#112200 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 27-nov-2010, om 4:37 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > 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. ------ I understand what you are saying. Let everybody according to his inclinations appreciate the level of Dhamma he can grasp. The Buddha knew the different inclinations of beings. ------ Nina. #112201 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 27-nov-2010, om 2:10 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > 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. ----- N: I think here he wanted to remind people that the body becomes like an old cart. As I said: it depends on people's accumulated understanding to what extent they grasp this. -------- > 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. ------ N: Just adding a remark about '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'. I do not think of two different views. Is it not more a different way of expression of the same truth? and also the expression: in parinibbaana: the Buddha passed away completely. If he would stay somewhere he would still be subject to dukkha. But I know that the mahaayana view is different. ------ Nina. #112202 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:32 pm Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi pt and Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > 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. There is a funny contradiction here, in that it is often considered more "in the moment" and more attuned to anatta to *not strive for a result,* and instead to trust in a correct *process.* In what is being said above, one is only really honoring the *result* one wants, and *not* honoring the process, which seems to me to also be the opposite of the dsg philosophy of understanding the arising of dhammas in the moment without any choice or sense of personal volition, [ie, coming from self-view.] If one says that meditation, bhavana, development only represent the "good," "kusala" moments and the rest is akusala, that is the opposite of a process-view. In fact it seems to me to be self-view, pushing through the process to get to the result one desires. Good meditators do the opposite, and in fact are more in line with what folks here would normally profess as "choiceless" understanding of conditions-based arising of moments - these meditators have given up wishing and hoping for only kusala moments and instead understand that whatever conditions and tendencies have developed they will experience in due order, according to current conditions and accumulations. So if akusala arises, they treat it with openness and mindfulness, understanding that it is discernment and equanimity that create kusala, not judging "good and bad," "good and bad," [kusala and akusala] for every arising moment. To know kusala and to accumulate kusala is one thing - to say that the process is not kusala when the moments are not kusala and that the process is only kusala when the moments are kusala is a very different thing. A good meditator understands that the process is what is ultimately their foundation of kusala, because it will develop the necessary discrimination to know and embrace kusala and to know and understand akusala, but more important to know the mind and experience for what they are, whatever arises in the moment, and developing a mind that is free from clinging and delusion in the long run. They rest in the process and are in it for the long haul, not getting impatient with akusala, or clinging to kusala. Just as Buddha says "know a long breath as a long breath," and "know a short breath as a short breath," you emphasize knowing nama from rupa and knowing kusala from akusala. That is fine, but saying "only the good moments are meditation" creates clinging and aversion in my view, and deprives the practitioner of resting in the "kusala process" of meditation or development - whatever you want to call it. It is Buddha's process, Buddha's path, Buddha's principles, that are ultimately kusala, not this moment or that moment, which cannot be controlled, as you often say. I would prefer to say that it is *all* meditation, and I think this is in line with what Buddha emphasized. When following the breath, when discerning the foundations of mindfulness, when contemplating nama and rupa in a concentrated state of awareness, the entire process of discerning and unwinding the defilements is taking place at every moment. Even the bad moments are part of a good process. That is why one doesn't mind restlessness, tiredness, anger or doubt arising, because one has a way to treat these that is kusala - with mindfulness and increasing understanding of their nature, so that they can be released. In addition, meditation, unlike the more generic definition of development, is a set of techniques, a regimen, handed down by the Buddha to pave the way to the best possible pathway to carry out his teachings. In countless suttas he laid out this pathway and in Abhidhamma it is developed in finer detail, but always with the understanding that it was to be experienced in meditation, as well as daily living. This is explicitly laid out in the Dhammasangani and Patthana. According to Bikkhu Bodhi's lectures on the Satipatthana Sutta, the monk was meant to develop a strong focus on his meditation object during the hours of formal meditation, ;-) , then as he went out to beg for food or do his other necessary activities, he was to keep his meditation object in mind at all times so that he did not lose his 24/7 focus in the process of discernment. If he was forced to take his mind partly off the meditation object in order to speak to someone or smile and bow as his bowl was filled, he kept as much awareness as possible on his meditation object, and also kept a meditative mind on his current activity, so that he would not lose the accumulated focus he had developed. In this way the monk would continue the meditative process at all times, to the extent this was physically and mentally possible. In this light the Buddha's instructions makes more sense, in understanding the seamless continuum of the meditative process, to develop mindfulness when standing, sitting, walking, eating, going to the toilet and falling asleep - these are not equivalents or substitutes for formal meditation, but are the continuation of the constant meditation process of the monk, who was steeped in a constant process generating jhana, vipassana and metta, and going around the community when he left the monastery with a mind of samatha, sati and more metta! This seamless process, in conjunction with mindful, applied studies in Dhamma and wise associations and discussions with Sangha, is what leads to enlightenment. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112203 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Saturday meeting epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > 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. This may be a silly question, but if samatha and metta, for instance, do not discern ultimate realities, and that is not their aim, what makes them kusala? Why are they kusala? Thanks, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #112204 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 27-nov-2010, om 4:37 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > 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. > ------ > I understand what you are saying. Let everybody according to his > inclinations appreciate the level of Dhamma he can grasp. The Buddha > knew the different inclinations of beings. Thank you for saying this. I think it is a good meeting-place for all of us. It makes me feel that there is an unbroken chain in the understanding of the path, from being a confused beginner to understanding realities with better clarity. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112205 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Just adding a remark about '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'. I do not think of two > different views. Is it not more a different way of expression of the > same truth? > and also the expression: in parinibbaana: the Buddha passed away > completely. If he would stay somewhere he would still be subject to > dukkha. But I know that the mahaayana view is different. I didn't mean to imply that nibbana and parinibbana are two different views, just that nibbana can be a 'living' experience of cessation of kandhas and total peace, and parinibbana, as I understand it, is permanent and after the body has died. Do you think this is correct? Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - #112206 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:23 pm Subject: Re: Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and Others) kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > 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 , -------------------------- I wouldn't say the sutta was oh-so-conventional. The Buddha may have begun it with some conventional truths (birth, ageing, death etc are dukkha) but he promptly assigned those things to the world of illusion when he said, in reality the five khandhas are dukkha. I'm not sure about the rest of the quote; it does seem to be talking about the conventional things again. But since the Buddha had just told his audience that only the five khandhas were real, I would imagine they were expected to bear that in mind from that point on. Ken H #112207 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:22 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. kenhowardau Hi Howard, --------------- <. . .> H: > 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 wonder if it is all that different from conventional reality. Here in our illusory shadow-land we can't become invisible, un-taste-able, un-smell-able or inedible, can we? But we can be silent. Just a thought! :-) Ken H #112208 From: "colette" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:29 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? ksheri3 Hi Jon and Robert E., Do I detect a bit of tension in Robert E's response to you, Jon? I believe the situation you're discussing here rests entirely upon CAUSE & CONDITIONS, both are outside forces having an influence on the internal consciousness of the person in question. Is "kusala" and "akusala" a created thing or condition? Who performs the creative process? Jon suggests a behavior to examine. He suggests that a person do something to another person. The first person reconsiders their upcoming behavior based upon the presence of a WITNESS, another consciousness that will also be part of the behavior. Is the "witness" the creator performing the process of creating the consciousness within the person in question that Jon was speaking of? Or is it the person in question that is the creator performing the creative process? CAUSE & CONDITIONS: kusala or akusala have to come from somewhere and in concern to something, don't they? Does this "thing" that kusala and/or akusala are concerned with actually EXIST? Does Kusala or Akusala actually EXIST? Yea, Jon, as I have worked magik since the early 1980s I've found that the holiday seasons were the absolute best time to work magik because of the intense emotional electricity "out there" in the cosmos, the ethers, but actually that emotional electricity is not "out there" it is "in there" in another vessel, contained and constrained, maybe even "stored" or "warehoused". Jon, I think it really frustrates Robert. You are questioning him and his intelligence on such simple matters as Kusala and Akusala. You are playing the role of "witness" then. Who is doing the creative process? Is anything being created? When heated, do the impurities of milk rise to the surface? Maybe I should have asked if I can play before playing here in the sandbox with you boys. I think we should consider what the issues really are before we continue. toodles, colette #112209 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:31 pm Subject: Exalted Bliss! bhikkhu.sama... Friends: Infinite Loving-Kindness is an Exalted State! The Blessed Buddha once explained Loving-Kindness like this: This is what should be done by a clever one to arouse the advantageous: Having attained a peaceful state: He should be capable, straight, and very upright, easy to speak to, gentle and not proud, contented & easy to support, with few duties, living simple, with calmed senses, devoted, & neither angry nor greedy. He should not do any mean thing, which wise men would criticize. Always he should wish: Let all beings be happy, joyous, glad, safe and secure. Whatever living creatures there exist, still or moving, small or large, seen or unseen, far or near, already existing or coming into being, let all these living beings without any even single exception be completely happy! One should never despise anyone anywhere, nor humiliate anyone anywhere, nor ever wish for any being misery or harm, because of anger or irritation. Just as a mother would protect her only little son even risking her own life, exactly so should one cultivate an unbounded mentality towards all beings; loving-kindness towards all in this universe. One should cultivate an infinite mind, above, below and across, without barriers, without enmity, matchless. Whether standing, going, sitting, or lying down, even when slumbering should one practise this exalted infinite goodwill. This is said to be a Sacred State! Sn 143-151 The Buddha teaching about Infinite Friendliness = Metta <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112210 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/27/2010 3:23:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > 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 , -------------------------- I wouldn't say the sutta was oh-so-conventional. The Buddha may have begun it with some conventional truths (birth, ageing, death etc are dukkha) but he promptly assigned those things to the world of illusion when he said, in reality the five khandhas are dukkha. ---------------------------------------------- Your "snip" was an enormous one, giving short shrift to the VERY conventional definitions of birth, death, etc., etc. given by the Buddha here. This sutta of the Buddha's was about as conventional as one could get. I stand on what I said EXACTLY! --------------------------------------------- I'm not sure about the rest of the quote; it does seem to be talking about the conventional things again. ------------------------------------------- You're NOT SURE about the rest of the quote? Unbelievable! ------------------------------------------- But since the Buddha had just told his audience that only the five khandhas were real, I would imagine they were expected to bear that in mind from that point on. ------------------------------------------- Ken, your prejudice on this matter is clear to me. You are just plain wrong about this sutta. It is a very conventional teaching. Not all suttas are so, but this one is. ------------------------------------------ Ken H ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112211 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:03 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/27/2010 4:22:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: I wonder if it is all that different from conventional reality. Here in our illusory shadow-land we can't become invisible, un-taste-able, un-smell-able or inedible, can we? But we can be silent. ============================== We are not inaudible so long as we are alive even when silent, due to breathing. (And we are invisible when hidden, and we are not smelled or tasted much of the time.) Being heard is no less universal than being seen, tasted, or smelled. But the point is not what can be sensed of *us* anyway. The point is what types of rupa are always present. The Abhidhamma says yes to the 4 great elements plus "nutrition," color, taste, and odor, but not sound. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112212 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:05 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. upasaka_howard Hi again, Ken - In a message dated 11/27/2010 4:22:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: I wonder if it is all that different from conventional reality. Here in our illusory shadow-land we can't become invisible, un-taste-able, un-smell-able or inedible, can we? But we can be silent. Just a thought! :-) ---------------------------------------------- I had cut off that last sentence. Yes, though I answered as I did, I do think that your thought was a good one. I got your drift. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112213 From: Herman Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi Jon, On 26 November 2010 21:50, jonoabb wrote: > > > Hi Robert E > > (112080) > > > 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!)? > > I wonder if you would change your evaluation based on the following: AN 3:40 "And what is the cosmos as a governing principle? There is the case where a monk, having gone to a wilderness, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, reflects on this: 'It is not for the sake of robes that I have gone forth from the home life into homelessness; it is not for the sake of almsfood, for the sake of lodgings, or for the sake of this or that state of [future] becoming that I have gone forth from the home life into homelessness. Simply that I am beset by birth, aging, & death; by sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs; beset by stress, overcome with stress, [and I hope,] "Perhaps the end of this entire mass of suffering & stress might be known!" Now if I, having gone forth, were to think thoughts of sensuality, thoughts of ill will, or thoughts of harmfulness: great is the community of this cosmos. And in the great community of this cosmos there are priests & contemplatives endowed with psychic power, clairvoyant, skilled [in reading] the minds of others. They can see even from afar. Even up close, they are invisible. With their awareness they know the minds of others. They would know this of me: "Look, my friends, at this clansman who though he has in good faith gone forth from the home life into homelessness remains overcome with evil, unskillful mental qualities." There are also devas endowed with psychic power, clairvoyant, skilled [in reading] the minds of others. They can see even from afar. Even up close, they are invisible. With their awareness they know the minds of others. They would know this of me: "Look, my friends, at this clansman who though he has in good faith gone forth from the home life into homelessness remains overcome with evil, unskillful mental qualities."' So he reflects on this: 'My persistence will be aroused & not lax; my mindfulness established & not confused; my body calm & not aroused; my mind centered & unified.' Having made the cosmos his governing principle, he abandons what is unskillful, develops what is skillful, abandons what is blameworthy, develops what is unblameworthy, and looks after himself in a pure way. This is called the cosmos as a governing principle. ===== It seems to me that shame in the face of being known by others is not at all discounted as being unwholesome. Cheers Herman #112214 From: "philip" Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and... philofillet Hi all >Not all (conventional) suttas > are so, but this one is. This is not appreciated enough. I think the commentaries sometimes cloud the issue because they are the adders of the paramattha interpretation. Maybe the commentators were too eager to go too deep into the suttas sometimes. They of course were not infallible... Metta, Phil #112215 From: Herman Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and... egberdina Hi Howard and Ken H, On 28 November 2010 12:51, wrote: > > > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 11/27/2010 3:23:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > upasaka@... wrote: > > > > 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 , > -------------------------- > > I wouldn't say the sutta was oh-so-conventional. The Buddha may have > begun it with some conventional truths (birth, ageing, death etc are > dukkha) > but he promptly assigned those things to the world of illusion when he > said, > in reality the five khandhas are dukkha. > ---------------------------------------------- > Your "snip" was an enormous one, giving short shrift to the VERY > conventional definitions of birth, death, etc., etc. given by the Buddha > here. > This sutta of the Buddha's was about as conventional as one could get. I > stand on what I said EXACTLY! > --------------------------------------------- > > I'm not sure about the rest of the quote; it does seem to be talking about > the conventional things again. > ------------------------------------------- > You're NOT SURE about the rest of the quote? Unbelievable! > ------------------------------------------- > > But since the Buddha had just told his audience that only the five > khandhas were real, I would imagine they were expected to bear that in mind > from > that point on. > ------------------------------------------- > Ken, your prejudice on this matter is clear to me. You are just plain > wrong about this sutta. It is a very conventional teaching. Not all suttas > are so, but this one is. > ------------------------------------------ > The prejudice is indeed stifling. AN 3:40 "And what is the self as a governing principle? There is the case where a monk, having gone to a wilderness, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, reflects on this: 'It is not for the sake of robes that I have gone forth from the home life into homelessness; it is not for the sake of almsfood, for the sake of lodgings, or for the sake of this or that state of [future] becoming that I have gone forth from the home life into homelessness. Simply that I am beset by birth, aging, & death; by sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs; beset by stress, overcome with stress, [and I hope,] "Perhaps the end of this entire mass of suffering & stress might be known!" Now, if I were to seek the same sort of sensual pleasures that I abandoned in going forth from home into homelessness or a worse sort that would not be fitting for me.' So he reflects on this: 'My persistence will be aroused & not lax; my mindfulness established & not confused; my body calm & not aroused; my mind centered & unified.' Having made himself his governing principle, he abandons what is unskillful, develops what is skillful, abandons what is blameworthy, develops what is unblameworthy, and looks after himself in a pure way. This is called the self as a governing principle. Cheers Herman #112216 From: Herman Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:46 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. egberdina Hi Ken H, On 27 November 2010 09:50, Ken H wrote: > > > 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. > > Have you no shame? :-) If mind is the measure of the moment, how can anything be known about a supposed something that outlives it? Is the claim that sense-door rupas can last up to seventeen mind moments the claim of a charlatan? You choose :-) Again, I repeat, have you no shame :-) You made the claim that your momentary universe is uncontradicted in the Tipitaka. I'll post one contradiction (of many possible candidates) and I'll await to see if shame kicks in. 22. {Iti 1.22; Iti 14 } *This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard:* "Monks, don't be afraid of acts of merit. This is another way of saying what is blissful, desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming i.e., acts of merit. I am cognizant that, having long performed meritorious deeds, I long experienced desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming results. Having developed a mind of good will for seven years, then for seven aeons of contraction & expansion I didn't return to this world. Whenever the aeon was contracting, I went to the realm of Streaming Radiance. Whenever the aeon was expanding, I reappeared in an empty Brahma-abode. There I was the Great Brahman, the Unconquered Conqueror, All-seeing, & Wielder of Power. Then for thirty-six times I was Sakka, ruler of the gods. For many hundreds of times I was a king, a wheel-turning emperor, a righteous king of Dhamma, conqueror of the four corners of the earth, maintaining stable control over the countryside, endowed with the seven treasures to say nothing of the times I was a local king. The thought occurred to me: 'Of what action of mine is this the fruit, of what action the result, that I now have such great power & might?' Then the thought occurred to me: 'This is the fruit of my three [types of] action, the result of three types of action, that I now have such great power & might: i.e., giving, self-control, & restraint.'" Cheers Herman #112217 From: Herman Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:55 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. egberdina Hi Nina, On 27 November 2010 20:41, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > 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 :-)) > ---- > :-) I don't doubt the reality of hypnotic suggestion, but I do doubt that it can be a foundation for genuine insight: remembering the suggestion, at best. :-) Cheers Herman #112218 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:23 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? ptaus1 Hi RobE, > RE: If one says that meditation, bhavana, development only represent the "good," "kusala" moments and the rest is akusala, that is the opposite of a process-view. In fact it seems to me to be self-view, pushing through the process to get to the result one desires. ... pt: I think there's always the danger of reading too much into an argument. In my mind this was mostly a matter of classification. I.e. the Buddha never encouraged development of hindrances. In fact, I think it's often stated that arising of hindrances is directly opposed to development of the path. Hence, my conclusion that the actual arising of a hindrance cannot be equated to "development" in the sense of the term "bhavana". Now, I agree that in the wider and more conventional sense of describing what does life as a Buddhist entail, arising of hindrances is a fact of life, and there shouldn't be aversion to this, and there shouldn't be rejection of this, and eventually there would have to be understanding which can recognise a hindrance for what it is - anatta, conditioned, etc - to briefly summarise what you were expressing in several paragraphs. But all this has very little to do with the precision of classification. E.g. even when a hindrance arises and is then recognised as anatta, conditioned, etc - this "recognition" cannot be any longer classified as a hindrance (akusala), but an instance of understanding (kusala). Hence, my conclusions in the post to Jon. Best wishes pt #112219 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:40 am Subject: Re: Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. ptaus1 Dear Nina, Thanks for your replies. Just one small bit is still unclear to me - you say that cetasikas (dhammayatana) cannot arise without citta (manayatana). This however doesn't apply to sublte rupas though (which are also classified as dhammayatana), right? I.e. subtle rupas can arise without citta - I think that's what was said in case of inpercipient beings (born without nama khandas), right? Best wishes pt > N: 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. #112220 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. ptaus1 Hi Herman, Re 112049 > H: Just as an aside, the notion of control is a red herring in my opinion. pt: I think the term "control" is used by Sarah, KenH and others here to stand for an akusala citta with (accordingly) akusala cetasikas as effort, intention, and others. So, the term is not used in its more conventional sense of choice, deciding to do this or that, etc. > H: 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. pt: Ok I should have been more clear. When using "momentary arising" expressions - I'm not trying to say the arising is unconditioned, but I'm pointing towards uniformity of a/kusala. E.g. to me it seems easier to consider simple examples - when metta arises briefly (or momentarily), it's more likely that it's all kusala, rather than when using an example of how much I love my grandmother, since that love can incorporate many different instances of metta, worry, attachment, etc. In a similar fashion like when talking about a meditation session, which can in essence incorporate many instances of a/kusala (sati, hindracnes, etc). So, what I was trying to say (if I remember right) is that the arising is due to conditions, but the present activity (like a meditation session or washing dishes) is not the deciding factor/condition. Hence the conclusion that the arising of a/kusala is possible anytime anywhere. Like for example a hindrance (akusala) can arise momentarily during a meditation session, even though there was sati just a moment before the hindrance arose. Best wishes pt #112221 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? ptaus1 Hi Herman, Re 112051 > H: But my understanding of panna / wisdom is that it's function is > to cut off, not to be aware. pt: Hm, I was under the impression that the main function of panna is understanding. In terms of cutting off, I'm only familiar with the notion that panna cuts off fetters during the supramundane path moments. So, at all other (mundane) instances, panna would have to do only with understanding conditioned dhammas as anatta, etc, not with cutting off. Maybe it could be said that at these mundane moments, unwholesome tendencies are suppressed since unwholesome factors are not arising, but it couldn't be said that they are cut off, unless maybe you mean temporarily. > H: 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. pt: Hm, I'm not sure here. I don't think proliferation and processing are always one and the same thing (and thus, always akusala, as implied by the term "proliferation"). In fact, to go a step further, I don't think that proliferation and verbal thinking are always the same thing (and always akusala). They are all conditioned, but processing and thinking are not always akusala. Same goes for sense-perception. I mean, to go to the extreme example of shutting off senses, as well as shutting off all perception, processing and thinking - this accomplishment is not the equivalent to liberation but only leads to the realm of inpercipient beings. Hence, I wouldn't say that panna is opposed to processing and thinking. Only to akusala. So, I'd define "proliferation" as akusala processing and thinking. And then in that sense, I would agree with you that panna cuts off proliferation (temporarily though - so as long as panna is present). Best wishes pt #112222 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Science as antidote to misunderstanding ptaus1 Hi Herman, Re 112052 > H: 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? pt: I don't really know, though it's interesting to think about this stuff. I'd say that intention would be one thing - considering that it's a part of nama khanda - so not physical. While, the brain, electrical impulses, spinal chord and the rest would be classified under rupa khanda. How exactly could the occurrence of "intention producing bodily intimation, a rupa, and then bodily intimation producing further rupas that move the body" be described in scientific terms - I don't know. I think the occurrence of electrical impulses in the brain would already be at the rupa stage. Which then leads to the question - if intention is not located in the brain, then where is it? Brain is matter, so is intention then somewhere in the electromagnetic field of the brain, since fields are less gross than matter? Or perhaps the electromagnetic field is also essentially a rupa, so then what is less gross than the fields in scientific terms? I don't know. And does that make the brain a simple receiver (or converter), so not the actual processor? Many speculative questions here possible... Interesting, though probably not much to do with the path. Best wishes pt #112223 From: Vince Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:33 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Hi, > <. . .