arise spontaneously - that is the piano method for those who don't plan to play very well. I don't see any reason why sati and panna should be expected to mysteriously arise from a mysterious arising of kusala here and there and somehow accumulate in great quantity from those occasional random moments. And that the cultivation of the kusala qualities that Buddha spoke of, by the means he repeatedly prescribed, using the skillful means that he developed for that very purpose, should be dismissed as self-based and akusala. This just does not make any sense to me. Unplanned occasional kusala is good, but steady cultivation as taught by Buddha is bad? That cannot be correct. I believe that meditation is the major way given by the Buddha to develop Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, and that Dhamma study and contemplation is the means by which he promoted Right View. To me they go hand in hand. Many suttas support meditation as a correct means to develop kusala. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #112098 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:21 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Q. Calm, no 4. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 22-nov-2010, om 22:33 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > N: I think that jhaana 'shutting the door on samsara' and > > > 'foreshadowing of nibbaana' is too much. Only the arahat will be > > free > > > from samsara as you will agree. > > > ------ > > > > Sure, I agree, but I think "foreshadowing" may be fair - it's not > > meant to suggest full release. > ------ > N: In the suttas the Buddha said that ruupa-jhaana is an 'abiding at > ease here and now'. He exhorted people who had developed jhaana not > to neglect vipassanaa so that they could attain nibbaana. I agree that is true. But he also taught the cultivation of jhana and showed how the different levels of jhana are developed in conjunction, I think, with insight. > > > ----------- > > > > Rob E: I can understand calm as a component of a kusala citta also. > > I would want to know how these cetasikas come together to form a > > kusala citta. There must be some conditions that cause them to > > arise together...? > ------ > N: Kusala citta cannot arise without at least nineteen sobhana > cetasikas. It is in its nature. For instance there is no kusala citta > without alobha, its nature is not to cling. No kusala citta without > adosa, its nature is non-aversion. If there would be clinging and > aversion the citta would be akusala instead of kusala. And so it is > with all the other accompanying cetasikas. There must be calm, > otherwise it would be disturbed, akusala. > ------- This makes sense. > > > > R: For me the question is whether the teachings themselves are the > > only pathway, or whether they are studied in conjunction with > > practice, whether it is meditation practice, metta practice, or > > doing meritorious deeds, etc. It seems to me there has to be some > > application of the Dhamma in life to develop the path. > ------ > N: What we learn has to be applied. What we learn is not theoretical, > it pertains to life. We learn about citta, there is citta now, such > as seeing. It sees. It should be investigated, to know its true > nature. There is seeing while sitting, lying down, walking or standing. > ------- > > > > R: > For the development of samatha one should change one's lifestyle, > > > there should be a total dedication to a life of fewness of wishes. > > > > Hm....I may have to be content with the extent of calm I can > > experience in my livingroom. Not sure if isolation or fewness of > > wishes will arise for me anytime soon. I'll let you know what happens! > ------ > N: The Visuddhimagga: the development of jhaana is incompatible with > a life of sense pleasures. There must be some reason why I got so interested in jhana. Maybe my sense pleasures are on the way out! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112099 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:58 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. kenhowardau Hi Howard, ----------- KH: >> There is only one ultimate reality. >> H: > I agree with that, Ken, though I'd drop the superfluous 'ultimate'. -------------- But there are conventional realities and conventional illusions, aren't there? (People and trees etc as distinct from unicorns etc.) --------------------- H: > And ageing that requires no change is not an aspect of reality. --------------------- All aspects of reality require no conventional change - or anything else conventional. ----------------------------- KH: >> If you and Nina are talking about two different things then only one of you can be talking about ultimate reality. >> H: > Or neither of us, of course. (Or each in part.) ----------------------------- Fair enough! I will resist arguing against everything you say. :-) ------------------- <. . .> KH: >> Nina mentioned "going towards its ending," does that qualify? >> N: > That phrase provides no clarification. What is meant by "going towards"? If not "undergoing change," then nothing at all. -------------- How would *you* define decay? (Remember your definition has to be in accordance with anatta.) -------------- <. . .> KH: >> Surely the assertion, "it seems that we immediately see a table," is one we can all agree on. >> H: > I certainly do not!! We are simply misusing language for convenience. That is just a manner of speaking, as I have explained. --------------- (?) We must be talking at crossed purposes. It does seem as if we see a table. Everyone would agree with that! -------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> I would say it was because you have rejected the reality of namas and rupas. >> H: > I reject them as separate, self-existent "things." They, as delineable entities, are as much concepts as are trees. Just simpler ones. --------------------------- Yes, that's what I said: you reject their reality. ------------------------------- <. . .> H: > What are seen are sights. When one is seeing, they are what is seen. But I don't worship them as gods and honor them with the religious name of "realities". ------------------------------- Well I certainly wouldn't worship sights. But "visible objects" are another matter. As central components of the Buddha's teaching, they deserve all the respect we can give them. ------------------------------------------ H: > And, BTW, apart from being seen, where are "visible objects"? ------------------------------------------ They are in every kalapa of rupas. So they mostly go unseen. ----------------------------------------------------- <. . .> H: > As delineable entities, they are fictions. They are conventional phenomena only. ----------------------------------------------------- They are the only things that ultimately exist, and they are our only proof of anatta. To say they don't exist is to say there is no anatta. ------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> It is relevant to what Nina was saying. The seeing of visible object is followed in a flash by thinking about a table. And so "it seems that we immediately see a table." >> H: > It doesn't seem so to me. Speak for yourself, Ken. -------------------------------------- But haven't I seen you describe it that way many times? I thought it was one thing we had in common! ----------------------- <. . .> KH: >> The word you are clearly trying to avoid is "rupa," which is a paramattha dhamma. >> H: > Sights are material phenomena of a particular sort. As for rupas, are they your gods or just demi-gods? There is ZERO understanding gained in reciting "nama, rupa, nama, rupa, ... . It's a mediocre mantra (Pali manta). ------------------------ What's in a name? "Material phenomena" is just as good a name as "rupas." Provided, that is, that our definition of phenomena does not include concepts. As far as I can remember, I have never recited "nama, rupa, nama, rupa, . . ." Sounds more like something a meditator might do! :-) ------------------------------- KH: >> Without right understanding of paramattha dhammas, all talk about the way things are is just speculative thinking. >> H: > I consider that to be nonsense. -------------------------------- Maybe you do, but it shouldn't be a surprise to you. It has been the main message of the Abhidhamma students here at DSG - "satipatthana is right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa." ----------------------- H: > Talking of phenomena that are not observed as "realities" is the rankest of speculation. You have turned the Buddha's radical teaching of emptiness into a theory of a world of self-existent dust particles, closer to the old physics than anything else. The Dhamma is all about relinquishing attachment to dreamed up "realities" and coming to realize that all these supposedly oh-so-solid dream things are completely without self. ------------------------ It is about relinquishing attachment to all objects, both real and unreal. And it is done by understanding that there are ultimately only dhammas and all conditioned dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta. ----------------------------- H: > And this is not a matter of my reading about the subject and acceding to a teaching but is a matter of my directly apprehending and understanding this. There is no question that all that one ever literally sees are what appears to eye-door consciousness. ----------------------------- If you are trying to tell me you have attained direct right understanding, . . . don't. :-) ------------------------------------- KH: >> But what is eye-door consciousness, and what is eye-door object? That is the question. >> H: > It's not a question that *I* am asking! Don't you know what seeing is, and what is seen? -------------------------------------- Apart from my Dhamma studies, I have no idea whatsoever. -------------------- <. . .> KH: >> In this context some of us speak of, and mean, ageing in the paramattha sense. >> H: > You cannot explain what "paramattha sense" means at all. It is just verbiage. I have been senses, consciousness, and what is sensed. I know the difference, and I know it first hand. -------------------- You are starting to worry me, Howard. -------------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> Ultimate meanings are known only to the wise, and so they must be profoundly different from conventional meanings. >> H: > Are you one of "the wise"? --------------------------------- No, not even close. Although compared to some others . . . -------------- KH: > You're playing a card game looking in a book instead of the hand you are holding. ------------- Looking will only get you concepts. Concepts are the objects of thinking, not of seeing. -------------------- KH: >> The difficulty lies in explaining ultimate meanings to us worldlings, who only know the conventional ones. >> H: > How do you know this, Ken? --------------------- How do I know anything? I know this as well as I know anything. -------------------- H: > You have faith without experience. That is exactly what is called "blind faith". -------------------- Experience is a universal nama. I haven't experienced panna yet, but there are always lots of other realities I can experience. --------------------------------------- <. . .> That can only be done by panna. And panna is developed by studying the Buddha's teaching, not by sitting and looking. >> H: > I consider that to be utter, harmful nonsense. (But I mean that in the nicest sense! ;-) ---------------------------------------------- Ditto! :-) -------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> You are talking about two different ways of paying attention to what actually occurs. Only one can of them be the Dhamma. >> H: > Argh! ----------------------- Yes, sorry about that typo. :-) Ken H #112100 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:01 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. epsteinrob Hi Guys. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 11/23/2010 6:00:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > If you and Nina are talking about two different things then only one of > you can be talking about ultimate reality. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Or neither of us, of course. (Or each in part.) > ---------------------------------------------------- No partway realities in the paramatha - it's winner take all! > --------------------- And, BTW, apart from being seen, where are > "visible objects"? > ----------------------------------------------------- This is a good zen koan! > N: >> First of all, let us understand the present moment, that is already > difficult enough. > >> > > H: > Yes. Let us do that. It is done by paying attention to what > actually occurs. > -------------------------- > > You are talking about two different ways of paying attention to what > actually occurs. Only one can of them be the Dhamma. > ----------------------------------------------- > Argh! > ----------------------------------------------- Well said! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #112101 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Philip, Op 24-nov-2010, om 1:38 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > So would you agree, Nina and Sarah, that the recollection of > ageing, ilness and death in their conventional, non-paramattha > forms is a correct one? ------ N: They are helpful in as far as they point to the deeper meaning: the impermanence of each conditioned dhamma. Everybody can think: my body is decaying, but this is not the realisation of the truth of impermanence. It does not necessarily lead to detachment. Nina. #112102 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:54 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. nilovg Hi Howard and Ken H, I need not add much, but you caused me to have many laughs. It is good you kept the humour. Op 23-nov-2010, om 16:19 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Howard to Ken: > I consider that to be utter, harmful nonsense. > (But I mean that in the nicest sense! ;-) > ---------------------------------------------- > > Ditto! :-) --------- > > N:Take seeing, it seems that we see immediately a table. > ---------------------------------------------- > H:Not me. I *conceive* of a table, but I see sights (or "visible > objects"). The only sort of thing that I consider as being the > content of seeing > is a sight, the content of visual experience. > ------------------------------------------------ N: My use of the word 'we': people in general, or many people. I dare not include you, Howard. I am not inclined to be personal, I cannot read others' cittas. ------- > H: ....But only sights,i.e., eye-door objects, are seen. > And this is not a matter of my reading about the subject and acceding > to a teaching but is a matter of my directly apprehending and > understanding > this. There is no question that all that one ever literally sees > are what > appears to eye-door consciousness. > -------------------------------------------- > N: This is correct. > > What follows now you, Howard, may not find to be 'the issue', and > so, do not read it. I elaborate somewhat on what 'we' or 'people in > general' experience. > It is difficult to distinguish seeing from visible object, not just > in theory, or even by very quick thinking without words, but by > vipassanaa. They are there together, but sati can be aware of only > one object at a time. I learnt (from Kh Sujin) that when the first > stage of insight arises there is a clear distinction between the > naama and ruupa that appear to sati and pa~n~naa. They appear one > at a time through the mind-door. It is known then what the mind- > door is. Just now it is not generally known when visible object > appears through a sense-door and when through the mind-door. When naama and ruupa are not clearly known as they it still seems that we immediately see people and things. No pa~n~naa that discerns different characteristics of realities. -------- > Ken:The word you are clearly trying to avoid is "rupa," which is a > paramattha > dhamma. > ---------------------------------------------- > H: Sights are material phenomena of a particular sort. As for > rupas, are > they your gods or just demi-gods? There is ZERO understanding > gained in > reciting "nama, rupa, nama, rupa, ... . It's a mediocre mantra > (Pali manta). > ----------------------------------------------- > N: Sure, you are right. No good in repeating the names naama and > ruupa. It is not a question of knowing names, but characteristics > of reality. These can be directly experienced by pa~n~naa. What I learnt is: first realities that appear one at a time through the six doors have to be known as 'just a dhamma', and also the naama that realizes them is only a dhamma. This is very important lest there is some idea of 'I' who knows. ------ Nina. > > #112103 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. philofillet Hi Nina amd Sarah. (p.s to all) I Well, ok, they don't point to the deeper meaning for me, but it is good that they do for you, and perhaps they will for me someday. I suspect they will. To me, for now, they point to a much more conventional consideration of what kind of kamma I am creating, what kinds of deeds I am commiting, and to the ownership of my kamma, of my deeds. Of course akusala kamma patha is referring to a specific dhamma, a javana, I guess, but for me there is a lot of personal reflection involved. If I had insight into only nama and rupa, why would I care about the ownership of kamma, Who can own kamma? Someday I might try to better understand why they Buddha encouraged thinking in terms that feel quite atta-view-ish eternalistic at times, I think it was that for some of us this is the only way to get started in weakening the defilements, we can't jump straight to understanding dhammas. Sorry for the strident tone of my earlier post, I was buzzing on caffeine, never a good time to post! :) Sarah, never mind, I really don't need an answer to the test. Metta, Phil p.s nevermind all also about my other post, on conventional deeds. Sometimes I post things in the morning and don't care about them by the time evening rolls around. Thanks. > ------ > N: They are helpful in as far as they point to the deeper meaning: > the impermanence of each conditioned dhamma. Everybody can think: my > body is decaying, but this is not the realisation of the truth of > impermanence. It does not necessarily lead to detachment. > #112104 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:56 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/24/2010 12:58:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, ----------- KH: >> There is only one ultimate reality. >> H: > I agree with that, Ken, though I'd drop the superfluous 'ultimate'. -------------- But there are conventional realities and conventional illusions, aren't there? (People and trees etc as distinct from unicorns etc.) -------------------------------------------------- Okay, I know what you mean. ----------------------------------------------- --------------------- H: > And ageing that requires no change is not an aspect of reality. --------------------- All aspects of reality require no conventional change - or anything else conventional. --------------------------------------------------- I haven't a clue of what "unconventional" change is. An alleged "change" that is something other than the alteration of qualities, activities, and experience is nothing at all. It is never observed is pure fable. -------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- KH: >> If you and Nina are talking about two different things then only one of you can be talking about ultimate reality. >> H: > Or neither of us, of course. (Or each in part.) ----------------------------- Fair enough! I will resist arguing against everything you say. :-) ------------------------------------------------------ I feel the earth quaking!! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------- <. . .> KH: >> Nina mentioned "going towards its ending," does that qualify? >> N: > That phrase provides no clarification. What is meant by "going towards"? If not "undergoing change," then nothing at all. -------------- How would *you* define decay? (Remember your definition has to be in accordance with anatta.) ---------------------------------------------------- Decay with respect to any quality or function is a degradation (across time). ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- <. . .> KH: >> Surely the assertion, "it seems that we immediately see a table," is one we can all agree on. >> H: > I certainly do not!! We are simply misusing language for convenience. That is just a manner of speaking, as I have explained. --------------- (?) We must be talking at crossed purposes. It does seem as if we see a table. Everyone would agree with that! -------------------------------------------------------- I do NOT agree with it. That is just a way of speaking. Tables are cognized but not seen. I've explained this matter. ---------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> I would say it was because you have rejected the reality of namas and rupas. >> H: > I reject them as separate, self-existent "things." They, as delineable entities, are as much concepts as are trees. Just simpler ones. --------------------------- Yes, that's what I said: you reject their reality. ------------------------------------------------------ I stand on what I said. I was explicit in my meaning. ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- <. . .> H: > What are seen are sights. When one is seeing, they are what is seen. But I don't worship them as gods and honor them with the religious name of "realities". ------------------------------- Well I certainly wouldn't worship sights. But "visible objects" are another matter. As central components of the Buddha's teaching, they deserve all the respect we can give them. --------------------------------------------------------- You need to read more suttas: The Aggregates are Void /Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./ (From the Phena Sutta) _______________________________ Emptiness /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) ________________________________ Unreal /He who neither goes too far nor lags behind and knows about the world: "This is all unreal," — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta ) -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ H: > And, BTW, apart from being seen, where are "visible objects"? ------------------------------------------ They are in every kalapa of rupas. So they mostly go unseen. -------------------------------------------------------------- Ken, this is rote recitation. Do you have a kalapa drawer at home. Oh, and BTW, where in the tipitaka is it said that visible objects are to be found in all kalapas? ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------- <. . .> H: > As delineable entities, they are fictions. They are conventional phenomena only. ----------------------------------------------------- They are the only things that ultimately exist, and they are our only proof of anatta. To say they don't exist is to say there is no anatta. ------------------------------------------------- They, like everything we encounter is, as a separate entity, a matter of convention. Their being merely conventional is an aspect of their being anatta. --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> It is relevant to what Nina was saying. The seeing of visible object is followed in a flash by thinking about a table. And so "it seems that we immediately see a table." >> H: > It doesn't seem so to me. Speak for yourself, Ken. -------------------------------------- But haven't I seen you describe it that way many times? I thought it was one thing we had in common! ------------------------------------------------------ I don't believe I have ever spoken of seeing tables as other than a mode of speech. We don't see tables, we see what appears when we look: a color mosaic (if you will). ------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- <. . .