> 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". > 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. don't want to disturb the discussion very much. what you discuss was an special difficult to me. I could not understand how that segmentation of reality and citta speed can be possible. This difficulty to accept the citta speed and a segmentation of the experience was higher because, according the role of Time explained in the Abhidhamma and Athasalini, the Time is defined just as a supporting tool for the explanation. Also, I have read some papers to reinforce that simple supporting role; even bhikkhus claimed the introduction of the "moment of consciousness" inside Abhidhamma was a later addition not truly proper to the Buddha teaching. In short, I was quite reluctant to accept all that. However, still I have accepted an open possibility of some personal circumstances according different people. So I believed that perhaps it was an feature of a progressive detachment arising just in some people, or something like that. Recently, I have found the modern Science contemplates that same fact by means Quantic Phyisics. And it was quite shocking to me. There are some theories talking of a "double" mind speed. These are not only theory but already checked in the study of the planetary movement: "...the "doubling" (of space and time) theory uses finite horizons of several virtual space-times which are embedded within the observable space-time. A specific fundamental movement creates imperceptible time instants (called "temporal openings") in the time flow. Considering different scale levels, it modifies the perception of the time flow and gives to each horizon instantaneous potential futures" http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS00128\ 1000001000852000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no I'm very ignorant of Quantics but for the little I know, his main proponent, named Jean-Pierre Garnier Malet, explains the consequences of that fact for the mind. Mainly, it would be living with "two times": one would be our common and conscious experience of the Time. And the other one would remain as a hidden and fragmented flow of experience in a high speed, like photograms. This open a serious door not only to consider the citta-speed problem but also to many other things showed by the Buddhist scriptures, as clairvoyance, kamma or the knowledge of previous lives. In my case, it is not that this scientific explanation convinced me in all its extent. However, this scientific support adds a new point to consider this issue beyond the simple belief or a particular development of some practitioners. there are some french videos in Internet: http://blackspirit.org/eagleheart/?p=679 author has a website with some English publications: http://www.garnier-malet.com/les_ouvertures_temporelles_054.htm very interesting! :) best wishes, Vince. #112224 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:40 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. gazita2002 hallo Herman, KenH I have read this post a coupla times but fail to see any contradiction with rupas lasting longer than the momentary citta, and the sutta you have quoted. where is the contradiction, Herman? patience, courage and good cheer, azita > > 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. > > > > > Have you no shame? :-) > > If mind is the measure of the moment, how can anything be known about a > supposed something that outlives it? Is the claim that sense-door rupas can > last up to seventeen mind moments the claim of a charlatan? You choose :-) > > Again, I repeat, have you no shame :-) > > You made the claim that your momentary universe is uncontradicted in the > Tipitaka. I'll post one contradiction (of many possible candidates) and I'll > await to see if shame kicks in. > > *This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have > heard:* "Monks, > don't be afraid of acts of merit. This is another way of saying what is > blissful, desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming i.e., acts of merit. I > am cognizant that, having long performed meritorious deeds, I long > experienced desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming results. Having > developed a mind of good will for seven years, then for seven aeons of > contraction & expansion I didn't return to this world. Whenever the aeon was > contracting, I went to the realm of Streaming Radiance. Whenever the aeon > was expanding, I reappeared in an empty Brahma-abode. There I was the Great > Brahman, the Unconquered Conqueror, All-seeing, & Wielder of Power. Then for > thirty-six times I was Sakka, ruler of the gods. For many hundreds of times > I was a king, a wheel-turning emperor, a righteous king of Dhamma, conqueror > of the four corners of the earth, maintaining stable control over the > countryside, endowed with the seven treasures to say nothing of the times > I was a local king. The thought occurred to me: 'Of what action of mine is > this the fruit, of what action the result, that I now have such great power > & might?' Then the thought occurred to me: 'This is the fruit of my three > [types of] action, the result of three types of action, that I now have such > great power & might: i.e., giving, self-control, & restraint.'" > Cheers > > Herman #112225 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:21 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting gazita2002 hallo Rob, here's my thoughts on your not-silly question :) Not only cittas that discern realities are kusala, cittas that arise with metta, karuna, for example are kusala, even tho the object is a concept eg. another person. They are kusala bec there is no harm intended, no being injured in any way, mental or physical. Samatha is calm and at these moments the hindrances are suppressed so no akusala can arise. I'm sure Nina will have a more complete answer for you patience, courage and good cheer azita > > 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. > Rob: This may be a silly question, but if samatha and metta, for instance, do not discern ultimate realities, and that is not their aim, what makes them kusala? Why are they kusala? #112226 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! jonoabb Hi Robert E (112124) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > 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. > =============== J: I'm afraid I don't follow the reasoning that leads to the conclusion in your final sentence here. If it's being said that birth, aging and death [Note: Not birth, *dissatisfaction* and death] are "in short, the five clinging aggregates", then I'd have thought it's being said that birth, aging and death are to be understood in terms of the aggregates, i.e., in paramattha 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. > =============== J: He says that the five clinging aggregates are dukkha. I take this to mean that the five clinging aggregates have dukkha as an inherent characteristic. > =============== > 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. > =============== J: Nobody is saying we should ignore the fact that in the ordinary conventional sense all things are impermanent. But this conventional impermanence is not part of the deep truth taught by Buddhas and by Buddhas alone. For the umpteenth time (!! ;-)), the conventional level is not being dismissed; and as far as I'm aware it's not something we have any disagreement about. But it's the paramattha level that needs to be further considered and directly experienced, imv. Jon #112227 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:34 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E (112126) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > 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. > =============== J: I agree that the information being conveyed is relevant and useful to the development of the path. But this does nothing to resolve the question of whether what is being described is a deliberate action or the arising of kusala. Jon #112228 From: Herman Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:44 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. egberdina Hi Azita, On 28 November 2010 20:40, gazita2002 wrote: > > > hallo Herman, KenH > > I have read this post a coupla times but fail to see any contradiction with > rupas lasting longer than the momentary citta, and the sutta you have > quoted. > > where is the contradiction, Herman? > > As I understand it, Ken's universe ends with each mind moment. Yet he says that rupa can remain, as a support for up to the next seventeen universes. So, in reality, he can't really mean that the universe ends with each mind moment, only that a mind moment ends. In any case, how can it be known that rupa outlasts a mind moment, if mind moment is all there is? (all there is, that's what universe means) The sutta I quoted doesn't talk of the universe ending, but of expanding and contracting. That is in contradiction to Ken's universe being annihilated momentarily. I hope that clarifies. Cheers Herman #112229 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:52 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. kenhowardau Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi again, Ken - > > In a message dated 11/27/2010 4:22:11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > I wonder if it is all that different from conventional reality. Here in > our illusory shadow-land we can't become invisible, un-taste-able, > un-smell-able or inedible, can we? But we can be silent. > > Just a thought! :-) > ---------------------------------------------- > I had cut off that last sentence. Yes, though I answered as I did, I > do think that your thought was a good one. I got your drift. > =============================== Thanks, that's all I wanted. It was just a thought. :-) Ken H #112230 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:59 am Subject: Mind-Moulding! bhikkhu5 Friends: Meditation Remoulds Mind into Magnificence! The Blessed Buddha often said: Whatever is to be done by a teacher out of compassion for the welfare of his students, that has now been done by me out of kind compassion for you. Here are many suitable roots of trees. Here are many silent empty places. Sit down & meditate now. Practice jhana. Don't be lazy. Don't become one who miss the opportunity again & later have to regret his heedless neglect! This is my instruction to you. This is our message to you all... MN 106, SN 35.145, SN 47.10 Manual on the 4 Main Meditation Methods taught by the Blessed Buddha: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/Manual/Meditation.Manual.htm http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/V/Magnificent_Meditation.htm http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/IV/The_40_Meditations.htm Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Mind-Moulding! #112231 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:42 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Colette. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > Jon, I think it really frustrates Robert. You are questioning him and his intelligence on such simple matters as Kusala and Akusala. You are playing the role of "witness" then. Who is doing the creative process? Is anything being created? When heated, do the impurities of milk rise to the surface? Probably so. Always good to hear your observations. Hopefully the milk will not curdle. :-) Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #112232 From: "epsteinrob" Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:01 am Subject: Re: The clansman who is a beginner : one of the ancient wise ones? epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > > > Hi RobE, > > > RE: If one says that meditation, bhavana, development only represent the "good," "kusala" moments and the rest is akusala, that is the opposite of a process-view. In fact it seems to me to be self-view, pushing through the process to get to the result one desires. > ... > > pt: I think there's always the danger of reading too much into an argument. In my mind this was mostly a matter of classification. I.e. the Buddha never encouraged development of hindrances. In fact, I think it's often stated that arising of hindrances is directly opposed to development of the path. Hence, my conclusion that the actual arising of a hindrance cannot be equated to "development" in the sense of the term "bhavana". > > Now, I agree that in the wider and more conventional sense of describing what does life as a Buddhist entail, arising of hindrances is a fact of life, and there shouldn't be aversion to this, and there shouldn't be rejection of this, and eventually there would have to be understanding which can recognise a hindrance for what it is - anatta, conditioned, etc - to briefly summarise what you were expressing in several paragraphs. But all this has very little to do with the precision of classification. E.g. even when a hindrance arises and is then recognised as anatta, conditioned, etc - this "recognition" cannot be any longer classified as a hindrance (akusala), but an instance of understanding (kusala). Hence, my conclusions in the post to Jon. I'm going to stick to my guns on this one a bit, as I think the important point is that a single-moment view of kusala can lead to a disempowerment of a kusala process that necessarily includes the arising of defilements and disturbances as part of the process. While it may be important to recognize when an arising experience is wholesome or not, it is equally important to acknowledge that the process itself involves "working through" defilements and not just avoiding them. I think the single-moment kusala/akusala divide can very easily dismiss the organic nature of this process of development. In fact, the most valuable kusala result may come from the biggest arising of akusala, and working it through, undoing the knots as it were. The idea that only the kusala moments are worthwhile and that kusala is based on past kusala, rather than dealing with akusala, appears to be a very rigid and polarizing view. It does not do justice to the connected and organic nature of development, in which kusala and akusala moments may both play their part. I realize you partially acknowledge this when you acknowledge the kusala view of akusala as part of bhavana, but I think it's more intertwined than even that, and separating the moments out and judging them separately seems artificial to me. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - #112233 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:07 am Subject: Re: Saturday meeting epsteinrob Hi Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > hallo Rob, > > here's my thoughts on your not-silly question :) > > Not only cittas that discern realities are kusala, cittas that arise with metta, karuna, for example are kusala, even tho the object is a concept eg. another person. > > They are kusala bec there is no harm intended, no being injured in any way, mental or physical. > Samatha is calm and at these moments the hindrances are suppressed so no akusala can arise. > > I'm sure Nina will have a more complete answer for you Thank you, Azita. Those are very helpful answers! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #112234 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:22 am Subject: Re: A lovely dream about Kaeng Krajan! epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (112124) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > 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. > > =============== > > J: I'm afraid I don't follow the reasoning that leads to the conclusion in your final sentence here. If it's being said that birth, aging and death [Note: Not birth, *dissatisfaction* and death] are "in short, the five clinging aggregates", then I'd have thought it's being said that birth, aging and death are to be understood in terms of the aggregates, i.e., in paramattha terms. What I am saying is that the equivalence works both ways. He is not saying "do not think in terms of birth and death but only of in terms of kandhas;" he is saying "think both ways - that birth and death have these attributes, and that they also break down to the elements of experience - the five kandhas." It is a teaching that works on a continuum that spans both conventional and a more analytic view. He is not taking away the conventional but including and explaining it. The teaching of the five kandhas, or in this case mentioning them in passing, is the essential analytic of the teachings which shows that there is no self, but only process. However, it can be explained on the "dhamma only" level as you explain it, and the middle-path level of "here is life, and here is how it breaks down," where the conventional is not considered an unreality, but a reality that needs to be examined more closely. > > =============== > > 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. > > =============== > > J: He says that the five clinging aggregates are dukkha. I take this to mean that the five clinging aggregates have dukkha as an inherent characteristic. You can take it that way, but it is a particular interpretation of what he says. When he says the five clinging aggregates are dukkha, that can be explained as "the five clinging aggregates cause suffering," rather than making dukkha a "special object" and raising it to the level of an inherent characteristic. One can even summarize this by saying "life sucks," which doesn't emblazon "suckiness" as a 'capital S' characteristic. > > =============== > > 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. > > =============== > > J: Nobody is saying we should ignore the fact that in the ordinary conventional sense all things are impermanent. Well it seems to me that this is often the message. I think there have been many instances where one is advised to ignore the conventional appearances of life, illness, death etc., and translate them into momentary dhammas immediately, and accept this as the *only* viable conceptual framework. In fact, if what you say here were the case, we would have very little argument about these levels of understanding. > But this conventional impermanence is not part of the deep truth taught by Buddhas and by Buddhas alone. I'm not sure if the conventional truth and the means by which to contemplate it is not indeed a special teaching of the Buddhas. > For the umpteenth time (!! ;-)), the conventional level is not being dismissed; I find that it very often is, but I appreciate your statement to the contrary. > and as far as I'm aware it's not something we have any disagreement about. But it's the paramattha level that needs to be further considered and directly experienced, imv. I disagree here, to the extent that I don't believe the conventional level of anatta, anicca and dukkha are contemplated and worked through anywhere near enough. And I personally think that this conventional consideration, rather than intellectual understanding of the breakdown of dhammas, may be the most important bridge to a finer view of the kandhas. We may acknowledge disappointment, loss, sickness and death in passing without really contemplating the clinging, craving and aversion involved, and how objects and people cannot really satisfy our desires, but it is this more prolonged and deeper contemplation and understanding that begins to look more closely at what these dhammas are made of. Then we can naturally begin to look at the way in which these objects, including our minds and bodies, are encountered through the kandhas. To me it is a seamless whole, not alternative realities. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112235 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:26 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (112126) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > 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. > > =============== > > J: I agree that the information being conveyed is relevant and useful to the development of the path. But this does nothing to resolve the question of whether what is being described is a deliberate action or the arising of kusala. Since the suttas do say that "y can be developed by doing x" and the Buddha admonishes his followers to diligently work for this development, I think it is up to you to show that this is really another way of describing naturally arising dhammas, and not really instruction to be intentionally followed. I have provided quotes that seem quite clear on this, and I will be happy to see your quotes or translations that show a different picture. If you have commentary that gives a viable interpretation of a sutta to demonstrate this, I will enthusiastically read it. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #112236 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:06 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. nilovg Op 24-nov-2010, om 20:46 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > 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? ------- We read about this in the Path of Discrimination and its commentary. In the text, after he (Sriputta) has used the expression knowledge of peoples biases and latent tendencies, saynusaya a, he speaks of the knowledge of peoples behaviour (carita) and resolutions or dispositions (adhimutti). We read (Ch 69, 585): Here the Perfect One knows beings biasses, he knows their underlying tendencies (saynusaya a), he knows their behaviour (carita), he knows their dispositions(adhimutti), he knows beings as capable and incapable. 586. What is the bias which is latent in beings? Beings are supported by the wrong view of existence or supported by the wrong view of non-existence 6 thus: The world is eternal or The world is not eternal or The world is finite or The world is infinite or The soul and the body are the same or The soul is one, the body another or A Perfect One is not after death or A Perfect One both is and is not after death or A Perfect One neither is nor is not after death. Or else, avoiding these extremes, they have acceptance in conformity 7 with respect to dhammas that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality. He also knows them as pursuing sensual-desires thus: This person gives importance to sensual desires, is biassed to sensual desires, is inclined to sensual desires. He also knows them as pursuing renunciation thus: This person gives importance to renunciation, is biassed to renunciation, is inclined to renunciation....> N: Because of contiguity-condition, anatara-paccaya, each citta that falls away conditions the arising of the next citta. The javana- cittas in a process of cittas are kusala cittas or akusala cittas. These arise and fall away, but during these moments inclinations to kusala or akusala are added to the latent biases. Thus, nothing is static. Lobha is bound to arise very often, even after just seeing, and thus evermore lobha is added to the latent tendency of sensuous desire which is very powerful. Whenever we perceive a beautiful object there is an opportunity for the latent tendency of sensuous desire to condition the arising of akusala citta rooted in lobha, and this citta falls away, but the bias to lobha is added on to the latent tendency and these latent tendencies are carried on as each citta condiitons the next one. However, also understanding can be accumulated and thus it can arise again. It can grow until it becomes lokuttara pa~n~naa accompanying magga-citta that eradicates latent tendencies. ****** Nina. #112237 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:07 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. kenhowardau Hi Vince, ----- <. . .> V: > I don't want to disturb the discussion very much.what you discuss was an special difficult to me. I could not understand how that segmentation of reality and citta speed can be possible. ----- I haven't seen the expression "segmentation of reality" before, but surely everyone must agree there is only the present moment. The things that exist in the present moment must constitute the entire universe. Everything else has either ceased to exist or never existed. ----------------------------- V: > This difficulty to accept the citta speed and a segmentation of the experience was higher because, according the role of Time explained in the Abhidhamma and Athasalini, the Time is defined just as a supporting tool for the explanation. Also, I have read some papers to reinforce that simple supporting role; even bhikkhus claimed the introduction of the "moment of consciousness" inside Abhidhamma was a later addition not truly proper to the Buddha teaching. In short, I was quite reluctant to accept all that. ------------------------------- Bhikkhus can't be automatically trusted to know the Dhamma. (Ven Thanissaro, for example, teaches that anatta does not mean no self!) I think all bhikkhus who teach modern forms of vipassana meditation must deny the existence of paramattha dhammas. Their meditation methods are entirely focused on concepts. Ken H #112238 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. nilovg Dear pt, Op 28-nov-2010, om 6:40 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > Just one small bit is still unclear to me - you say that cetasikas > (dhammayatana) cannot arise without citta (manayatana). This > however doesn't apply to sublte rupas though (which are also > classified as dhammayatana), right? I.e. subtle rupas can arise > without citta - I think that's what was said in case of > inpercipient beings (born without nama khandas), right? ------ N: Yes, this is correct. But in the text the question was: <"When manayatana arises for > someone, does also dhammayatana arise for him ? and the answer is "Yes". > Here we have to be careful. This goes for the cetasikas that are included in dhammaayatana. Not for subtle ruupas, not for nibbaana that does not arise. ------ Nina. #112239 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:25 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 27-nov-2010, om 21:00 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I didn't mean to imply that nibbana and parinibbana are two > different views, just that nibbana can be a 'living' experience of > cessation of kandhas and total peace, and parinibbana, as I > understand it, is permanent and after the body has died. Do you > think this is correct? ------- N: Nibbaana is not an experience, because each experience arises and falls away. There is kilesa-parinibbaana (sa-upaadi-sesa-nibbaana), with the khandhas still remaining. This is at the attainment of arahatship. There is khandha-parinibbaana (an-upaadi-sesa-nibbaana), this occurs at the death of an arahat, when the khandhas do not arise anymore. (See Itivutaka, Thus it was said). There is nothing permanent here. We can also use the term nibbaana referring to the object of lokuttara citta. It is nibbaana paramattha dhamma that does not have the characteristic of impermanence and dukkha, but which does have the characteristic of anattaa, non-self. ------ Nina. #112240 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:28 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Saturday meeting nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 27-nov-2010, om 20:43 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > This may be a silly question, but if samatha and metta, for > instance, do not discern ultimate realities, and that is not their > aim, what makes them kusala? Why are they kusala? ------- N: Azita answered this. I can add: kusala is of many levels, such as daana, siila and bhaavana. Also those outside the Buddha's teachings can be generous, observe siila or develop samatha. Kusala of the level of vipassanaa has as object paramattha dhammas. But the other levels should not be neglected. ------ Nina. #112241 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:22 am Subject: Re: Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and... kenhowardau Hi Howard, ---- <. . .> KH: >> But since the Buddha had just told his audience that only the five khandhas were real, I would imagine they were expected to bear that in mind from that point on. >> H: > Ken, your prejudice on this matter is clear to me. You are just plain wrong about this sutta. It is a very conventional teaching. Not all suttas are so, but this one is. ---- My prejudice has been clear for a long time: I believe every word of the Dhamma is to be understood in terms of satipatthana. I don't care how conventional and humdrum some suttas may sound to the uninitiated, they are all to be understood in a way that is deep, profound and unique. Ken H #112242 From: "philip" Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:50 pm Subject: Re: Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and... philofillet Hi Ken and all > I don't care how conventional and humdrum some suttas may sound to the uninitiated, they are all to be understood in a way that is deep, profound and unique. Who has ever once derogated the conventional teaching the Buddha offers to people of limited understanding (not you, of course!) by calling it humdrum except you? The way the conventional teachings of the Buddha impact the lives of human beings to lead them away from behaving in body, speech and mind in ways that harm themselves and others is, in my opinion, the greatest gift anyone has ever bestowed upon humanity. Humdrum is your own idea. You sell the Buddha short, as usual....but of course you are amoung the initiated, the ones of great understanding. Bah, whatever, play your Ariyan games.... Phil #112243 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:12 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (And Robert) - In a message dated 11/29/2010 2:07:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Op 24-nov-2010, om 20:46 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > 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? ------- We read about this in the “Path of Discrimination” and its commentary. In the text, after he (Såriputta) has used the expression “knowledge of people’s biases and latent tendencies”, åsayånusaya ñåùa, he speaks of the knowledge of people’s behaviour (carita) and resolutions or dispositions (adhimutti). We read (Ch 69, 585): “Here the Perfect One knows beings’ biasses, he knows their underlying tendencies (åsayånusaya ñåùa), he knows their behaviour (carita), he knows their dispositions(adhimutti), he knows beings as capable and incapable. 586. What is the bias which is latent in beings? Beings are supported by the wrong view of existence or supported by the wrong view of non-existence 6 thus: ‘The world is eternal’ or ‘The world is not eternal’ or ‘The world is finite’ or ‘The world is infinite’ or ‘The soul and the body are the same’ or ‘The soul is one, the body another’ or ‘A Perfect One is not after death’ or “A Perfect One both is and is not after death’ or ‘A Perfect One neither is nor is not after death.’ Or else, avoiding these extremes, they have ‘acceptance in conformity’ 7 with respect to dhammas that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality. He also knows them as pursuing sensual-desires thus: ‘This person gives importance to sensual desires, is biassed to sensual desires, is inclined to sensual desires. He also knows them as pursuing renunciation thus: This person gives importance to renunciation, is biassed to renunciation, is inclined to renunciation....> N: Because of contiguity-condition, anatara-paccaya, each citta that falls away conditions the arising of the next citta. The javana- cittas in a process of cittas are kusala cittas or akusala cittas. These arise and fall away, but during these moments inclinations to kusala or akusala are added to the latent biases. Thus, nothing is static. Lobha is bound to arise very often, even after just seeing, and thus evermore lobha is added to the latent tendency of sensuous desire which is very powerful. Whenever we perceive a beautiful object there is an opportunity for the latent tendency of sensuous desire to condition the arising of akusala citta rooted in lobha, and this citta falls away, but the bias to lobha is added on to the latent tendency and these latent tendencies are carried on as each citta condiitons the next one. However, also understanding can be accumulated and thus it can arise again. It can grow until it becomes lokuttara pa~n~naa accompanying magga-citta that eradicates latent tendencies. ****** Nina. ================================ The English terminology of "accumulations" and "latent tendencies" is suggestive of underlying substance, of substantial somethings-or-other that are briefly stored, added to, and passed along. The apparent storage of increasingly powerful impulsive, "inclination-forces" within fleeting willow-the-wisp moments of consciousness is contrary to the emptiness teachings of the Buddha. I think this accumulation, store-and-forward scheme is based on poor English terminology and on the very tendency to think in a substantialist "atta fashion". All that "tendencies" come down to are facts of conditionality, not substance. Due to prior events, atta-thinking, desire, aversion, and clinging occur. That having been, this occurs. And repetition of conditions conditions stronger consequences. The Buddha taught a scheme of conditionality that is not a substantialist theory of causal forces. It is this-that conditionality which he taught, a natural law: the simple but amazing fact, not based on our conventional push/pull view of causality, that events have requisite conditions, and once all the conditions for an event have occurred, the event simply does occur. Just that. When this is, that is. When this arises, that will arise. Just that mere fact. The bottom line, I believe, is that this conditionality is not something to *be* explained. Rather, it is the *source* of explanation. This-that conditionality is *fundamental*. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112244 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:52 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 29-nov-2010, om 14:12 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > All that "tendencies" come down to are facts of > conditionality, not substance. ------- N: Yes, correct. The latent tendencies are realities that do not arise and that cannot yet be eradicated. 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. It does not suggest anything substantial or promote atta belief. On the contrary, it helps us to go deeper into the subject of conditions. If we do not thoroughly understand conditions and apply what we learn to our life, the atta belief cannot be eradicated. ------ H: When this is, that is. When this arises, that will arise. Just that mere fact. The bottom line, I believe, is that this conditionality is not something to *be* explained. Rather, it is the *source* of explanation. This-that conditionality is *fundamental*. ----- N: Sure, it is fundamental. In a sutta it has been very briefly referred to as: When this is, that is.But we should understand that the matter of conditions is far more intricate. As you will see in my book, there are 24 classes. And they all pertain to our life now. For me, one lifetime to thoroughly grasp them is not enough. ----- H: I think this accumulation, store-and-forward scheme is based on poor English terminology and on the very tendency to think in a substantialist "atta fashion". -------- N: As you know I am making a long-winded study of the latent tendencies. Here I use English next to Pali. You can see for yourself whether this is poor English suggesting a substantialist "atta fashion". ------- Nina. #112245 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:25 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Because of contiguity-condition, anatara-paccaya, each citta that > falls away conditions the arising of the next citta. It may be asking too much of a minute point, but I wonder how this can take place? Assuming that citta arises from conditions as or before they fall away...?, and that as the citta arises it is carrying already the conditioning that it inherited or was influenced to have from the last citta, the latent tendencies have to be carried somehow or stored somehow. In Mahayana it is explained as alaya-vijnana, or storehouse consciousness, which carries all the kammic and conditioned seeds of latent tendencies, but I would imagine this to be a sort of energetic patterning of consciousness that is maintained as consciousness arises for a variety of objects. When the right stimulus hits it, like a rock falling into a stream with certain currents, the impact is going to influence some currents and bring up certain kinds of actions that would have been latent in the underlying pattern, perhaps, in the analogy, under the surface of the water. I don't know if such an analogy would be too substantialist for your thinking about it, since it would tend to make consciousness seem like it is having a sort of continuous action with currents, etc., and whether this would contradict the idea of a single immediate citta quickly replaced by the one it has conditioned as the prior one falls away, but there has to be some kind of mechanism that allows the succeeding citta to "carry" the tendency it picks up until the tendency is activated. Is there any way to explain what cetasika or other mechanism allows a latent tendency to be carried by momentary cittas? The javana- > cittas in a process of cittas are kusala cittas or akusala cittas. > These arise and fall away, but during these moments inclinations to > kusala or akusala are added to the latent biases. Thus, nothing is > static. This is a good description, though I still wonder about the mechanics of it, as above. > Lobha is bound to arise very often, even after just seeing, and thus > evermore lobha is added to the latent tendency of sensuous desire > which is very powerful. Whenever we perceive a beautiful object there > is an opportunity for the latent tendency of sensuous desire to > condition the arising of akusala citta rooted in lobha, and this > citta falls away, but the bias to lobha is added on to the latent > tendency and these latent tendencies are carried on as each citta > condiitons the next one. > > However, also understanding can be accumulated and thus it can arise > again. It can grow until it becomes lokuttara pa~n~naa accompanying > magga-citta that eradicates latent tendencies. I appreciate the above details, which help my understanding. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112246 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:50 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 27-nov-2010, om 21:00 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > I didn't mean to imply that nibbana and parinibbana are two > > different views, just that nibbana can be a 'living' experience of > > cessation of kandhas and total peace, and parinibbana, as I > > understand it, is permanent and after the body has died. Do you > > think this is correct? > ------- > N: Nibbaana is not an experience, because each experience arises and > falls away. > There is kilesa-parinibbaana (sa-upaadi-sesa-nibbaana), with the > khandhas still remaining. This is at the attainment of arahatship. > There is khandha-parinibbaana (an-upaadi-sesa-nibbaana), this occurs > at the death of an arahat, when the khandhas do not arise anymore. > (See Itivutaka, Thus it was said). There is nothing permanent here. > We can also use the term nibbaana referring to the object of > lokuttara citta. It is nibbaana paramattha dhamma that does not have > the characteristic of impermanence and dukkha, but which does have > the characteristic of anattaa, non-self. It is good to know about these specifics. I would like to know a bit more about the role of nibbaana paramattha dhamma, as opposed to parinibbana, if it is possible to explain. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - #112247 From: "colette" Date: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:38 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? ksheri3 High Robert, Me thinks that holiday season and holiday, played a little shannagins on your consciousness since you mistook my reply as if you were dealing with Jon. You and I both know that Jon is a Theravadan and does not partake of the YOGACARA stimulants. In fact, I wrote my piece to Jon and not you. Ah, but triffles. Let us move on. I'll take your response to who you believe or thought was Jon and I'll deal with it. If I may. . 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. colette: Okay, reasonable. Robert, you claim that there is an actual distiction between MENTAL STATES and PHYSICAL STATES, which illudes to NAMA STATES and RUPA STATES and further illudes to NOUMENAL STATES AND PHENOMINAL STATES. We all take my lack of ability to translate PALI and SANSKRIT concepts and language the 1st priority here but, from what I've just established as our basis, well, damn, it comes out being pretty darn near exact. You can play around with words all you like from your conditioning as a pr speofessor speaking with students, but, hell, I AM A PRACTITIONER. I don't have a mommy and/or daddy that sent me away to become PROGRAMMED. "Mental", "Nama", and "Noumenal" all look to be speaking of the exact same thing, just as "Physical", "Rupa", and "Phenominal" all seem to be speaking of the exact same thing. You, Robert, seem to be distinguishing ABSOLUTELY that there is a difference between the two contradictory CONDITIONS or STATES and so are trying to, YOURSELF, manifest something that is not, that is SUNYA. But what do I know. -------------------------------------------- "Your job ..." colette: hold it, when did I have a job? Who gave me this job? How am I going to be compensated for performing this alleged job? Again, but what do I know? ------------------------------ " Your job is to rule them out, since you say only mental states are at issue. " colette: wow, you must have been even more enibriated than I was last week, during the holiday season, when I ran into a fellow "drinker" at a bar that was unbelievably well versed in the MADHYAMIKA. You are trying to manifest a RELATIVE TRUTH out of SHUNYATA, THE ENTIRE CRUX OF THE MADHYAMIKA. Okay, I could go along with you for a while if you were trying to manifest an ULTIMATE TRUTH OUT OF THE MADHYAMIKA but a Relative truth is worthless. Why are you trying to impose upon me the responsibility to distinguish these two TRUTHS? ------------------------------------------ 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, colette: then that means that you have the absolute distinguishability between a mental state and a physical state. HELP ME OUT HERE How much practice do you have with/in YOGA NIDRA or the TRANCE STATE? HELP ME OUT HERE What is the condition of a practicioner of DZOGCHEN when they are practicing? Surely it must be qualifyable and quantifyable, as you illude to by your request for definition between mental states and physical states? ----------------- and that physicaly actions that Buddha references are not in themselves *sometimes* kusala or akusala in their own right colette: what are you babling about? The "Buddha's references" were specifically designed to show an example of a condition that COULD POTENTIALLY EXIST WITHIN THE PRACTITIONER. They do not always exist, but can exist. They are a reference point upon which to seek an answer to a question. IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, holy shit, they are both kusala and akusala at the same time. ------------------ and that this is what Buddha meant. (colette clears throat) > > It is like I said Monday is a day of the week, and you countered, no, Thursday and Friday are days of the wek, as if that proves that Monday is not a day of the week. The truth is that all three are days of the week, colette: ahhhhh, Longde and Semde, fine aspects to view, since TIME cannot exist without SPACE. Isn't that the curtain call for our ole friends NAME & FORM? Do they need to appear on stage in order to have an effect on the presentation being performed right before the eyes of the audience? ---------------------------- just as both thoughts AND actions are considered kusala or akusala in many instances according to the Buddha. colette: why Robert, wew seem to agree here on this sentence towards the end. Odd, you seem to FINALLY be in accordance with your own perspectives on the theory of YOGACARA. "Marrrrrrvelous" ------------------- > You need some.... colette: hold it, I am not a drug addict. I don't need some schmuck coming along to tell me WHAT I NEED and WHAT I DON'T NEED. ----------- > evidence that Buddha considered *only* mental states kusala or akusala colette: Who is trying to prove that the YOGACARA, that the MIND-ONLY, theory is correct and that the THERAVADAN is wrong? --------------------------------------- and that there is no such thing as a kusala or akusala action in its own right, such as killing someone, colette: How nice to see you again MEGLAMANIA. Yea, I know it's been a long time but I still recognize your behaviors and visage. Robert, I think you may have had a little too much "holiday cheer" since it seems to me that you're trying to pigeon hole or paint somebody in a corner, here. And doesn't that little "adjective" "MURDER" give you room to have Addam's Family fun with the neophytes? Why don't we play "Wake the Dead". How about we recall the Addam's Family credo: We Feast upon those who would Subdue us"? "Capital Idea", no? toodles, colette #112248 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:21 am Subject: Withdrawal Wins! bhikkhu5 Friends: Withdrawal is the 3rd Mental Perfection: Withdrawal is Removal of Misery Withdrawal is Extraction of Disease. Withdrawal is Pulling out the splinter of Pain. Withdrawal is Retraction from Danger. Withdrawal is Renunciation of Ill. Withdrawal is Letting Go of what is Burning. Withdrawal is Turning Away from what is Sorrow. Withdrawal is Seclusion from what is Grief. Withdrawal is Clearing of Captivating Illusions. Withdrawal is Waking Up from Enthralling Trance. Withdrawal is Freedom from Enslaving Addiction. Withdrawal is Protection from what is Entrapping. Withdrawal is Giving Up what is Detrimental. Withdrawal is Discharge of what is Infested. Withdrawal is Breaking out of the Prison. Withdrawal is Release from all Suffering... "Back to Nature" by Robert Storm Petersen . (1882 1949) The Withdrawn, as the man newly freed from prison does not at all wish himself back in prison! The Basket of Conduct, Cariyapitaka Infatuated with lust, impassioned and obsessed, they are caught in their own self-created net, like a spider, which spins it's own web! Cutting through, the Noble Friend withdraw and go free, Without longing, without greed, leaving all misery behind. Dhammapada 347 The Bodhisatta as the King Culasutasoma gave up his whole kingdom. Knowing withdrawal to be an advantageous victory, he remembered: A mighty kingdom I possessed, as if it was dropped into my hands... Yet all this tantalizing luxury, I let fall and go without any even slight trace of longing or clinging. This was my perfection of Withdrawal... Jataka no. 525 Lust, I say, is a great flood, a whirlpool sucking one down, a constant yearning, seeking a hold, continually active, and difficult to cross is such morass of sense and sensual desire... A sage does not deviate from the good, but remains steady! A recluse stands on firm ground, when solitarily secluded: When withdrawn from all, truly he is calmed and silenced! Having directly touched the Dhamma, he is independent! He behaves right and does not envy anyone anywhere... He who has left behind all pleasure arised from sensing, an attachment difficult to cut, is freed of both depression and longing, since he has cut across this great flood, and is released. Sutta Nip ata IV.15 Any being, that cools down all desires and greedy lusts, by being alert and ever aware of the inherent danger, by directing attention only to the disgusting aspects of all phenomena, such one withdraw from all craving and thereby wears down and breaks the bars of the inner prison. Dhammapada 350 If one gains an infinite ease by leaving a minor pleasure, the clever one would swap the luminous for what is a trifling sense delight, by withdrawing from this trivial banal boredom. Dhammapada 290 The one who has reached the sublime end all perfected, is fearless, freed of craving, desireless and detached.. Such one has broken the chains of being and is certainly withdrawing into the final phase, wearing his last frame... Dhammapada 351 Prince Siddhattha Gotama reflected thus: "Why do I, being subject to birth, decay, disease, death, sorrow and defilement, thus search after things of the same nature. What if I, who am subject to things of such nature, realize their disadvantages and seek the unattained and unsurpassed, perfect security: Nibbana!" "Cramped and confined is the household life, a den of dust, but the life of the homeless is in the free open air of heaven! Hard is it for him who abides at home to live the Holy Life as it should be lived, in all its true perfection, and in all its purity." "The household life is a cramped way, choked with dust. To leave it, is like coming out into the free space of open air! It is not easy for one, who lives at home, to live the Noble life completely perfect and pure, bright as mother-of-pearl. Surely I will now shave off my hair and go forth into homelessness." Only Misery Arises. Only Misery Ceases. Nothing good is thus lost by withdrawing from it all... Nothing is Worth Clinging to! ,...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112249 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:45 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > The English terminology of "accumulations" and "latent tendencies" is > suggestive of underlying substance, of substantial somethings-or-other that > are briefly stored, added to, and passed along. The apparent storage of > increasingly powerful impulsive, "inclination-forces" within fleeting > willow-the-wisp moments of consciousness is contrary to the emptiness teachings of > the Buddha. I think this accumulation, store-and-forward scheme is based > on poor English terminology and on the very tendency to think in a > substantialist "atta fashion". All that "tendencies" come down to are facts of > conditionality, not substance. Due to prior events, atta-thinking, desire, > aversion, and clinging occur. That having been, this occurs. And repetition of > conditions conditions stronger consequences. > The Buddha taught a scheme of conditionality that is not a > substantialist theory of causal forces. It is this-that conditionality which he > taught, a natural law: the simple but amazing fact, not based on our conventional > push/pull view of causality, that events have requisite conditions, and > once all the conditions for an event have occurred, the event simply does > occur. Just that. When this is, that is. When this arises, that will arise. > Just that mere fact. > The bottom line, I believe, is that this conditionality is not > something to *be* explained. Rather, it is the *source* of explanation. This-that > conditionality is *fundamental*. This is very cool, Howard. One of the clearest "talks" you've given, and a real gift of clarity. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112250 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:47 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: As you know I am making a long-winded study of the latent > tendencies. Here I use English next to Pali. You can see for yourself > whether this is poor English suggesting a substantialist "atta fashion". I am interested in this subject, and will look forward to your completion of this work. Thanks for doing so much helpful research for everyone's benefit! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #112251 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:18 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Colette. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > High Robert, > > Me thinks that holiday season and holiday, played a little shannagins on your consciousness since you mistook my reply as if you were dealing with Jon. No, no shinanigans on the consciousness - I knew it was you and that you were addressing Jon, but since you referred to me several times I took the liberty to address some points. However, you are confused on a number of my points to Jon which you think were directed to you. They are from the prior post, before you jumped in. > You and I both know that Jon is a Theravadan and does not partake of the YOGACARA stimulants. In fact, I wrote my piece to Jon and not you. Ah, but triffles. Let us move on. I'll take your response to who you believe or thought was Jon and I'll deal with it. No, actually my comments to Jon actually *were* to Jon. They were from the original post before you wrote to Jon, and before I wrote back again. But no.....problem! > If I may. Please do. > . 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. > > colette: Okay, reasonable. Robert, you claim that there is an actual distiction between MENTAL STATES and PHYSICAL STATES, which illudes to NAMA STATES and RUPA STATES and further illudes to NOUMENAL STATES AND PHENOMINAL STATES. We all take my lack of ability to translate PALI and SANSKRIT concepts and language the 1st priority here but, from what I've just established as our basis, well, damn, it comes out being pretty darn near exact. You can play around with words all you like from your conditioning as a pr speofessor speaking with students, but, hell, I AM A PRACTITIONER. Um....I am not a Buddhist professor, or any kind of professor for that matter. I'm an acting teacher in my current work, for whatever that is, but it doesn't really apply to anything here... My standpoint towards Buddhism is mainly based on meditation, FYI. > I don't have a mommy and/or daddy that sent me away to become PROGRAMMED. Hm....not too many people know that I am really a robot. You have good info there! > "Mental", "Nama", and "Noumenal" all look to be speaking of the exact same thing, just as "Physical", "Rupa", and "Phenominal" all seem to be speaking of the exact same thing. > > You, Robert, seem to be distinguishing ABSOLUTELY that there is a difference between the two contradictory CONDITIONS or STATES and so are trying to, YOURSELF, manifest something that is not, that is SUNYA. > > But what do I know. Well, I'm sorry I got you excited, but I am just trying to include physical actions in Buddha's program, not make some absolute distinction between nama and rupa. Though I can sometimes tell the difference between a thought, an action and a piece of wood. Is that so wrong? > -------------------------------------------- > > "Your job ..." > > colette: hold it, when did I have a job? Who gave me this job? How am I going to be compensated for performing this alleged job? This was directed towards Jon, not you. > > Again, but what do I know? > ------------------------------ > > " Your job is to rule them out, since you say only mental states are at issue. " > > colette: wow, you must have been even more enibriated than I was last week, during the holiday season, when I ran into a fellow "drinker" at a bar that was unbelievably well versed in the MADHYAMIKA. I did have a few glasses of wine last week, on our Thanksgiving holiday. How did you know? > You are trying to manifest a RELATIVE TRUTH out of SHUNYATA, THE ENTIRE CRUX OF THE MADHYAMIKA. Okay, I could go along with you for a while if you were trying to manifest an ULTIMATE TRUTH OUT OF THE MADHYAMIKA but a Relative truth is worthless. > > Why are you trying to impose upon me the responsibility to distinguish these two TRUTHS? That was all directed toward Jon - it's Jon who I'm giving these heavy assignments, based on our prior conversation. It's all conditions based! > ------------------------------------------ > 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, > > colette: then that means that you have the absolute distinguishability between a mental state and a physical state. > > HELP ME OUT HERE > > How much practice do you have with/in YOGA NIDRA or the TRANCE STATE? None. > HELP ME OUT HERE All of the above was directed towards Jon from the prior post, not to you. ... > just as both thoughts AND actions are considered kusala or akusala in many instances according to the Buddha. > > colette: why Robert, wew seem to agree here on this sentence towards the end. I am glad to hear it! > Odd, you seem to FINALLY be in accordance with your own perspectives on the theory of YOGACARA. > > "Marrrrrrvelous" > ------------------- > > > You need some.... > > colette: hold it, I am not a drug addict. I don't need some schmuck coming along to tell me WHAT I NEED and WHAT I DON'T NEED. That's a little harsh. In any case, not directed towards you. You seem to be the one who is confusing yourself with Jon. > evidence that Buddha considered *only* mental states kusala or akusala > > colette: Who is trying to prove that the YOGACARA, that the MIND-ONLY, theory is correct and that the THERAVADAN is wrong? Jon is. > and that there is no such thing as a kusala or akusala action in its own right, such as killing someone, > > colette: How nice to see you again MEGLAMANIA. Yea, I know it's been a long time but I still recognize your behaviors and visage. Try reading the whole sentence sometime. It may make more sense. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112252 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:13 pm Subject: Re: Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and... kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Ken and all > > > I don't care how conventional and humdrum some suttas may sound to the uninitiated, they are all to be understood in a way that is deep, profound and unique. > > > Who has ever once derogated the conventional teaching the Buddha offers to people of limited understanding (not you, of course!) by calling it humdrum except you? The way the conventional teachings of the Buddha impact the lives of human beings to lead them away from behaving in body, speech and mind in ways that harm themselves and others is, in my opinion, the greatest gift anyone has ever bestowed upon humanity. Humdrum is your own idea. You sell the Buddha short, as usual....but of course you are amoung the initiated, the ones of great understanding. Bah, whatever, play your Ariyan games.... > --------------- Hi Phil, The way I see it, DSG is a place for studying the Dhamma. It is not a place for self improvement or enlightenment or anything else like that. We are here to learn the nature of all conditioned realities, from the lowest to the highest. When we study the lowest forms of consciousness we are not playing fools' games, and when we study the highest, we are not playing Ariyan games. We are just studying Dhamma. Ken H #112253 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:46 pm Subject: Calm... bhikkhu5 Friends: One becomes Calmed by Stilling all Agitation! The brahmin M agandiya asked the Buddha about how to become calmed: Not dwelling in the past, stilled in the present, one prefers no kind of future! Without irritation, without agitation, without regrets, without worry, neither boasting, nor proud, but humble and modest, one is indeed a restrained sage... Withdrawn, not opposed to anything, not wanting anything, all unconcerned, aloof, gentle, independent, for such one there exists neither craving or fear for any kind of existence, nor craving or fear for any form of non-existence... Such calmed one is indifferent to sense pleasures, detached, not clinging to any kind of property! For him there is nothing more to take up or lay down! For whatever others might accuse him, he remains tranquil and not agitated! Neither opposed to anything, nor attracted to anything, with nothing of his own, not perturbed by what does not exist, such tranquil one is truly calmed! Sutta-Nipata 849-861 Edited excerpt. <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112254 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 1, 2010 9:36 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 30-nov-2010, om 3:47 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I am interested in this subject, and will look forward to your > completion of this work. Thanks for doing so much helpful research > for everyone's benefit! ------ Parts 1 and 2 are completed, but I am still in part 3. Every few weeks I post a section. When completed, and after I have asked the mods' permission, I could post it to the files section with the help of pt. ------- Nina. #112255 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 1, 2010 9:46 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 30-nov-2010, om 2:50 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > It is good to know about these specifics. I would like to know a > bit more about the role of nibbaana paramattha dhamma, as opposed > to parinibbana, if it is possible to explain. ------- N: nibbaana is not opposed to parinibbaana, but I notice that it depends on the context what term is used. When speaking of paramattha dhammas these are: citta, cetasika, ruupa and nibbaana. Then as to the two meanings I mentioned to you, kilesa parinibbaana and khandha- parinibbaana, the term parinibbaana is used. The word nibbaana is used in connection with the end of dukkha. ------- Nina. #112256 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 1, 2010 10:28 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 29-nov-2010, om 19:25 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > N: Because of contiguity-condition, anatara-paccaya, each citta that > > falls away conditions the arising of the next citta. > > It may be asking too much of a minute point, but I wonder how this > can take place? Assuming that citta arises from conditions as or > before they fall away...?, ------- N: We should not forget that contiguity condition is not the only condition for the arising of the next citta, there are so many types of conditions for the arising of each citta. --------- > R:....there has to be some kind of mechanism that allows the > succeeding citta to "carry" the tendency it picks up until the > tendency is activated. Is there any way to explain what cetasika or > other mechanism allows a latent tendency to be carried by momentary > cittas? ------ N: I do not think by way of mechanism. The latent tendencies are with each citta arising and falling away in succession, until they are subsequently eradicated by the maggacittas of the stages of enlightenment. When there is the right condition for them to become manifest, they condition the arising of akusala citta. That citta falls away and a new accumulation of akusala is added. -------- Nina. #112257 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 1, 2010 10:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Views, Snp4.5 sarahprocter... Hi Pt & all, --- On Sat, 27/11/10, ptaus1 wrote: "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? .... S: I understand it, in the context of the sutta as a whole, to be referring to the abandoning of all wrong views (di.t.thi) and the giving up of all attachments, even to wisdom (~naa.na). Remember the raft? Even the attachment to the raft has to be relinquished. The last sentence in the sutta is "Gone to the far shore, such a one does not fall back [on anything]." I think the sutta and commentary refer to the abandoning of all kinds of attadi.t.thi (and other di.t.thi) along with all kinds of (wrong) conceiving (na ma~n~netha. Saddhatissa's translation of the verse: "The sage has abandoned the notion of self or ego and is free from clinging. He does not depend even on knowledge; he does not take sides in teh midst of controversy; he has no dogmatic views." Metta Sarah ======= #112258 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Dec 1, 2010 8:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: On Views, Snp4.5 truth_aerator Hello Sarah, all, > S: > "The sage has abandoned the notion of self or ego and is free >from clinging. He does not depend even on knowledge; he does not take >sides in teh midst of controversy; he has no dogmatic views." What do you think "He does not depend even on knowledge (nana)" means? With metta, Alex #112259 From: "gazita2002" Date: Wed Dec 1, 2010 10:14 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. gazita2002 hallo Herman, > > I have read this post a coupla times but fail to see any contradiction with > > rupas lasting longer than the momentary citta, and the sutta you have > > quoted. > > > > where is the contradiction, Herman? > > > > As I understand it, Ken's universe ends with each mind moment. Yet he says > that rupa can remain, as a support for up to the next seventeen universes. > So, in reality, he can't really mean that the universe ends with each mind > moment, only that a mind moment ends. In any case, how can it be known that > rupa outlasts a mind moment, if mind moment is all there is? (all there is, > that's what universe means) > > The sutta I quoted doesn't talk of the universe ending, but of expanding and > contracting. That is in contradiction to Ken's universe being annihilated > momentarily. > > I hope that clarifies. > azita: I have not read the sutta, so cannot comment :( however, Herman, you have clarified my query, thank you. may all beins be happy azita #112260 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Dec 1, 2010 11:29 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. kenhowardau Hi Herman and Azita, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > hallo Herman, > > > > > I have read this post a coupla times but fail to see any contradiction with > > > rupas lasting longer than the momentary citta, and the sutta you have > > > quoted. > > > > > > where is the contradiction, Herman? > > > > > > As I understand it, Ken's universe ends with each mind moment. Yet he says > > that rupa can remain, as a support for up to the next seventeen universes. > > So, in reality, he can't really mean that the universe ends with each mind > > moment, only that a mind moment ends. In any case, how can it be known that > > rupa outlasts a mind moment, if mind moment is all there is? (all there is, > > that's what universe means) > > > > The sutta I quoted doesn't talk of the universe ending, but of expanding and > > contracting. That is in contradiction to Ken's universe being annihilated > > momentarily. > > > > I hope that clarifies. > > > > azita: I have not read the sutta, so cannot comment :( > however, Herman, you have clarified my query, thank you. > ----------------- Not reading suttas has never held me back. :-) This one seems like a continuation of the satipatthana sutta to me. When a monk is in an expanding universe he has right understanding of of nama and rupa. When a monk is in a contracting universe . . . and so on. As for the other objection regarding the duration of the universe, I suppose it depends on your perspective. If you are wondering about the duration of the universe from the consciousness perspective then it lasts for one nama. If you are [somehow] wondering from the material perspective then it lasts for one rupa. Simple as that! :-) Ken H #112261 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 2, 2010 12:11 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 30-nov-2010, om 3:47 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > I am interested in this subject, and will look forward to your > > completion of this work. Thanks for doing so much helpful research > > for everyone's benefit! > ------ > Parts 1 and 2 are completed, but I am still in part 3. Every few > weeks I post a section. When completed, and after I have asked the > mods' permission, I could post it to the files section with the help > of pt. > ------- That sounds good! Do you know the thread title for the sections that were posted? Thanks, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - #112262 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 2, 2010 12:14 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 30-nov-2010, om 2:50 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > It is good to know about these specifics. I would like to know a > > bit more about the role of nibbaana paramattha dhamma, as opposed > > to parinibbana, if it is possible to explain. > ------- > N: nibbaana is not opposed to parinibbaana, but I notice that it > depends on the context what term is used. When speaking of paramattha > dhammas these are: citta, cetasika, ruupa and nibbaana. Then as to > the two meanings I mentioned to you, kilesa parinibbaana and khandha- > parinibbaana, the term parinibbaana is used. The word nibbaana is > used in connection with the end of dukkha. I guess what I have in mind is the idea that to become an arahant one experiences nibbana as object of citta, is that correct? I know there is a whole sequence of other events involved as well, as the defilements are ended, but nibbana has a special role as the culmination of that sequence, yes? I am wondering what are the circumstances under which the different forms of nibbana arise. Thanks, Robert E. - - - - - - - - #112263 From: "gazita2002" Date: Thu Dec 2, 2010 8:01 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. gazita2002 hallo KenH, > > azita: I have not read the sutta, so cannot comment :( > > however, Herman, you have clarified my query, thank you. > > > ----------------- > > Not reading suttas has never held me back. :-) > azita: LOL > This one seems like a continuation of the satipatthana sutta to me. When a monk is in an expanding universe he has right understanding of of nama and rupa. When a monk is in a contracting universe . . . and so on. > > As for the other objection regarding the duration of the universe, I suppose it depends on your perspective. If you are wondering about the duration of the universe from the consciousness perspective then it lasts for one nama. If you are [somehow] wondering from the material perspective then it lasts for one rupa. Simple as that! :-) > > Ken H azita: certainly the universe that we talk about - expanding, contracting - is jst a concept. I like the way you have stated the above, no arguments entertained, not that I wish to argue as I totally agree with you here:) patience, courage and good cheer azita #112264 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 2, 2010 8:06 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 2-dec-2010, om 1:11 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > That sounds good! Do you know the thread title for the sections > that were posted? -------- N: Latent Tendencies. I addressed it to: Han and friends, because Han compares the texts with Myanmar books he has and gives additional info. Nina. #112265 From: "colette" Date: Wed Dec 1, 2010 9:34 pm Subject: Re: should one try one's best? ksheri3 Hi Robert, Not at all, that I was addressing Jon. For some reason I got the reply that you sent to him and I was, I thought, addressing your words specifically. I knew that I was commenting on a conversation between you and Jon. I actually thought, however, that you were using my reply to jon as your basis for a reply to Jon. ---------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Colette. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > >. > > High Robert, > > > > Me thinks that holiday season and holiday, played a little shannagins on your consciousness since you mistook my reply as if you were dealing with Jon. > colette: I actually did think that you were directing your comments to Jon based upon a reply that I sent to Jon about the conversation that you two were having ----------------------- > No, no shinanigans on the consciousness - I knew it was you and that you were addressing Jon, but since you referred to me several times I took the liberty to address some points. However, you are confused on a number of my points to Jon which you think were directed to you. They are from the prior post, before you jumped in. > colette: I like this. Over the past couple of days I was considering how beautiful it is to converse with colleagues in this discipline. For YEARS, when I was studying Western mysticism and kabbalah, I was so bothered by the fact that I cannot converse with the writers of the books that I was reading and the concepts that I was trying to grasp because they were all dead. I longed to be able to relate with, relate to, people that studied what I enjoy studying and practicing. Finding the internet and a "golden dawn" forum sent me into ELATION, however I knew that my concepts and practices were/are of no use to the robotics of DOGMA that these neophytes adhere(d) to. Pursueing my original coarse that I conceived in the mid-1980s, gave me the chance to study Buddhism with far greater access to material than the access to material that I had and used in the 80-90s. Having your participation, here, in a Theravadan group, is an honor to me. That you can have the time to actually interact with ignorant practicitioners like myself. Sure, for me, who deals with the esoteric and the mystical, I fully understood that the Theravadan coarse was/is not the coarse for me HOWEVER, the Theravadan, is a splendid "gatekeeper" that maintains the FOUNDATIONAL aspects and principles so that I have a reference point to rely upon when things get a bit too crazy. Your material from the UCSF is VERY ADVANCED and takes me a long to decipher, to translate, to understand, and then to apply to reality. It's not easy. I hope you can find the time to give me your point of view on my MISS CONCEPTIONS: "...you are confused on a number of my points ..." Your opinion is very appreciated. ---------------------------------- > > You and I both know that Jon is a Theravadan and does not partake of the YOGACARA stimulants. In fact, I wrote my piece to Jon and not you. Ah, but triffles. Let us move on. I'll take your response to who you believe or thought was Jon and I'll deal with it. > > No, actually my comments to Jon actually *were* to Jon. They were from the original post before you wrote to Jon, and before I wrote back again. > > But no.....problem! colette: sounds good. ----------------- > > . 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. > > > > colette: Okay, reasonable. Robert, you claim that there is an actual distiction between MENTAL STATES and PHYSICAL STATES, which illudes to NAMA STATES and RUPA STATES and further illudes to NOUMENAL STATES AND PHENOMINAL STATES. We all take my lack of ability to translate PALI and SANSKRIT concepts and language the 1st priority here but, from what I've just established as our basis, well, damn, it comes out being pretty darn near exact. You can play around with words all you like from your conditioning as a pr speofessor speaking with students, but, hell, I AM A PRACTITIONER. > > Um....I am not a Buddhist professor, or any kind of professor for that matter. I'm an acting teacher in my current work, for whatever that is, but it doesn't really apply to anything here... > > My standpoint towards Buddhism is mainly based on meditation, FYI. > colette: MEDITATION! The only way that a person can actually "be" cognizant of the multitude of realities that we are forced to deal with. I cannot believe that the majority of people have not realized the superiority of this practice in their daily lives, however, again, it's because of the multitude of realities that we're forced to deal with and finding time to actually give to the practice of meditation is difficult. The problem of meditating about EXTERIOR realities and the unbeleivable difficulty of meditating on what is INTERIOR, on the alleged SELF, meditating on the NATURE OF MIND and of THOUGHTS, is unbelievably frustrating. I try to use a FREE-FLOWING type of meditation without the continual focus on a MANTRA or a DEITY. I try to allow my meditation to flow so that I can then take the observed emotions, the observed prejudices, etc. within my own process, and apply it to DEITIES or MANTRAS that have similar characteristics. Often, though, I try to focus on concepts received from papers on mantras or suttas, but am frustrated by the inconsistent "fit" that my practice created to the already created material I study from. This is just part of the learning process since I do not have that actual suttas or just a few of the actual mantras, upon which I'm basing my conclusions. --------------------------- > Hm....not too many people know that I am really a robot. You have good info there! > colette: yea, that's typical. When I began finding satisfaction from the actual ability that the internet gave me, to converse with colleagues, I was struck by the POTENTIALITY that I may not be conversing with an actual person, that what I may be doing is just conversing with a huge main-frame computer which makes it nothing more than a discussion with a computer generated argument. The computer, owned and operated, by wealthy people with their own perversions and reasons to apply their computer power to the internet, in that type of way, is something that we all have to live with. Remember, the internet was created by the U.S. government for storing information and to allow government contractors at universities to converse about their experimentations. ------------------------------------------ > > "Mental", "Nama", and "Noumenal" all look to be speaking of the exact same thing, just as "Physical", "Rupa", and "Phenominal" all seem to be speaking of the exact same thing. > > > > You, Robert, seem to be distinguishing ABSOLUTELY that there is a difference between the two contradictory CONDITIONS or STATES and so are trying to, YOURSELF, manifest something that is not, that is SUNYA. > > > > But what do I know. > > Well, I'm sorry I got you excited, colette: "well I'm just an excitable boy" you should see me when I go into my "werewolf" mode but they got rid of the bar TRADER VICKS, at THE PALMER HOUSE, here in Chicago. Too bad Warren Zevon is dead and I can't ask him to modify his version of things. Just for laughs, of course. ------------------ but I am just trying to include physical actions in Buddha's program, not make some absolute distinction between nama and rupa. colette: this may be my IGNORANCE blazing brightly but I always thought and have believed that the MIND-ONLY SCHOOL or YOGACARA is entirely founded upon the absolute distinction between RUPA and the generator of all Rupa, the mind (thus mind-only) which simply consists of NAMA. The mind is IMPOSING it's beliefs onto things EXTERIOR to it's NAMA process or thinking process. Rupa exists but it doesn't exist as we think it exists. We already know that humans cannot CREATE nor DESTROY MATTER. Scientist know that all things are made up in a STRUCTURE of atoms, a configuration of atoms. They also know that atoms can be reconfigured and thus, the change in structure, the change in configuation, is the CAUSATION of a new Rupa. The rupa existed in parts. It was not until the parts were reconfigured to manifest the "new" rupa, or new thing. It's like the seed: the tree which is created by the seed already existed in the seed, it was not until the seed was planted did the tree have the ability to emerge as "BECOME". ------------------------------- Though I can sometimes tell the difference between a thought, an action and a piece of wood. Is that so wrong? > colette: by no means! I get kindof tired of the knit-picking that certain control freaks have by demanding that every T be crossed and every I be dotted, the maticulous obsession with minutia. AND I AM SO SICK OF HAVING TO SAY: A BRICK WALL EXISTS, DO I NEED "A PRIORI" KNOWLEDGE TO KNOW THAT BY HITTING MY HEAD AGAINST A BRICK WALL WILL CAUSE MY HEAD TO HURT? I get you point. -------------------- > > -------------------------------------------- > > > > "Your job ..." > > > > colette: hold it, when did I have a job? Who gave me this job? How am I going to be compensated for performing this alleged job? > > This was directed towards Jon, not you. > colette: The principle still applies: you sound a bit authoratative by directing that a job exists and that it isn't your job but another person's job. I was a bit overwhelmed by the holiday spirits, so maybe I, myself, should not have been so touchy about TRIVIA. -------------------------------------------- > > > > Again, but what do I know? > > ------------------------------ > > > > " Your job is to rule them out, since you say only mental states are at issue. " > > > > colette: wow, you must have been even more enibriated than I was last week, during the holiday season, when I ran into a fellow "drinker" at a bar that was unbelievably well versed in the MADHYAMIKA. > > I did have a few glasses of wine last week, on our Thanksgiving holiday. How did you know? > colette: PLAYING THE ODDS! Ya can't just sit on the fence and have life spoon fed to ya, ya gotta make a decision and decide to ROLL THE DICE in this gamble called LIFE. I've gotta go but would love to continue our conversation. Jon, you are most certainly welcomed to participate as well as any other member here. I look forward to your reply. toodles, colette <....> #112266 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 2, 2010 8:24 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 2-dec-2010, om 1:14 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I guess what I have in mind is the idea that to become an arahant > one experiences nibbana as object of citta, is that correct? ------ N: There are four stages of enlightenment: of the sotaapanna, the sakadagaami, the anaagaami and the arahat. at each of these stages lokuttara cittas arise and these experience nibbaana, the unconditioned element. The sotaapanna experiences nibbaana for the first time. The lokuttara kusala citta, the magga-citta or Path-consciousness experiences nibbaana and eradicates defilements in accordance with the stage that is reached. The lokuttara vipaakacitta, the phalacitta or fruition-consciousness, experiences nibbaana, and then defilements have been eradicated in accordance with the stage that is reached. -------- > I know there is a whole sequence of other events involved as well, > as the defilements are ended, but nibbana has a special role as the > culmination of that sequence, yes? ------ N: It is the object experienced by lokuttara citta. But before this citta can arise, pa~n~naa has to be developed to a great extent so that it can become lokuttara pa~n~naa accompanying lokuttara citta. -------- > > R: I am wondering what are the circumstances under which the > different forms of nibbana arise. ------- N: In the first place, nibbaana does not arise. It is the unconditioned dhamma, it does not arise and fall away, it is not subject to dukkha. There are not different forms of nibbaana, there is one nibbaana, the unconditioned element. The circumstances: the development of right understanding of all naamas and ruupas that appear at this moment, thus, beginning now. There is no other way. First it has to be known that such or such reality is naama dhamma, not self, or ruupa dhamma, not self, and this has to be known through six doorways. Naama and ruupa have to be clearly distinguished before their arising and falling away can be realised. If they are not clearly distinguished from each other, the wrong view of self cannot be eradicated. ------ Nina. #112267 From: han tun Date: Thu Dec 2, 2010 10:14 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. hantun1 Dear Robert E and Nina, The following is the web-links for the previous posts by Nina on Latent tendencies. Latent tendencies 1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/101170 Latent tendencies 2 [Chapter 1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/101212 Latent tendencies 3 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/101243 Latent tendencies 4 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/101271 Latent tendencies 4 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/101476 Latent tendencies 5 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/101576 Latent tendencies 6 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/101645 Latent tendencies 7 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/101840 Latent tendencies 8 [Chapter 2] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/102135 Latent tendencies 9 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/102333 Latent tendencies 10 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/102657 Latent tendencies 11 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/102992 Latent tendencies 12 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/103150 Latent tendencies 13 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/103843 Latent tendencies 14 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/104108 Latent tendencies 15 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/104370 Latent tendencies 16 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/104685 -------------------- Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 1. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/110696 Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/111562 Kind regards, Han #112268 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 2, 2010 10:30 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. nilovg Dear Han, thank you for taking all this trouble, Nina. Op 2-dec-2010, om 11:14 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > The following is the web-links for the previous posts by Nina on > Latent tendencies. #112269 From: Herman Date: Thu Dec 2, 2010 12:47 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. egberdina Hi Azita, On 2 December 2010 09:14, gazita2002 wrote: > > > hallo Herman, > > > > > I have read this post a coupla times but fail to see any contradiction > with > > > rupas lasting longer than the momentary citta, and the sutta you have > > > quoted. > > > > > > where is the contradiction, Herman? > > > > > > As I understand it, Ken's universe ends with each mind moment. Yet he > says > > that rupa can remain, as a support for up to the next seventeen > universes. > > So, in reality, he can't really mean that the universe ends with each > mind > > moment, only that a mind moment ends. In any case, how can it be known > that > > rupa outlasts a mind moment, if mind moment is all there is? (all there > is, > > that's what universe means) > > > > The sutta I quoted doesn't talk of the universe ending, but of expanding > and > > contracting. That is in contradiction to Ken's universe being annihilated > > momentarily. > > > > I hope that clarifies. > > > > azita: I have not read the sutta, so cannot comment :( > however, Herman, you have clarified my query, thank you. > > No worries :-) > may all beins be happy > I know what you mean. I could now derail and say that what you wrote is only a concept. But I'm not into derailing :-) May you be happy, Azita Herman #112270 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Dec 2, 2010 11:07 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. kenhowardau Hi Nina and Robert E, ------ RE: >> > I guess what I have in mind is the idea that to become an arahant > one experiences nibbana as object of citta, is that correct? N: > There are four stages of enlightenment: of the sotaapanna, the sakadagaami, the anaagaami and the arahat. at each of these stages lokuttara cittas arise and these experience nibbaana, the unconditioned element. The sotaapanna experiences nibbaana for the first time. The lokuttara kusala citta, the magga-citta or Path-consciousness experiences nibbaana and eradicates defilements in accordance with the stage that is reached. The lokuttara vipaakacitta, the phalacitta or fruition-consciousness, experiences nibbaana, and then defilements have been eradicated in accordance with the stage that is reached. ------- KH: I used to think parinibbana was similar to those stages - making it more or less a fifth stage of enlightenment. But it isn't, is it? -------------------- RE: >> I know there is a whole sequence of other events involved as >> well,as the defilements are ended, but nibbana has a special role >> as the culmination of that sequence, yes? N: > It is the object experienced by lokuttara citta. But before this > citta can arise, pa~n~naa has to be developed to a great extent so > that it can become lokuttara pa~n~naa accompanying lokuttara citta. RE: >> I am wondering what are the circumstances under which the >> different forms of nibbana arise. N: > In the first place, nibbaana does not arise. It is the > unconditioned dhamma, it does not arise and fall away, it is not > subject to dukkha. There are not different forms of nibbaana, there > is one nibbaana, the unconditioned element. > The circumstances: the development of right understanding of all > naamas and ruupas that appear at this moment, thus, beginning now. > There is no other way. > First it has to be known that such or such reality is naama dhamma, > not self, or ruupa dhamma, not self, and this has to be known > through six doorways. Naama and ruupa have to be clearly > distinguished before their arising and falling away can be > realised. If they are not clearly distinguished from each other, > the wrong view of self cannot be eradicated. -------------------- KH: Thaks Nina, I am sure that will answer Robert's question, but I wonder if he was also asking about parinibbana as distinct from nibbana. (Or, as Robert phrased it, parinibbana as opposed to nibbana.) As I understand it, parinibbana is the final extinction of the five khandhas. At parinibbana, there is only nibbana, there is no consciousness (vinnana-khandha) of nibbana. Is that right, Nina? Or is parinibbana an actual moment of consciousness with nibbana as object (after which there is no more consciousness)? Ken H #112271 From: "gazita2002" Date: Thu Dec 2, 2010 11:45 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. gazita2002 hallo Herman, I'm unsure what you mean by derail, however I agree with you that what I wrote is a concept, as I am a concept :) The words citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana are concepts also but they represent actual realities which can be known, when the conditions are right for knowledge to arise. patience, courage and good cheer azita azita: I have not read the sutta, so cannot comment :( > > however, Herman, you have clarified my query, thank you. > > > > > No worries :-) > > I know what you mean. I could now derail and say that what you wrote is only > a concept. But I'm not into derailing :-) > > May you be happy, Azita > > Herman #112272 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 2, 2010 7:10 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. upasaka_howard Hi, Azita (and Herman) - In a message dated 12/2/2010 6:45:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, gazita2002@... writes: hallo Herman, I'm unsure what you mean by derail, however I agree with you that what I wrote is a concept, as I am a concept :) ------------------------------------------------ Have you in effect just said "I don't exist"? Is that an atta-view or what? (Seem like one to me.) Why is "I am a concept" any more meaningful than "I am real"? They both presuppose an "I". And what, BTW, is a concept? Is that a thing? Where is it found? Thinking occurs. But where are concepts? Do they occur? --------------------------------------------- The words citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana are concepts also but they represent actual realities which can be known, when the conditions are right for knowledge to arise. -------------------------------------------- Could be. How do you know that, Azita? You state this as fact, which suggests to me that you at least *believe* you know it as fact. ------------------------------------------ patience, courage and good cheer azita ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112273 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 12:17 am Subject: How2 Get Calm Contentment? bhikkhu5 Friends: What is the Cause of Contentment Santutthi? The blessed Buddha once said: Contentment is the highest Treasure! Dhammapada 204 Please imagine a state, where one always is Content If always content, what would, one need, urge for or want? Nothing! What is the cause of contentment? Mutual joy with others success is the proximate cause of contentment... Lack of Mutual joy is therefore the cause of discontentment A: When did you last rejoice happily in someone elses success? B: When did you last enjoy the calm peace of satisfied contentment? State-A causes state-B. Therefore: Non-state-A causes non-state-B...! <...> Enjoy Elevated Rejoice! It cures! When providing the cause, one gains the effect Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112274 From: "philip" Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 3:09 am Subject: Re: Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and... philofillet Hi Ken > The way I see it, DSG is a place for studying the Dhamma. It is not a place for self improvement or enlightenment or anything else like that. We are here to learn the nature of all conditioned realities, from the lowest to the highest. > > When we study the lowest forms of consciousness we are not playing fools' games, and when we study the highest, we are not playing Ariyan games. We are just studying Dhamma. Well, the thing is, by going straight to the paramattha teachings you are not studying Dhamma in the way the Buddha intended, see Nina's post the other day. I don't have time to find it now, but it was that the Buddha did not teach the deep teachings until the listener was ready to receive it. You and others feel you are ready, for me, I know it is farcical to lay those deep teachings into my lust-driver, hate-driven, thoroughly deluded mind. You believe in a kind of pariyatthi that transforms your intellectual understanding of the deep teachings gradually into real understanding. I don't believe in that, I believe that that kind of pariyatthi will only lead to a corrupted understanding and exploitation of the deep teaching for pleasant emotional comfort. (Believing in one's understanding of the deep teachings is very pleasant.) But I should keep an open mind, because I read on Dhammawheel that "Ajahn Sujin is considered to be a sotapanna." I have long suspected that there was such a belief amoung her students, and that people might believe that by listening to a sotapanna that understanding could be transmitted...in any case, I should keep an open mind just in case it's true! Metta, Phil #112275 From: "revtriple" Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 6:43 am Subject: Brahmajala Sutta revtriple Hi Fellow Dhamma lovers! Brahmajala Sutta If, without understanding, I were to declare something to be wholesome or unwholesome, desire and lust or hatred and aversion might arise in me. ... This is in the accesstoinsight.org search for this Sutta. However when I go to this Sutta I don't find it anywhere!? Can some one please tell me where this is in the Sutta? Thank You! #112276 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 9:07 am Subject: Re: Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and... kenhowardau Hi Phil, ------------- <. . .> Ph: > Well, the thing is, by going straight to the paramattha teachings you are not studying Dhamma in the way the Buddha intended, see Nina's post the other day. I don't have time to find it now, but it was that the Buddha did not teach the deep teachings until the listener was ready to receive it. -------------- I think I remember it. The listener later became a sotapanna. (So he was no fool.) As I recall Nina's explanation, the Buddha gave that person a conventional teaching of loss, decay, and death (etc) before teaching the Dhamma. So the first part was not Dhamma, it was something an ordinary person might have taught. The point of it all was, I assume, that everything - starting with commonly known things - needed to be experienced with detachment. The Buddha was impressing upon the listener that the Way was a way of detachment, not attachment. I think you will agree that K Sujin and her students stress detachment right from the beginning. They point out that modern forms of meditation, for example, are symptoms of attachment, not of detachment. Until we have seen that, we can't have right understanding. ---------------------------- Ph: > You and others feel you are ready, for me, I know it is farcical to lay those deep teachings into my lust-driver, hate-driven, thoroughly deluded mind. ----------------------------- Time is running out, Phil. You must learn that lust and hate are conditioned dhammas that are to be rightly understood when they arise. They do not belong to you or to anyone else. Just understand 'em! :-) -------------------------------- Ph: > You believe in a kind of pariyatthi that transforms your intellectual understanding of the deep teachings gradually into real understanding. I don't believe in that, I believe that that kind of pariyatthi will only lead to a corrupted understanding and exploitation of the deep teaching for pleasant emotional comfort. (Believing in one's understanding of the deep teachings is very pleasant.) -------------------------------- It's an interesting theory, Phil, and an original one as far as I know. But don't waste any more time on it. Get back to studying Dhamma. ------------------------------------------ Ph: > But I should keep an open mind, because I read on Dhammawheel that "Ajahn Sujin is considered to be a sotapanna." I have long suspected that there was such a belief amoung her students, and that people might believe that by listening to a sotapanna that understanding could be transmitted...in any case, I should keep an open mind just in case it's true! --------------------------------- I don't know what her students think about that. I have met several, and they have never mentioned it to me. Mind you, I have been careful not to raise the subject. I am not ready to hear that sort of talk. I can't see how it would help my Dhamma study. Ken H #112277 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 10:36 am Subject: Re: How can killiing or stealing not be a conventional deed? jonoabb Hi Phil (112092) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > 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. > =============== J: Just to clarify. I am not denying conventional deeds in the sense you suggest. I am saying that when the Buddha spoke in terms of conventional deeds (which he did most of the time), he was in fact alluding to the underlying mental states. Thus, if he said that restraint from killing was kusala, he was referring to kusala restraint and not to refraining from killing for purely akusala reasons (as in the example I gave to Robert E). Hoping this clarifies a little the context of my earlier remarks. Regarding "understanding of deeds on the conventional level", I'd be interested to know how you see this. As I read the teachings, understanding of 2 kinds is taught: kusala consciousness vs. akusala consciousness (this is the understanding necessary for the development of samatha) and dhammas as dhammas (the understanding necessary for the development of awareness/insight). Where do you see understanding of deeds on the conventional level fitting into the teachings? Jon #112278 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 10:38 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? jonoabb Hi Robert E 112178) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > 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. > =============== J: Wondering if I'm understanding you correctly here. As you see it, when the Buddha said that restraint from killing was kusala, he was including all instances of refraining from killing including occasions such as in the example I gave above where clearly no kusala mental states are involved. Is that how you see it? Jon #112279 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 2:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Siila. nilovg Dear Phil and Ken H, Op 3-dec-2010, om 10:07 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > Ph: > But I should keep an open mind, because I read on Dhammawheel > that "Ajahn Sujin is considered to be a sotapanna." I have long > suspected that there was such a belief amoung her students, and > that people might believe that by listening to a sotapanna that > understanding could be transmitted...in any case, I should keep an > open mind just in case it's true! > --------------------------------- > > I don't know what her students think about that. I have met > several, and they have never mentioned it to me. ----- N: It is a pure waste of time to speculate whether someone is a sotaapanna or not. As I said before: sotaapanna is a mere word for someone who has not attained to that state. Phil, I thought of you when I heard a Thai recording this morning on siila. This was in the context of natural decisive support-condition (Ch 9 of my book on Conditions), how akusala conditions akusala later on, how akusala can condition kusala, how kusala conditions kusala. The transgression of one of the five precepts can condition another transgression later on. Killing can condiiton stealing, such as stealing of weapons, or lying. Harsh speech is committed with dosa, and when dosa has become strong it can motivate killing. If we are negligent in the development of understanding we are able to commit all sorts of evil deeds. For example, if we have no notion of what is kusala citta or akusala citta it can lead to evil deeds. Nina. #112280 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 3:09 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Ken H, Op 3-dec-2010, om 0:07 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > > KH: Thanks Nina, I am sure that will answer Robert's question, but > I wonder if he was also asking about parinibbana as distinct from > nibbana. (Or, as Robert phrased it, parinibbana as opposed to > nibbana.) > > As I understand it, parinibbana is the final extinction of the five > khandhas. At parinibbana, there is only nibbana, there is no > consciousness (vinnana-khandha) of nibbana. ------- N: There is kilesa paranibbaana, the attainment of arahatship when all defilements are eradicated, and there is khandha paranibbaana, the final death of the arahat who will not be reborn. When his dying- consciousness has fallen away there is no vi~n~naa.na experiencing any object, not even nibbaana. ------- > > Ken H: Is that right, Nina? Or is parinibbana an actual moment of > consciousness with nibbana as object (after which there is no more > consciousness)? N: Only in the case of kilesa parinibbaana: At the attainment of arahatship there are lokuttara magga-citta and lokuttara phalacittas experiencing nibbaana. For details on the Buddha's final passing away, see the co on the parinibbaana sutta: The Buddha's Last days, Ch VI, where it is said that he after the attainment of all the stages of jhaana, emerged from jhaana, and descends into bhavangacitta, and "then and there attains parinibbaana'. ------ Nina. #112281 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 3:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Brahmajala Sutta nilovg Dear revtriple, Op 3-dec-2010, om 7:43 heeft revtriple het volgende geschreven: > If, without understanding, I were to declare something to be > wholesome or unwholesome, desire and lust or hatred and aversion > might arise in me. ... > > This is in the accesstoinsight.org search for this Sutta. However > when I go to this Sutta I don't find it anywhere!? ------ N: I have Ven. Bodhis' translation. It is under 4. Doctrines