> KH: >> The word you are clearly trying to avoid is "rupa," which is a paramattha dhamma. >> H: > Sights are material phenomena of a particular sort. As for rupas, are they your gods or just demi-gods? There is ZERO understanding gained in reciting "nama, rupa, nama, rupa, ... . It's a mediocre mantra (Pali manta). ------------------------ What's in a name? "Material phenomena" is just as good a name as "rupas." Provided, that is, that our definition of phenomena does not include concepts. As far as I can remember, I have never recited "nama, rupa, nama, rupa, . . ." Sounds more like something a meditator might do! :-) -------------------------------------------------- As I said, a mediocre mantra. -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- KH: >> Without right understanding of paramattha dhammas, all talk about the way things are is just speculative thinking. >> H: > I consider that to be nonsense. -------------------------------- Maybe you do, but it shouldn't be a surprise to you. It has been the main message of the Abhidhamma students here at DSG - "satipatthana is right understanding of a presently arisen nama or rupa." ----------------------- H: > Talking of phenomena that are not observed as "realities" is the rankest of speculation. You have turned the Buddha's radical teaching of emptiness into a theory of a world of self-existent dust particles, closer to the old physics than anything else. The Dhamma is all about relinquishing attachment to dreamed up "realities" and coming to realize that all these supposedly oh-so-solid dream things are completely without self. ------------------------ It is about relinquishing attachment to all objects, both real and unreal. And it is done by understanding that there are ultimately only dhammas and all conditioned dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta. ----------------------------- H: > And this is not a matter of my reading about the subject and acceding to a teaching but is a matter of my directly apprehending and understanding this. There is no question that all that one ever literally sees are what appears to eye-door consciousness. ----------------------------- If you are trying to tell me you have attained direct right understanding, . . . don't. :-) --------------------------------------------------------- Why do you find feel the need to restate what I say? Is it pleasant to reformulate to match your preferences? ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- KH: >> But what is eye-door consciousness, and what is eye-door object? That is the question. >> H: > It's not a question that *I* am asking! Don't you know what seeing is, and what is seen? -------------------------------------- Apart from my Dhamma studies, I have no idea whatsoever. --------------------------------------------------------- That's not less than amazing, and a real shame. ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- <. . .> KH: >> In this context some of us speak of, and mean, ageing in the paramattha sense. >> H: > You cannot explain what "paramattha sense" means at all. It is just verbiage. I have been senses, consciousness, and what is sensed. I know the difference, and I know it first hand. -------------------- You are starting to worry me, Howard. ---------------------------------------------------------- Be at ease, Ken. :-) ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> Ultimate meanings are known only to the wise, and so they must be profoundly different from conventional meanings. >> H: > Are you one of "the wise"? --------------------------------- No, not even close. Although compared to some others . . . -------------- KH: > You're playing a card game looking in a book instead of the hand you are holding. ------------- Looking will only get you concepts. Concepts are the objects of thinking, not of seeing. --------------------------------------------------- Looking will not get you only concepts. Living in your head will! ---------------------------------------------------- -------------------- KH: >> The difficulty lies in explaining ultimate meanings to us worldlings, who only know the conventional ones. >> H: > How do you know this, Ken? --------------------- How do I know anything? I know this as well as I know anything. ---------------------------------------------------- Ahh. ---------------------------------------------------- -------------------- H: > You have faith without experience. That is exactly what is called "blind faith". -------------------- Experience is a universal nama. I haven't experienced panna yet, but there are always lots of other realities I can experience. --------------------------------------- <. . .> That can only be done by panna. And panna is developed by studying the Buddha's teaching, not by sitting and looking. >> H: > I consider that to be utter, harmful nonsense. (But I mean that in the nicest sense! ;-) ---------------------------------------------- Ditto! :-) -------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> You are talking about two different ways of paying attention to what actually occurs. Only one can of them be the Dhamma. >> H: > Argh! ----------------------- Yes, sorry about that typo. :-) ----------------------------------------------- LOL! ----------------------------------------------- Ken H ==================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112105 From: han tun Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:00 pm Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. hantun1 Dear Phil (Nina, Sarah), You are not alone in conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. With due respect to Nina and Sarah, I am with you. In AN 5.57 Abhi.nhapaccavekkhitabba.thaanasutta.m, which I am sure most of the DSG members know, the Buddha asked and answered his own questions: Quote ["Now for what good reason should a man or woman, a householder or monk, often contemplate the fact that they are sure to become old and cannot avoid ageing? Beings while young take pride in youth; and infatuated by that pride in youth they lead an evil life in deeds, words and thoughts. But in one who often contemplates the certainty of old age, the pride of youth will either vanish entirely or will be weakened. For that good reason the fact of ageing should often be contemplated." "Now for what good reason should a man or woman, a householder or monk, often contemplate the fact that they are sure to become ill and cannot avoid illness? Beings while healthy take pride in their health; and infatuated by that pride in health they lead an evil life in deeds, words and thoughts. But in one who often contemplates the certainty of illness, the pride in health will either vanish entirely or will be weakened. For that good reason the fact of illness should often be contemplated." "Now for what good reason should a man or woman, a householder or monk, often contemplate the fact that they are sure to die and cannot avoid death? Beings while alive take pride in life; and infatuated by that pride in life they lead an evil life in deeds, words and thoughts. But in one who often contemplates the certainty of death, the pride in life will either vanish entirely or will be weakened. For that good reason the fact of death should often be contemplated."] End Quote. Han: For that good reason, I am contemplating on ageing, illness, and death conventionally. I am not saying that Nina and Sarah are wrong. They are always right in the interpretation of the Teachings. But they are *too correct* that I cannot follow. The fault is with me. with metta and respect, Han #112106 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:18 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. nilovg Hi Howard and Ken, Op 24-nov-2010, om 14:56 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > KH: >> Nina mentioned "going towards its ending," does that qualify? > >> > > N: > That phrase provides no clarification. What is meant by "going > towards"? If not "undergoing change," then nothing at all. > -------------- > N: Sorry, that is not my phrase but Howard's. Nina. #112107 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 2:30 pm Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. philofillet Hello Han (and Sarah and Nina and all) > Han: For that good reason, I am contemplating on ageing, illness, and death conventionally. > I am not saying that Nina and Sarah are wrong. They are always right in the interpretation of the Teachings. > But they are *too correct* that I cannot follow. > The fault is with me. I appreciate that they push us to consider the deeper implications of the contemplations, but I don't feel very much doubt that the proper way for me to make the recollections is in a conventional way...because it is the only way that makes sense to me. The deeper reflection must come without forcing it, I feel. When it comes, it comes. But for now it is Phil getting old, Han getting old, Han saying he will die soon. After all, when you went in to the hospital and we were all concerned that you might not emerge from your surgery, it was Han we were thinking of, not dhammas. Well, I was at least. But of course Nina is right when she says that it is only the deeper understanding that will release us - release us from the misery of going through ageing, illness and death and meeting and losing friends and loved ones again and again and again in samsara... Metta, Phil p.s The fault is not with you, Han. The fault is not with Nina or Sarah, either. I think we at DSG have come to know each other well enough to know where each other's understanding lies on most things, so there is no need for me to get upset in the way I often do...it is good though that there is enough interest in Dhamma to get irritated by different views, even though that means there is clinging and a lack of patience, equanimity etc.... #112108 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Han (and Phil), Op 24-nov-2010, om 15:00 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > For that good reason, I am contemplating on ageing, illness, and > death conventionally. > I am not saying that Nina and Sarah are wrong. They are always > right in the interpretation of the Teachings. > But they are *too correct* that I cannot follow. > The fault is with me. ----- N: The question is: how to contemplate, in what manner? It could be an exhortation and reminder and then people may come to realise that there is no phenomenon that is lasting, not even seeing now or each moment of thinking. Actually, this is not mere thinking anybody can do: O, I am getting old, close to dying. The sutta itself gives us a clear indication that the goal is arahatship, and this not without satipa.t.thaana. We read: < And while he often contemplates this thing, the Way comes into being; and that Way he follows, makes become and develops; and in doing so the fetters are got rid of, the tendencies are removed...> Han, we are back at the latent tendencies! These can only be eradicated stage by stage when enlightenment is attained. We may think: this is far off, but, let us begin to understand little by little the dhammas appearing one at a time through the six doors. If understanding is still weak we should not be discouraged and disheartened. A beginning can be made. Nina. #112109 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. Calm, no 4. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 24-nov-2010, om 6:21 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > N: In the suttas the Buddha said that ruupa-jhaana is an 'abiding at > > ease here and now'. He exhorted people who had developed jhaana not > > to neglect vipassanaa so that they could attain nibbaana. > > I agree that is true. But he also taught the cultivation of jhana > and showed how the different levels of jhana are developed in > conjunction, I think, with insight. ----- N: Yes, they can be developed as a pair. But only by those who have mastery of jhaana, being able to enter and emerge at any time, in the order of the stages and reverse order. For them jhaana can be a base or proximate cause of insight. Very wise people who had accumulated the inclination and skill for jhaana could achieve it. -------- Nina. #112110 From: han tun Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:24 pm Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. hantun1 Dear Phil, [Phil] After all, when you went in to the hospital and we were all concerned that you might not emerge from your surgery, it was Han we were thinking of, not dhammas. Well, I was at least. [Han] I take this opportunity to thank you all who were concerned about me when I went in for surgery. When I woke up from anaesthesia, I was feeling the most intense pain that I ever felt in my life, and at that time, I could not think about naama and ruupa, but only pain, and only *me* who was feeling the pain. During the post-operative period also, I had to nurse my body back to normal, like a mother looking after a new-born baby, let alone the release from attachment. With metta and respect, Han #112111 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:31 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: meditation. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 24-nov-2010, om 6:16 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > The good you learnt as a child > > from your parents is never lost. It is a condition for the arising > > again of what is good and wholesome. > > I appreciate this explanation. It does explain how this can happen, > but not how or why these accumulations are "stored" and how or why > they arise again at a particular time. ------- N: Stored is not such a good term. Each citta that falls away conditions the following one by contiguity-condition, and thus good and bad tendencies are accumulated and go on from moment to moment. When it is the right time for kusala or for akusala they condition the arising of kusala citta or akusala citta. For instance when we are in a situation of hearing Dhamma talk we may thoroughly listening and acquire more understanding. Why do we want to listen? Because we listened in the past and we had an interest in the past. Nothing occurs without the appropriate conditions. ---------- > > N:> Our aim is understanding all phenomena of our life, cittas, > cetasikas > > and ruupas. I do not see the additional benefit that would come from > > sitting, since a reality such as seeing also arises when standing. > > Who counts moments of awareness, it arises because of its own > > conditions, not because we are sitting. > > R: ..... I don't see any reason why sati and panna should be > expected to mysteriously arise from a mysterious arising of kusala > here and there and somehow accumulate in great quantity from those > occasional random moments. And that the cultivation of the kusala > qualities that Buddha spoke of, by the means he repeatedly > prescribed, using the skillful means that he developed for that > very purpose, should be dismissed as self-based and akusala. This > just does not make any sense to me. Unplanned occasional kusala is > good, but steady cultivation as taught by Buddha is bad? That > cannot be correct. ------- N: Steady cultivation: here I think of the monk's life. His lifestyle is different from the layman's. ------- > > R: I believe that meditation is the major way given by the Buddha > to develop Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, and that > Dhamma study and contemplation is the means by which he promoted > Right View. To me they go hand in hand. > > Many suttas support meditation as a correct means to develop kusala. ------- N: I see it this way: Right understanding of realities above all conditions all kinds of kusala. When one clings less to self and to one's own comfort one is more inclined to promoting the wellfare of others. Nina. #112112 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Han, Op 24-nov-2010, om 16:24 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > When I woke up from anaesthesia, I was feeling the most intense > pain that I ever felt in my life, and at that time, I could not > think about naama and ruupa, but only pain, and only *me* who was > feeling the pain. > During the post-operative period also, I had to nurse my body back > to normal, like a mother looking after a new-born baby, let alone > the release from attachment. ------- N: Yes, I completely understand. Those were conditions and beyond control. Who could make them otherwise? Our life consists of ups and downs and we can learn from situations as you describe. Nina. #112113 From: han tun Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:37 pm Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. hantun1 Dear Nina, [Nina]: The question is: how to contemplate, in what manner? It could be an exhortation and reminder and then people may come to realise that there is no phenomenon that is lasting, not even seeing now or each moment of thinking. Actually, this is not mere thinking anybody can do: O, I am getting old, close to dying. The sutta itself gives us a clear indication that the goal is arahatship, and this not without satipa.t.thaana. We read: < And while he often contemplates this thing, the Way comes into being; and that Way he follows, makes become and develops; and in doing so the fetters are got rid of, the tendencies are removed...> Han, we are back at the latent tendencies! These can only be eradicated stage by stage when enlightenment is attained. We may think: this is far off, but, let us begin to understand little by little the dhammas appearing one at a time through the six doors. If understanding is still weak we should not be discouraged and disheartened. A beginning can be made. ---------- [Han] I thank you very much for your wise comments and exhortation. I have no disagreement with you, Nina. As I have said, you always interprete the Teachings correctly. But I cannot practice some of the Teachings. I will not add the word "yet" because I may be off within a year or two. But I am not discouraged and disheartened. Whatever will be, will be! Respectfully, Han #112114 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:39 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Ken) - In a message dated 11/24/2010 4:54:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard and Ken H, I need not add much, but you caused me to have many laughs. It is good you kept the humour. ================================ It is always calming to read you, Nina, because you are so kind and considerate. We differ on certain matters though far from all, but we clearly agree on the value of good friends. With metta, Howard P. S. I care much for you as well, Ken! I have nothing but truly good will for you, my friend. Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112115 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:48 pm Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. szmicio Dear Han, > [Han] I take this opportunity to thank you all who were concerned about me when I went in for surgery. > When I woke up from anaesthesia, I was feeling the most intense pain that I ever felt in my life, and at that time, I could not think about naama and ruupa, but only pain, and only *me* who was feeling the pain. > During the post-operative period also, I had to nurse my body back to normal, like a mother looking after a new-born baby, let alone the release from attachment. L: So in the moment of pain no control. I used to think the same when I had unpleasant feelings, why this happens? I am meditating and this doesnt go my way. So my meditation was acctually try to change this. But then I get it: dont try to change anything, just live it all as it is. Now nothing has changed but I am not so stressed about understanding something, this is the life, let it be. Actually Buddha often stressed about patticcasamupada, when there are conditions for griev, sorrow there will be grieve sorrow, so I think this is a good teaching to not try to change anything. Best wishes Lukas #112116 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:40 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: meditation. szmicio Dear Nina, Rob E > > R: I believe that meditation is the major way given by the Buddha > > to develop Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, and that > > Dhamma study and contemplation is the means by which he promoted > > Right View. To me they go hand in hand. > > > > Many suttas support meditation as a correct means to develop kusala. > ------- > N: I see it this way: Right understanding of realities above all > conditions all kinds of kusala. When one clings less to self and to > one's own comfort one is more inclined to promoting the wellfare of > others. > Nina. L: Yes, I think when there is less Self when considering in daily life no Self, just elements, then this all ideas about Self have less strenght and then all is calmer, then there is more interest in others beings happiness, very natural. I think this is good way, cause we all think we have to have more mudita, feeling of enjoy others happiness, but acctually this tricky way, lobha comes in. But this natural consideration can be a natural condition to more mudita. No trying at all. Best wishes Lukas #112117 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:36 pm Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. epsteinrob Hi Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > "Now for what good reason should a man or woman, a householder or monk, often contemplate the fact that they are sure to become ill and cannot avoid illness? Beings while healthy take pride in their health; and infatuated by that pride in health they lead an evil life in deeds, words and thoughts. But in one who often contemplates the certainty of illness, the pride in health will either vanish entirely or will be weakened. For that good reason the fact of illness should often be contemplated." > > "Now for what good reason should a man or woman, a householder or monk, often contemplate the fact that they are sure to die and cannot avoid death? Beings while alive take pride in life; and infatuated by that pride in life they lead an evil life in deeds, words and thoughts. But in one who often contemplates the certainty of death, the pride in life will either vanish entirely or will be weakened. For that good reason the fact of death should often be contemplated."] Thanks, Han, for quoting this. I think sometimes in the desire to contemplate what is paramatha, we fall into a bit of 'sutta denial,' dismissing or reinterpreting what is clearly stated by Buddha in sutta. On the level of individual dhammas, aging, decay or degradation may be a property of a dhamma that is falling away after completing its function, but Buddha clearly also wanted us to contemplate the conventional existence that we are aware of, and see that it is painful, impermanent and not-self. I think we have to understand that both levels exist, and both are important. Otherwise we get into the unfortunate position of having to twist the Buddha's words to suit our understanding. Nina said that anyone can think of conventional sickness and death and that this will not help us see anatta or anicca; but it is not just thinking about it casually, as poeple do when someone gets sick or dies, or when we have a moment here or there. It is to contemplate and understand that this is the reality of life, and to have the mental and emotional understanding that our sense of existence is very tentative. We may know conceptually that we will eventually die, but we don't really take it in, so it is not a question of being able to form the thought and then dismiss it immediately afterwards. Buddha says above that we should contemplate these truths of conventional existence often, so that we "get it in our head" that this is the truth, and come to face it and accept it, not just think it. That is why we have the very detailed sequence of corpse contemplations as well, and the detailed contemplation of the contents and nature of the body. Buddha wanted us to face every aspect of conventional reality in great detail, contemplate it, chew over it, get it into our system so that we live with understanding of the difficult and temporary nature of our life, body and senses. It is not correct to say that deep contemplation of conventional reality is not a very important part of the path that Buddha set out. Of course it is another level to understand microscopic conditionality and the nature of nama and rupa. It is like the work of a scientist who can see what things are really made of with a microscope. But this does not deny the importance of the more gross level of living that we experience every day, or its inclusion in the path by the Buddha. We do not have to deny the Buddha's teaching on daily living and our understanding of life in the larger sense in order to aim for a higher understanding. We can do both. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112118 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:42 pm Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Han, Op 24-nov-2010, om 16:37 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > As I have said, you always interprete the Teachings correctly. > But I cannot practice some of the Teachings. I will not add the > word "yet" because I may be off within a year or two. > But I am not discouraged and disheartened. Whatever will be, will be! ------- N: You end your mail with: 'Whatever will be, will be!' and this shows that you understand very well that there is no question of: 'I cannot practise or I can practise', that it all depends on conditions. Very well said, Han. We may think that we cannot practise this or that, but even a little more understandinbg about our life is a gain. We cannot understand what is above us, but that does not matter. I am glad that you are not discouraged. Best wishes for your health, Nina. #112119 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:46 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: meditation. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Stored is not such a good term. Each citta that falls away > conditions the following one by contiguity-condition, and thus good > and bad tendencies are accumulated and go on from moment to moment. > When it is the right time for kusala or for akusala they condition > the arising of kusala citta or akusala citta. For instance when we > are in a situation of hearing Dhamma talk we may thoroughly listening > and acquire more understanding. Why do we want to listen? Because we > listened in the past and we had an interest in the past. Nothing > occurs without the appropriate conditions. > ---------- In this case you have "tendencies" being brought along from citta to citta without arising, but staying in a state of latency. Since each citta is substanceless and arises only for a brief moment, how are tendencies carried along by the cittas without arising, until the right conditions bring them out? There must be countless unrealized tendencies of this kind being carried along by these tiny substanceless cittas, conditioning the next one with all its remaining tendencies. Further, since these tendencies are latent and are not arisen, how can they condition the following cittas while still remaining latent? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112120 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:49 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > P. S. I care much for you as well, Ken! I have nothing but truly good will > for you, my friend. I wish I could say the same, Ken. I'm just kidding! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112121 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! jonoabb Hi Robert E (111980) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > there are many instances in the suttas of dhammas and their functions being described in conventional terms which, to the casual reader, > > You mean the reader who actually reads what is there? > > > would be suggestive of people and things and actions. > > And how does the non-casual reader read those words, by refusing to give them the meaning that they actually have? How is this accomplished? > =============== J: An example of the sort of thing I had in mind might be the description of the first of the Four Noble Truths. That description reads: "And what is the noble truth of dukkha? Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha. On a superficial reading one is likely to take the references to birth, aging, death, etc in their conventional sense. But as the sutta goes on to point out, these are actually references to the five aggregates of clinging. So this truth may be stated as: All dhammas other than those not capable of being clung to are dukkha. In this particular instance the 'paramattha' explanation is provided within the sutta itself. But often it is left to the commentaries to give that explanation. Jon #112122 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:56 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (112079) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: I'm reading the reference to "attending carefully" as being a reference to kusala, that's all ;-)). > > If that is the basis for saying it is not practice, but is "various moments of kusala," I have to repeat my objection that you are contradicting the words of the Buddha. He did not say "attending carefully" in a passive context, as in "careful attending will arise in such a case," but said directly "...then he should attend carefully." It is precisely this wording which directly states that he is recommending a volitional action to be taken on by the practitioner, *not* something that happens by itself. "Then he should attend..." is an imperative, not a description of something that may happen. If you feel comfortable changing the syntax to mean what you want it to mean, I would like to know the basis for doing so, other than your own preference. > =============== J: In general, each part of the Tipitaka must be read in the context of the rest of the Tipitaka. In particular, 2 comments/observations. First, when the Buddha was talking to those who were of already advanced awareness/understanding and capable of enlightenment within that lifetime (as he was when many of the suttas were being delivered), he often used conventional language to refer to paramattha matters, since his audience already 'got' the paramattha meaning of what he was saying. Secondly, since you mention "changing the syntax", it needs to be recognised that the syntaxes of English and Pali are different and this sometimes leads to the English conveying a different shade of meaning. For example, the Pali suffix "-abba" when attached to a verb form apparently means something like "is to be [done]" (in the sense of "suitable/fit to be [done]"). This is often translated as "should be [done]", the closest modern-day English equivalent; for example, "sevittabba" is given as "should be followed" when in fact it carries no sense of an imperative in the original Pali. (Having said all that, I have no idea whether these considerations apply to the "attending to carefully" passage!) (Disclaimer/Health warning: I know very little about Pali; Nina or others will be able to explain better). Jon #112123 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:29 pm Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. philofillet Hello Han and al > [Han] I take this opportunity to thank you all who were concerned about me when I went in for surgery. > When I woke up from anaesthesia, I was feeling the most intense pain that I ever felt in my life, and at that time, I could not think about naama and ruupa, but only pain, and only *me* who was feeling the pain. Ph: Yes, even when I have a mild illness such as headaches from new glasses I bought, any detachment disappears and I am wrapped up in suffering in me, me, me. So it could be that the constant attempts at considering dhammas that Nina and Sarah have made for decades now will keep them closer to that detachment when the time comes. Possibly. > During the post-operative period also, I had to nurse my body back to normal, like a mother looking after a new-born baby, let alone the release from attachment. Ph: The kind of meditation I do (rather irregularly these days) was developed by Ajahn Lee when he suffered a heartattack during a rains retreat and had no way to reach a hospital, so there is an emphasis on creating pleasant feelings in the body and it is quite suitable for developing a response to pain, I think, for developing some detachment from it. I think it is not a pure Buddhist meditation, the method is not like in the ancient texts, I feel, but I should do it more because dealing with pain and the dying body is something we will all have to do unless we die in an accident quickly. I wonder if that release from attachment comes for any of us, or if it comes only for Ariyans. Metta, Phil p.s I see in a post intro that Nina refers to your "whatever comes, comes", and I often think of that too. Even though I am happy that my morality has improved a lot, and has become quite refined, I know that it does't guarantee anything, whatever comes, comes. But I like my improving probabilities, and I like yours, though I don't know in detail how you behave. I have a feeling you behave very well and have during your life...and you have such a good, balanced, open-minded approach to Dhamma and a wonderful gift for explaining your understanding in a non-forceful way. Whatever comes, comes, but I have a feeling you (the namas and rupas that we call Han) are in a good position to approach leaving this world... #112124 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (111980) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > there are many instances in the suttas of dhammas and their functions being described in conventional terms which, to the casual reader, > > > > You mean the reader who actually reads what is there? > > > > > would be suggestive of people and things and actions. > > > > And how does the non-casual reader read those words, by refusing to give them the meaning that they actually have? How is this accomplished? > > =============== > > J: An example of the sort of thing I had in mind might be the description of the first of the Four Noble Truths. That description reads: > > "And what is the noble truth of dukkha? Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha. > > On a superficial reading one is likely to take the references to birth, aging, death, etc in their conventional sense. But as the sutta goes on to point out, these are actually references to the five aggregates of clinging. So this truth may be stated as: All dhammas other than those not capable of being clung to are dukkha. > > In this particular instance the 'paramattha' explanation is provided within the sutta itself. But often it is left to the commentaries to give that explanation. I think it's a good example, but again it's an example of how both conventional dhammas and paramatha dhammas are included in the Buddha's teaching. You have chosen to interpret the above description of the 1st Noble Truth as saying that the conventional objects named equal the paramatha dhammas which you attribute to the last phrase, but there are a number of unsubstantiated presuppositions in this interpretation: 1. Buddha here has not said that life, dissatisfaction and death = paramatha dhammas. He has said that the five clinging attributes = life, dissatisfaction and death. While this may ultimately break down to paramatha dhammas, that is not what Buddha teaches here. Here he says that we should understand that birth, dissatisfaction, death, etc., are, as he puts it, "in short, the five clinging aggregates." In other words, he is speaking in terms of conventional dukkha, not dukkha in ultimate terms. Let's look at the beginning of your citation again: ""And what is the noble truth of dukkha? Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha." Buddha says this is the noble truth of dukkha. He doesn't say "the noble truth is that paramatha dhammas have dukkha as an inherent characteristic." He leaves that for another phase of teaching, which does not contradict this one. If we cannot deeply contemplate and accept that our selves, lives and bodies as we know and experience them are temporary and unsatisfying, I doubt we will ever understand the truth of ultimate realities. The tendency to dismiss the conventional level, which really does affect us in our lives as worldlings every day, month and year, is, in my opinion, a critical error. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112125 From: "philip" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:30 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. philofillet Hi all > > P. S. I care much for you as well, Ken! I have nothing but truly good will > > for you, my friend. > > I wish I could say the same, Ken. I'm just kidding! :-) = = = = = I wish I could say the same, and I'm not kidding. There is a lot of aversion a lot of the time towards Mr. Only Nama And Rupa. But it is only nama and rupa so can be understood, eh? But the aversion I feel towards Ken H' s ideas (and his ideas are all I know, haven't him) is really, really intense at times. As I was saying in a post to Han, that aversion indicates a strong interest in having a correct understanding of Dhamma combined with strong cliging to my views, so in that sense it is not a bad thing, I want to have strong desire to understand correct Dhamma and I would rather cling to Dhamma than many other things. And of course I don't sit around wishing for Ken H to suffer unspeakable suffering...not yet, at least. Metta, Phil #112126 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 12:40 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (112079) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > J: I'm reading the reference to "attending carefully" as being a reference to kusala, that's all ;-)). > > > > If that is the basis for saying it is not practice, but is "various moments of kusala," I have to repeat my objection that you are contradicting the words of the Buddha. He did not say "attending carefully" in a passive context, as in "careful attending will arise in such a case," but said directly "...then he should attend carefully." It is precisely this wording which directly states that he is recommending a volitional action to be taken on by the practitioner, *not* something that happens by itself. "Then he should attend..." is an imperative, not a description of something that may happen. If you feel comfortable changing the syntax to mean what you want it to mean, I would like to know the basis for doing so, other than your own preference. > > =============== > > J: In general, each part of the Tipitaka must be read in the context of the rest of the Tipitaka. This seems to me a tricky way of justifying an interpretation of the part of the Dhamma you want to change in terms of the part that you think is correct. > In particular, 2 comments/observations. > > First, when the Buddha was talking to those who were of already advanced awareness/understanding and capable of enlightenment within that lifetime (as he was when many of the suttas were being delivered), he often used conventional language to refer to paramattha matters, since his audience already 'got' the paramattha meaning of what he was saying. Evidence for this, please? > Secondly, since you mention "changing the syntax", it needs to be recognised that the syntaxes of English and Pali are different and this sometimes leads to the English conveying a different shade of meaning. > > For example, the Pali suffix "-abba" when attached to a verb form apparently means something like "is to be [done]" (in the sense of "suitable/fit to be [done]"). This is often translated as "should be [done]", the closest modern-day English equivalent; for example, "sevittabba" is given as "should be followed" when in fact it carries no sense of an imperative in the original Pali. It seems to me in the context of saying, for instance: "If the monk wants to develop awareness of the repugnant in the beautiful [or whatever...] it is suitable for it to be done that he hold this awareness in his anapanasati practice," rather than "he should hold this awareness...," that in fact in context that is either still an imperative, or at least a strong suggestion of 'what to do.' I can see that it might change the sense of the imperative in some cases, but in many the sense of the Buddha given an instruction, admonition or advice is strong enough that it would remain intact. > (Having said all that, I have no idea whether these considerations apply to the "attending to carefully" passage!) (Disclaimer/Health warning: I know very little about Pali; Nina or others will be able to explain better). That will be great if someone can help us with that translation point. I am happy to compare translations. However, the Buddha's formulations or equations that "in order to do x one must do y," or *might* do y, or *should or could* do y, all add up to volitional action leading to a particular result. If Buddha did not intend this to be helpful information leading to Right Action, he would not have mentioned it, as Buddha explicitly said that there were many things he knew that he did not teach because they did not lead to the understanding and elimination of dukkha. Therefore, what he did teach, and the information he put forth, is all intended to be used towards liberation from suffering. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112127 From: Herman Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. egberdina Hi Rob E, On 23 November 2010 08:39, Robert E wrote: > > > Just as an aside, the notion of control is a red herring in my opinion. > No > > need to discuss it here, but just to give some evidence, there is this > from > > DN15: > > > > "Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward order, in > > reverse order, in forward and reverse order, > > I like this, Herman. It sounds a lot like driving a car though. ;-) > > :-) > > ...when he attains them and > > > emerges from them ***wherever he wants, however he wants, and for as long > as > > he wants***, when through the ending of the mental fermentations he > enters > > and remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release and > > discernment-release, having directly known it and realized it in the here > > and now, he is said to be a monk released in both ways. And as for > another > > release in both ways, higher or more sublime than this, there is none." > > This is a good reference for skillful control as part of the attainment of > the Dhamma, indeed. This is a different kind of control than personal > life-control. It has to do with skill. I think there is a worthy distinction > of some kind there. > > It does have to do with skill. The belief that skillful control is based in self-view has no foundation. Skillful control can be recognised by the successful fruition of intention. Lack of skillful control can be recognised in such attitudes as "whatever will be, will be". Cheers Herman #112128 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:16 am Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. hantun1 Dear Robert E, [Robert E] I think we have to understand that both levels exist, and both are important. Otherwise we get into the unfortunate position of having to twist the Buddha's words to suit our understanding. [Robert E] Buddha wanted us to face every aspect of conventional reality in great detail, contemplate it, chew over it, get it into our system so that we live with understanding of the difficult and temporary nature of our life, body and senses. It is not correct to say that deep contemplation of conventional reality is not a very important part of the path that Buddha set out. [Robert E] Of course it is another level to understand microscopic conditionality and the nature of nama and rupa. It is like the work of a scientist who can see what things are really made of with a microscope. But this does not deny the importance of the more gross level of living that we experience every day, or its inclusion in the path by the Buddha. We do not have to deny the Buddha's teaching on daily living and our understanding of life in the larger sense in order to aim for a higher understanding. We can do both. ---------- [Han] I agree with your above points. Yes, we can do both. with metta and respect, Han #112129 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:17 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. hantun1 Dear Nina, [Nina]: You end your mail with: 'Whatever will be, will be!' and this shows that you understand very well that there is no question of: 'I cannot practise or I can practise', that it all depends on conditions. Very well said, Han. We may think that we cannot practise this or that, but even a little more understandinbg about our life is a gain. We cannot understand what is above us, but that does not matter. I am glad that you are not discouraged. Best wishes for your health, [Han] Your points are well taken. I also wish you and Lodewijk the best of health and happiness. Respectfully, Han #112130 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:20 am Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. hantun1 Dear Phil, [Phil]: The kind of meditation I do (rather irregularly these days) was developed by Ajahn Lee when he suffered a heartattack during a rains retreat and had no way to reach a hospital, so there is an emphasis on creating pleasant feelings in the body and it is quite suitable for developing a response to pain, I think, for developing some detachment from it. I think it is not a pure Buddhist meditation, the method is not like in the ancient texts, I feel, but I should do it more because dealing with pain and the dying body is something we will all have to do unless we die in an accident quickly. I wonder if that release from attachment comes for any of us, or if it comes only for Ariyans. [Phil] p.s I see in a post intro that Nina refers to your "whatever comes, comes", and I often think of that too. Even though I am happy that my morality has improved a lot, and has become quite refined, I know that it does't guarantee anything, whatever comes, comes. But I like my improving probabilities, and I like yours, though I don't know in detail how you behave. I have a feeling you behave very well and have during your life...and you have such a good, balanced, open-minded approach to Dhamma and a wonderful gift for explaining your understanding in a non-forceful way. Whatever comes, comes, but I have a feeling you (the namas and rupas that we call Han) are in a good position to approach leaving this world... -------------------- [Han] If the pain is not so severe, I can manage it. It will be no problem. I agree with you that "pain and the dying body is something we will all have to do unless we die in an accident quickly." Yes, I must go one day, and I pray for a quick exist. Last month, I took my wife (also a heart case) to see a Cardiologist. Before we could see her, I had a moderately severe chest pain right at the hospital. I had a history of coronary disease and an old infarct. At that time, I was not afraid. I was even wishing that when I die, I die of a massive heart attack. I also have the opinion that release from attachment would not come easily for any of mere puthujjanas, and it comes only for Ariyans. Even among Ariyans, Sotaapanna may not yet be released from attachment, because he/she has abandoned only di.t.thi and vicikicchaa. As regards "whatever will be, will be" I apply that principle only to the "results" or the "outcome" of my efforts, but not to the "process" or "efforts", such as, breath meditation, or reflection of the attributes of the Buddha, etc. For the "process", I will *try* my best as much as my frail body would permit me to do so. But I do not wish to go into the much-discussed topic of "should one try one's best?" which would lead me nowhere. with metta and respect, Han #112131 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:15 am Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. hantun1 Dear Lukas, [Lukas]: So in the moment of pain no control. I used to think the same when I had unpleasant feelings, why this happens? I am meditating and this doesnt go my way. So my meditation was acctually try to change this. But then I get it: dont try to change anything, just live it all as it is. Now nothing has changed but I am not so stressed about understanding something, this is the life, let it be. Actually Buddha often stressed about patticcasamupada, when there are conditions for griev, sorrow there will be grieve sorrow, so I think this is a good teaching to not try to change anything. [Han] I like what you said, Lukas. Thank you very much. with metta and respect, Han #112132 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:45 am Subject: Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > It does have to do with skill. The belief that skillful control is based in > self-view has no foundation. Skillful control can be recognised by > the successful fruition of intention. Lack of skillful control can be > recognised in such attitudes as "whatever will be, will be". Que sera, sera, Herman. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112133 From: Herman Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi Rob E, On 23 November 2010 12:18, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > There is no need to have views or theories about what is experienced. > Right > > view is attachment to no view. The Buddha says as much in the Sutta > Nipata > > 4:5. > > "[He]...doesn't fall back on any view whatsoever. One who isn't inclined > toward either side — becoming or not-, here or beyond — who has no > entrenchment when considering what's grasped among doctrines, hasn't the > least preconceived perception with regard to what's seen, heard, or sensed. > By whom, with what, should he be pigeonholed here in the world? — this > brahman who hasn't adopted views. They don't conjure, don't yearn, don't > adhere even to doctrines." > > I note that Buddha says in there, "when considering what's grasped among > doctrines." In other words, Buddha seems to be allowing that this Brahman, > who has no preconceptions and holds onto no view of his own, can then render > a judgment on whether doctrines he considers grasp the truth or not. It is > because he is free from doctrines himself that he has an objective access to > whether doctrines are worthwhile or not. Would you agree that this is what > that means? > > No, I don't :-) > Even if a doctrine is correct, however, Buddha says he "does not adhere to > [it.]" So he does not even hold onto or cling to a correct view. So he can't > be pigeonholed - he can't be associated with any particular doctrine. He is > not entrenched, attached, anchored to any view. > > I think, without having comparative translations at hand, I would guess > that he is saying that a doctrine may grasp A or B, and the Brahman can > acknowledge this, but he doesn't then conclude "Oh A is correct," or "Oh B > is correct," as any view, while it might be correct, is necessarily limited. > > Given what you said above, that "right view is attachment to no view," what > is the status then of the doctrines and communications of the Buddha through > sutta with respect to correct understanding of his teaching? Does Right View > not include a correct understanding of the path to dispassion and beyond > suffering? > > I don't think that the Buddha taught that understanding and practice are two separate things. Understanding is not something that one carries around, it is something that one does. Everywhere one looks, to anyone of note the Buddha taught jhanas, jhanas, jhanas. The entertaining of views and doctrines precludes any success in the jhanas. No way would the Buddha teach anything that thwarts success in the jhanas. > ... > > > > The Buddha didn't teach that one should have a certain theory of > perception. > > (That would include the theory of perception as first set forth in the > > Abhidhamma commentaries, some 1000 years after the Buddha walked the > earth). > > Just to question that, what do you think about the idea that to detach from > something, you have to have some clarity about what it is? > Attachment is not a thing, it is an action. To be able to let go of something, you first have to realise that you are clinging to it. That doesn't translate into first having to understand the object that is being clung to. That wouldn't be possible anyhow. If an object is clung to, it has already been invested with qualities that are unrelated to the object. > I think that is the basis of the Abhidhamma commentarial tradition, that by > knowing the mechanics of conditionality and how things arise independent of > self, one understands clearly that all those conditions and arising > phenomena are anatta, and in realizing this, one detaches from them and is > eventually liberated from all such attachments, from the whole mechanism. > > I understand certain sections of the Abhidhamma like the Dhammasangani and the Patthana to be roadmaps for meditators. There is no knowing the Abhidhamma apart from doing the Abhidhamma. The notion of theoretical understanding accumulating to some critical mass where things take care of themselves is an invention of the latter-day commentators. > If you disagree with that notion, what do you think constitutes the > conditions for greater and greater detachment from all phenomena? > Clinging to them less and less :-) Seeing that the supposed reasons for clinging are not in the phenomena at all, but are only a function of how you want them to be. > In other words, another way of saying "what is the path" with respect to > deepening and finally concluding dispassion for all phenomena and the world. > > Would you like to have dispassion for the world? Why? To the extent that you believe your passions for the world are warranted, you'll keep projecting them out there. And to the extent that you realise that your passions are unwarranted, you'll stop. Dukkha makes itself known, no need to go chasing it :-) And it sure as hell can't be learned from a book :-) > > > He taught, as you say, that whatever formations arise are impermanent and > a > > source of stress/angst, and that all phenomena are not-self. And he > taught a > > total disinterest in the world, as an antidote. > > I think below you are suggesting that a crisis of worldly involvement is a > necessary condition for such disinterest, but I don't think you'd say that > this is enough by itself to complete the removal of oneself from worldly > attachment and involvement... > > So how is such disinterest cultivated? > Living honestly. And that would include acknowledging that the present level of interest/disinterest is just how you want things to be. > The commentarial tradition would say through discernment of the nature of > phenomena through understanding and then direct seeing. I guess the > meditation tradition would say that one both calms formations and detaches > from phenomena through jhana and mindfulness leading to insight... > > > > Such a teaching cannot possibly appeal to anyone who is quite happy with > > formations as they come and go, so those who follow the Buddha's > teachings > > are a self-selecting set, driven by dukkha aka existential angst. > > I found this striking and contemplated it a bit. I had a pretty severe > crisis at one point that challenged my identity pretty thoroughly, and I > wondered, after reading what you wrote, why that hadn't sent me off onto a > path of renunciation. I mean it did take me some years to integrate back > into the world - at least to some extent - but didn't reduce my interest in > the world, or my basic enjoyment of being alive, despite a real period of > serious suffering. And then it occurred to me that there is a big difference > between a crisis of any kind, even if it crushes you, and the development of > real nibbida, disenchantment with life itself. I realized that I have not > developed this, and it's really fascinating for me to see this. In a way I > have felt detached from life from the time I was a little child, but always > fascinated with it. Looking at myself in the third person, it's really > strange and interesting combination - like a visitor from somewhere who > likes to watch what's happening, and participate a little bit too. But no > real disgust for living, even though I am aware of all the brutality of this > world. Strange. So my relationship with Buddhism is a very developmental > one, rather than a desire to end anything. My craving is more for > enlightenment than relief. > > Thanks for sharing the above. I sincerely appreciated it. > > I don't have a problem with people relishing life or wealth or relishing > the > > pursuit of knowledge of various kinds etc, and I don't propose that > people > > ought to have, or could learn, a sense of dukkha, but it doesn't hurt to > be > > clear about what the Buddha did and didn't teach, and why. > > Very illuminating. I think - or maybe hope - there are more or less radical > ways of approaching the path. There's dispassion leading to retreat from the > world, and then there's gradual insight leading to greater detachment and > equanimity - more my situation. Not sure how they relate to each other, but > perhaps they are different phases of the same thing, or maybe they are > different ways of approaching the Buddha's message and pathway based on > temperament. Am I copping out? :-) > I doubt it, Rob, I think you're doing as you see fit, just like the rest of us. Copping out would be blaming accumulations for whatever you're doing. Cheers Herman #112134 From: Herman Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. egberdina Hi Rob E, On 25 November 2010 13:45, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > It does have to do with skill. The belief that skillful control is based > in > > self-view has no foundation. Skillful control can be recognised by > > the successful fruition of intention. Lack of skillful control can be > > recognised in such attitudes as "whatever will be, will be". > > Que sera, sera, Herman. :-) > > Yes, Doris Day truly was amongst the arahants :-) Cheers Herman #112135 From: Herman Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 3:22 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. egberdina Hi Ken H, On 24 November 2010 16:58, Ken H wrote: > > > Hi Howard, > > ----------- > KH: >> There is only one ultimate reality. > >> > > H: > I agree with that, Ken, though I'd drop the superfluous 'ultimate'. > -------------- > > But there are conventional realities and conventional illusions, aren't > there? (People and trees etc as distinct from unicorns etc.) > > Have you given up on those pesky but ultimate cheating dhammas, Ken ? You know the kind I mean, those wicked dhammas that "disguise themselves". Would the real panna please stand up? :-) Cheers Herman > #112136 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 3:26 am Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. epsteinrob Hi Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > [Han] I agree with your above points. > Yes, we can do both. > > with metta and respect, > Han Thank you, Han. I appreciated your posts when you were so ill. I am very glad you have gotten better from your illness, and I'm glad to have a chance to say hello to you. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #112137 From: "philip" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 3:42 am Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. philofillet Hi Han > As regards "whatever will be, will be" I apply that principle only to the "results" or the "outcome" of my efforts, but not to the "process" or "efforts", Ph: Right, when I listen to the recollections on ageing, death, etc recited in Pali and Thai, I put it on repeat on my ipod and just listen to it again and again and kind of soak in usually vague reflectoins on it. And what it does most importantly is get me rooted again and again in understanding that what we do counts, that there are results of our deeds, and it is not too late, never too late, to purify our deeds so there is less likelihood (but whatever will be, will be) that they bring bad results for us and others. > such as, breath meditation, or reflection of the attributes of the Buddha, etc. For the "process", I will *try* my best as much as my frail body would permit me to do so. But I do not wish to go into the much-discussed topic of "should one try one's best?" which would lead me nowhere. Ph: Oh, we don't have to worry about that "should one try one's best" topic, obviously we should try our best. Some of the topics that are discussed endlessly at DSG are not so interesting to me because there is personally no doubt for me that we should try out best no matter what to avoid doing bad things and do good things. It is an added bonus to that that we can also on occasion reflect on deeper topics such as those offered to us by Nina, Sarah and all, but first things first as far as I'm concerned. Speaking of meditation, I remember that in the past I have asked you about your method of meditating on impermanence. Since reflection on annica etc in its brief rising and falling momentarily sense is almost completely absent from my life, I think it would be good if I practiced that way a bit more. Would you mind if I asked you again to post a brief description of how you meditate on annica? If you are concerned that posting it publically will lead to bothersome complaints from those who preach against what we consider to be meditation, please feel free to send it to me offlist. Thanks always, Han. You consider to be such an important Dhamma friend for me. (For those who don't know, it was a simple one sentence from Han that helped guide me back to paying a lot of attention to Sila. He wrote 'I have a feeling some of my friends here don't pay enough attention to sila' or words like that, and for whatever reason it just clicked at that point, and I realized I was such a person...) Metta, Phil #112138 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:48 am Subject: Enthusiastic is Energy! bhikkhu5 Friends: Energy is the 5th Mental Perfection: Energy means enthusiasm, effort, exertion and interest! Energy means eagerness, endeavour, initiative and intensity! Energy means action, force, power, drive and hyper keenness! Energy means devotion, dedication, determination & commitment! Energy means enjoyment :-) Energy pave the way for success in all and any project ... Energy is thereby instrumental for all the perfections! Without Energy no achievement can ever be accomplished.. The proximate cause for Energy is a sense of urgency! The characteristic of Energy is Striving, its function is Effort, and the manifestation of Energy is Endurance. The Blessed Buddha said about the perfection of Energy: Get up! Sit up! Of what use are your dreams ? How can you sleep, when mentally sick, stabbed by the arrow of urge and craving. Sutta Nipata 331 Get up! Sit up! Push on your training, until reaching pure peace! Don't let the king of death -Mara- see you sloppy and thus delude and dominate you like a stringed toy doll... Sutta Nip ata 332 Possessed of Energy and Endurance be always Earnest in your training. The clever one is not satisfied before the final goal of ending all misery is completely achieved. Theragatha 585 It is too cold, it's too hot, it's too early, it is too late! Such bad excuses, makes one give up the training and miss one more precious opportunity to end suffering... DN 31 This straight and Noble Way has now been clearly shown: Donďż˝t hesitate, walk forward and do not turn around. Urge yourself to advance further by your own Energy! Only thus will you obviously approach and attain Nibbana! Theragatha 637 The efforts to prevent and to eliminate all evil. The efforts to develop and to maintain all good. These are the 4 right efforts, taught by the Buddha. AN II 17 And what, friends, is feeding the Energy Link to Enlightenment, not yet arisen, & food too for boosting of any present Energy ? 1: The element of initial initiative, 2: The element of launching into action, 3: The element of persistent endurance. Systematic attention to these 3 aspects, is feeding your Energy and is boosting any already present Energy. Samyutta Nikaya XLVI 51 Bojjhanga-samyutta At such times, when the mind is Slow, Sluggish, and Heavy: Then it is the right occasion: for cultivating: The Investigation-by-curiosity enlightenment-factor, The Energy-of-Enthusiasm enlightenment-factor, The Rapture-of-Joy enlightenment-factor... Why is it so ? When the mind is slow, sluggish, and heavy, it is easily raised up by exactly these 3 mental qualities. Suppose, friends, that a man wants a fire to blaze up, and he put on dry grass, dry wood sticks and blow it with dry hot air and do not cover it with any dust, would that man then see his fire blaze up ? Certainly So, Lord... SN V, 46. Bojjhanga-samyutta When Moggallana where sitting nodding in the jungle night: Well then, Moggallana, whatever experience you had in mind when drowsiness demoralized you down, don't attend to that experience, don't follow it. Remember instead the Dhamma, as you have heard & memorized it, reflect on & examine it! Then raise up & repeat aloud the details of Dhamma, as you have learnt it! Then pull both your earlobes and rub your limbs with both your hands.! Then get up from your seat, and after washing your eyes with cold water, look around and upward in all directions and identify the major stars & planets! Then attend to the experience of inner light, resolve on the clear perception of daytime, by night as by day, and by day as by night! By means of an Awareness thus open, unhindered & vivid, develop the bright mind. Its possible, that by doing this, you will shake off your lethargy... But if by doing this you don't shake off your laziness, then continually noting what is both in front and behind set of a distance to meditate walking back and forth, your senses inwardly settled, while your mind is not getting lost outwards. It is possible that by doing this you will shake off all your mental sluggishness... Anguttara Nik aya VII 58 Born as the Brahmin Mahajanaka, the Bodhisatta was once aboard a sinking ship far from shore. All the crew were in great panic...!!! The Bodhisatta though ate his belly full of sugar and ghee, oiled his clothes and swam continuously for 7 days towards the shore, until he was rescued by a guarding female devata. Later he remembered: "Even far out at sea, where many men were lost, yet still unruffled by worry was my mind. I just kept swimming for seven days! This was my perfection of Energy." Mahajanaka-Jataka no. 539 SPREADING FAME One who exerts effort, One who is alert and always aware, One who does good deeds voluntarily and deliberately, One who is kind and considerate in all dealings, One who is restrained and controlled, One who lives according to the real truth of the Dhamma, carefully and seriously, the fame of such one always grows! Dhammapada Illustration 24 Background Story 24 SAFETY By arousing & inspiring oneself to put forth energetic effort; By meticulous carefulness; By well restrained self-control; The wise and clever ones make themselves a safe island, no flood or fever of desire can ever overwhelm! Dhammapada Illustration 25 Background Story 25 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112139 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:02 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard and Ken, > Op 24-nov-2010, om 14:56 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > > KH: >> Nina mentioned "going towards its ending," does that qualify? > > >> > > > > N: > That phrase provides no clarification. What is meant by "going > > towards"? If not "undergoing change," then nothing at all. > > -------------- > > N: Sorry, that is not my phrase but Howard's. ---------------------------- Hi Nina and Howard, That was my typo, Nina, sorry. In the same post I also attributed one of Howard's comments to me: KH: > You're playing a card game looking in a book instead of the > hand you are holding. Whatever I was doing I wasn't paying attention, that's for sure. :-) Ken H #112140 From: "philip" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:07 am Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. philofillet Hi again Han Oops! >You consider to be such an important Dhamma friend for me. I meant to write "I consider you to be such an important friend for me", but you can consider it too! That was maybe a good typo. Reflecting that we are important Dhamma friends for others gives us confidence that we are using our rare human birth wisely... :) Metta, Phil #112141 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > I note that Buddha says in there, "when considering what's grasped among > > doctrines." In other words, Buddha seems to be allowing that this Brahman, > > who has no preconceptions and holds onto no view of his own, can then render > > a judgment on whether doctrines he considers grasp the truth or not. It is > > because he is free from doctrines himself that he has an objective access to > > whether doctrines are worthwhile or not. Would you agree that this is what > > that means? > > > > > No, I don't :-) So you think that 'when considering doctrines,' his response would be to take no position one way or the other? > I don't think that the Buddha taught that understanding and practice are two > separate things. Understanding is not something that one carries around, it > is something that one does. Everywhere one looks, to anyone of note the > Buddha taught jhanas, jhanas, jhanas. The entertaining of views and > doctrines precludes any success in the jhanas. No way would the Buddha teach > anything that thwarts success in the jhanas. Thank you for clarifying that. I wondered whether you felt jhana was central to the path, as well as I have wondered about the role of jhana on the path myself. It makes sense to me that the ability to abide in a deep meditative state, removed from turbulence and distraction, is a necessary place to go for deep insight, even while acknowledging the potential to become addicted to the state itself, and skip the insight part, as some yogis have done for many centuries. But jhana and deep samadhi have been the doorways to go beyond the personal self for thousands of years in a variety of traditions. The Buddha has the cleanest and most complete exit strategy, but it doesn't hurt to understand the ubiquitous nature of some of the technology, and the physiological advantage it contains. So - what do you think are the chances of succeeding in jhana within the householder's lifestyle? I guess at minimum, it would require a real commitment and discipline to remove oneself from to-do-list-based activities for decent periods of time within the hectic course of events. > Attachment is not a thing, it is an action. To be able to let go of > something, you first have to realise that you are clinging to it. That > doesn't translate into first having to understand the object that is being > clung to. That wouldn't be possible anyhow. If an object is clung to, it has > already been invested with qualities that are unrelated to the object. I would tend to agree that the most important thing is to recognize the clinging, rather than the full nature of the object. It is similar to Buddha saying that if the house is on fire or if you are shot with an arrow, you don't need to know all the details before you leave the house or pull out the arrow. > I understand certain sections of the Abhidhamma like the Dhammasangani and > the Patthana to be roadmaps for meditators. There is no knowing the > Abhidhamma apart from doing the Abhidhamma. The notion of theoretical > understanding accumulating to some critical mass where things take care of > themselves is an invention of the latter-day commentators. This is interesting for me to hear. I had that impression from segments and summaries - leaving aside the great complexity of those volumes. But it is clear that applying the analysis through meditation in order to realize its meaning is built-in to parts of the Abhidhamma as you say. > > If you disagree with that notion, what do you think constitutes the > > conditions for greater and greater detachment from all phenomena? > > > > Clinging to them less and less :-) :-) > Seeing that the supposed reasons for clinging are not in the phenomena at > all, but are only a function of how you want them to be. And what you hope to get out of them. > > In other words, another way of saying "what is the path" with respect to > > deepening and finally concluding dispassion for all phenomena and the world. > > > > > > Would you like to have dispassion for the world? Why? To the extent that you > believe your passions for the world are warranted, you'll keep projecting > them out there. And to the extent that you realise that your passions are > unwarranted, you'll stop. Dukkha makes itself known, no need to go chasing > it :-) And it sure as hell can't be learned from a book :-) So do you think the critical mass of dukkha leading to dispassion must come from a crisis of extreme suffering + a crisis of clinging? As I said before, I had a strong enough period of suffering for a while to convince me to get disgusted with the whole thing, but my clinging was strong enough to withstand it! :-) Rob: ...Looking at myself in the third person, it's really > > strange and interesting combination - like a visitor from somewhere who > > likes to watch what's happening, and participate a little bit too. But no > > real disgust for living, even though I am aware of all the brutality of this > > world. Strange. So my relationship with Buddhism is a very developmental > > one, rather than a desire to end anything. My craving is more for > > enlightenment than relief. > > > > > Thanks for sharing the above. I sincerely appreciated it. :-) Rob: > > ...I think - or maybe hope - there are more or less radical > > ways of approaching the path. There's dispassion leading to retreat from the > > world, and then there's gradual insight leading to greater detachment and > > equanimity - more my situation. Not sure how they relate to each other, but > > perhaps they are different phases of the same thing, or maybe they are > > different ways of approaching the Buddha's message and pathway based on > > temperament. Am I copping out? :-) > > > > I doubt it, Rob, I think you're doing as you see fit, just like the rest of > us. Copping out would be blaming accumulations for whatever you're doing. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #112142 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. epsteinrob Hi Herman. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > On 25 November 2010 13:45, Robert E wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Herman. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > Herman wrote: > > > > > It does have to do with skill. The belief that skillful control is based > > in > > > self-view has no foundation. Skillful control can be recognised by > > > the successful fruition of intention. Lack of skillful control can be > > > recognised in such attitudes as "whatever will be, will be". > > > > Que sera, sera, Herman. :-) > > > > > > Yes, Doris Day truly was amongst the arahants :-) Ha ha - thanks for giving me my always-needed laugh for the night. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #112143 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:51 am Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. hantun1 Dear Phil, I enjoy reading your post. Yes, it was a good typo. We can consider each other to be important Dhamma friends. [Phil] Would you mind if I asked you again to post a brief description of how you meditate on annica? If you are concerned that posting it publically will lead to bothersome complaints from those who preach against what we consider to be meditation, please feel free to send it to me offlist. [Han] I will do it off-list. With metta and respect, Han #112144 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:28 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------- <. . .> H: > I haven't a clue of what "unconventional" change is. An alleged "change" that is something other than the alteration of qualities, activities, and experience is nothing at all. It is never observed is pure fable. ------- As uninstructed worldlings, we only know conventional characteristics. They don't apply to anything that is ultimately real, but they can be understood as shadows of ultimate characteristics. Therefore, change, as we commonly know it, can be understood as being a bit like anicca, which is the only real change. ----------------------- <. . .> KH: >> How would *you* define decay? (Remember your definition has to be in accordance with anatta.) >> H: > Decay with respect to any quality or function is a degradation (across time). ----------------------- I suspected as much! In effect, you are seeing ultimate characteristics as shadows of conventional characteristics. It should be the other way round! --------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> <. . .> "visible objects" are another matter. As central components of the Buddha's teaching, they deserve all the respect we can give them. >> H: >You need to read more suttas: > The Aggregates are Void ------------------------------------- I am not going over all that again. Anyone can quote isolated suttas in support of their favourite heterodoxies. The proper thing is to understand each sutta in the context of the entire Suttanta. (And the entire Pali canon, of course.) ------------------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> They are in every kalapa of rupas. So they mostly go unseen. >> H: > Ken, this is rote recitation. Do you have a kalapa drawer at home. Oh, and BTW, where in the tipitaka is it said that visible objects are to be found in all kalapas? --------------------------------------------------- Is it rote recitation, or is it Dhamma study? I don't know if the breakdown of kalapas is in the Tipitaka specifically, but it is somewhere in the Pali texts. --------------------- <. . .> H: > They, like everything we encounter is, as a separate entity, a matter of convention. Their being merely conventional is an aspect of their being anatta. ---------------------- You are entitled to your own version of the Dhamma, of course, but I don't think you should be surprised when people say things that contradict it. Nina, for example, was telling us about change as it was explained in the Abhidhamma and commentaries. You'll have to get used to that sort of thing. :-) -------------------------- <. . .> H: >>> And this is not a matter of my reading about the subject and acceding to a teaching but is a matter of my directly apprehending and understanding this. There is no question that all that one ever literally sees are what appears to eye-door consciousness. >>> KH: >> If you are trying to tell me you have attained direct right understanding, . . . don't. :-) >> H: > Why do you find feel the need to restate what I say? Is it pleasant to reformulate to match your preferences? ------------------------------ It's just another failure of communication. I still don't know what you meant by your "directly apprehending and understanding." But I am happy to leave it, if you prefer. ------------------------------------ <. . .> H: >>> Don't you know what seeing is, and what is seen? >>> KH: >> Apart from my Dhamma studies, I have no idea whatsoever. >> H: > That's not less than amazing, and a real shame. ------------------------------------- I was forgetting that you rejected the reality of namas and rupas. You think right understanding is of a conventional nature. I don't. Ken H #112145 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:12 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > H: > Decay with respect to any quality or function is a degradation (across time). > ----------------------- > > I suspected as much! In effect, you are seeing ultimate characteristics as shadows of conventional characteristics. > > It should be the other way round! > > --------------------------- Decay and degradation are human definitions of changes witnessed in conventional reality. To make them a shadow of something that exists in a single moment in fairyland is a mockery of what they mean by definition. Just as you insist that anicca is a characteristic that can exist in a single moment even though it is defined as change and temporariness, which by definition don't exist without change over time, these are concepts that have been made arcane to the point of having no describable or definable meaning. You can't even say yourself how decay or anicca could be characteristics without describing them in terms of time - you just repeat that they are "characteristics of dhammas" without being able to say anything more about how they exist or how it is possible. It is no different than making up a word and insisting it exists without defining it. > KH: >> <. . .> "visible objects" are another matter. As central components of the Buddha's teaching, they deserve all the respect we can give them. > >> > > H: >You need to read more suttas: > > > The Aggregates are Void > > ------------------------------------- > > I am not going over all that again. Anyone can quote isolated suttas in support of their favourite heterodoxies. The proper thing is to understand each sutta in the context of the entire Suttanta. (And the entire Pali canon, of course.) Yes, but can you say anything intelligible about *what* that context is, or what it adds up to? How does it turn out that the context of the Pali canon is what you want it to be and not something else? You should be able to justify the view that what the Buddha plainly says about Right Effort and practice are not literally meant, but are just arising dhammas and that they support your no volition/dhammas arising view. You should be able to demonstrate this by at least some comparitive quotes from sutta and Abhidhamma that demonstrate that Buddha really did mean what you think he meant by his many pronouncements in the body of sutta, not just make some general comment about "context" and then claim it supports your view rather than another. That is just loose talk. > ------------------------------------------------- > > You are entitled to your own version of the Dhamma, of course, but I don't think you should be surprised when people say things that contradict it. Nina, for example, was telling us about change as it was explained in the Abhidhamma and commentaries. You'll have to get used to that sort of thing. :-) That is funny to hear you talk about someone else having their own version of Dhamma. Both sutta AND Abhidhamma talk about meditation as the proving ground for the analysis of Dhamma. It is only in your selected commentaries and sub-commentaries and latter-day interpretations of selected teachers that you find your view of the Dhamma, which contradicts the explicit words of the Buddha. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112146 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Han and Phil, Ah, no, do not send it offlist. Why would there be bothersome complaints? We are all different, different accumulations, and that is understood. Nina. Op 25-nov-2010, om 5:51 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > [Phil] Would you mind if I asked you again to post a brief > description of how you meditate on annica? If you are concerned > that posting it publically will lead to bothersome complaints from > those who preach against what we consider to be meditation, please > feel free to send it to me offlist. > > [Han] I will do it off-list. #112147 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? nilovg Dear Jon, Op 24-nov-2010, om 23:56 heeft jonoabb het volgende geschreven: > For example, the Pali suffix "-abba" when attached to a verb form > apparently means something like "is to be [done]" (in the sense of > "suitable/fit to be [done]"). This is often translated as "should > be [done]", the closest modern-day English equivalent; for example, > "sevittabba" is given as "should be followed" when in fact it > carries no sense of an imperative in the original Pali. ------- N: Very good. It can also mean: can be... We had this in connection with texts stating about lobha that can be followed, lobha for arahatship, for someone who was already nearing this state. Nina. #112148 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:39 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/25/2010 12:29:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, ------- <. . .> H: > I haven't a clue of what "unconventional" change is. An alleged "change" that is something other than the alteration of qualities, activities, and experience is nothing at all. It is never observed is pure fable. ------- As uninstructed worldlings, we only know conventional characteristics. They don't apply to anything that is ultimately real, but they can be understood as shadows of ultimate characteristics. Therefore, change, as we commonly know it, can be understood as being a bit like anicca, which is the only real change. ----------------------------------------------------------- Anicca is not remaining the same; i.e., it is change. Oh, and BTW, it is not a paramattha dhamma, being neither nama nor rupa. So, it is not one of the worshipped "realities." So, you must run in fear! ;-)) ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- <. . .> KH: >> How would *you* define decay? (Remember your definition has to be in accordance with anatta.) >> H: > Decay with respect to any quality or function is a degradation (across time). ----------------------- I suspected as much! In effect, you are seeing ultimate characteristics as shadows of conventional characteristics. It should be the other way round! ------------------------------------------------------ I haven't a clue of what you are talking about, and on this issue I don't think you do either. Anicca is NOT an element of any khandha. ------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> <. . .> "visible objects" are another matter. As central components of the Buddha's teaching, they deserve all the respect we can give them. >> H: >You need to read more suttas: > The Aggregates are Void ------------------------------------- I am not going over all that again. Anyone can quote isolated suttas in support of their favourite heterodoxies. --------------------------------------------------------- Much better to ignore the Buddha's clear teaching and substitute one's own? You made no reply to what I quoted, choosing instead to avoid what is uncomfortable. --------------------------------------------------------- The proper thing is to understand each sutta in the context of the entire Suttanta. (And the entire Pali canon, of course.) -------------------------------------------------------- This is what has become a standard avoidance technique among some of the membership. This reply is empty of content and merely posing as an answer. ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> They are in every kalapa of rupas. So they mostly go unseen. >> H: > Ken, this is rote recitation. Do you have a kalapa drawer at home. Oh, and BTW, where in the tipitaka is it said that visible objects are to be found in all kalapas? --------------------------------------------------- Is it rote recitation, or is it Dhamma study? I don't know if the breakdown of kalapas is in the Tipitaka specifically, but it is somewhere in the Pali texts. -------------------------------------------------- Visible objects are not said to occur in all kalapas. And this is obvious. for when, for example, there is hearing of a sound, there is no visible object of consciousness. -------------------------------------------------- --------------------- <. . .> H: > They, like everything we encounter is, as a separate entity, a matter of convention. Their being merely conventional is an aspect of their being anatta. ---------------------- You are entitled to your own version of the Dhamma, of course, but I don't think you should be surprised when people say things that contradict it. Nina, for example, was telling us about change as it was explained in the Abhidhamma and commentaries. You'll have to get used to that sort of thing. :-) --------------------------------------------------- Tell me about this "change," Ken! What have you learned from Nina about it? Is it a paramattha dhamma? What is its nature? ---------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- <. . .> H: >>> And this is not a matter of my reading about the subject and acceding to a teaching but is a matter of my directly apprehending and understanding this. There is no question that all that one ever literally sees are what appears to eye-door consciousness. >>> KH: >> If you are trying to tell me you have attained direct right understanding, . . . don't. :-) >> H: > Why do you find feel the need to restate what I say? Is it pleasant to reformulate to match your preferences? ------------------------------ It's just another failure of communication. I still don't know what you meant by your "directly apprehending and understanding." -------------------------------------------------- I can't help that. ------------------------------------------------ But I am happy to leave it, if you prefer. ------------------------------------ <. . .> H: >>> Don't you know what seeing is, and what is seen? >>> KH: >> Apart from my Dhamma studies, I have no idea whatsoever. >> H: > That's not less than amazing, and a real shame. ------------------------------------- I was forgetting that you rejected the reality of namas and rupas. You think right understanding is of a conventional nature. I don't. ----------------------------------------------------- Apart from your Dhamma studies, you say, you have no idea of what seeing is and of what is seen. My evaluation of that remains as stated, "amazing, and a real shame". You wish to replace reality by words and thinking. That immerses you in a world of illusion, and I do consider it a shame. -------------------------------------------------- Ken H ============================= With metta, Howard /"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. "When hearing... "When sensing... "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer./ (From the Kalaka Sutta) #112149 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:08 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. nilovg Hi Howard (and Ken H), Thank you for your kind words. Yes, one can have different opinions, but this does not affect our friendship. Everybody is born with different inclinations, talents, likes and dislikes. Op 25-nov-2010, om 14:39 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Visible objects are not said to occur in all kalapas. And this is > obvious. for when, for example, there is hearing of a sound, there > is no > visible object of consciousness. ------ N: Colour is one of the eight inseparable ruupas, avinibhoga ruupas, present in every unit of ruupas. Only one of these can impinge on the appropriate doorway and is experienced, and at that moment the conascent ruupas are not experienced. But these condition the other ruupa. The different compositions of the great elements condition colours to be so different. ------ Nina. #112150 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:13 pm Subject: Re: be kind. nilovg Dear Philip, Op 25-nov-2010, om 1:30 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > There is a lot of aversion a lot of the time towards Mr. Only Nama > And Rupa. But it is only nama and rupa so can be understood, eh? > But the aversion I feel towards Ken H' s ideas (and his ideas are > all I know, haven't him) is really, really intense at times. ------- N: I would say, why not have a private talk off list with him? That could clear the atmosphere. Nina. #112151 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:24 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Ken) - In a message dated 11/25/2010 9:08:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard (and Ken H), Thank you for your kind words. Yes, one can have different opinions, but this does not affect our friendship. Everybody is born with different inclinations, talents, likes and dislikes. Op 25-nov-2010, om 14:39 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Visible objects are not said to occur in all kalapas. And this is > obvious. for when, for example, there is hearing of a sound, there > is no > visible object of consciousness. ------ N: Colour is one of the eight inseparable ruupas, avinibhoga ruupas, present in every unit of ruupas. Only one of these can impinge on the appropriate doorway and is experienced, and at that moment the conascent ruupas are not experienced. But these condition the other ruupa. The different compositions of the great elements condition colours to be so different. ------------------------------------------------- Thank you, Nina. I stand corrected! (My apologies on this matter, Ken.) So, there is always visible object "present" though not always as object. I suppose one can think of it as being present subliminally, with consciousness not taking it as an object. In looking this up, I see listed as the 8 inseparables the following: earth, air, fire, water, plus color, flavor, odor, and nutrition. (I find it odd that "nutrition" makes the cut but not sound, but c'est la vie!) --------------------------------------------------- ------ Nina. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112152 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:38 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 25-nov-2010, om 15:24 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > In looking this up, I see listed as the 8 inseparables the following: > earth, air, fire, water, plus color, flavor, odor, and nutrition. > (I find > it odd that "nutrition" makes the cut but not sound, but c'est la > vie!) ------ I think you have Ledi Sayadaw? He explains ruupas very well. And also the characteristic of ageing, he uses many synonyms, and this may help some people. Nina. #112153 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:01 am Subject: Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and Others) upasaka_howard Hi, all - Note, please the inclusion of "decay" within the following oh-so-conventional teaching. that in discussing the first noble truth clarifies what the Buddha meant by birth, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, despair, and the "suffering of not getting what one desires". Were the Buddha an anonymous poster on this list, I expect he would be ridiculed for his not understanding the Dhamma. With metta, Howard ____________________________ D.22 What, now, is the Noble Truth of Suffering? Birth is suffering; Decay is suffering; Death is suffering; Sorrow, Lamentation, Pain, Grief, and Despair are suffering; not to get what one desires, is suffering; in short: the Five Groups of Existence are suffering. What, now, is Birth? The birth of beings belonging to this or that order of beings, their being born, their conception and springing into existence, the manifestation of the Groups of Existence, the arising of sense activity: this is called birth. And what is Decay? The decay of beings belonging to this or that order of beings; their becoming aged, frail, grey, and wrinkled; the failing of their vital force, the wearing out of the senses: this is called decay. And what is Death? The departing and vanishing of beings out of this or that order of beings. their destruction, disappearance, death, the completion of their life-period, dissolution of the Groups of Existence, the discarding of the body: this is called death. And what is Sorrow? The sorrow arising through this or that loss or misfortune which one encounters, the worrying oneself, the state of being alarmed, inward sorrow, inward woe: this is called sorrow. And what is Lamentation? Whatsoever, through this or that loss or misfortune which befalls one, is wail and lament, wailing and lamenting, the state of woe and lamentation: this is called lamentation. And what is Pain? The bodily pain and unpleasantness, the painful and unpleasant feeling produced by bodily impression: this is called pain. And what is Grief? The mental pain and unpleasantness, the painful and unpleasant feeling produced by mental impression: this is called grief. And what is Despair? Distress and despair arising through this or that loss or misfortune which one encounters: distressfulness, and desperation: this is called despair. And what is the `Suffering of not getting what one desires'? To beings subject to birth there comes the desire; `O, that we were not subject to birth! O, that no new birth was before us!' Subject to decay, disease, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair, the desire comes to them: `O, that we were not subject to these things! O, that these things were not before us!' But this cannot be got by mere desiring; and not to get what one desires, is suffering. #112154 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:26 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/25/2010 9:39:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 25-nov-2010, om 15:24 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > In looking this up, I see listed as the 8 inseparables the following: > earth, air, fire, water, plus color, flavor, odor, and nutrition. > (I find > it odd that "nutrition" makes the cut but not sound, but c'est la > vie!) ------ I think you have Ledi Sayadaw? He explains ruupas very well. And also the characteristic of ageing, he uses many synonyms, and this may help some people. Nina. ===================================== Nina, I did not have any works by him, but as a consequence of your writing this, Nina, I have found and saved the amazing work _http://www.thebestfriend.org/wp-content/uploads/LeDi-The-Manual-of-Buddhism.pdf\ _ (http://www.thebestfriend.org/wp-content/uploads/LeDi-The-Manual-of-Buddhism.pdf\ ) . I've downloaded this for study from time to time, which could take several lifetimes, I think, just to get through! ;-) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112155 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and Others) nilovg Hi Howard, Op 25-nov-2010, om 16:01 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Note, please the inclusion of "decay" within the following > oh-so-conventional teaching. that in discussing the first noble > truth clarifies what > the Buddha meant by birth, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, > grief, > despair, and the "suffering of not getting what one desires". ------ N: His teaching in conventional language is no problem at all. He adapted his teaching to his listeners. When they were ready to accept the deeper teachings he would teach about paramattha dhammas. I will work this out later on in a post to Rob E. Nina #112156 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:16 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. kenhowardau Hi Phil, Howard, Rob E and all, Just in case there is any doubt, I should point out that I take no offence at any personal comments here at DSG. They are all part of robust discussion. In any case I probably deserve all I get - and more. ------- Ph: > There is a lot of aversion a lot of the time towards Mr. Only Nama And Rupa. But it is only nama and rupa so can be understood, eh? ------- Yes, there is only nama and rupa, but if you have unpleasant associations with those words you will be less likely to consider them. If someone in the past has irritated the hell out of you - answering all your arguments with "there is only nama and rupa" - he will have done you no favours. ----------------- Ph: > But the aversion I feel towards Ken H' s ideas (and his ideas are all I know, haven't him) is really, really intense at times. As I was saying in a post to Han, that aversion indicates a strong interest in having a correct understanding of Dhamma combined with strong clinging to my views, so in that sense it is not a bad thing, I want to have strong desire to understand correct Dhamma and I would rather cling to Dhamma than many other things. ----------------- Just remember that a wrong grasp of the Dhamma is worse than no grasp at all. It is not something to fool around with. (Not that you would do that, of course.) :-) Ken H #112157 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:49 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. kenhowardau Hi Herman, --------------- <. . .