of endless Equivocation (amaraavikkhepavaada), views 13-16. We read further on: The commentary elaborates, stating that he does not understand what is kusala nor akusala. Nina. #112282 From: Herman Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction egberdina Hi pt, On 27 November 2010 20:17, ptaus1 wrote: > > > 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). > > From my perspective, a dhamma is a thing, a quality, an essence, a nature. A dhamma is *what* a thing is. It is this whatness that differentiates it from other things. Sankhara, on the other hand, is *how* a dhamma is ie it is constituted in dependence on other dhammas. > > 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. > There is nothing about the *what* of a quality, a dhamma, that renders it impermanent, or unsatisfactory. It is the *how* of a quality that renders it such. The fabricated nature of dhammas is captured in the teachings on dependent arising in the Suttas. The commentators have, however, introduced the notion of a paramatta dhamma, an irreducible quality. They say that such a paramatta dhamma has three phases, it appears, changes while standing, and it disappears. In other words, it endures. Yet, somehow, they also maintain that in its very enduring, in being what it is, it is impermanent. In its duration, it doesn't endure. This is not a paradox, it is a contradiction. I hope that clarifies. Cheers Herman #112283 From: Herman Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 12:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Bong’s Diary, no 1. egberdina Hi pt, On 28 November 2010 17:09, ptaus1 wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > Re 112049 > > > H: Just as an aside, the notion of control is a red herring in my > opinion. > > pt: I think the term "control" is used by Sarah, KenH and others here to > stand for an akusala citta with (accordingly) akusala cetasikas as effort, > intention, and others. So, the term is not used in its more conventional > sense of choice, deciding to do this or that, etc. > > > H: 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. > > pt: Ok I should have been more clear. When using "momentary arising" > expressions - I'm not trying to say the arising is unconditioned, but I'm > pointing towards uniformity of a/kusala. E.g. to me it seems easier to > consider simple examples - when metta arises briefly (or momentarily), it's > more likely that it's all kusala, rather than when using an example of how > much I love my grandmother, since that love can incorporate many different > instances of metta, worry, attachment, etc. In a similar fashion like when > talking about a meditation session, which can in essence incorporate many > instances of a/kusala (sati, hindracnes, etc). > > So, what I was trying to say (if I remember right) is that the arising is > due to conditions, but the present activity (like a meditation session or > washing dishes) is not the deciding factor/condition. Hence the conclusion > that the arising of a/kusala is possible anytime anywhere. Like for example > a hindrance (akusala) can arise momentarily during a meditation session, > even though there was sati just a moment before the hindrance arose. > > I have no issues with what you have said, but would just like to emphasise the enormous difference between what is possible, and what is probable. I don't suggest that you are implying it, but the Dhamma does not teach that "anything can happen". Rather, it teaches that those who have developed the necessary mindfulness will be unassailable in their virtue, no matter what happens. Cheers Herman #112284 From: Herman Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Science as antidote to misunderstanding egberdina Hi pt, On 28 November 2010 18:44, ptaus1 wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > Re 112052 > > > H: 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? > > pt: I don't really know, though it's interesting to think about this stuff. > I'd say that intention would be one thing - considering that it's a part of > nama khanda - so not physical. While, the brain, electrical impulses, spinal > chord and the rest would be classified under rupa khanda. How exactly could > the occurrence of "intention producing bodily intimation, a rupa, and then > bodily intimation producing further rupas that move the body" be described > in scientific terms - I don't know. I think the occurrence of electrical > impulses in the brain would already be at the rupa stage. Which then leads > to the question - if intention is not located in the brain, then where is > it? Brain is matter, so is intention then somewhere in the electromagnetic > field of the brain, since fields are less gross than matter? Or perhaps the > electromagnetic field is also essentially a rupa, so then what is less gross > than the fields in scientific terms? I don't know. And does that make the > brain a simple receiver (or converter), so not the actual processor? Many > speculative questions here possible... Interesting, though probably not much > to do with the path. > > I agree with you. These are all very interesting things to speculate about, and probably unrelated to the path. And this is why I dismiss the commentarial development of the notion of hadya-vatthu, You may find this essay, entitled "THE WHOLE BODY, NOT HEART, AS 'SEAT OF CONSCIOUSNESS': THE BUDDHA'S VIEW" interesting or relevant: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/suwand1.htm Cheers Herman #112285 From: Herman Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 1:25 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. egberdina Hi azita On 3 December 2010 10:45, gazita2002 wrote: > > > hallo Herman, > > I'm unsure what you mean by derail, however I agree with you that what I > wrote is a concept, as I am a concept :) > Your answer reminds me of this from DN 2 (warning: it's a sutta :-)) "'And among them there is no killer nor one who causes killing, no hearer nor one who causes hearing, no cognizer nor one who causes cognition. When one cuts off [another person's] head, there is no one taking anyone's life. It is simply between the seven substances that the sword passes.' "Thus, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, Pakudha Kaccayana answered with non-relatedness. Just as if a person, when asked about a mango, were to answer with a breadfruit; or, when asked about a breadfruit, were to answer with a mango. > > The words citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana are concepts also but they > represent actual realities which can be known, when the conditions are right > for knowledge to arise. > If you believe that there is some liberating insight in saying that you are a concept, or in repeating some categories, good for you. In contrast, DN 2 has, regarding insight knowledge: In the same way with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision. He discerns: 'This body of mine is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father, nourished with rice and porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, and dispersion. And this consciousness of mine is supported here and bound up here.' Cheers Herman #112286 From: Herman Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 1:59 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. egberdina Hi Ken H (and Howard), On 2 December 2010 10:29, Ken H wrote: > > > > As for the other objection regarding the duration of the universe, I > suppose it depends on your perspective. If you are wondering about the > duration of the universe from the consciousness perspective then it lasts > for one nama. If you are [somehow] wondering from the material perspective > then it lasts for one rupa. Simple as that! :-) > > Two things :-) What you imply, but fail to acknowledge, is that the duration of rupas longer than a nama simply cannot be known. What you imply, and I agree with you, is that the theory of perception with rupas lasting upto 17 nama is speculative, not Dhamma. More importantly, for anything that lasts, that duration is infinitely divisible. Any duration is eternal, as Howard pointed out on 23/11/10, when he wrote: "If the duration is non-zero, then it is actually infinite in extent and divisibility". I totally agree with him, and the upshot for you , Ken H, because for you there is only the present moment, is that your universe must be infinite and unchanging. Enjoy it, because it lasts :-) Cheers Herman #112287 From: "Lukas" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 2:12 am Subject: PTS I want to order a book szmicio Hi guys, I was checking PTS, I want to buy a book. I dream abot Patthana in English but that is extremaly expensive 82 Pounds. Is it worth of buying it. I think this can help me. I was thinking also abou Milindhapanha Vol 1 23 P,Vol 2 23 P. This ismuch more affordable. What do u suggest to me? Maybe any other books that I can benefit from them. The worst thing is that I dont have much many. Best wishes Lukas #112288 From: Herman Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 2:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] PTS I want to order a book egberdina Hi Lukas, You can get Milindapanha on line for free: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/milinda.htm I think it is a very worthwhile text to study. Cheers Herman #112289 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 10:08 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Ken) - In a message dated 12/3/2010 8:59:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Ken H (and Howard), On 2 December 2010 10:29, Ken H wrote: > > > > As for the other objection regarding the duration of the universe, I > suppose it depends on your perspective. If you are wondering about the > duration of the universe from the consciousness perspective then it lasts > for one nama. If you are [somehow] wondering from the material perspective > then it lasts for one rupa. Simple as that! :-) > > Two things :-) What you imply, but fail to acknowledge, is that the duration of rupas longer than a nama simply cannot be known. --------------------------------------------- That is what I understood to be your point, and I don't see how a denying of it could be arguable. ---------------------------------------------- What you imply, and I agree with you, is that the theory of perception with rupas lasting upto 17 nama is speculative, not Dhamma. More importantly, for anything that lasts, that duration is infinitely divisible. Any duration is eternal, as Howard pointed out on 23/11/10, when he wrote: "If the duration is non-zero, then it is actually infinite in extent and divisibility" I totally agree with him, and the upshot for you , Ken H, because for you there is only the present moment, is that your universe must be infinite and unchanging. ------------------------------------------------- We do seem to view these particular matters quite similarly, Herman. ------------------------------------------------ Enjoy it, because it lasts :-) Cheers Herman =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112290 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 4:03 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. kenhowardau Hi Herman and Howard, -------------- Herman: >> What you imply, but fail to acknowledge, is that the duration of rupas longer than a nama simply cannot be known. --------------- KH: That might be what you infer, but it is not what I imply. The Abhidhamma explains how the rupas that arise at the mind door can last as long as seventeen cittas. If the Abhidhamma is not good enough for you then I can't help you. ------------------------- Herman: >> What you imply, and I agree with you, is that the theory of perception with rupas lasting upto 17 nama is speculative, not Dhamma. ------------------------- KH: I've read that sentence several times now, and it still sounds like double talk. :-) ----------------------------------- Herman: >> More importantly, for anything that lasts, that duration is infinitely divisible. Any duration is eternal, as Howard pointed out on 23/11/10, when he wrote: "If the duration is non-zero, then it is actually infinite in extent and divisibility". I totally agree with him, and the upshot for you , Ken H, because for you there is only the present moment, is that your universe must be infinite and unchanging. Enjoy it, because it lasts :-) -------------------------------------- KH: As I said, double talk! At best it is a logical conundrum that serves no useful purpose. But, in any case, wasn't that particular conundrum overcome by quantum mechanics? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: > We do seem to view these particular matters quite similarly, Herman. ------------------------------------------------- So, as the two of you see it, the world either exists for zero duration (i.e., not at all), or it remains unchanging for eternity. That's very helpful, I must say! :-) Ken H #112291 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Dec 3, 2010 9:45 pm Subject: Feelings Dominate! bhikkhu5 Friends: These Eight Aspects of Feeling should be Understood!!! A certain Bhikkhu once asked the Blessed Buddha: Venerable Sir, 1: What is feeling? 2: What is the cause of feeling? 3: What is the way to emergence of feeling? 4: What is the ceasing of feeling? 5: What is the way to cease feeling? 6: What is the satisfaction in feeling? 7: What is the danger in feeling? 8: What is the escape from feeling? The Blessed Buddha answered: There are, Bhikkhu, three feelings: 1: The 3 feelings are pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neutral feeling. 2: Sense contact is the proximate cause of all feeling... 3: Craving is the way leading to the emergence of feeling... 4: The end of sense contact, ceases all feeling instantly... 5: This Noble Eightfold Way is the way to cease feeling... 6: The delight and joy of feeling: This is the satisfaction within feeling... 7: The danger in feeling is its transience, & inherent change into suffering. 8: The escape from feeling is the elimination of desire and lust for feeling. Comment: Running after pleasurable feeling like mad robots, beings come to pain & death ever again... Wanting short-term pleasure one gains long-term pain! This is an unnecessarily heavy price, when there actually is an alternative of lasting happiness called Nibbana. It is thus quite well worth the effort to give up all emotional and sensorial addiction and obsession. Only then can one ever be completely free, truly happy and dwell in peace :-) Yeah! <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV [232-3] section 36: On Feeling: Vedana. A Certain Bhikkhu... 23. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112292 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 4:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Science as antidote to misunderstanding ptaus1 Hi Herman, Thanks for your replies and for the link. Best wishes pt > You may find this essay, entitled > "THE WHOLE BODY, NOT HEART, AS 'SEAT OF CONSCIOUSNESS': THE BUDDHA'S VIEW" > interesting or relevant: > http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/suwand1.htm #112293 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 4:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction ptaus1 Hi Herman, > H: From my perspective, a dhamma is a thing, a quality, an essence, a nature. A > dhamma is *what* a thing is. It is this whatness that differentiates it from > other things. Sankhara, on the other hand, is *how* a dhamma is ie it is > constituted in dependence on other dhammas. ... > There is nothing about the *what* of a quality, a dhamma, that renders it > impermanent, or unsatisfactory. It is the *how* of a quality that renders it > such. The fabricated nature of dhammas is captured in the teachings on > dependent arising in the Suttas. pt: Thanks for explaining. Trying to understand your pov in the light of what I've learned here so far, it seems that your notion of "dhamma" is equal to what commentaries call the individual characteristics of a dhamma - e.g. what makes feeling a feeling, as distinct from perception for example. So, pretty much the quality or nature of a dhamma. On the other hand, your notion of "sankhara" seems to me to resemble what the commentaries call the general characteristics of a dhamma - its anatta, anicca and dukkha characteristics. I understand these three are also in essence directly related to dependent arising of any conditioned dhamma, as you seem to conclude as well. Am I getting this right so far? > H: The commentators have, however, introduced the notion of a paramatta dhamma, > an irreducible quality. They say that such a paramatta dhamma has three > phases, it appears, changes while standing, and it disappears. In other > words, it endures. Yet, somehow, they also maintain that in its very > enduring, in being what it is, it is impermanent. In its duration, it > doesn't endure. This is not a paradox, it is a contradiction. pt: Hm, I think these issues of duration, 3 sub-moments (and the related issue of how a dhamma can be directly experienced if it lasts for only one moment and then falls away completely) belong to a slightly different topic than what we're discussing now regarding individual and general characteristics of a dhamma. So, I'll address it in the next post because it might also be of interest to KenH and Howard who are also discussing the same topic with you. Best wishes pt #112294 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 7:05 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Rob E, Pt & all, --- On Wed, 1/12/10, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >Parts 1 and 2 are completed, but I am still in part 3. Every few weeks I post a section. When completed, and after I have asked the mods' permission, I could post it to the files section with the help of pt. ... S: No problem at all while there's space there. We just ask anyone who uses the files to add a "z" at the beginning of the title so as to keep the mods messages, such as the Guidelines, at the top. (Pt, perhaps you can check this out, as it doesn't seem to work for some files). Also, Rob, Han and others may be interested to check under "Anusayas" in "Useful Posts" in the files - there the current Thai translation series as well as other helpful posts on anusayas (latent tendencies) can be found. Rob, also see "Nibbana6 and Parinibbana" for more on this topic. Metta Sarah #112295 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 7:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Three Aspects of Mother, Maiden, and Crone. sarahprocter... Hi Kevin, --- On Tue, 23/11/10, Kevin F wrote: >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. >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. .... S: Interesting study. "Closest" is a far cry from the Buddha's Teachings, however. It reminds me of the Dighanakha Sutta, MN74. Close or similar are not Teachings that will bring us any closer to the development of panna which will eradicate defilements. Metta Sarah ====== #112296 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 7:18 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------ > N: There are four stages of enlightenment: of the sotaapanna, the > sakadagaami, the anaagaami and the arahat. at each of these stages > lokuttara cittas arise and these experience nibbaana, the > unconditioned element. ... > The circumstances: the development of right understanding of all > naamas and ruupas that appear at this moment, thus, beginning now. > There is no other way. > First it has to be known that such or such reality is naama dhamma, > not self, or ruupa dhamma, not self, and this has to be known through > six doorways. Naama and ruupa have to be clearly distinguished before > their arising and falling away can be realised. If they are not > clearly distinguished from each other, the wrong view of self cannot > be eradicated. I understand that nama and rupa have to be directly seen and understood as anatta in order to eradicate the wrong view of self; but I am a little confused why it is so important to tell nama from rupa. This seems to have central importance. Aside from clear seeing of the dhamma itself, what is the reason for this? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112297 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 7:19 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. epsteinrob Thanks so much, Han, for arranging these links. Best, Robert E. #112298 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 7:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? sarahprocter... Hi Pt & Herman, #112024 Thank you for the helpful analysis. --- On Sat, 20/11/10, 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: <...>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). .... S: Even for the Buddha, there was no difficulty in undestanding what sirens were (or their equivalent 2500 yrs ago!). When we were at Jetavana one time with the group, there was a small fire from all the melting wax candles near the Buddha's kuti. The Buddha knew what fires were and knew what needed to be done. He knew which kuti was his and which belonged to each bhikkhu. He knew the time of day all other kinds of conventional knowledge. Panna, whether arising with realities or concepts as objects (as in satipatthana or samatha bhavana) does not impede any kind of action when a siren goes off! To think so, completely misunderstands what the development of satipatthana is about and how it develops. This may be an issue for those who think that bhavana is confined to specific practices or occasions, but not for those of us who appreciate that there can be satipatthana, the direct understanding of a reality, at this very moment. Metta Sarah ====== #112299 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 7:33 am Subject: Re: How can killiing or stealing not be a conventional deed? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: Just to clarify. I am not denying conventional deeds in the sense you suggest. I am saying that when the Buddha spoke in terms of conventional deeds (which he did most of the time), he was in fact alluding to the underlying mental states. > > Thus, if he said that restraint from killing was kusala, he was referring to kusala restraint and not to refraining from killing for purely akusala reasons (as in the example I gave to Robert E). > > Hoping this clarifies a little the context of my earlier remarks. Jumping back in, would you thus say that killing might be okay if the accompanying citta was kusala? Or did Buddha teach ahimsa in deed as a necessary value? I don't recall an instance in which Buddha said that if there is a good, wholesome reason for killing, it's kusala to kill. That would be the logical conclusion of saying the underlying mental state is of paramount importance, not the deed itself. > Regarding "understanding of deeds on the conventional level", I'd be interested to know how you see this. As I read the teachings, understanding of 2 kinds is taught: kusala consciousness vs. akusala consciousness (this is the understanding necessary for the development of samatha) and dhammas as dhammas (the understanding necessary for the development of awareness/insight). > > Where do you see understanding of deeds on the conventional level fitting into the teachings? Well that is the problem. You are interpreting Buddha's teachings on Right and Wrong Actions as representing a mental condition, whereas the Buddha did not teach that way. He taught that there are kusala deeds and kusala mental states and that both must be observed, not just the latter. So deeds may not really fit into your understanding of the path, but that may be a mistaken view. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #112300 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 7:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Calm, no 4. sarahprocter... Dear Nina & Rob E, --- On Sun, 21/11/10, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >For the development of samatha one should change one's lifestyle, there should be a total dedication to a life of fewness of wishes. .... S: While I agree that for the attainment of jhana, naturally the lifestyle will be very different. However, I think that we should stress that in the beginning, the development of samatha can occur now in our daily lives and that the important factor is pa~n~naa, not a change of lifestyle. Even as we read or go about our household chores there may be conditions for metta to develop, for there to be wise reflection on death, breath or any other object depending on accumulations. It depends on pa~n~naa understanding the cittas, understanding moments of kusala and akusala, not on any wishing to develop samatha, of course. Metta Sarah ======= #112301 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 7:38 am Subject: Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > 112178) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > 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. > > =============== > > J: Wondering if I'm understanding you correctly here. As you see it, when the Buddha said that restraint from killing was kusala, he was including all instances of refraining from killing including occasions such as in the example I gave above where clearly no kusala mental states are involved. Is that how you see it? The way I see it, with admittedly limited understanding, is that a deed may be made akusala on two grounds: it may be akusala because of the deed, or it may be akusala because of the mental state. If the mental state is kusala but the deed is akusala, the result is at least partly akusala. If the mental state is akusala and the deed is otherwise kusala, the result will still be at least partly akusala. In order for the act to be kusala, both the deed and the mental state need to be kusala. If either the deed or the mental state or akusala, the result will be at least partly akusala based on the akusala influence. The point is that a deed can be akusala in its own right, not dependent on an akusala mental state. I believe that killing of others is *always* wrong according to the Buddha, notwithstanding this or that mental state. There are instances I think I recall where the Buddha said it is okay for an arahat to kill himself, because he has already satisfied the purpose of his being alive, but this would be a major exception. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #112302 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 7:41 am Subject: Re: What does "self view" mean? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, #110775 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > one has to just see self-view when it arises and that moment of sati or insight will lead to future conditions to increase panna. > >P: I know from studying Dhamma that there is an eternal self that goes from body to body at rebirth, there is not a self like an atman. There are times that I wish there were, because it is an attractive concept. Are such moments self view if I only wish it were true? ... S: Only pa~n~naa can ever tell, but souns like just thinking and wishing to me:-) ... > > And what of the rest of the time? I constantly or almost constantly am aware of an idea of me, of Phil, doing this or that, there is almost never or never a moment of being aware of only dhammas at work, unless I think about it for mental pleasure - it is mentally pleasing to think about deep teachings and try to understand them. So are all those moments, almost all day, of being aware of Phil doing this or that "self view", or does "self view" involve a misguided, firmly-held belief, or a wish, that there was a permanent, lasting self, an atta, like in Hinduism? ... S: Most of the day, it's just thinking with lobha or moha. For example, someone who is not thinking about any kind of religion just goes about the day thinking about what they'll do and so on - just ignorance and attachment, no wrong view of self involved. It's atta view when there is the idea that something, such as the computer, the hand or the person actually exist in reality. Again, only panna can know at such moments. Metta Sarah ======== #112303 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 7:51 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: latent tendencies. epsteinrob Thanks, Sarah! Best, Robert E. - - - - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Also, Rob, Han and others may be interested to check under "Anusayas" in "Useful Posts" in the files - there the current Thai translation series as well as other helpful posts on anusayas (latent tendencies) can be found. > > Rob, also see "Nibbana6 and Parinibbana" for more on this topic. #112304 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 7:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > S: Even for the Buddha, there was no difficulty in undestanding what sirens were (or their equivalent 2500 yrs ago!). When we were at Jetavana one time with the group, there was a small fire from all the melting wax candles near the Buddha's kuti. The Buddha knew what fires were and knew what needed to be done. He knew which kuti was his and which belonged to each bhikkhu. He knew the time of day all other kinds of conventional knowledge. One time some years ago, I was meditating with a friend and noting whatever was arising at the moment. After a while I noted an intense smell, and then increasing smoke. So I'm going along noting this "phenomena" when my friend and I suddenly looked at each other and realized it was a fire nearby. We got up and got out quick. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - #112305 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 8:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting) sarahprocter... Hi Pt, --- On Sat, 27/11/10, ptaus1 wrote: >> 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. ... >>S: 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. ... >>S: 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 :) .... S: :) It could be any wise reflection about breath at that moment. It's the kusala citta and accompanying panna and calm that is significant. In the beginning, any subject could be the object of wise reflection, even violent moves! As for your example, I could see that it could be wise reflection now if we consider how useless the engaging of the senses is when life just depends on such a brief in flow or out flow of breath. However, if there is any idea of intentional settling on the breath, I don't see how this can be with detachment. And surely we are talking about sense impressions at such a time? So, in short, suspect reflection in your example:) ... >Pt: 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. ... S: Actually, it's all to do with the content of the thoughts about such an object with kusala cittas. But, I take your point - "death can come now" can be reflected on with kusaala or akusala cittas, with right view or wrong view. ... >PT: 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: I only partially agree with you. Yes, it depends on accumulations, on sanna, but it's hard for me to see how, say, "I should reflect on breath" or "it's a beautiful, still candle flame" can be with kusala cittas. ... >> 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. ... S: Yes, anytime, any place, depending. Maybe just as one is about to drop off to sleep, breath may appear and be the object of wise reflection. Any 'trying' or wish to think in any particular way of any particular object, would again be wrong, of course. ... >>S: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". ... >PT: 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? >Pt: 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? .... S: Let's take the example of metta. Whenever metta arises with thoughts about being(s), the citta is also accompanied by calm (as are all kusala cittas). Afterwards there may be cittas accompanied by panna which understand how such moments of metta are kusala, are calm. Such understanding accumulates and conditions more metta to arise and thereby develop with panna. Similarly, in the case of samatha bhavana with breath or death as object, there may be wise reflection with calm and afterwards those kusala moments may be known and samatha developed. If there is no knowledge of kusala and akusala moments, then of course there will still be moments of kusala (with samatha), but it's not any development. Does that clarify? Thx for the good (and challenging qus) as usual! Apologies to all for slow replies as usual..... Metta Sarah p.s feel free to break this up if it helps - looks rather long. ======= #112306 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 8:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? sarahprocter... Hi Rob E,(and Alex) --- On Sat, 4/12/10, Robert E wrote: >One time some years ago, I was meditating with a friend and noting whatever was arising at the moment. After a while I noted an intense smell, and then increasing smoke. So I'm going along noting this "phenomena" when my friend and I suddenly looked at each other and realized it was a fire nearby. We got up and got out quick. ... S: You were smart! Remnds me of an article I read in Yoga Journal several years ago about some meditators who were falling sick with dengue fever but were unwilling to leave their cushions or silent retreat. Ah, just found it. The link doesn't work - you'll need to google in "truth consequences dengue fever yoga journal". You'll love it! Alex, read it too and you may then consider addressing comments about avoiding the burning house to meditators from now on:-)) Metta Sarah ======= #112307 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 9:33 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. nilovg Dear Ken H and Herman, Op 4-dec-2010, om 5:03 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > The Abhidhamma explains how the rupas that arise at the mind door > can last as long as seventeen cittas. If the Abhidhamma is not good > enough for you then I can't help you. ------ N: Any (concrete) ruupa lasts seventeen moments of citta, no matter whether it is experienced or not, no matter in what doorway. Those ruupas that are qualities of ruupas or a 'change' in ruupas, like the vi~n~natti ruupas (gestures and speech), are different cases. Nina. #112308 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 9:39 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. nilovg Hi Herman, Ken H, Op 4-dec-2010, om 2:59 heeft Herman het volgende geschreven: > What you imply, and I agree with > you, is that the theory of perception with rupas lasting upto 17 > nama is > speculative, not Dhamma. -------- N: Perhaps it is less strange if you consider that this number seventeen is a comparative notion. Matter does not fall away as quickly as mind. The number seventeen: it is the duration of a process of cittas that experience a sense object such as visible object, with the addition of preceding bhavangacittas. During those moments that ruupa has not fallen away yet. Nina. #112309 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 10:00 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 4-dec-2010, om 8:18 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I understand that nama and rupa have to be directly seen and > understood as anatta in order to eradicate the wrong view of self; > but I am a little confused why it is so important to tell nama from > rupa. This seems to have central importance. Aside from clear > seeing of the dhamma itself, what is the reason for this? ------- N: This is an important question you ask. When seeing visible object but not knowing the characteristic of seeing as pure naama, not blended with ruupa, or not knowing the characteristic of visible object as ruupa, a reality that does not know anything, we are absolutely nowhere. We are ignorant of what naama is, and what ruupa is, we just think of a kind of mixture. You write: 'Aside from clear seeing of the dhamma itself", and this is just the point. This is the essence of the matter. Without clear comprehension of the distinction between naama and ruupa we shall keep on taking them for self. So long as we take them together there is no way of knowing them as they truly are: impermanent, dukkha and anattaa. A later stage of insight is the direct understanding of the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa. If their different nature is not clearly known it cannot be known either what exactly arises and falls away, naama or ruupa. If you still have doubts about this subject, do insist with your questions. Nina. #112310 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 10:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Calm, no 4. nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 4-dec-2010, om 8:35 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > S: While I agree that for the attainment of jhana, naturally the > lifestyle will be very different. > > However, I think that we should stress that in the beginning, the > development of samatha can occur now in our daily lives and that > the important factor is pa~n~naa, not a change of lifestyle. > > Even as we read or go about our household chores there may be > conditions for metta to develop, for there to be wise reflection on > death, breath or any other object depending on accumulations. It > depends on pa~n~naa understanding the cittas, understanding moments > of kusala and akusala, not on any wishing to develop samatha, of > course. ------ N: I agree, for the development of jhaana one will change one's lifestyle and this can happen naturally. Samatha in daily life can occur at any time, depending on conditions. Some subjects are suitable for any occasion, like death, mettaa etc. ------- Nina. #112311 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 10:46 am Subject: Re: Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and... philofillet @Hi Ken (and P.S to Jon) > I think I remember it. Ph: I'm going to track it down and put it in my signature so we can all be reminded of it every time I post something. >The listener later became a sotapanna. (So he was no fool.) As I recall Nina's explanation, the Buddha gave that person a conventional teaching of loss, decay, and death (etc) before teaching the Dhamma. So the first part was not Dhamma, it was something an ordinary person might have taught. Ph: That's a peculiar thing to say Ken. The Buddha taught it. If the Buddha taught it, it was Dhamma. I'm afraid you think that only the deep teachings that are particular to the Buddha are Dhamma. That's wrong. The Buddha did not teach those teachings until the listener's mind was ready. You seem to want to skip that point and assume that every person you come across on the internet is ready to hear the deep Dhamma from you. Wrong. But you are not alone. Actually, these days I feel like I am in a Dhamma universe of my own because not only here but elsewhere people always talk about topics and techniques (which you of course reject) that are beyond me. I just want to be a good person, that's all I want. You deny that one basic fundamental purpose of the Dhamma is to lead me in that direction. You are wrong. If your understanding was really advanced enough to be ready for the deep teachings, you would also understand the way the Buddha taught the gradual teaching, and you would appreciate the importance of the conventional teachings for establishing conditions for the deeper teachings to be received. You are not the only one who doesn't appreciate that, but I really have to stop bleating my repeated message! > The point of it all was, I assume, that everything - starting with commonly known things - needed to be experienced with detachment. The Buddha was impressing upon the listener that the Way was a way of detachment, not attachment. > > I think you will agree that K Sujin and her students stress detachment right from the beginning. They point out that modern forms of meditation, for example, are symptoms of attachment, not of detachment. Until we have seen that, we can't have right understanding. Ph: Hearing students of A.S talk about detachment from the beginning was one of the first key clues I received that it was time for me to get the heck out of the sphere of her influence. Detachment from the beginning is a kind of Dhammoxymoron. Anyways, happy to leave for a break on a nicer tone than my last snippy post. Metta, Phil p.s Jon, you asked about my understand of the place of conventional deeds in the Dhamma. According to my understanding based on the suttanta, the highest happiness available to householders is the happiness of blamelessness. The fact that there is not understanding for me to see into momentary mind states the way you and others urge is no impediment to that. And from that happiness there is a freedom from remorse. The Buddha teaches that freedom from remorse that comes leads to concentration (see AN sutta, sorry, no reference.) From tha concentration, which may or may not ever come about for me, may come that understanding that you and others preach without agreeing on the necessity of seeking samadhi in the way taught by the Buddha. There are not the conditions for me to seek that samadhi, so I do not have aspirations for the kind of panna that you and others seem to feel is available here and there kicking around in daily life. Maybe it is for you, but way, way, way out of the question for me. None of my business, is the way I feel about that kind of liberating panna. For me in this lifetime, more modest goals. But I am working with a very defiled mind, and will fulfill the blessing of having a sensitivity to the Buddha's teaching in a way that is appropriate for one with my defilements. Ok, that's about it for now, thanks! #112312 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 11:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and... nilovg Hi Phil, Op 4-dec-2010, om 11:46 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Ph: Hearing students of A.S talk about detachment from the > beginning was one of the first key clues I received that it was > time for me to get the heck out of the sphere of her influence. > Detachment from the beginning is a kind of Dhammoxymoron. ------ N: That is a challenging remark. It is good you bring it up. The Buddha taught anattaa, detachment from "I,I,I" , always I, myself. I in the middle of the universe, and this leads to lots of akusala siila. When I is foremost you have no concern for others, no mettaa. Detachment is the aim of the Buddha's teachings, and that is good. More understanding leads to detachment, but it is very weak in the beginning. We accumulated attachment and wrong view from life to life. It is good, though, to be reminded of the goal from the beginning. It is good to know when one falls back to attachment, selfishness and all kinds of akusala. One learns that such moments arise because of condiitons. ------- Nina. #112313 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 8:21 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Herman) - In a message dated 12/3/2010 11:03:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: So, as the two of you see it, the world either exists for zero duration (i.e., not at all), or it remains unchanging for eternity. ============================== Speaking for myself, "No". As I consider it, "the world," if I must discuss such a concept, is a multi-stream river of experience. With metta, Howard /When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then ... there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress./ (From the Bahiya Sutta) /In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself./ (From the Bahiya Sutta) /"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) #112314 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 8:51 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Ken & Herman) - In a message dated 12/4/2010 4:33:29 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Ken H and Herman, Op 4-dec-2010, om 5:03 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > The Abhidhamma explains how the rupas that arise at the mind door > can last as long as seventeen cittas. If the Abhidhamma is not good > enough for you then I can't help you. ------ N: Any (concrete) ruupa lasts seventeen moments of citta, no matter whether it is experienced or not, no matter in what doorway. Those ruupas that are qualities of ruupas or a 'change' in ruupas, like the vi~n~natti ruupas (gestures and speech), are different cases. Nina. ================================== I am aware that such is taught in the Abhidhamma or the commentaries. The question is "How is this known?" Is there a single citta that recalls the prior (up to) 17 cittas and knows that "the same" rupa was the object throughout? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112315 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 2:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Silly Ol' Buddha Couldna Mean What He Seems to Mean (to Ken and... philofillet Hi Nina > > Ph: Hearing students of A.S talk about detachment from the > > beginning was one of the first key clues I received that it was > > time for me to get the heck out of the sphere of her influence. > > Detachment from the beginning is a kind of Dhammoxymoron. > ------ > N: That is a challenging remark. It is good you bring it up. The > Buddha taught anattaa, detachment from "I,I,I" , always I, myself. I > in the middle of the universe, and this leads to lots of akusala > siila. When I is foremost you have no concern for others, no mettaa. > Detachment is the aim of the Buddha's teachings, and that is good. > More understanding leads to detachment, but it is very weak in the > beginning. We accumulated attachment and wrong view from life to > life. It is good, though, to be reminded of the goal from the > beginning. Ph: Yes, that's true. I like to be reminded of the goal. But for me the goal of detachment is not presently relevant, I don't think it will be there, for me now. The notion of detachment is gone from my understanding now, though there may be moments of it, I suppose. I feel that dome of lobha we talked about, that screen of thinking, and I feel very solidly locked in atta view. I feel that there is no way for detachment from the beginning for me. There is nothing but attachment 99.99% of the time, but rather than being firmly attached to sense pleasures (though I still am of course) and the body, and things like that, I would rather be attached to notions of being a person who is making progress to weaken the defilements, and things like that. Still attachment, there must be attachment for me, but it is attachment that is less harmful and I believe will help create conditions for detachment. But of course the attachment to health, to sense pleasures, to the body, so powerful... But yes, good to be reminded of the goal! Thanks. Metta, Phil #112316 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 2:58 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 4-dec-2010, om 14:51 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I am aware that such is taught in the Abhidhamma or the commentaries. > The question is "How is this known?" Is there a single citta that > recalls > the prior (up to) 17 cittas and knows that "the same" rupa was the > object > throughout? ------- N: This would be known in a following mind-door process, not in the same process. It is always like that, whatever is known about cittas arising in a series is known when they have just fallen away, in a following mind-door process. But there would not be any counting, it is too fast. Sometimes we would ask Kh Sujin: can this be known? Her answer: why would the Buddha teach this if it cannot be known. Actually these things are known through insight that has been developed. Nina. #112317 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 3:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: attachment. nilovg Hi Philip, Op 4-dec-2010, om 15:38 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > But of course the attachment to health, to sense pleasures, to the > body, so powerful... ------ N: But that is for most of us, you are not the only one. But it is good to realise this. Only the anaagaami has eradicated attachment to sense objects. Attachment has conditions to arise, thus, it arises. The latent tendency to sense desire conditions the akusala citta rooted in lobha to arise whenever there is an opportunity. Lobha will always find an object. Nina. #112318 From: sīlānanda Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 1:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Brahmajala Sutta silananda_t Hi DN 1: Brahmajāla Sutta — The All-embracing Net of Views {D i 1 } [Bodhi ]. In this important sutta, the first in the Tipitaka, the Buddha describes sixty-two philosophical and speculative views concerning the self and the world that were prevalent among spiritual seekers of his day. In rejecting these teachings — many of which thrive to this day — he decisively establishes the parameters of his own. mahakaruna, silananda www.what-Buddha-taught.net On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:43 PM, revtriple wrote: > > > > Hi Fellow Dhamma lovers! > > Brahmajala Sutta > > If, without understanding, I were to declare something to be wholesome or > unwholesome, desire and lust or hatred and aversion might arise in me. ... > > This is in the accesstoinsight.org search for this Sutta. However when I > go to this Sutta I don't find it anywhere!? > > Can some one please tell me where this is in the Sutta? > > Thank You! > > > #112319 From: sīlānanda Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 2:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Brahmajala Sutta silananda_t Hi For comparison: I. BRAHMA-JâLA SUTTA [9] *The Perfect Net** * *English* * | **Pali* original source: metta.lk mahakaruna, silananda www.what-Buddha-taught.net On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:52 PM, sīlānanda wrote: > Hi > > DN 1: Brahmajāla Sutta — The All-embracing Net of Views > {D i 1 > } [Bodhi ]. > In this important sutta, the first in the Tipitaka, the Buddha describes > sixty-two philosophical and speculative views concerning the self and the > world that were prevalent among spiritual seekers of his day. In rejecting > these teachings — many of which thrive to this day — he decisively > establishes the parameters of his own. > > mahakaruna, > silananda > www.what-Buddha-taught.net <...> #112320 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 9:34 pm 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: > > Dear Ken H and Herman, > Op 4-dec-2010, om 5:03 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > > > The Abhidhamma explains how the rupas that arise at the mind door > > can last as long as seventeen cittas. If the Abhidhamma is not good > > enough for you then I can't help you. > ------ > N: Any (concrete) ruupa lasts seventeen moments of citta, no matter > whether it is experienced or not, no matter in what doorway. Those > ruupas that are qualities of ruupas or a 'change' in ruupas, like the > vi~n~natti ruupas (gestures and speech), are different cases. > -------------------- Hi Nina, Oops, I can't imagine why I wrote "mind door." I was thinking of "sense doors" of course, which is where the process lasts for up to seventeen cittas. That's useful to know about *all* (concrete) rupas, thanks. I will try to remember it. Ken H #112321 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 10:50 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. gazita2002 hallo Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > Your answer reminds me of this from DN 2 (warning: it's a sutta :-)) azita: why are you warning me its a sutta, sorry I dont get it!? Its the Buddhas word. > "'And among them there is no killer nor one who causes killing, no hearer > nor one who causes hearing, no cognizer nor one who causes cognition. When > one cuts off [another person's] head, there is no one taking anyone's life. > It is simply between the seven substances that the sword passes.' > > "Thus, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and > now, Pakudha Kaccayana answered with non-relatedness. Just as if a person, > when asked about a mango, were to answer with a breadfruit; or, when asked > about a breadfruit, were to answer with a mango. > azita; so you think I'm a holder of an atomic theory :) > > The words citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana are concepts also but they > > represent actual realities which can be known, when the conditions are right > > for knowledge to arise. > > > > If you believe that there is some liberating insight in saying that you are > a concept, or in repeating some categories, good for you. > > In contrast, DN 2 has, regarding insight knowledge: > > In the same way with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, > unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to > imperturbability the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge and vision. > He discerns: 'This body of mine is endowed with form, composed of the four > primary elements, born from mother and father, nourished with rice and > porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, and > dispersion. And this consciousness of mine is supported here and bound up > here.' azita: an uplifting extract from DN2. Going from 4th Jhana to insight knowledge, the monk would know how impermanent 'his' form would be, made up of the 4 primary elements. 'born from mother and father' of course, why not, he's a human, not a deva or one of those beings spontaneously born; and has to be nourished with 'human'food. Subject to birth, old age, sickness and death,, dukkha "his" consciousness [vinnana, citta] is supported by what do you think, Herman? Could be that this consciousness is supported by the form which is the base for its arising. Nama conditioning rupa? patience, courage and good cheer, azita #112322 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 11:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: attachment. philofillet Hi Nina > Attachment has conditions to arise, thus, it arises. The latent > tendency to sense desire conditions the akusala citta rooted in lobha > to arise whenever there is an opportunity. Lobha will always find an > object. Yes, I always clearly understood what A.S meant when she spoke of the dome of lobha with only a few rare moments of detachment from it (very rare) and how quickly and invariably lobha arises in response to almost all sense objects. Thus the idea of detachment from the beginning strikes me as odd. And awareness of the goal of non-attachment is not the same as the insistence on being concerned about having self-view in all of one's attitudes and practices related to Dhamma, it always feels like Ken and others are insisting on actually realizing detachment from the beginning not just wisely being aware of the goal. I think the dome of lobha is much more true than *having* or *experiencing* detachment from the beginning and I think students of A.S seem to want the latter and seem to preach it to others. Not possible, I think. Metta, Phil #112323 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Dec 4, 2010 11:42 pm Subject: Emotional Storm! bhikkhu5 Friends: Blown here and there by Emotional Storms! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, even as many winds blow turbulent in the sky, from directions of east, west, south, & north, both dusty and dustless winds, both cold & hot winds, both mild & forceful winds, even so do also all the many various feelings arise in this body: Pleasant, painful & neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings perpetually emerge and agitate the mind... Just as many diverse winds, storms here and there across the sky, So in this very body: The many types of various feelings arise, Both pleasant, painful, and those neither painful nor pleasant. Yet when a determined Bhikkhu does not neglect aware and clear comprehension, then such intelligent one fully understands these feelings and all their complex aspects of dependency... All provoked, induced and arised from sense contact! Instantly vanishing, when this same contact ceases! Having fully understood feelings, he is freed of all hidden mental fermentation, even in this very life.. Remaining in this state, at the body's breakup, such Mind-Master cannot ever even be imagined... Pleasant feeling attracts and thus induces greed... Painful feeling averts and thus produces hate... Neither-painful-nor-pleasant neutral feeling causes neglect & generates thus ignorance... <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV [219] section 36: On Feeling: Vedana. The Sky: Akasam. 12. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112324 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 4:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob E,(and Alex) > > --- On Sat, 4/12/10, Robert E wrote: > >One time some years ago, I was meditating with a friend and noting whatever was arising at the moment. After a while I noted an intense smell, and then increasing smoke. So I'm going along noting this "phenomena" when my friend and I suddenly looked at each other and realized it was a fire nearby. We got up and got out quick. > ... > S: You were smart! > > Remnds me of an article I read in Yoga Journal several years ago about some meditators who were falling sick with dengue fever but were unwilling to leave their cushions or silent retreat. Ah, just found it. The link doesn't work - you'll need to google in "truth consequences dengue fever yoga journal". You'll love it! Alex, read it too and you may then consider addressing comments about avoiding the burning house to meditators from now on:-)) Good article, thanks. Demonstrates how the stupidity of inflexibility and fixed views can infiltrate any area of life. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #112325 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 4:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: attachment. ptaus1 Hi Phil, > Phil: I think the dome of lobha is much more true than *having* or *experiencing* detachment from the beginning and I think students of A.S seem to want the latter and seem to preach it to others. Not possible, I think. pt: As I understand it, when anatta and detachment are mentioned over and over - it's not done in order that I should feel guilty because I can't experience detachment often, nor that I should feel inadequate because I can't experience detachment right from the start, nor that... Well, anyway, i think detachment is mentioned over and over simply because people feel that it's an important (if not the most important) aspect of the path. I.e. people generally try to share the best, so that's why I think they often mention detachment. So, it's the same like when you often mention sila - you find it very valuable, so that's what you share with us. So, both kinds of sharing are very valuable. In other words, I don't think the idea is that I should somehow feel intimidated because I can't experience detachment, but, detachment is mentioned more in the sense of a reminder - an encouragement, which might at some point down the road actually condition an experience of detachment. So I kind of see it in the same way like when in the suttas the Buddha constantly talks about anatta of the aggregates - I don't think the Buddha is trying to intimidate or reproach the monks for lack of detachment, but rather, he's trying to encourage a direct experience of anatta for them by reminding them about it through talks. So, anyway, I kind of find it valuable to be reminded about detachment over and over, even if I don't experience it very often yet, just like I find it valuable when I'm reminded about sila in your posts for example. The two need not be in antagonism, since we all tend to share what we deem to be most valuable at the moment. Best wishes pt #112326 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 5:12 am Subject: [dsg] Bangkok with K. Sujin. Anapanasati 2 (was Re: Saturday meeting) ptaus1 Hi Sarah, Thanks for your reply. I'll consider this for a while and then get back to you. Best wishes pt > S: Let's take the example of metta. Whenever metta arises with thoughts about being(s), the citta is also accompanied by calm (as are all kusala cittas). Afterwards there may be cittas accompanied by panna which understand how such moments of metta are kusala, are calm. Such understanding accumulates and conditions more metta to arise and thereby develop with panna. Similarly, in the case of samatha bhavana with breath or death as object, there may be wise reflection with calm and afterwards those kusala moments may be known and samatha developed. If there is no knowledge of kusala and akusala moments, then of course there will still be moments of kusala (with samatha), but it's not any development. #112327 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 6:16 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. kenhowardau Hi Nina, Thanks for answering my questions: ----------- N: > There is kilesa paranibbaana, the attainment of arahatship when all defilements are eradicated, and there is khandha paranibbaana, the final death of the arahat who will not be reborn. When his dying- consciousness has fallen away there is no vi~n~naa.na experiencing any object, not even nibbaana. ----------- That sounds familiar: I think you have explained it to me before. ------------------ > Ken H: Is that right, Nina? Or is parinibbana an actual moment of > consciousness with nibbana as object (after which there is no more > consciousness)? N: Only in the case of kilesa parinibbaana: At the attainment of arahatship there are lokuttara magga-citta and lokuttara phalacittas experiencing nibbaana. For details on the Buddha's final passing away, see the co on the parinibbaana sutta: The Buddha's Last days, Ch VI, where it is said that he after the attainment of all the stages of jhaana, emerged from jhaana, and descends into bhavangacitta, and "then and there attains parinibbaana'. ------------------- Got it, thanks! Until next time. :-) Ken H #112328 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 6:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: attachment. philofillet Hi pt > pt: As I understand it, when anatta and detachment are mentioned over and over - it's not done in order that I should feel guilty because I can't experience detachment often, nor that I should feel inadequate because I can't experience detachment right from the start, nor that... Well, anyway, i think detachment is mentioned over and over simply because people feel that it's an important (if not the most important) aspect of the path. Ph: I think the problem is that it obstructs their ability to offer the Dhamma to others in a helpful way. We are not the Buddha of course, but we do understand that sharing the Dhamma is a very important deed of merit. So am I trying to help them to learn how to share the Dhamma in a way that is more in line with the way the Buddha taught the Dhamma to people, am I closer to the way the Buddha taught it? Maybe. Probably. The Buddha didn't teach the kinds of topics that students of A.S teach to people immediately. The Buddha didn't teach detachment from the beginning. The Buddha taught a very conventional approach from the beginning based on dana, sila, the danger of sensuality, none of which involved understanding of momentary mind states from the beginning, not unless one chooses to make suppositions about those listeners' understanding, the way Ken did about the leper. (He became a sotapanna during the talk, so he was "no fool.") None of my business how they share Dhamma with others. Well, that's definitely true, but there are probably cittas of sincere desire to help mixed in with cittas of irritation, clinging etc. > In other words, I don't think the idea is that I should somehow feel intimidated because I can't experience detachment, but, detachment is mentioned more in the sense of a reminder - an encouragement, which might at some point down the road actually condition an experience of detachment. So I kind of see it in the same way like when in the suttas the Buddha constantly talks about anatta of the aggregates - I don't think the Buddha is trying to intimidate or reproach the monks for lack of detachment, but rather, he's trying to encourage a direct experience of anatta for them by reminding them about it through talks. Ph: Yes, that's a good point. But the Buddha also provided a training to set the conditions for that understanding. I don't know where you stand on the meditation issue, and no need to get into it, but while I doubt that in this day and age people often have the conditions necessary to "meditate" as it is commonly understood, I don't doubt that people who do "meditate" as it is commonly understood will be more likely to understand anatta than those who don't. "The mind that is disturbed is far from concentration" is a line from a sutta, the mind that is meditating in the way it is commonly understood has conditions to be less disturbed and is therefore closer to concentration, but that is a different kettle of fish. I don't believe any self-view involved in meditation is an obstacle, I personally find there is much more self at work in trying to be aware of realities in daily life (and the trying happens) than there is in just following the breath and watching what happens. But my point is that reminders from A.S etc to be aware of anataness in daily life cannot be compared with the Buddha's reminders, because the Buddha's reminders were part and parcel with the bhikkhu's training through meditation and A.S's reminders are in my opinion telling householders to have aspirations for mindfulness that were not taught to householders by the Buddha. (There is a very, very clear commentarial passage by Buddhagosa on a Dhammapada verse which states that for a householder being negligent is not doing good deeds and for a monk being negligent is not being mindful, or words very close to that, I don't have the book with me. I think A.S encourages all her listeners to have aspirations that the Buddha would have been very unlikely to give to his householder listeners. Underestimating myself again, being too hard on myself, or being more in line with the Buddha's gradual training than A.S's students are, and, for that matter, than most modern Buddhists are with their varied and generally high Dhamma ambitions? My current opinion is the latter, of course, but I will keep an open mind. Reading Nina's book on conditions these days, really excellent, although it deals with the deep, deep teaching that I claim to general avoid... > So, anyway, I kind of find it valuable to be reminded about detachment over and over, even if I don't experience it very often yet, just like I find it valuable when I'm reminded about sila in your posts for example. The two need not be in antagonism, since we all tend to share what we deem to be most valuable at the moment. Ph: Sila before detachment! A.S students preach a very very refined form of sila. There is also Buddhist morality that is not dependent on understanding of mind states. I think that's why the famous reminder is "avoid evil, do good, and purify the mind" rather than "do good, avoid evil and purify the mind" as it is often misquoted. It is easier to avoid evil than it is to do good, because for kusala there are so many necessary conditions, so many cittas that must co-arise for a moment of kusala. Well, that's about it. Thanks p.t. I'll stop there. Metta, Phil #112329 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 6:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction ptaus1 Hi Herman, Howard, KenH, This topic is discussed in several threads, so I thought I'll make some comments here. Sorry it turned out a bit long. Looks like RobE-Sukin virus is spreading. > Herman: The commentators have, however, introduced the notion of a paramatta dhamma, > an irreducible quality. They say that such a paramatta dhamma has three > phases, it appears, changes while standing, and it disappears. In other > words, it endures. Yet, somehow, they also maintain that in its very > enduring, in being what it is, it is impermanent. In its duration, it > doesn't endure. This is not a paradox, it is a contradiction. pt: I find these issues will be understood differently depending on what fundamental approach one takes towards the terminology in the commentaries. If I take the commentaries to speak in a scientific/philosophical language that is attempting to describe the world, the universe, time, etc, then I get confused largely on the same points that Howard and Herman mention - if there's duration then there's infinite divisibility; what persists even for an infinitesimal amount of time in essence then endures as a thing in defiance of conditionality, etc. But, if I take the commentaries to speak in terms of describing an experience of insight, then everything starts to make sense to me and sounds very much like the suttas. I.e. Firstly, during an experience of insight a dhamma is said to be experienced by panna as the individual and general characteristics. Does this mean that a little self thing is argued? I doesn't seem so to me, but rather that it's just a description of an experience of insight. Similar like when the Buddha says "feeling is anatta, feeling is anicca, feeling is dukkha". Sure, later on we can speculate - "but wait, a dhamma cannot arise alone and in isolation from other phenomena," etc, and that might be theoretically right. But for whatever reason, the closest description of insight they could express in words is that it's an experience of characteristics of a single dhamma. Secondly, in insight, this dhamma is said to be experienced to arise, persist and fall away. Does this mean that it's argued that a dhamma endures unchanging for some infinitesimal amount of time? It doesn't seem so to me, but rather, again, it seem like a description of what is actually experienced during insight - and for whatever reason, that's the closest description they could express in words. Again, we can then speculate and argue - "but wait, this little sub-moment of persisting must also be subject to change if it's to conform to conditionality" etc. Again, that might be right in theory, but when it comes to describing an experience of insight, it seems the 3 submoments is as accurate/sharp description as it can ever get. So, it's not about time, temporal duration of a moment, its potential divisibility nor other scientific explanations. Rather, it's just a description of how insight is experienced to happen. Sort of like if you look at the sky and see that it's blue, and well, that's probably the simplest and easiest explanation to understand regarding what the experience of seeing the sky is like. Sure, one can then speculate that it's blue because specific wavelengths of light are absorbed by the air. Or you can get accused that you are positing a single self thing of blue light separate from all the other wavelenghts of light. Or you can even get accused that you are positing a theory of enduring blue light because you're not taking into account different molecular densities of air in different parts of the atmosphere, etc. But in the end, after all the arguments, in terms of experience, the closest description you can give is simply that the sky is blue. Lastly, there's the issue of how a dhamma (or its characteristics) can be experienced if it has already fallen away. Again, for whatever reason (which I think is called dhamma-niyama), the cognition process seems to work in such a way that once a dhamma falls away, the nimitta (navataba) of it becomes the object of the following mind-door process of cittas, and the characteristics of the dhamma are known by panna at that time. And that constitutes insight, as per the description in the commentaries. Now sure, there are other description of insight that people have come up with and invested somewhat different meanings in the similar terms (Buddhadasa comes to mind for example). But in either case, I feel it's important to try to approach any given terminology in a way that helps - i.e. a way that would enable learning about insight and detachment. I mean, it seems more practical that way than when terminology is used for the sake of arguments, which can be enjoyable, though usually not very practical in terms of actually encouraging insight. Best wishes pt #112330 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 7:27 am Subject: Re: PTS I want to order a book ptaus1 Hi Lukas, > L: I was checking PTS, I want to buy a book. I dream abot Patthana in English but that is extremaly expensive 82 Pounds. Is it worth of buying it. I think this can help me. > > I was thinking also about Milindhapanha Vol 1 23 P,Vol 2 23 P. This ismuch more affordable. What do u suggest to me? Maybe any other books that I can benefit from them. > The worst thing is that I dont have much many. If you have a university library close to you, it might be worth checking it out - especially if the university has a department for Asian studies or something like that. It's possible they might have some PTS books. I found a lot of PTS books in a university library near me, including Patthana (the two translated volumes). Though I found it quite hard to read on my own, so instead i tried reading Narada's Guide to conditional relations (I think it's the same Ven.Narada who translated the two Patthana volumes into English, as well as abhidhamattha sangaha). Best wishes pt #112331 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 7:36 am Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > 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? ... S: I would certainly agree that there can be wise (i.e kusala) reflection on ageing, illness and death "in their conventional forms". This can be samatha bhavana and the Buddha taught us all kinds of kusala. However, even such wise reflections (if they are wise reflections) need to be known as impermanent conditioned dhammas. Whatever the Buddha taught was in the light of dhammas as anicca, dukkha and anatta. Hope this passes your test:) Metta Sarah ======== #112332 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 7:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: On Views, Snp4.5 ptaus1 Hi Sarah and Alex, Thanks Sarah for your reply on this. Alex, I think your query: > A: What do you think "He does not depend even on knowledge (nana)" means? < has been answered in this bit in her reply - marked with *!*: > S: I understand it, in the context of the sutta as a whole, to be referring to the abandoning of all wrong views (di.t.thi) and *!*the giving up of all attachments, even to wisdom (~naa.na). Remember the raft? Even the attachment to the raft has to be relinquished. The last sentence in the sutta is "Gone to the far shore, such a one does not fall back [on anything]."*!* > > I think the sutta and commentary refer to the abandoning of all kinds of attadi.t.thi (and other di.t.thi) along with all kinds of (wrong) conceiving (na ma~n~netha. Best wishes pt #112333 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 7:45 am Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. philofillet Hi Sarah > S: I would certainly agree that there can be wise (i.e kusala) reflection on ageing, illness and death "in their conventional forms". This can be samatha bhavana and the Buddha taught us all kinds of kusala. > > However, even such wise reflections (if they are wise reflections) need to be known as impermanent conditioned dhammas. Whatever the Buddha taught was in the light of dhammas as anicca, dukkha and anatta. > > Hope this passes your test:) Conditional pass, but I will be watching for any insistence that reflection on ageing, illness and death of cittas is what was primarily intended by the Buddha! I think that that is a commentarial addition that is interesting but would possibly lead to going deeper than the Buddha intended when he urged us to reflect often on ageing, illness and death etc. Metta, Phil #112334 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 7:45 am Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. sarahprocter... Dear Han (& Phil), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > 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. .... S: I find these contemplations helpful as well. It just depends on conditions and accumulations whether there will be wise (or unwise) reflection on growing old, sickness and death or whether (having heard so much about satipatthana), there will be awareness for an instant of a reality such as thinking or seeing or hearing at this very moment. We can, however, appreciate all kinds of kusala, including these wise reflections, because there certainly isn't going to be right understanding of realities all day long:-) Thanks for sharing, Han. Like others, I appreciate anything you care to share with us including your answers to Phil about your own practice or what you find helpful in daily life. I do hope you're feeling stronger now. Metta Sarah p.s Next week we will be in Bkk for a week. Let us know if you'd like to meet, but we understand if you still find it difficult to leave home. ====== #112335 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 7:58 am Subject: Re: On Suicide by Ariyan Disciples sarahprocter... Hi Kevin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: > 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 ... S: I can't get your link to work. Does the author give an exact quote from the Samantapasadika for the second quote? (Unfortuantely the Samantapasadika - commentary to the Vinaya Pitaka- is not translated into English.) thx Sarah ======== #112336 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 8:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. ptaus1 Dear Nina, Thanks for your reply. > > pt: I.e. subtle rupas can arise > > without citta - I think that's what was said in case of > > inpercipient beings (born without nama khandas), right? > ------ > N: Yes, this is correct. But in the text the question was: <"When > manayatana arises for > > someone, does also dhammayatana arise for him ? and the answer is > "Yes". > > Here we have to be careful. This goes for the cetasikas that are > included in dhammaayatana. Not for subtle ruupas, not for nibbaana > that does not arise. Thanks, this is an important point. One thing I'm wondering is what exactly is the purpose of mana and dhamma ayatana classification? I mean, for vatthu classification it's obvious - to show the physical base for arising. But for ayatanas I'm not sure what it needs to show. You mentioned that citta is classified as mana ayatana because it is the chief in experiencing, and this certainly holds for cetasikas, which cannot arise without citta. But for other members of the dhamma ayatana class, this is not so, since they are independent of citta. So, I'm wondering what's the purpose of grouping them together under dhamma ayatana, and about ayatana grouping as a whole. Best wishes pt #112337 From: han tun Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 9:18 am Subject: Re: Conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death. hantun1 Dear Sarah, I am glad that you have at last responded. I thought you have written me off:>) > > [Han]: For that good reason, I am contemplating on ageing, illness, and death conventionally. > [Sarah]: I find these contemplations helpful as well. It just depends on conditions and accumulations whether there will be wise (or unwise) reflection on growing old, sickness and death or whether (having heard so much about satipatthana), there will be awareness for an instant of a reality such as thinking or seeing or hearing at this very moment. We can, however, appreciate all kinds of kusala, including these wise reflections, because there certainly isn't going to be right understanding of realities all day long:-) [Han]: I know that such conventional recollection on ageing, illness and death will not lead me to magga and phala ~naa.nas. If I reflect wisely, the most I will get is samvega. But this will help me in avoiding an evil life in deeds, words and thoughts (as stated in the sutta), and that is good enough for me. I know that if I can have the awareness for an instant of a reality such as thinking or seeing or hearing at this very moment (as you said), it will be excellent, but it is difficult for me. At the end of the day, I will get what I deserve. So I am not too much worried. ---------- [Sarah]: I do hope you're feeling stronger now. p.s Next week we will be in Bkk for a week. Let us know if you'd like to meet, but we understand if you still find it difficult to leave home. [Han]: I am quite strong now, and I want to meet you and Jon. But my family is treating me like a baby. I will see if I can make it. Please e-mail to me which morning is convenient to you. Respectfully, Han #112338 From: SARAH CONNELL Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 7:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: PTS I want to order a book dhammasanna I am fortunate that I live near my Thai Theravada Wat here in Houston. They have not only the Pali canon in Thai but they have the PTS for most of the canon. The abbot has given me permission to borrow any of the volumes freely. May you be well and happy and always smiling, Sarah ________________________________ From: ptaus1 <...> If you have a university library close to you, it might be worth checking it out - especially if the university has a department for Asian studies or something like that. It's possible they might have some PTS books. I found a lot of PTS books in a university library near me, including Patthana (the two translated volumes). Though I found it quite hard to read on my own, so instead i tried reading Narada's Guide to conditional relations (I think it's the same Ven.Narada who translated the two Patthana volumes into English, as well as abhidhamattha sangaha). <...> #112339 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 11:17 am Subject: Re: On Suicide by Ariyan Disciples ptaus1 Hi Sarah and Kevin, > > Source: http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/A...inaya_Notes.pdf > ... > S: I can't get your link to work. Does the author give an exact quote from the Samantapasadika for the second quote? (Unfortuantely the Samantapasadika - commentary to the Vinaya Pitaka- is not translated into English.) I think this is the full link: http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/Ajahn_Brahmavamso_Vinaya_Notes.pdf Best wishes pt #112340 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 10:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction upasaka_howard Hi, PT and Herman) - In a message dated 12/5/2010 1:40:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ptaus1@... writes: If I take the commentaries to speak in a scientific/philosophical language that is attempting to describe the world, the universe, time, etc, then I get confused largely on the same points that Howard and Herman mention - if there's duration then there's infinite divisibility; what persists even for an infinitesimal amount of time in essence then endures as a thing in defiance of conditionality, etc. ================================= PT, let me, at this time, address only this final point you make above (after the hyphen): You are correct in what you say, provided that we consider the duration to be the duration of a substantial entity. But there is no thing, except as a matter of convention, that endures. A period of time during which (we say) that something endures is indeed infinitely divisible, but there is no "same thing" that is enduring, for there is, in fact, no separate "thing" at all. There is always "somewhere" change underway, and since nothing is a thing-in-itself but is a thing-in-relation (tentatively allowing the convention of "thing" at all), so long as there is change anywhere, there is change everywhere. And while change is in effect, what "thing" with essence could there be? Anicca implies anatta. The word 'identity' comes from the Latin 'idem et idem' (meaning "same and same"), but change negates sameness, and change is universal. This apparent fragmented world of separate things is illusion and is exactly samsara, whereas reality is seamless and thingless. At the same time, this seamless reality is not one of dead homogeneity either but is a living, pulsing, multi-layered and multi-faceted reality. A great river is dynamic, with many substreams, whirlpools, shallows and deeps, calm areas and rapids, but it is seamless, with these "things" conventionally distinguishable but inseparable in fact and of the same fundamental nature. Reality, IMO, is neither an infinite duration of dead sameness nor a collection of separate, zero-point particles, but, in fact, lies beyond all our views. Reality "doesn't care" about our extreme reification perspectives. Reality doesn't accommodate to our notions. It is we who have to make the accommodation. We need to abandon our notions and actually look! Those who have looked deeply can give us pointers, but, finally, we have to see for ourselves. No one can see for us. With metta, Howard Look! Look! /What's the need for a well if water is everywhere? Having cut craving by the root, One would go about searching for what?/ (From the Udapana Sutta) #112341 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 8:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction kenhowardau Hi pt, Herman and Howard, ---------- <. . .> pt: > If I take the commentaries to speak in a scientific/philosophical language that is attempting to describe the world, the universe, time, etc, then I get confused largely on the same points that Howard and Herman mention - if there's duration then there's infinite divisibility; what persists even for an infinitesimal amount of time in essence then endures as a thing in defiance of conditionality, etc. ------------ Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the theory of infinite divisibility a thing of the past? Didn't it begin in ancient Greece when they used to theorize that an arrow could never reach its target (because there was always a shorter distance that it had to travel before it could get there)? Needless to say, everyone knew there was a solution to the puzzle (because arrows did reach their targets!), they just couldn't find it. According to my understanding, the solution was eventually provided by quantum mechanics, which proved that the universe existed in indivisible chunks. (Just like paramattha dhammas.) Herman has resurrected this ancient theory in order to disprove paramattha dhammas, and Howard is going along with him, but let's not be distracted by that. :-) ------------------ pt: > But, if I take the commentaries to speak in terms of describing an experience of insight, then everything starts to make sense to me and sounds very much like the suttas. I.e. Firstly, during an experience of insight a dhamma is said to be experienced by panna as the individual and general characteristics. Does this mean that a little self thing is argued? I doesn't seem so to me, but rather that it's just a description of an experience of insight. -------------------- Lasting for a period of time does not equate with self - why should it? A thing that lasts for a period of time is a nama or a rupa, not a self. A self, if it existed, would be any reality *other than* a nama or a rupa. -------------------------- pt: > Similar like when the Buddha says "feeling is anatta, feeling is anicca, feeling is dukkha". Sure, later on we can speculate - "but wait, a dhamma cannot arise alone and in isolation from other phenomena," etc, and that might be theoretically right. --------------------------- It *is* theoretically right, but what is the problem? Why would do you say, "but wait"? I don't see how the fact that dhammas co-arise with other dhammas could stop them from being anatta. What is the point I am missing here? ---------------------- pt: > But for whatever reason, the closest description of insight they could express in words is that it's an experience of characteristics of a single dhamma. -------------------------- I think Sarah has explained that the dhamma - not the characteristic - is the object of experience. Panna experiences a dhamma and understands its characteristics. ----------------------- pt: > Secondly, in insight, this dhamma is said to be experienced to arise, persist and fall away. Does this mean that it's argued that a dhamma endures unchanging for some infinitesimal amount of time? It doesn't seem so to me, but rather, again, it seem like a description of what is actually experienced during insight - and for whatever reason, that's the closest description they could express in words. ----------------------- My answer would be simply that dhammas have the anicca characteristic. The conventional explanation of anicca involves the concept of something changing. (Changing shape, for example.) But we shouldn't get stuck on conventional explanations. We should just know that all conditioned dhammas have the anicca characteristic. ------------------------------ pt: > Again, we can then speculate and argue - "but wait, this little sub-moment of persisting must also be subject to change if it's to conform to conditionality" etc. Again, that might be right in theory, but when it comes to describing an experience of insight, it seems the 3 submoments is as accurate/sharp description as it can ever get. So, it's not about time, temporal duration of a moment, its potential divisibility nor other scientific explanations. Rather, it's just a description of how insight is experienced to happen. ------------------------------- As I was saying, I don't see any conflict between the theory and the practice. I must be missing something you scientifically-trained fellows can see. --------------------- <. . .> pt: > Lastly, there's the issue of how a dhamma (or its characteristics) can be experienced if it has already fallen away. Again, for whatever reason (which I think is called dhamma-niyama), the cognition process seems to work in such a way that once a dhamma falls away, the nimitta (navataba) of it becomes the object of the following mind-door process of cittas, and the characteristics of the dhamma are known by panna at that time. And that constitutes insight, as per the description in the commentaries. ---------------------- Now you're talking! - for whatever reason, whether we understand it or not, that's how it is in ultimate reality. Ken H > Now sure, there are other description of insight that people have come up with and invested somewhat different meanings in the similar terms (Buddhadasa comes to mind for example). But in either case, I feel it's important to try to approach any given terminology in a way that helps - i.e. a way that would enable learning about insight and detachment. I mean, it seems more practical that way than when terminology is used for the sake of arguments, which can be enjoyable, though usually not very practical in terms of actually encouraging insight. > > Best wishes > pt > #112342 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 4:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and pt & Herman) - In a message dated 12/5/2010 3:46:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi pt, Herman and Howard, ---------- <. . .> pt: > If I take the commentaries to speak in a scientific/philosophical language that is attempting to describe the world, the universe, time, etc, then I get confused largely on the same points that Howard and Herman mention - if there's duration then there's infinite divisibility; what persists even for an infinitesimal amount of time in essence then endures as a thing in defiance of conditionality, etc. ------------ Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the theory of infinite divisibility a thing of the past? ----------------------------------------------- It is far from being a thing of the past. In fact, all modern mathematics accepts this. Indeed, calculus is the modern means of explaining Zeno's paradoxes. --------------------------------------------- Didn't it begin in ancient Greece when they used to theorize that an arrow could never reach its target (because there was always a shorter distance that it had to travel before it could get there)? Needless to say, everyone knew there was a solution to the puzzle (because arrows did reach their targets!), they just couldn't find it. According to my understanding, the solution was eventually provided by quantum mechanics, which proved that the universe existed in indivisible chunks. (Just like paramattha dhammas.) Herman has resurrected this ancient theory in order to disprove paramattha dhammas, and Howard is going along with him, but let's not be distracted by that. :-) -------------------------------------------- No, the mathematical theory of limits and continuity was quite sufficient to handle Zeno. In any case, you are missing the point, Ken, in bringing up Zeno's paradox, which was an invalid conclusion from the fact of infinite divisibility. ------------------------------------------- ------------------ pt: > But, if I take the commentaries to speak in terms of describing an experience of insight, then everything starts to make sense to me and sounds very much like the suttas. I.e. Firstly, during an experience of insight a dhamma is said to be experienced by panna as the individual and general characteristics. Does this mean that a little self thing is argued? I doesn't seem so to me, but rather that it's just a description of an experience of insight. -------------------- Lasting for a period of time does not equate with self - why should it? A thing that lasts for a period of time is a nama or a rupa, not a self. A self, if it existed, would be any reality *other than* a nama or a rupa. --------------------------------------------------- What do you mean by the "self" of anything? I mean an alleged core of separate identity, and I deny it. In a living being, such a self would be called a "soul". ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- pt: > Similar like when the Buddha says "feeling is anatta, feeling is anicca, feeling is dukkha". Sure, later on we can speculate - "but wait, a dhamma cannot arise alone and in isolation from other phenomena," etc, and that might be theoretically right. --------------------------- It *is* theoretically right, but what is the problem? Why would do you say, "but wait"? I don't see how the fact that dhammas co-arise with other dhammas could stop them from being anatta. What is the point I am missing here? --------------------------------------------- Now, here I find myself in agreement with you, Ken. Co-arising interdependently with other phenomena is an aspect of anatta. -------------------------------------------- ---------------------- pt: > But for whatever reason, the closest description of insight they could express in words is that it's an experience of characteristics of a single dhamma. -------------------------- I think Sarah has explained that the dhamma - not the characteristic - is the object of experience. Panna experiences a dhamma and understands its characteristics. ----------------------- pt: > Secondly, in insight, this dhamma is said to be experienced to arise, persist and fall away. Does this mean that it's argued that a dhamma endures unchanging for some infinitesimal amount of time? It doesn't seem so to me, but rather, again, it seem like a description of what is actually experienced during insight - and for whatever reason, that's the closest description they could express in words. ----------------------- My answer would be simply that dhammas have the anicca characteristic. The conventional explanation of anicca involves the concept of something changing. (Changing shape, for example.) But we shouldn't get stuck on conventional explanations. We should just know that all conditioned dhammas have the anicca characteristic. ------------------------------------------------ So, don't worry about meaning and explanations, don't consider - just use the words, hmm? ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ pt: > Again, we can then speculate and argue - "but wait, this little sub-moment of persisting must also be subject to change if it's to conform to conditionality" etc. Again, that might be right in theory, but when it comes to describing an experience of insight, it seems the 3 submoments is as accurate/sharp description as it can ever get. So, it's not about time, temporal duration of a moment, its potential divisibility nor other scientific explanations. Rather, it's just a description of how insight is experienced to happen. ------------------------------- As I was saying, I don't see any conflict between the theory and the practice. I must be missing something you scientifically-trained fellows can see. --------------------- <. . .> pt: > Lastly, there's the issue of how a dhamma (or its characteristics) can be experienced if it has already fallen away. Again, for whatever reason (which I think is called dhamma-niyama), the cognition process seems to work in such a way that once a dhamma falls away, the nimitta (navataba) of it becomes the object of the following mind-door process of cittas, and the characteristics of the dhamma are known by panna at that time. And that constitutes insight, as per the description in the commentaries. ---------------------- Now you're talking! - for whatever reason, whether we understand it or not, that's how it is in ultimate reality. -------------------------------------------------- If you don't understand it, how would you know that this is how it is in ultimate reality? (I believe! I believe! Say "hallelujah"!! ;-) ------------------------------------------------- Ken H > Now sure, there are other description of insight that people have come up with and invested somewhat different meanings in the similar terms (Buddhadasa comes to mind for example). But in either case, I feel it's important to try to approach any given terminology in a way that helps - i.e. a way that would enable learning about insight and detachment. I mean, it seems more practical that way than when terminology is used for the sake of arguments, which can be enjoyable, though usually not very practical in terms of actually encouraging insight. > > Best wishes > pt > ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112343 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 10:14 pm Subject: The 3 Basic Feelings... bhikkhu5 Friends: The Three Basic Kinds of Feeling! The blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus and friends, there are these three feelings... What three? 1: Pleasant feeling, 2: Painful feeling, 3: Neutral neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. These are the three basic feelings! A disciple of the Buddha, aware, focused, clearly comprehending, understands these three feelings. And contact as the cause of any feeling. When contact ceases they fade away & vanish. The Noble Way is leading to their elimination. With the final quenching of feeling, one is freed of all yearning and thus fully stilled... Whether feeling is pleasant, painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, whether internal or external; whatever kind of feeling there is: Knowing: This is Suffering, perishing, momentary, disintegrating... Having been touched and contacted by them, noting their instant ceasing, their transience, one gradually loses all passion for them... There are these three basic feelings. What three? Pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neutral feeling. All mental states converges on this very felt quality of feeling... <...> From Sense Contact arises all Feeling! Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV [204-5] 36: feeling. Vedana. Focused on Pleasure. 1-2. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112344 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 11:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction kenhowardau Hi Howard and all, -------- <. . .> H: > In any case, you are missing the point, Ken, in bringing up Zeno's paradox, which was an invalid conclusion from the fact of infinite divisibility. -------- Ah, good, I am almost glad to hear that. I take it then that you and Herman were not relying on Zeno's paradox when you said that patamattha dhammas could only have either 'no duration' or 'eternal duration'. --------------- <. . .> KH: >> Lasting for a period of time does not equate with self - why should it? A thing that lasts for a period of time is a nama or a rupa, not a self. A self, if it existed, would be any reality *other than* a nama or a rupa. >> H: > What do you mean by the "self" of anything? ---------------- I don't mean anything by "the self of anything" it is not an expression I use. I believe the texts talk about the substance (sabhava) of things, but not the self of them. It's the followers of Nagarjuna who equate sabhava with self, not me. :-) -------------------------- H: > I mean an alleged core of separate identity, and I deny it. In a living being, such a self would be called a "soul". -------------------------- Dhammas do indeed have a core. In the case of conditioned dhammas the core is anicca dukkha and anatta. In the case of nibbana it is anatta. By equating "core" with "soul" Nagarjuna was effectively hijacking the doctrine of anatta and leading it down a path it was never meant to go down. In that way he stripped the doctrine of its effectiveness, leaving open the possibility of eternal life in paradise. ---------------------- <. . .