> KH: >> But there are conventional realities and conventional illusions, aren't there? (People and trees etc as distinct from unicorns etc.) >> H: > Have you given up on those pesky but ultimate cheating dhammas, Ken ? You know the kind I mean, those wicked dhammas that "disguise themselves". ---------------- I'm not sure I do know what you mean: I've never been good with cryptic comments. Could you spell it out for me? ------------------------- H: > Would the real panna please stand up? :-) ------------------------- It's not that easy; one million false pannas have already sprung to their feet. :-) Ken H #112158 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:52 pm Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. hantun1 Dear Nina (Phil), [Nina] Dear Han and Phil, Ah, no, do not send it offlist. Why would there be bothersome complaints? We are all different, different accumulations, and that is understood. [Han] Please forgive me Nina. I am doing all sorts of things; some are according to the books, some are not. It will not benefit others. And, I do not wish to be corrected. I am happy with what I am doing, whether it is right or wrong. Kindly understand me, please. Respectfully, Han #112159 From: Herman Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and Others) egberdina Hi Howard and Nina, On 26 November 2010 06:30, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > Hi Howard, > > Op 25-nov-2010, om 16:01 heeft upasaka@... het > volgende geschreven: > > > > Note, please the inclusion of "decay" within the following > > oh-so-conventional teaching. that in discussing the first noble > > truth clarifies what > > the Buddha meant by birth, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, > > grief, > > despair, and the "suffering of not getting what one desires". > Thanks for restating the obvious, Howard :-) > ------ > N: His teaching in conventional language is no problem at all. > Of course they were "no problem at all". They were, and are, sufficient for countless people throughout the ages. > He > adapted his teaching to his listeners. When they were ready to accept > the deeper teachings > I wonder at the the use of "deeper" here. > he would teach about paramattha dhammas. > The supposition that these "deeper" teachings are necessary in order to understand in practice is unfounded. Cheers Herman #112160 From: Herman Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:20 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. egberdina Hi Ken H, On 26 November 2010 08:49, Ken H wrote: > > > > > Hi Herman, > > --------------- > <. . .> > KH: >> But there are conventional realities and conventional illusions, > aren't there? (People and trees etc as distinct from unicorns etc.) > >> > > H: > Have you given up on those pesky but ultimate cheating dhammas, Ken ? > You know the kind I mean, those wicked dhammas that "disguise themselves". > ---------------- > > I'm not sure I do know what you mean: I've never been good with cryptic > comments. Could you spell it out for me? > > You say, and I agree with you, that there are conventional realities and conventional illusions. That was said, it seemed to me, in contrast to ultimate reality. I was trying to point out that there is no safety from illusion in the ultimate realm either, given the theory of cheating dhammas. > ------------------------- > H: > Would the real panna please stand up? :-) > ------------------------- > > It's not that easy; one million false pannas have already sprung to their > feet. :-) > Yes, exactly :-) That is why the standard appeal "panna knows" is hollow. Regardless of whether treating of conventional or ultimate reality, there is no guarantee of the truth of any understanding. Cheers Herman #112161 From: Herman Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:17 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. egberdina Hi Howard, On 26 November 2010 01:24, wrote: > > ------------------------------------------------- > Thank you, Nina. I stand corrected! (My apologies on this matter, > Ken.) So, there is always visible object "present" though not always as > object. > I suppose one can think of it as being present subliminally, with > consciousness not taking it as an object. > In looking this up, I see listed as the 8 inseparables the following: > earth, air, fire, water, plus color, flavor, odor, and nutrition. (I find > it odd that "nutrition" makes the cut but not sound, but c'est la vie!) > --------------------------------------------------- > I also find nutrition an oddity here. I also have question marks around space, femininity, masculinity and life faculty being classified as rupa, but c'est le theory :-) Cheers Herman #112162 From: "philip" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:27 pm Subject: Re: be kind. philofillet Hi Nina (and Ken H) Don't worry, it is the ideas I have a strong aversion to, not Ken H personally. I know if we got together we would get along fine. But because of my clinging to my views of Dhamma (which I consider to be correct, of course) I find his ideas almost offensive because I feel they reject the Buddha's gradual teaching. I should have added a joke smile mark when I wrote "I don't sit around wishing unspeakable suffering to Ken H...not yet at least." That was a joke. It's just the ideas, Nina. Not Ken H. So please don't be concerned. Metta, Phil p.s And how could it be Ken H that causes aversion? There is only the dhamma of this moment, fleeting, insignificant dhammas. Is that a joke? No, but I think believing that understanding of that degree should be central to our understanding of daily life is incorrect and maybe a bit absurd, maybe. Understanding understanding of that degree in theory is fine for me, and maybe, just maybe, now and then, an inkling of understanding of that degree will come to be and fall away again. But I don't want to be told that it should be central to my understanding of daily life. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Philip, > Op 25-nov-2010, om 1:30 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > > There is a lot of aversion a lot of the time towards Mr. Only Nama > > And Rupa. But it is only nama and rupa so can be understood, eh? > > But the aversion I feel towards Ken H' s ideas (and his ideas are > > all I know, haven't him) is really, really intense at times. > ------- > N: I would say, why not have a private talk off list with him? That > could clear the atmosphere. > #112163 From: "philip" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:32 pm Subject: Re: be kind. philofillet Hi again > p.s And how could it be Ken H that causes aversion? Of course Ken H as a concept would cause aversion, I can see that. Oh, the dhammas of the moment are cogulating into a concept, and I can just see him now, on that infernal devil's board of his, skimming over the churning surf while concocting new and infuriating ways to express his rejection of the True Dhamma. ;) Metta, Phil #112164 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 12:02 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---------- <. . .> RE: > Decay and degradation are human definitions of changes witnessed in conventional reality. ----------- Yes. ------------------- RE: > To make them a shadow of something that exists in a single moment in fairyland is a mockery of what they mean by definition. -------------------- 'Fairyland' 'mockery'? :-) I suppose the Abhidhamma does make a mockery of conventional reality. Or, more precisely, it makes a mockery of people (fools, madmen, run of the mill ordinary folk, uninstructed worldlings) who know of no higher reality. ------------------------------- RE: > Just as you insist that anicca is a characteristic that can exist in a single moment -------------------------------- I wouldn't insist that anicca existed. It is an inherent characteristic of every conditioned dhamma that exists, and so I suppose we could say it exists. But I wouldn't insist on it. :-) ---------------------------------- RE: > even though it is defined as change and temporariness, ---------------------------------- I know you think you have one this argument - having got support from both sides - but I am sticking to my guns. I have, however, learnt something in the process of this discussion. I have learnt that anicca is never the object of citta and panna. In a moment of pativeda-satipatthana when anicca is directly known, the actual object of consciousness is a nama or rupa, but panna knows its anicca characteristic. Apart from that I am sticking to my guns; anicca, dukkha and anatta are inherent characteristics that constitute the essence, or substance, of a dhamma. ---------------------- RE: > which by definition don't exist without change over time, --------------------- Which comes first, anicca or change over time? I would say anicca comes first. Dhammas are impermanent *because* they have the anicca characteristic. If they didn't have the anicca characteristic they might be permanent, who knows? ------------------------------- RE: > these are concepts that have been made arcane to the point of having no describable or definable meaning. You can't even say yourself how decay or anicca could be characteristics without describing them in terms of time - you just repeat that they are "characteristics of dhammas" without being able to say anything more about how they exist or how it is possible. It is no different than making up a word and insisting it exists without defining it. -------------------------------- I can and do say how they exist, but only with a beginner's understanding. Certainly not with enough understanding that I can pass it on to you! ---------------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> Anyone can quote isolated suttas in support of their favourite heterodoxies. The proper thing is to understand each sutta in the context of the entire Suttanta. (And the entire Pali canon, of course.) >> RE: > Yes, but can you say anything intelligible about *what* that context is, or what it adds up to? How does it turn out that the context of the Pali canon is what you want it to be and not something else? ------------------------------------------------ Ignoring your snide remarks :-) I can say there are at DSG two basic sides to this argument. One side says the Dhamma describes a single-moment universe, the other side says it doesn't. The former side can be supported without ever having to contradict the Pali texts. (All of the texts can be interpreted in accordance with it.) However, there are some texts that simply can't be interpreted in support the second side. And so the second side is frequently forced to reject large tracts of the Tipitaka and even larger tracts of the ancient commentaries. --------------------- RE: > You should be able to justify the view that what the Buddha plainly says about Right Effort and practice are not literally meant, but are just arising dhammas and that they support your no volition/dhammas arising view. ---------------------- More accurately, the view you are referring to is that any ordinary (conventional, run of the mill) interpretation of the Buddha's words must be a wrong interpretation. The true right-effort and right-practice are, as you say, momentary dhammas. Their arising or non-arising is dependent purely upon other conditioned dhammas. --------------------------------- RE: > You should be able to demonstrate this by at least some comparitive quotes from sutta and Abhidhamma that demonstrate that Buddha really did mean what you think he meant by his many pronouncements in the body of sutta, not just make some general comment about "context" and then claim it supports your view rather than another. That is just loose talk. -------------------------------- Yes, Robert. -------------------------------------------- <. . .> RE: > That is funny to hear you talk about someone else having their own version of Dhamma. Both sutta AND Abhidhamma talk about meditation as the proving ground for the analysis of Dhamma. It is only in your selected commentaries and sub-commentaries and latter-day interpretations of selected teachers that you find your view of the Dhamma, which contradicts the explicit words of the Buddha. ---------------------------------------------- Speaking of "own versions" I wonder if you have had experience with other Dhamma-discussion groups? Years ago, when I occasionally looked in on them, it was accepted practice for members to create their own versions. They would borrow a little from Zen, a little from Lamaism etc, wherever it suited them. And they would happily compare versions. Sometimes not so happily! I daresay it is still a common practice, but it is a very unwise one. There is only one true Dhamma, and so if you mix any two together you are sure to create a wrong one. Ken H #112165 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:31 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 11/25/2010 6:17:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, On 26 November 2010 01:24, wrote: > > ------------------------------------------------- > Thank you, Nina. I stand corrected! (My apologies on this matter, > Ken.) So, there is always visible object "present" though not always as > object. > I suppose one can think of it as being present subliminally, with > consciousness not taking it as an object. > In looking this up, I see listed as the 8 inseparables the following: > earth, air, fire, water, plus color, flavor, odor, and nutrition. (I find > it odd that "nutrition" makes the cut but not sound, but c'est la vie!) > --------------------------------------------------- > I also find nutrition an oddity here. I also have question marks around space, femininity, masculinity and life faculty being classified as rupa, -------------------------------------------- Me too! I consider space to be relational, femininity & masculinity to be fuzzy complexes of physical qualities, and life faculty to be nothing at all. ------------------------------------------ but c'est le theory :-) Cheers Herman ===================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112166 From: SARAH CONNELL Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 12:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. dhammasanna Dear Han, I am glad you are well on the mend from your surgery. I have had many serious abdominal surgeries and understand the long process including pain. I would also be very interested in your meditation on anicca. If you could please forward to me also. Thank you in advance.  May you be well and happy and always smiling,  Sarah #112167 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:06 pm Subject: Doubt & Uncertainty... bhikkhu5 Friends: Doubt and Uncertainty Perplex the Mind! A Brahmin once asked the Blessed Buddha: Master Gotama, what is the cause of being unable to remember something that has been memorized over a long period? The blessed Buddha answered: Brahmin, when mind is perplexed by doubt & uncertainty, undecided, baffled wavering and wobbling by doubt & uncertainty, and one does not understand any actual safe escape from this arisen states mental doubt & uncertainty, then one can neither see, nor ever understand any of what is advantageous, neither for oneself, nor for others, nor for both oneself and others! Then, consequently, what have been long memorized, cannot be remembered… Why is this neglect & amnesia so? Imagine a bucket of water that is muddy, unclear, cloudy, blurred and dark. If a man even with good eye-sight were to inspect the reflection of his own face in it, he would neither see, nor ever recognize it, as it really is! So too, brahmin, when mind is confused by doubt & uncertainty, baffled, bewildered and hesitating by doubt & uncertainty, on such occasion even things that have been long memorized, cannot recur to the mind, not to speak of those texts, events and important information, that have not been memorized at all… On how to prevent Skeptical Doubt & Uncertainty (Vicikicch a): Systematic Attention to scrutinizing investigation, examination & probing: 1: What is advantageous and what is detrimental here? 2: What is blameable and what is blameless in this situation? 3: What is ordinary and what is excellent in this particular case? 4: What is on the bright side and what is on the dark side in this aspect? Doubt, Uncertainty, Hesitation & Vexation leads to Frustrating Perplexity! Doubt stupefies action since decision to choose any alternative is blocked. <...> Vexation, Hesitation, Confusion and Painful Perplexity... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:123-4] section 46: The Links. 55: To Sangarava... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ Sri <...> #112168 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Han, Yes, it is all right, of course. Nina. Op 25-nov-2010, om 22:52 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I am happy with what I am doing, whether it is right or wrong. > Kindly understand me, please. #112169 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: be kind. nilovg Dear Phil and Ken H, Op 26-nov-2010, om 0:27 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > And how could it be Ken H that causes aversion? There is only the > dhamma of this moment, fleeting, insignificant dhammas. Is that a > joke? No, but I think believing that understanding of that degree > should be central to our understanding of daily life is incorrect > and maybe a bit absurd, maybe. ------- N: Phil, I know that you do not mean it personally when writing about Ken H's ideas. It just sounded a bit vehemently, but in the fire of the discussion... I understand. It is true that when really understanding that a person is naama and ruupa, it supports the mettaa and compassion. In a literal sense one does not take things personally anymore. That is why the Buddha has the greatest compassion and mettaa. Nina. #112170 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and Others) nilovg Hi Herman, Op 25-nov-2010, om 23:05 heeft Herman het volgende geschreven: > I wonder at the the use of "deeper" here. >> he would teach about paramattha dhammas. > > The supposition that these "deeper" teachings are necessary in > order to > understand in practice is unfounded. ------- N: This is a very good topic to discuss in your next get together in Manly. An important subject that cannot be dealt with in one post. Keep notes of these discussions, it will interest all of us. Nina. #112171 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:50 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (112080) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > The Buddha states in the sutta that there are both kusala and akusala actions AND mental states, and that both are important in his program for development. > > However, Jon states, in contradiction to the Buddha, that there are only kusala or akusala mental states, and that material actions are only kusala or akusala depending on the ethical quality of the mental state that accompanies them. In this regard, Buddha and Jon are in disagreement. > > Buddha inventoried specific actions and abstentions in the material world that he categorized as kusala or akusala on their face, NOT dependent on accompanying mental states, so he is clearly not saying what you would like him to say. If you have a basis for holding the view that you do about this in the face of the sutta, that you can reference from the actual sutta, I would like to know what it is. > =============== J: An example of restraint from killing that would not be kusala: A is about to kill B but refrains from doing so because suddenly he realises there is someone else present and he may get caught. OK, a somewhat contrived example perhaps, but you get the picture. Restraint from akusala is only kusala to the extent that the accompanying mental states are kusala Now I know this does not qualify as "a basis that you can reference from the actual sutta", but are we to ignore everything else we've learnt from the texts (and indeed commonsense as well!)? Jon #112172 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and Oth... upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Herman, and all) - In a message dated 11/26/2010 5:13:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Herman, Op 25-nov-2010, om 23:05 heeft Herman het volgende geschreven: > I wonder at the the use of "deeper" here. >> he would teach about paramattha dhammas. > > The supposition that these "deeper" teachings are necessary in > order to > understand in practice is unfounded. ------- N: This is a very good topic to discuss in your next get together in Manly. An important subject that cannot be dealt with in one post. Keep notes of these discussions, it will interest all of us. Nina. ====================================== I do believe that stages of awakening (i.e., the paths and fruits) are not attained without the occurrence of direct awareness (at some time: past, present, or future) of the fundamental mental and physical phenomena, namas and rupas, that appear to consciousness: awareness of them and also of their unsatisfactory and empty, i.e., transient, impersonal, contingent, and ungraspable nature. But I also believe that one's mind requires transformation before such awareness is operative, and that is what "conventional practice" as taught by the Buddha, including "formal meditation," is all about, training the mind in the development in the jhana factors and path factors so that it is possible to abandon for a time the more gross, conceptual levels of consciousness, setting aside the hindrances, for only at that point can the real work of Dhamma practice begin. With metta, Howard Hindrances /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #112173 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and Others) philofillet Hi Nina > N: His teaching in conventional language is no problem at all. He > adapted his teaching to his listeners. When they were ready to accept > the deeper teachings he would teach about paramattha dhammas. Ph: Exactly! How nice to read this. And "when they were ready" doesn't mean when they thought they were ready or when they wanted to study the deep teachings or felt like it (and we are all so prone to want to and feel like studying the deepest teachings possible) it means when the Buddha knew with the understanding of a Buddha that his listeners minds were ready, that they were pure white cloth that could absorb the teaching, not grimy rags. How does Acharn Sujin determine that her listeners minds are ready to accept the deeper teachings? I have never ready anything by her or you that didn't often make reference to paramattha teachings...please correct me if I'm wrong. (Perhaps I undersand what 'paramattha teachings' means, but I assume anything that is in Abhidhamma is paramattha?) Metta, Phil #112174 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 24-nov-2010, om 20:36 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > . I think sometimes in the desire to contemplate what is paramatha, > we fall into a bit of 'sutta denial,' dismissing or reinterpreting > what is clearly stated by Buddha in sutta. On the level of > individual dhammas, aging, decay or degradation may be a property > of a dhamma that is falling away after completing its function, but > Buddha clearly also wanted us to contemplate the conventional > existence that we are aware of, and see that it is painful, > impermanent and not-self. I think we have to understand that both > levels exist, and both are important. .... Buddha says above that > we should contemplate these truths of conventional existence often, > so that we "get it in our head" that this is the truth, and come to > face it and accept it, not just think it. That is why we have the > very detailed sequence of corpse contemplations as well, and the > detailed contemplation of the contents and nature of the body. ------- N: It is good you also mention parts of the body and cemetery contemplations. These are included in the satipa.t.thaanasutta, which repeats after each section: to see the origination dhammas and dissolution dhammas of the body, to see the body as the body. Again the aim of it all: see conditioned dhammas as they are. As I mentioned to Howard, the Buddha adapted his teaching to his listeners. When they were ready to accept the deeper teachings he would teach about paramattha dhammas. See for example Gradual Sayings, IV, 179, to Siiha: We then read that Siiha became a sotaapanna (stock expressions used: doubt over come, etc.) The four noble Truths are the "teaching of Dhamma which Buddhas alone have won". Dukkha is the impermanence of seeing now, visible object now. It pertains to paramattha dhammas. There is an interesting sutta preached to a layman, A IV, 280, Longknee, the Ko.lyan, Vyagghapajja). The Buddha gives many a practical advice. Then read the end: See the Metta sutta and read the end: He has no more wrong view. He will not be reborn, and this cannot be achieved without insight. We have to read the end of the sutta and then we see: the Buddha begins with teaching in conventional language, and after that he teaches ultimate realities. The same in what I quoted before and you repeated: We read: < And while he often contemplates this thing, the Way comes into being; and that Way he follows, makes become and develops; and in doing so the fetters are got rid of, the tendencies are removed...> ------- Nina. #112175 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. epsteinrob Hi Nina, and Han and Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Han and Phil, > Ah, no, do not send it offlist. Why would there be bothersome > complaints? We are all different, different accumulations, and that > is understood. > Nina. > Op 25-nov-2010, om 5:51 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > > > [Phil] Would you mind if I asked you again to post a brief > > description of how you meditate on annica? If you are concerned > > that posting it publically will lead to bothersome complaints from > > those who preach against what we consider to be meditation, please > > feel free to send it to me offlist. > > > > [Han] I will do it off-list. Thanks, Nina. I appreciate that. I would like to see the meditation info and discussion too! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #112176 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:38 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > ------------------------------- > RE: > Just as you insist that anicca is a characteristic that can exist in a single moment > -------------------------------- > > I wouldn't insist that anicca existed. It is an inherent characteristic of every conditioned dhamma that exists, and so I suppose we could say it exists. But I wouldn't insist on it. :-) > > ---------------------------------- > RE: > even though it is defined as change and temporariness, > ---------------------------------- > > I know you think you have one this argument - having got support from both sides - but I am sticking to my guns. You can stick to your guns, Ken H., but your guns have no bullets. You have still failed to explain how something that is by definition the property of change can appear in a single unchanging moment as a characteristic of that momentary dhamma. If you cannot explain it, at least to your own satisfaction, you cannot actually know whether you are correct or not, and are just clinging to a statement that has no meaning on a general principle that cannot be explicated. The idea that "anicca is a characteristic of a single dhamma" is just an empty sentence if *you* don't even know what it means. I sincerely want to understand how "change" can exist in a single unchanging moment, but I fear that you have no idea how that can be so yourself, but are just sticking to your empty guns like your View depends on it. I'm willing to explain anything I think is true - at least what it is - if only so that I myself know that I'm not expressing something that is nonsense. You should be willing to do the same, just for the sake of clarity. > I have, however, learnt something in the process of this discussion. I have learnt that anicca is never the object of citta and panna. In a moment of pativeda-satipatthana when anicca is directly known, the actual object of consciousness is a nama or rupa, but panna knows its anicca characteristic. Well I would say that if panna knows the characteristic through its contact with the nama or rupa, then anicca is "included" as part of that nama and rupa that is being known at that moment. So it is not the whole object, but it is "part of" the object. It still doesn't explain *how* anicca is known, or can be known in a single moment - the same problem persists. > Apart from that I am sticking to my guns; anicca, dukkha and anatta are inherent characteristics that constitute the essence, or substance, of a dhamma. You mean a conditioned dhamma of course. Is this the usual understanding - that dhammas now have substance or essences? What are they made of, and what is their essence? I think it's an interesting, intriguing and fascinating idea that something could have an essence, or be essentially composed of, things that don't exist in their own right, such as anatta, anicca and dukkha. If I was made of 'not-self,' I would have totally negative substance, would I not? I would be made of "that which is not an entity in any way shape or form," and of course, non-entity has no existence, so I would not have any substance, but would be non-existent. My substance would verily be non-substance, which not only cancels itself out and is a non-sequitur, but also destroys itself at the very moment of coming-to-be. It is, in short, a nonsensical formulation, a paradoxical concept and a ridiculous notion. If my essential substance was anicca, I would be composed of change, but have no additional substance with which to change. So I would be made of "not that which changes, but only the change portion of it," which also does not exist, since as a changes to b, a no longer exists, and if I were then posited as b, I would no longer be the change portion and thus would no longer qualify as the actual substance which has been defined as "change." Another paradoxical and nonsensical formulation which has nothing to do with what namas and rupas are actually purported to be. Likewise, if my essence was dukkha, I would be made of non-satisfactoriness, suffering, or unhappiness and pain, but there would be no additional substance to suffer or be unsatisfactory, so again it would be an empty formulation with no content. Is that what little namas and rupas are made of? Your statements above about the "essence" of dhammas have the distinct advantage of not being subjected to any serious analysis. I am glad you are content to refrain from examining what your statements actually mean, or you might become dissatisfied with what it all adds up to - nothing. You said later in your post that you could indeed explain and justify your understanding of anicca and anatta as characteristics of dhammas, but not well enough to explain it to me. Well can you explain it at all? Can you possibly justify the property of "change" existing in a single moment? Give it a try if you have any idea of how that is possible. It seems totally impossible to me, and that is not because I haven't studied well enough, but because it is an inherent self-contradiction. I think that's the reason you can't explain it - not because you are a beginner, but because it's inherently nonsensical. The adherence to "single-moment" everything puts you in a box that no one can possibly get out of. If anyone can explain how change is a characteristic of a single moment I am waiting to hear. Let's call upon the most advanced to answer this simple question. As for sutta support for your views, you answered "Yes Robert." That really supports your case beautifully. Thanks for the serious response. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #112177 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. epsteinrob Hi Sarah, and Han. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, SARAH CONNELL wrote: > > Dear Han, > I am glad you are well on the mend from your surgery. I have had many serious > abdominal surgeries and understand the long process including pain. > I would also be very interested in your meditation on anicca. If you could > please forward to me also. Thank you in advance. Han, if you can include me too, I will appreciate it! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #112178 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:46 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (112080) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > The Buddha states in the sutta that there are both kusala and akusala actions AND mental states, and that both are important in his program for development. > > > > However, Jon states, in contradiction to the Buddha, that there are only kusala or akusala mental states, and that material actions are only kusala or akusala depending on the ethical quality of the mental state that accompanies them. In this regard, Buddha and Jon are in disagreement. > > > > Buddha inventoried specific actions and abstentions in the material world that he categorized as kusala or akusala on their face, NOT dependent on accompanying mental states, so he is clearly not saying what you would like him to say. If you have a basis for holding the view that you do about this in the face of the sutta, that you can reference from the actual sutta, I would like to know what it is. > > =============== > > J: An example of restraint from killing that would not be kusala: A is about to kill B but refrains from doing so because suddenly he realises there is someone else present and he may get caught. > > OK, a somewhat contrived example perhaps, but you get the picture. Restraint from akusala is only kusala to the extent that the accompanying mental states are kusala > > Now I know this does not qualify as "a basis that you can reference from the actual sutta", but are we to ignore everything else we've learnt from the texts (and indeed commonsense as well!)? No, of course not - you can use any example you like. My problem is that I am including mental states as you are, but also physical actions as kusala and akusala. Your job is to rule them out, since you say only mental states are at issue. You keep giving me examples of how mental states are kusala or akusala, with which I already agree, but you cannot evidence your case in any way that *only* mental states are at issue, and that physical actions that Buddha references are not in themselves *sometimes* kusala or akusala in their own right and that this is what Buddha meant. It is like I said Monday is a day of the week, and you countered, no, Thursday and Friday are days of the week, as if that proves that Monday is not a day of the week. The truth is that all three are days of the week, just as both thoughts AND actions are considered kusala or akusala in many instances according to the Buddha. You need some evidence that Buddha considered *only* mental states kusala or akusala and that there is no such thing as a kusala or akusala action in its own right, such as killing someone, or else I am right about this, Jon. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #112179 From: Herman Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:47 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. egberdina Hi Ken H, On 26 November 2010 11:02, Ken H wrote: > > I can say there are at DSG two basic sides to this argument. One side says > the Dhamma describes a single-moment universe, the other side says it > doesn't. > > The former side can be supported without ever having to contradict the Pali > texts. (All of the texts can be interpreted in accordance with it.) However, > there are some texts that simply can't be interpreted in support the second > side. And so the second side is frequently forced to reject large tracts of > the Tipitaka and even larger tracts of the ancient commentaries. > > In your coherent version of the universe, does the following apply? "Rupa lasts as long as the duration of seventeen moments of citta arising and falling away, succeeding one another". If so, what is the measure of the moment, rupa or citta? Cheers Herman #112180 From: Herman Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:57 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. egberdina Hi Howard, On 26 November 2010 14:31, wrote: > > > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 11/25/2010 6:17:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > On 26 November 2010 01:24, > wrote: > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you, Nina. I stand corrected! (My apologies on this matter, > > Ken.) So, there is always visible object "present" though not always as > > object. > > I suppose one can think of it as being present subliminally, with > > consciousness not taking it as an object. > > In looking this up, I see listed as the 8 inseparables the following: > > earth, air, fire, water, plus color, flavor, odor, and nutrition. (I find > > it odd that "nutrition" makes the cut but not sound, but c'est la vie!) > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > I also find nutrition an oddity here. I also have question marks around > space, femininity, masculinity and life faculty being classified as rupa, > -------------------------------------------- > Me too! I consider space to be relational, femininity & masculinity to > be fuzzy complexes of physical qualities, and life faculty to be nothing > at all. > ------------------------------------------ > > Yes, agreed. Considerations such as these leave me in no doubt that the classification of rupas as discussed at dsg is NOT a product of insight into things as they are, but of a functional analysis of a preconceived (and sometimes spurious) worldview. Cheers Herman #112181 From: Herman Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi Rob E, On 25 November 2010 15:36, Robert E wrote: > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > Herman wrote: > > > > I note that Buddha says in there, "when considering what's grasped > among > > > doctrines." In other words, Buddha seems to be allowing that this > Brahman, > > > who has no preconceptions and holds onto no view of his own, can then > render > > > a judgment on whether doctrines he considers grasp the truth or not. It > is > > > because he is free from doctrines himself that he has an objective > access to > > > whether doctrines are worthwhile or not. Would you agree that this is > what > > > that means? > > > > > > > > No, I don't :-) > > So you think that 'when considering doctrines,' his response would be to > take no position one way or the other? > > The short answer would be yes. The long answer would be something like this: In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). or One who isn't inclined toward either side — becoming or not-, here or beyond — who has no entrenchment when considering what's grasped among doctrines, hasn't the least preconceived perception with regard to what's seen, heard, or sensed. > > I don't think that the Buddha taught that understanding and practice are > two > > separate things. Understanding is not something that one carries around, > it > > is something that one does. Everywhere one looks, to anyone of note the > > Buddha taught jhanas, jhanas, jhanas. The entertaining of views and > > doctrines precludes any success in the jhanas. No way would the Buddha > teach > > anything that thwarts success in the jhanas. > > Thank you for clarifying that. I wondered whether you felt jhana was > central to the path, as well as I have wondered about the role of jhana on > the path myself. It makes sense to me that the ability to abide in a deep > meditative state, removed from turbulence and distraction, is a necessary > place to go for deep insight, even while acknowledging the potential to > become addicted to the state itself, and skip the insight part, as some > yogis have done for many centuries. But jhana and deep samadhi have been the > doorways to go beyond the personal self for thousands of years in a variety > of traditions. The Buddha has the cleanest and most complete exit strategy, > but it doesn't hurt to understand the ubiquitous nature of some of the > technology, and the physiological advantage it contains. > > So - what do you think are the chances of succeeding in jhana within the > householder's lifestyle? > As long as the purpose of jhana is limited to only jhana, then there is every chance of success. For me, that means a gradual coming to realise how the phenomenal world is a compounded fabrication much like an onion, and bit by bit uncovering the layers that support each other. In that context, any intention to have things turn out one way or another is just another one of the layers to peel back. > I guess at minimum, it would require a real commitment and discipline to > remove oneself from to-do-list-based activities for decent periods of time > within the hectic course of events. > Yes, for sure. It helps if one sees the benefit of ceasing activity, if only temporarily. <.......> > > > Would you like to have dispassion for the world? Why? To the extent that > you > > believe your passions for the world are warranted, you'll keep projecting > > them out there. And to the extent that you realise that your passions are > > unwarranted, you'll stop. Dukkha makes itself known, no need to go > chasing > > it :-) And it sure as hell can't be learned from a book :-) > > So do you think the critical mass of dukkha leading to dispassion must come > from a crisis of extreme suffering + a crisis of clinging? > I don't want to rule out other possibilities, but it seems to me that as long as being busily attached to all our doings is proving to be satisfactory, why would anyone stop? Cheers Herman #112182 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:50 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. kenhowardau Hi Herman, --------- <. . .> In your coherent version of the universe, does the following apply? "Rupa lasts as long as the duration of seventeen moments of citta arising and falling away, succeeding one another". > > If so, what is the measure of the moment, rupa or citta? --------- The universe is one conscious experience. Consciousness is supported by rupas, but the experience itself lasts only as long as consciousness, not rupa. Sense-door rupas can last as long as seventeen moments of consciousness, but I don't know much more about them than that. I don't know if they always last that long, and I don't know if other rupas also last that long. Ken H #112183 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:11 pm Subject: Re: be kind. philofillet Hi Nina > N: I would say, why not have a private talk off list with him? That > could clear the atmosphere. I'll just add that I think the above is good advice, I believe in trying to fix negative situations. But what about the oft-repeated statement that if we try to change the way things are, there is self-involved, etc. etc? Isn't it wrong to try to change negative situations, wouldn't it be best to understand any negative feelings that arise towards Ken H and his ideas and know that they are just dhammas arising due to conditions, and that understanding is the most important thing, not whether there are friendly feelings or not? Are you suggesting I try to change my unfriendly thoughts? Isn't that.....Wrong View? Metta, Phil p.s again, I'll say don't worry, Nina. No really bad feelings. I just wanted to acknowledge that there is a lot of aversion. If it were toxic and if I actually had ill will towards Ken H and wished him hardship, I would take action to fix those feelings. Hateful feelings need to be fixed, and the Buddha taught us various remedies for them, though I know you don't like the word "remedies.." #112184 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:10 am Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: It is good you also mention parts of the body and cemetery > contemplations. These are included in the satipa.t.thaanasutta, which > repeats after each section: to see the origination dhammas and > dissolution dhammas of the body, to see the body as the body. Again > the aim of it all: see conditioned dhammas as they are. The interpretation of the word "dhammas" makes a big difference to understand what this refers to. If we take the Abhidhamma interpretation as momentary arising single qualities, then we see the paramatha view. If we take the conventional meaning of dhamma as object, we can interpret what the Buddha says to include seeing and understanding the arising and dissolution of worldly objects as we see them and as we see them change. This can mean from moment to moment but also over time. My own sense of this is that Buddha wanted us to contemplate the origination, existence and dissolution of dhammas on *all* levels, and to me the main levels would be: the long sweep of life and death, even to including our existence in multiple lifetimes, the conventional experience of the body and the objects we crave and cling to over time, including cherished thoughts and opinions, views, and beliefs that we identify with - this would be the medium experience of what happens to us from year to year, or even from week to week, what it is like when we experience sickness, or when we lose our hair, or gain weight, or lose a friend or lover, as well as how we experience changes in perceptual object and object of attention in meditation when we are looking closely with our best capabilities as worldlings; and finally the fine true moments of insight and direct seeing when they do arise for us as advanced disciples or sotapannas, when such a stage arises. So I think it's all good, and all necessary. Even Buddha, who obviously had the paramatha view when he wanted it, complained and reflected upon the creakiness and discomfort of his body in a conventional way when he got older, and said "it is like an old cart. It is almost time to get rid of this old thing, because it has served its use," or something like that. So I think he included the conventional experience that we all have, and of course the more fine-tuned microscopic view of ultimate reality. Why do we have to give up one for the other? The scientist does not walk around all day long with his microscope pasted to his face, and neither did the Buddha. In nibbana he can enjoy complete paramatha view with nothing in the way, and in parinibbana he can get rid of the conventional view forever. But up until that time, I think we should understand life both as it ultimately is and how it is lived from day to day. I think both views of anicca and anatta and dukkha bring us closer to understanding the truth of existence. Okay, I talk too much. I will respond to other sections of your post separately. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112185 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:37 am Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. epsteinrob Hi Nina. Here is Pt. 2... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > As I mentioned to Howard, the Buddha adapted his teaching to his > listeners. When they were ready to accept the deeper teachings he > would teach about paramattha dhammas. See for example Gradual > Sayings, IV, 179, to Siiha: graduated discourse to Siiha, the general, that is to say: on > almsgiving, the precepts and on heaven. He set forth the peril, the > folly and the depravity of lusts and the blessedness of renunciation. > And when the Exalted One knew that the heart of Siiha, the general, > was clear, malleable, free from hindrance, uplifted and lucid, then > he revealed that teaching of Dhamma which Buddhas alone have won, > that is to say: dukkha, its coming to be, its ending and the Way. ...> > We then read that Siiha became a sotaapanna (stock expressions used: > doubt over come, etc.) > The four noble Truths are the "teaching of Dhamma which Buddhas alone > have won". Dukkha is the impermanence of seeing now, visible object > now. It pertains to paramattha dhammas. > There is an interesting sutta preached to a layman, A IV, 280, > Longknee, the Ko.lyan, Vyagghapajja). The Buddha gives many a > practical advice. Then read the end: wisdom? Herein a householder is wise: he is endowed with wisdom that > understands the arising and cessation (of the five khandhas); he is > possessed of the noble penetrating insight that leads to the > destruction of dukkha...> > See the Metta sutta and read the end: > Is virtuous, and has perfected seeing, > And purges greed for sensual desires, > He surely comes no more to any womb.> > He has no more wrong view. He will not be reborn, and this cannot be > achieved without insight. > We have to read the end of the sutta and then we see: the Buddha > begins with teaching in conventional language, and after that he > teaches ultimate realities. The same in what I quoted before and you > repeated: > We read: < And while he often contemplates this thing, the Way comes > into being; and that Way he follows, makes become and develops; and > in doing so the fetters are got rid of, the tendencies are removed...> I agree that the conventional understandings that purify the heart and mind to a certain extent make the mind ready for deeper insights and teachings. And it is also true that Buddha goes back and forth from conventional to more specific teachings that take place within momentary reality. Since Buddha seamlessly glides from one level to the other, it is suggestive to me that we can do the same - applying the understanding of anicca, anatta and dukkha to all aspects and dimensions of life that we are able to perceive and understand. When we experience disappointment or loss during ordinary life, it is an opportunity to understand the teachings with relation to ordinary life, and when we experience insight into the nature of dhammas and get closer to seeing the arising and falling of physical, perceptual and mental realities in the moment, then it is an opportunity to see the structure of reality itself. As far as I can tell, both are important and worth paying attention to. I think it can happen that when something happens in life and instead of registering it and applying the teachings to that event, we say "well it's really just dhammas" that this can be a rationalization to prevent feeling and understanding the disappointment and temporary nature of our reality, rather than a deeper level of seeing. I think it's better to apply the teachings as we encounter things, rather than substituting thoughts of a deeper level for what we currently are able to see. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #112186 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Saturday meeting ptaus1 Dear Nina, Re 111552 > > pt: 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. pt: I don't understand this bit when you say: " there is awareness of this ruupa but the aim is not understanding of it as non-self." I mean, if there was awareness of a ruupa, then there would be awareness of non-self at some point, becuase awareness of ruupa is the same as awareness of dhamma, no? So, I always thought that in samatha, there cannot be awareness of a dhamma, only concepts, otherwise it wouldn't be samatha anymore but insight which relies on awareness of dhammas. Best wishes pt #112187 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ptaus1 Hi Jon, Re 111609 > J: The sound referred to in the texts is the audible data that is the object of hearing consciousness, that is to say, before there is any 'processing' leading to the object being recognised as being of a certain pitch, volume or timbre, and as the sound of a voice or telephone or whatever. > > As such, its only characteristic (apart from the 3 general characteristics of anicca, dukkha, anattaa) is that of being the object of hearing consciousness. pt: Could you please expand on this last bit a little? I'm wondering about three things in specific: 1. how "being an object of hearing consciousness" actually classifies as a characteristic of a dhamma (rupa in this case) 2. i assume since it is not one of the 3 general characteristics, then it must be some sort of an individual characteristic. 3. i'm in general confused about what exactly are individual characteristics of a sound (as in ruupa - audible data). I mean, for a tactile object it's easy - I think the individual characteristic would be one of the great elements that's experienced at the time. But for sound, i'm not sure... Best wishes pt #112188 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:54 am Subject: Re: Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. ptaus1 Dear Nina, Re 111562 > Evenso in the case of manayatana (the ayatana including all cittas) > and dhammayatana (subtle rupas, cetasikas and nibbana), and > kayasankhara (bodily function of breathing) and vaccisan > khara (verbal function), it is asked : "When manayatana arises for > someone, does also dhammayatana arise for himďż˝ and the answer is > "Yes". pt: I was wondering, what's the difference between vathhu and ayatana in the case of cittas and cetasikas? I mean, both citta and cetasikas arise at the same vatthu (heart-base) I think, but they are classified as different ayatanas. Why is that? Thanks. Best wishes pt #112189 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:28 pm Subject: Lethargy & Laziness Ruins any Life! bhikkhu5 Friends: How to cure Heavy Lethargy and Laziness! Lethargy-&-Laziness may often be induced by self-destructive behaviour such as: Alcohol, drugs, dope, pills, marihuana, sniffing, over-eating, excessive masturbation and night-living. Such often life-long chemical or behavioural causes of Lethargy-&-Laziness should be eradicated. As long as this is not achieved one remains a phlegmatic & apathetic zombie, drifting downwards due to inability to initiate advantageous behaviour. Noticing Lethargy-&-Laziness (thina-middha) emerge can make it evaporate: Herein, Bhikkhus, when Lethargy-&-Laziness is present in him, the bhikkhu notes & understands: There is Lethargy-&-Laziness in me, and when this Lethargy-&-Laziness is absent, he notes & understands: Now there is no Lethargy-&-Laziness in me. He indeed also understands how not yet arisen Lethargy-&-Laziness arises. He understands how to leave behind any arisen Lethargy-&-Laziness, and he understands how left Lethargy-&-Laziness will not arise again in the future. MN 10 What is the feeding cause that makes Lethargy-&-Laziness arise? There are boredom, apathy, tiredness, lazy stretching of the body, heavy drowsiness after too big meals, and mental sluggishness. Frequently giving irrational and unwise attention to these mental states, this is the feeding cause of the arising of Lethargy-&-Laziness, and the feeding cause of worsening and deepening of already present Lethargy-&-Laziness. SN 46:51 What is the starving cause that makes Lethargy-&-Laziness cease? There is the quality of initiative. There is the quality of launching action. There is the quality of tenaciously enduring persistence. Frequently giving rational & wise attention to these three mental elements, is the starving cause for the non-arising of Lethargy-&-Laziness, and the starving cause for the arousing and stirring of already present Lethargy-&-Laziness. SN 46:51 The Supreme Ideal: Before the Buddha sat down to meditate in order to attain enlightenment, he made this determination: May just all flesh and blood of this body dry up into a stiff frame of only bones, tendons and skin... Not a second before having achieved, what can be achieved by male strength, power, and energy, will I rise from this seat... MN 70 How to stimulate the mind: How does one stimulate the mind at a time when it needs stimulation? If due to slowness of understanding or due to not having yet reached the happiness of tranquillity, one’s mind is dull, then one should rouse it through reflecting on the eight objects stirring urgency. These 8 objects are: birth, decay, disease & death; the suffering in hell, demon, ghost & animal world! The suffering in the past and the future rooted in Samsara. The suffering of the present rooted in the pursuit for food and living. Vism. IV,63 Perceiving the suffering in impermanence: In a Bhikkhu, who is used to see the suffering in impermanence and who frequently reflects on this, there will be established in him such an acute sense of the danger in laziness, apathy, inactivity and lethargy, just as if he was threatened by a mad murderer with drawn sword! AN 7:46 Lethargy-&-Laziness is an inner mental Prison: Just as when a man has been forced into prison is Lethargy-&-Laziness, but later when he gets released from this (inner) prison, then he is safe, fearing no loss of property. And at that good he rejoices glad at heart... Such is the breaking out of Lethargy-&-Laziness... Another person has been kept in jail during a festival day, and so could see none of the shows. When people say: Oh, how fun was this festival! He will remain shy, mute and silent because he did not enjoy any festival himself... Similarly is prison of Lethargy-&-Laziness... Another person that once had been in jail on a festival day. But when freed and celebrating the festival on a later occasion, he looks back: Before due to my own careless laziness, I was in prison on that day & could not enjoy this fine festival. Now I shall therefore be alert and careful. Since he remains thus alert and careful no detrimental state can overcome his mind. Having fully enjoyed the festival, he exclaims: What a fun festival! Good is absence of Lethargy-&-Laziness... Whoever lives only to satisfy his search & urge for pleasure and beauty, unguarded in senses, immoderately indulging in eating, lazy, lethargic, inactive, dulled into apathy; Such ones Mara sweeps away like breaking a branch of a tiny bush ... Dhammapada 7 Even if one should live a hundred years, if lazy and idle, better it would be to live but just a single day striving with all one got. Dhammapada 112 Easy is the shameless life now. Easy is it to be bold, retaliating, lazy, uninformed and wrong-viewed. Dhammapada 244 Rouse yourself! Sit up! Resolutely train yourself to attain peace. Do not let the king of death, seeing you lazy, lead you astray and dominate you. Sutta Nipata II, 10 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112190 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:17 am Subject: Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting) ptaus1 Hi Sarah, Re 111694 > S: First of all, we must stress that the cittas must be kusala and arise with understanding, if it is the development of samatha (calm). When breath is the object, it is a concept of breath only, a pannatti or nimitta, not the paramattha dhamma. There can be wise reflection, sati sampajanna, on how life at this moment depends on breath. ... > As I've mentioned, I find it useful to reflect on how life and all we hold dear depends on this very in and out-breath. Without breath there'd be no life at all. The moments of calm have to be understood, otherwise it doesn't make sense. ... > Now, there may be wise reflection on how everything we find important just depends on this momentary breath. This can bring calm. It's a different kind of understanding from that which knows realities. It is not the breath which brings wise reflection, attachment or aversion, but the kind of reflection and understanding. If one has an idea that if breath is the object, it will bring kusala, it's not correct at all. pt: No problems so far, but I wonder whether you are implying for example that wise reflection in terms of the breath can only have to do with the topic of "how life and all we hold dear depends on this very in and out-breath". I'm sure this works in your case, but considering different accumulation and all that, I'm guessing it could be different topics for others. E.g. how settling on the breath is advantageous compared to engaging with senses (testing the waters here by giving an example you're least likely to agree with :) What I'm basically trying to figure out - as kusala is not brought about by the object (breath, candle flame, etc) but the manner of contemplating it (wise reflection), I assume the same applies to the actual manner of contemplation - i.e. that it's not really about what's the content of the thoughts that constitute the wise reflection, but that it's actually the arising of the kusala factors during that reflection. And I assume these would arise irrespective of particular content of thinking, which would be dependent on person's accumulations (e.g. the accumulations in sanna, the topics he often contemplates and all that). > S: Breath itself (or what is taken for breath) can appear in daily life, such as during our exercise, and be the object of attachment or detachment. When it appears (i.e. what is taken for breath) and there is understanding, that understanding knows how to develop samatha with this object, just as when there is wise reflection of death or metta which is apparent, samatha can develop. pt: ok, though i'd argue that for others, sitting down, lying down, being in an elevator, etc, is just as "daily" an appearance of breath in life, as it is during exercise in your case. So, it's not about when and where the breath happens to appear to us, but about - "When it appears (i.e. what is taken for breath) and there is understanding, that understanding knows how to develop samatha with this object". And here we return to the issue that's still confusing me - i.e. what does - "understanding knows how to develop samatha with this object" - really mean? If I'm right that wise reflection is not about the content of the thoughts about the breath, but about the arising of the understanding "which knows how to develop samatha with this object", then what is it that constitutes that "knowing how to develop" when it arises? I'm guessing it's not dependent on the content of thinking, so then what is it that's understood really? Best wishes pt #112191 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:31 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? ptaus1 Hi Jon, > > 1. what's meditation/bhavana? - Development of kusala. > > =============== > > J: If meditation is equated to bhavana, then why not just say 'development' instead of 'meditation', since for most people meditation has connotations of a particular technique used to develop kusala? pt: I've seen some experienced meditators say that "meditation" in essence cannot be equated with those instances when hindrances arise, regardless of whether that happens during a "sitting" or a "washing dishes". Hence, I conclude that meditation for them is only equated to kusala moments, which then in my mind becomes the same as equating bhavana to development of kusala. Best wishes pt #112192 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:01 am Subject: Re: On Views, Snp4.5 ptaus1 Hi Sarah, "Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does not seek a support even in knowledge." pt: While it's reasonable that in the above "the views" refer to ditthi (wrong view), what does "knowledge" refer to (panna?) and what does "seek a support in" refer to? Best wishes pt #112193 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction ptaus1 Hi Herman, > H: It sounds like you also equate sankhara with dhamma. It is sankharas that > are anicca, not dhammas, and I do not equate the two. pt: Looks like we're using the same terms differently. Perhaps you can say more about the difference between dhammas and sankharas from your pov. The way I understand things explained in abhidhamma, sankhara khanda would include all cetasikas except feeling and perception. Cetasikas, like all conditioned dhammas, are further said to have general and individual characteristics. General characteristics are anatta, anicca and dukkha, which can be experienced in insight when an object of citta is a dhamma (or rather dhamma by way of navataba). > H: It is necessary to not intermingle the two, because singleness cannot apply > to an irreducible something that is changing whilst being what it is. That > translates into an irreducible thing not being what it is, while being what > it is. It would mean that either irreducibility or singleness is > meaningless. pt: I'm having difficulty understanding this bit, probably because I don't understand how you define the difference between dhammas and sankharas. Best wishes pt #112194 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Han and Rob E, Op 26-nov-2010, om 20:40 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > Han, if you can include me too, I will appreciate it! ------ N: Yes, and could you include me too? I know Han, you are a wise person and I appreciate all your contributions. I am sure I can learn something from you and it does not matter if we do not think the same on all matters. I am very selfsish and hope you will live longer than two years. I do not like to miss you. Nina. #112195 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:41 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. nilovg Hi Herman, Op 26-nov-2010, om 21:57 heeft Herman het volgende geschreven: > Yes, agreed. Considerations such as these leave me in no doubt that > the > classification of rupas as discussed at dsg is NOT a product of > insight into > things as they are, but of a functional analysis of a preconceived > (and > sometimes spurious) worldview. -------- N: Another very useful topic to be discussed at the next get together in Manly. There you are in gentle, soothing surroundings and you may be very malleable :-)) ---- Nina. #112196 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: be kind. nilovg Dear Phil, Op 27-nov-2010, om 0:11 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Isn't it wrong to try to change negative situations, wouldn't it be > best to understand any negative feelings that arise towards Ken H > and his ideas and know that they are just dhammas arising due to > conditions, and that understanding is the most important thing, not > whether there are friendly feelings or not? Are you suggesting I > try to change my unfriendly thoughts? Isn't that.....Wrong View? ------ N: There are many ways to face unkind thoughts. The VIsuddhimagga gives several suggestions (under the divine abiding of mettaa), like giving him a present, that mellows the heart. See the benefit of patience, see him as elements. Or as you suggests yourself above. It depends on your inclinations at a given moment, no special recepy. ----- Nina. #112197 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. nilovg Dear pt, Op 27-nov-2010, om 5:54 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > pt: I was wondering, what's the difference between vathhu and > ayatana in the case of cittas and cetasikas? I mean, both citta and > cetasikas arise at the same vatthu (heart-base) I think, but they > are classified as different ayatanas. Why is that? Thanks. ------ N: Vatthu is the physical base of origin for citta and cetasikas. For the sense-cognitions (seeing etc.) the relevant sense-base is the vatthu, and for all other cittas the hear-base is the vatthu. The aayatanas is a different classification of realities. Citta is manaayatana, it is the chief in cognizing an object. It is an inner aayatana. Kh Sujin called it an innermost reality. When citta sees, it is not outside, it knows what appears through the earsense. If there would not be manaayatana nothing could appear. Citta is cause and meetingplace, a foundation, it is aayatana. The cetasikas could not arise without citta. They are not 'chiefs', but they assist the citta in performing each their own function. They depend on citta, they are dhammaayatana, and they are also called external aayatanas. ------ Nina. #112198 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Saturday meeting nilovg Dear pt, Op 27-nov-2010, om 4:52 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > pt: I don't understand this bit when you say: " there is awareness > of this ruupa but the aim is not understanding of it as non-self." > > I mean, if there was awareness of a ruupa, then there would be > awareness of non-self at some point, becuase awareness of ruupa is > the same as awareness of dhamma, no? So, I always thought that in > samatha, there cannot be awareness of a dhamma, only concepts, > otherwise it wouldn't be samatha anymore but insight which relies > on awareness of dhammas. ------- N: Sati in samatha is different from sati in vipassanaa. Sati in samatha is non-forgetful of the meditation subject. As to breathing, this is first known through touch, whereas the kasinas are first known through sight. In samatha he is aware of ruupa that touches the nosetip or upperlip, he is non-forgetful. But he does not realise this ruupa as only ruupa, a dhamma that is non-self. That is not his aim. Nina. #112199 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] deeper teachings. nilovg Dear Philip, Op 26-nov-2010, om 16:11 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > How does Acharn Sujin determine that her listeners minds are ready > to accept the deeper teachings? I have never ready anything by her > or you that didn't often make reference to paramattha > teachings...please correct me if I'm wrong. (Perhaps I undersand > what 'paramattha teachings' means, but I assume anything that is in > Abhidhamma is paramattha?) ------- N: She cannot do mind-reading. She explains and those who have an interest can profit. They would not sit in the Foundation if they did not have an interest already. But each Saturday morning at the foundation there is sutta reading and commentary. At such an occasion Kh Sujin will give further explanations on satipa.t.thaana, and when you say satipa.t.thaana, it is also abhidhamma. These go hand in hand. The object of satipa.t.thaana are naama and ruupa. She answers questions and will point to the reality appearing now in daily life. When we are worried about death, our own or of a beloved person, she will say: you are not dying now, but you are seeing. Do you know this as just a dhamma? Life is very short and people can read in books about conventional subjects. Not many people can explain about ultimate realities. So the time that we can hear such explanations is very, very short. We keep on forgetting, and therefore we have to hear it again and again. ------- Nina.