> KH: >> The conventional explanation of anicca involves the concept of something changing. (Changing shape, for example.) But we shouldn't get stuck on conventional explanations. We should just know that all conditioned dhammas have the anicca characteristic. >> H: > So, don't worry about meaning and explanations, don't consider - just use the words, hmm? ------------------------ No, I meant don't worry too much about conventional meanings and explanations, just understand that conditioned dhammas do exist and they do have anicca dukkha and anatta as their core. If that understanding leads to conventional ideas (of changing shapes etc) that's fair enough so long as it aids in the understanding of inherent characteristics. But the horse (ultimate understanding) must be placed *before* the cart (conventional understanding), not after it. ---------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> - for whatever reason, whether we understand it or not, that's how it is in ultimate reality. >> H: > If you don't understand it, how would you know that this is how it is in ultimate reality? (I believe! I believe! Say "hallelujah"!! ;-) ---------------------------- We have discussed this many times, and I have tried to explain what I meant. As is stated in the texts, the Dhamma (the way things are) is the Dhamma no matter what. No matter whether a Buddha has, or has not, appeared in the world to explain way things are, things will continue to be the way they are. Ken H #112345 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 11:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction philofillet Hi Howard, Ken and all > If you don't understand it, how would you know that this is how it is > in ultimate reality? (I believe! I believe! Say "hallelujah"!! ;-) How about "pa~nn~alujah!"? Metta, Phil #112346 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 12:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Howard, Ken and all > > > > If you don't understand it, how would you know that this is how it is > > in ultimate reality? (I believe! I believe! Say "hallelujah"!! ;-) > > > How about "pa~nn~alujah!"? > ---------------- I thought you were taking a break! Ken H :-) #112347 From: "philip" Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 12:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction philofillet Hi again > > How about "pa~nn~alujah!"? I take that back. There's a lot about the Dhamma that we believe without understanding yet. Metta, Phil #112348 From: "philip" Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 12:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction philofillet Hi Ken > I thought you were taking a break! A break? How is that possible if there is only this one moment of nama and rupa? Metta, Phil #112349 From: "philip" Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 12:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction philofillet Hi again I take that back too. Of course it's possible. My disinclination to plunge into the deep teachings doesn't mean that I don't believe in concepts and realities... Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Ken > > I thought you were taking a break! > > > A break? How is that possible if there is only this one moment of nama and rupa? > > Metta, > > Phil > #112350 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 12/5/2010 6:40:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard and all, -------- <. . .> H: > In any case, you are missing the point, Ken, in bringing up Zeno's paradox, which was an invalid conclusion from the fact of infinite divisibility. -------- Ah, good, I am almost glad to hear that. I take it then that you and Herman were not relying on Zeno's paradox when you said that patamattha dhammas could only have either 'no duration' or 'eternal duration'. ------------------------------------------------------------- Speaking for myself, Ken: I believe in a seamless reality, not a fragmented one. So what you call "paramattha dhammas," I consider to be matters of convention. So, questions of whether they have no duraion or eternal duration are, for me, rather akin to asking about the length of a rainbow. -------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- <. . .> KH: >> Lasting for a period of time does not equate with self - why should it? A thing that lasts for a period of time is a nama or a rupa, not a self. A self, if it existed, would be any reality *other than* a nama or a rupa. >> H: > What do you mean by the "self" of anything? ---------------- I don't mean anything by "the self of anything" it is not an expression I use. I believe the texts talk about the substance (sabhava) of things, but not the self of them. It's the followers of Nagarjuna who equate sabhava with self, not me. :-) -------------------------- H: > I mean an alleged core of separate identity, and I deny it. In a living being, such a self would be called a "soul". -------------------------- Dhammas do indeed have a core. In the case of conditioned dhammas the core is anicca dukkha and anatta. In the case of nibbana it is anatta. ---------------------------------------------------------- You are engaging in word games here, Ken, nothing more. --------------------------------------------------------- By equating "core" with "soul" Nagarjuna was effectively hijacking the doctrine of anatta and leading it down a path it was never meant to go down. In that way he stripped the doctrine of its effectiveness, leaving open the possibility of eternal life in paradise. ---------------------------------------------------------- You just don't know what you are talking about here, Ken. It seems as if you've not studied Nagarjuna. Have you? ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- <. . .> KH: >> The conventional explanation of anicca involves the concept of something changing. (Changing shape, for example.) But we shouldn't get stuck on conventional explanations. We should just know that all conditioned dhammas have the anicca characteristic. >> H: > So, don't worry about meaning and explanations, don't consider - just use the words, hmm? ------------------------ No, I meant don't worry too much about conventional meanings and explanations, just understand that conditioned dhammas do exist and they do have anicca dukkha and anatta as their core. ---------------------------------------------------------- Oh, geez. --------------------------------------------------------- If that understanding leads to conventional ideas (of changing shapes etc) that's fair enough so long as it aids in the understanding of inherent characteristics. But the horse (ultimate understanding) must be placed *before* the cart (conventional understanding), not after it. ---------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> - for whatever reason, whether we understand it or not, that's how it is in ultimate reality. >> H: > If you don't understand it, how would you know that this is how it is in ultimate reality? (I believe! I believe! Say "hallelujah"!! ;-) ---------------------------- We have discussed this many times, and I have tried to explain what I meant. As is stated in the texts, the Dhamma (the way things are) is the Dhamma no matter what. No matter whether a Buddha has, or has not, appeared in the world to explain way things are, things will continue to be the way they are. --------------------------------------------------------- Hallelujah! --------------------------------------------------------- Ken H ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112351 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 5, 2010 11:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 12/5/2010 6:51:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard, Ken and all > If you don't understand it, how would you know that this is how it is > in ultimate reality? (I believe! I believe! Say "hallelujah"!! ;-) How about "pa~nn~alujah!"? ----------------------------------------------------- When we encounter pa~n~na, it will be worthwhile praising it. ----------------------------------------------------- Metta, Phil ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112352 From: Herman Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 6:09 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. egberdina Hi azita, On 5 December 2010 09:50, gazita2002 wrote: > > > hallo Herman, > > > > > If you believe that there is some liberating insight in saying that you > are > > a concept, or in repeating some categories, good for you. > > > > In contrast, DN 2 has, regarding insight knowledge: > > > > In the same way with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, > > unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained > to > > imperturbability the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge and > vision. > > He discerns: 'This body of mine is endowed with form, composed of the > four > > primary elements, born from mother and father, nourished with rice and > > porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, and > > dispersion. And this consciousness of mine is supported here and bound up > > here.' > > azita: an uplifting extract from DN2. Going from 4th Jhana to insight > knowledge, the monk would know how impermanent 'his' form would be, made up > of the 4 primary elements. > > 'born from mother and father' of course, why not, he's a human, not a deva > or one of those beings spontaneously born; and has to be nourished with > 'human'food. > So, is being human a concept or not? > Subject to birth, old age, sickness and death,, dukkha > > "his" consciousness [vinnana, citta] is supported by what do you think, > Herman? > Could be that this consciousness is supported by the form which is the base > for its arising. Nama conditioning rupa? > Could it be no more than what it says, that the human body, the one born from mother and father, the body that has to be fed to stay alive, is inextricably tied to consciousness? Cheers Herman #112353 From: Herman Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 9:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How can killiing or stealing not be a conventional deed? egberdina Hi Jon, On 3 December 2010 21:36, jonoabb wrote: > > J: Just to clarify. I am not denying conventional deeds in the sense you > suggest. I am saying that when the Buddha spoke in terms of conventional > deeds (which he did most of the time), he was in fact alluding to the > underlying mental states. > Was he? > Thus, if he said that restraint from killing was kusala, he was referring > to kusala restraint and not to refraining from killing for purely akusala > reasons (as in the example I gave to Robert E). > > Hoping this clarifies a little the context of my earlier remarks. > > Regarding "understanding of deeds on the conventional level", I'd be > interested to know how you see this. As I read the teachings, understanding > of 2 kinds is taught: kusala consciousness vs. akusala consciousness (this > is the understanding necessary for the development of samatha) and dhammas > as dhammas (the understanding necessary for the development of > awareness/insight). > > Where do you see understanding of deeds on the conventional level fitting > into the teachings? > Ever heard of something called the Patimokkha? Of course you have! Why is it there? Because there is not only this sphere of mental deeds. The being in jhana has no need of Patimokkha. That is because deeds at the thinking level have no consequence for anyone else. It is deeds at the action level that have consequences for others. And guess what, when you're not in jhana, there is the world, there are others! That's why there's a Patimokkha, because without it others are at others throats. When you're not in jhana, everything is conventional, Jon :-) And as long as there is a need for Patimokkha, there is absolutely no need for, or use in concerning yourself with magga-phala-citta and stuff like that :-) Cheers Herman #112354 From: Herman Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 9:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? egberdina Hi Sarah, On 4 December 2010 18:28, sarah abbott wrote: > > > Panna, whether arising with realities or concepts as objects (as in > satipatthana or samatha bhavana) does not impede any kind of action when a > siren goes off! To think so, completely misunderstands what the development > of satipatthana is about and how it develops. This may be an issue for those > who think that bhavana is confined to specific practices or occasions, but > not for those of us who appreciate that there can be satipatthana, the > direct understanding of a reality, at this very moment. > > There is an enormous difference between what *can* happen, and what *does* happen. If you're into appreciating randomness, I'd say, go for it :-). Cheers Herman #112355 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 9:51 am Subject: [dsg] Latent Tendencies, Ch 3, no 5. nilovg Dear Han and friends, It has been explained in the commentaries that the latent tendencies are defilements which are powerful. They lie dormant in the citta and do not arise and perform functions. However, when there is an appropriate condition the defilements arise. As was stated: They lie dormant (anusenti) and when there is an appropriate condition they will arise [1] It was said that the latent tendency accompanies citta, it experiences an object, it has a root, because it is said that it proceeds with the condition that is only akusala. It is past, future or present. Therefore it is correct to say that the latent tendencies arise. This means that when there is an appropriate condition the latent tendency causes the (relevant) defilement ( akusala cetasika) to arise and perform its function. Then it must accompany citta (citta- sampayutta), it must have an object, be accompanied by roots. It can only be akusala, it is the reality that arises together with citta and is therefore past, future or present. In the Path of Discrimination (Pa.tisambhidaamagga, abhisamaya, convergence) it is explained about the eradication of defilements, that path-consciousness (magga-citta) eradicates latent tendencies. These are defilements that do not arise at the moment of magga-citta but are realities that are inherent at that moment. Therefore, the latent tendencies are not defilements that arise and perform their functions. In the Dhammasanganii (390) it is said that when moha arises it does so together with akusala citta and that it is an akusala root. The fact that moha arises and can perform its function is because it has as condition the latent tendency of ignorance, avijjaa. We read: The lack of knowledge, of vision, which there is on that occasion... the bias (anusaya) of ignorance (avijjaa), the obsession (pariyutthaana) of ignorance, the barrier of ignorance; the dullness that is the root of badness- that is the dullness that there then is. It is explained in the Points of Controversy, Kathaavatthu Ch XI, 108, in the talk on the latent tendencies, that when there is an appropriate condition the latent tendencies cause the arising of akusala citta. At that moment it must be akusala, sahetuka (with root), accompanying citta (citta sampayutta). These statements are opposed of those who have wrong view and follow the schismatic schools of Mahaasanghika and Sammitiya who believed that the latent tendenciers were unmoral (avyaakata), without roots, not accompanying citta (citta-vippayutta), because they did not understand that when the latent tendencies have an appropriate condition they cause the arising of akusala. The Yamaka (anusaya yamaka, arising of latent tendencies, uppajjana vaara) states: (a)Does to (every) one to whom the Bias of Sensuous Craving adheres, also the Bias of Anger adhere?- Yes. (b) And does to (every) one to whom the Bias of Anger adheres, also the Bias of Sensuous Craving adhere?- Yes. As to the term anusenti, they lie dormant, this refers to the fact that when there is an appropriate condition for a latent tendency it will arise. All the latent tendencies which cannot yet be eradicated must be lying dormant in each citta. For example, someone who is not yet an anaagaami must have the latent tendencies of sensuous desire and of anger lying dormant in the citta. The latent tendencies are not medium defilements, pariyutthaana kilesa, that arise and perform their functions. The medium defilement of sensuous desire and of anger cannot arise together with the citta at the same time. It can be concluded that the latent tendencies are subtle defilements that do not arise but when there is an appropriate condition they cause the arising of medium defilements together with akusala citta. ------- footnote: We read in the Dispeller of Delusion the commentary to the Book of Analysis, Ch 17, 2516): they inhere (anusenti) in the sense of tenacity, in the sense of being unabandoned are anusayaa, inherent tendencies. ******************** Nina. #112356 From: Herman Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 10:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: attachment. egberdina Hi Phil On 5 December 2010 17:22, philip wrote: > > > > > So, anyway, I kind of find it valuable to be reminded about detachment > over and over, even if I don't experience it very often yet, just like I > find it valuable when I'm reminded about sila in your posts for example. The > two need not be in antagonism, since we all tend to share what we deem to be > most valuable at the moment. > > Ph: Sila before detachment! A.S students preach a very very refined form of > sila. There is also Buddhist morality that is not dependent on understanding > of mind states. I think that's why the famous reminder is "avoid evil, do > good, and purify the mind" rather than "do good, avoid evil and purify the > mind" as it is often misquoted. It is easier to avoid evil than it is to do > good, because for kusala there are so many necessary conditions, so many > cittas that must co-arise for a moment of kusala. > > Well, that's about it. Thanks p.t. I'll stop there. > > I appreciate and agree with your comments. Of what value can it possibly be to be reminded about detachment by a fully intent householder? It's like being reminded by a blind person to see! That is not a reminder, it is Ignorance Phil, you are spot on. The Buddha taught sila to the householder, not abhidhamma. As long as the house needs vacuuming, there's not a hope in hell of moving beyond pleasure and pain. Cheers Herman #112357 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 10:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: attachment. nilovg Dear Philip, Op 5-dec-2010, om 7:22 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I think that's why the famous reminder is "avoid evil, do good, and > purify the mind" rather than "do good, avoid evil and purify the > mind" as it is often misquoted. It is easier to avoid evil than it > is to do good, because for kusala there are so many necessary > conditions, so many cittas that must co-arise for a moment of kusala. ------ N: But even avoiding evil is kusala. You have well understood conditions when writing:< for kusala there are so many necessary conditions, so many cittas that must co-arise for a moment of kusala.> Could we say that purifying the mind comes first, since one has to know the difference between kusala citta and akusala citta, even when there is only a beginning understanding? You often bring up siila and it is always good to consider different aspects of siila. Before, you had some discussions about attachment and detachment. I am reading now aloud the "Perfections" to Lodewijk. I quote a few parts of the Preface: <... we should develop each of the perfections as much as we are able to. The ten perfections have lobha, attachment, as their opposite and, therefore, we should not forget that we should develop them not because we expect a result of kusala, but because we see the danger of each kind of akusala. .. ... Therefore, if a person sees the disadvantage of avarice, he develops generosity, dna. If someone sees the disadvantage of the transgression of morality, sla, he observes sla. He sees that by heedlessness as to action and speech and by the committing of evil deeds and speech, he will come to harm. One may not realize that even speech that was carelessly uttered can harm oneself as well as other people. Therefore, if a person sees the danger of the transgression of moral conduct, he will observe morality and will be evermore heedful as to action and speech.> More about siila and how it is purified: < Since the Great Man desires to adorn beings with the adornment of the virtue of the omniscient, at the beginning he must first purify his own virtue. Herein, virtue is purified in four modes: 1. by the purification of ones inclinations (ajjhsayavisuddhi); 2. by the undertaking of precepts (samdna); 3. by non-transgression (avtikkamana); 4. by making amends for transgressions (patipkatikaraa). In this way we can check sla in our daily life. We should know whether our sla is pure. We read: For someone who is dominated by personal ideals, is naturally disgusted with evil through the purity of his own inclinations and purifies his conduct by arousing his inward sense of shame (hiri). Someone else who is dominated by consideration for the world, afraid of evil, purifies his conduct by receiving precepts from another person and by arousing his sense of moral dread (ottappa . Both establish themselves in virtue through non-transgression. But if, due to forgetfulness, they sometimes break a precept, through their sense of shame and moral dread, respectively, they quickly make amends for it through the proper means of rehabilitation. In these ways sla is purified.> -------- Nina. #112358 From: han tun Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 10:14 am Subject: Re: Latent Tendencies, Ch 3, no 5. hantun1 Dear Nina, The last one I received was Latent Tendencies Ch 3, no 3. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/112059 I did not receive Latent Tendencies Ch 3, no 4. Can you kindly repost Latent Tendencies Ch 3, no 4, please? I will come back to you for Latent Tendencies, Ch 3, no 5. Respectfully, Han #112359 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 10:29 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Latent tendencies, Ch 3, no. 2. nilovg Dear pt, Op 5-dec-2010, om 9:05 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > One thing I'm wondering is what exactly is the purpose of mana and > dhamma ayatana classification? I mean, for vatthu classification > it's obvious - to show the physical base for arising. But for > ayatanas I'm not sure what it needs to show. ------ Aayatana refers to association, the meeting of several realities so that objects can be experienced. ------- > pt: You mentioned that citta is classified as mana ayatana because > it is the chief in experiencing, and this certainly holds for > cetasikas, which cannot arise without citta. ----- N: Cetasikas are not manaayatana. They are not chiefs or principles in cognizing an object. They associate with citta severally. Sometimes there are only seven of them, sometimes more, sometimes they are akusala, sometimes they are sobhana, sometimes they are neither. Cetasikas cannot arise without citta, but not all cetasikas are indispensable for the arising of citta. -------- > pt: But for other members of the dhamma ayatana class, this is not > so, since they are independent of citta. So, I'm wondering what's > the purpose of grouping them together under dhamma ayatana, ------ N: They are dhammas, realities, that can be experienced only through the mind-door. The sense objects and sensedoors (which are coarse ruupas) have been classified as the relevant aayatanas, then all cittas as manaayatana, and the remaining dhammas as dhammaayatana. Thus, all that is real is aayatana. Concepts are not included (though this is misunderstood by some). -------- > pt: and about ayatana grouping as a whole. ------ N: Very helpful, reminding us about the conditions for experiencing objects, how there is a meeting of several dhammas for the experience of an object. Different classifications show different aspects. Sa.laayatana, the six bases (sense organs and mind-base) are also a link in the Dependent Origination. ------ Nina. #112360 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 10:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Latent Tendencies, Ch 3, no 5. nilovg Dear Han, you are correct. I numbered the last one no 5, but it should be no 4. My mistake, sorry. Nina. Op 6-dec-2010, om 11:14 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > The last one I received was > Latent Tendencies Ch 3, no 3. #112361 From: han tun Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 10:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Latent Tendencies, Ch 3, no 5. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han --- On Mon, 12/6/10, Nina van Gorkom wrote: From: Nina van Gorkom Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Latent Tendencies, Ch 3, no 5. To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, December 6, 2010, 5:32 PM Dear Han, you are correct. I numbered the last one no 5, but it should be no 4. My mistake, sorry. Nina. Op 6-dec-2010, om 11:14 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > The last one I received was > Latent Tendencies Ch 3, no 3. #112362 From: "philip" Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 11:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: attachment. philofillet Hi Herman > I appreciate and agree with your comments. > > Of what value can it possibly be to be reminded about detachment by a fully > intent householder? Ph: I think in a sense it is ok for people whose gross defilements are not too powerful. There are some people who are not naturally prone to commiting bad deeds (though there is always the latent potential, but that is irrelevant) so if they want to fill their minds with thinking about detachment, why not? It is nice food for thought. But yes, I don't know how a reminder about having detachment can actually condition detachment, it seems to me to be sure to condition trying (however subtly) to have detachment, which of course moots it. > > It's like being reminded by a blind person to see! > > That is not a reminder, it is Ignorance > > Phil, you are spot on. The Buddha taught sila to the householder, not > abhidhamma. Ph: One of my favourite suttas is in Anguttara Nikaya, AN IV 62. "These, householders are the four kinds of happiness that a layperson who enjoys sensual pleasures may achieve, depending on time and occasion." And they are 1) the happiness of possession ("here a family man possesses wealth acquired by energetic striving, amassed by the strength of his arms, earned by the sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously gained" 2) THe happiness of enjoyment. "Here with the wealth acquired by energetic striving etc, a familyenjoys his wealth and does meritous deeds. WHen he he thinks, 'With the wealth acquired by energetic striving etc, I enjoy my wealth and do meritorious deeds', he experiences happiness and joy. This is called the happiness of enjoyment. 3) The happiness of debtlessness. "WHen he thinks 'I am not indebted to anyone to any degree whether great or small', he experiences hapiness and joy, this is called the happiness of debtlessness. 4) The happiness of blamelessness. "When he thinks 'I am endowed with blameless conduct of deed, word and thought' he experiences happiness and joy. This is called the happiness of blamelessness." THere follows a verse: Having known the bliss of debtlessness And further, the bliss of possession, Enjoying the bliss of enjoyment, A mortal then sees with wisdom. While seeing with wisdom the wise one knows Both shares of his happiness. THe other is not worth a sixteenth part of the bliss that comes from blamelessness." People are naturally intoxicated by exposure to the deep teachings that are particular to the Buddha and involve ultimate liberation. Fine for them (us I should say, I suffer from that intoxication too, though I am in withdrawl now) as long as they don't, as Ken did the other day, claim that because the above sort of teaching could be taught by anybody, it is not Dhamma. It is really sad if people don't appreciate that the Buddha taught to householders how to manage their affairs and live wisely in order to fulfill their lives in a wholesome way in order not to fall (you don't believe the next part, I think, but the Buddha taught this way to householders, whose understanding, like mine, was simple and needed simple direction) into lower, subhuman realms. I wonder what it's like in Thailand, and whether the Thai people who listen to A.S also reject these kind of teachings, I doubt they do. Well, I doubt even people like Nina who known both the breadth and depth of Dhamma do, I think our friend Ken H is suffering from a severe case of U.U.P (Ultra Ultimuminum Paramatthamania) when he writes as he did the other day that the Budda's teaching on the above sort of thing is not Dhamma. The other thing that people do of course is say that even when the layperson is feeling happy about using his wealth in a wholesome way, that feeling happy is a dhamma, so it all comes down to dhammas, and back it comes to Abhidhamma, or the classic mistaken statement from A.S that every word in the tipitaka is about satipatthana. > As long as the house needs vacuuming, there's not a hope in hell of moving > beyond pleasure and pain. Ph: Or likes and dislikes? I think even the fully awakened ones don't move beyond pleasure and pain, do they? Well, I don't know, none of my business! My business is here and now, dealing with a massive shitload of greed, hatred and delusion, heavy shifting work! (There is a very good sutta about how if a sala tree - whatever that is - gets choked with mustard weeds, we must cut the mustard weeds away before we hope for the tree to grow beautifully again. I sincerely doubt that there will be anything but cutting away mustard weeds for me in this lifetime, and that's fine, I know where I am and where my understanding is and how powerful my defilements are. Metta, Phil p.s thanks for the reminder. My place is a pigsty. If I want to experience some layperson's happiness at bedtime and upon waking, I had better clean up tonight. #112363 From: "philip" Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 11:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: attachment. philofillet Hi Nina > N: But even avoiding evil is kusala. You have well understood > conditions when writing:< for kusala there are so many necessary > conditions, so many cittas that must co-arise for a moment of kusala.> I wrote that as a kind of a nod of the head to you, because I remember reading in a post about all the conditions that must be met for a single moment of kusala. Perhaps that is the meaning of kusala as intended by the Buddha, or perhaps it is a refinement of kusala that only appears in Abdhidhamma, I don't know. But I am willing to accept that there is a refined kind of kusala that is extremely rare, and extremely pure. But I will not be attached to thinking about that kind of rarefied kusala. If I abstain, for example, from killing a mosquito because I am scared I (very much I, I, I) will suffer for it down the road, or if I abstain from having sex with a married woman (and I'll tell you, it's always a temptation! Why, I almost had sex with my wife last week! haha. Joke) because I want to avoid feeling guilty, or if I avoid stealing a book from the staffroom because I am afraid I'll get caught, the avoiding is full of self-interest and self-concern so by the rarefied definition it is not kusala. I don't care. When I don't kill, I don't kill. That is the point for me, that is enough for me for now. But good to keep hearing now and then about more rarefied and refined definitions of doing good and avoiding evil. > Could we say that purifying the mind comes first, since one has to > know the difference between kusala citta and akusala citta, even when > there is only a beginning understanding? Ph: No, purifying the mind doesn't come first, Nina. First is not doing the deed. Perhaps in your life you are one of the people (and there are such people) who was not born with a preponderance of defilements that drive you constantly in the direction of transgression. That different balances of inherited tendencies is laid out in Vism, so I don't know why it is so difficult for students of A.S to just admit that different people need different Dhamma. THere is always this insistence that that kind of thinking involves self-view and stories about people and what not but it is in Vism, different people have different balances of the 6 roots. So while you are no doubt an expert on Abhidhamma, I have my doubts about whether you know nearly as much as I do about dealing with very powerful defilements, sorry! Metta, Phil p.s thanks for the passage from Perfections, I have to do some housework so couldn't read it now! It is such a great book, and I am really enjoying your book on the paccayas, you lay out it out in such a clear way.... #112364 From: han tun Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 11:24 am Subject: Re: Latent Tendencies, Ch 3, no 4. hantun1 Dear Nina, I have changed the subject to Latent Tendencies, Ch 3, no 4. Your explanations are very clear, and I can understand them. Since you have mentioned Uppajjanavaaro of Anusaya Yamaka, I print below the complete Pali text of Uppajjanavaaro. 6. Uppajjanavaaro 330. (Ka) yassa kaamaraagaanusayo uppajjati tassa pa.tighaanusayo uppajjatiiti? AAmantaa. (Kha) yassa vaa pana pa.tighaanusayo uppajjati tassa kaamaraagaanusayo uppajjatiiti? AAmantaa. (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). 331. (Ka) yassa kaamaraagaanusayo nuppajjati tassa pa.tighaanusayo nuppajjatiiti? AAmantaa. (Kha) yassa vaa pana pa.tighaanusayo nuppajjati tassa kaamaraagaanusayo nuppajjatiiti? AAmantaa. (Ka) yassa kaamaraagaanusayo nuppajjati tassa maanaanusayo nuppajjatiiti? Anaagaamissa kaamaraagaanusayo nuppajjati, no ca tassa maanaanusayo nuppajjati. Arahato kaamaraagaanusayo ca nuppajjati maanaanusayo ca nuppajjati. (Kha) yassa vaa pana maanaanusayo nuppajjati tassa kaamaraagaanusayo nuppajjatiiti? AAmantaa. (Vitthaaretabba.m). Uppajjanavaaro. -------------------- Respectfully, Han #112365 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 3:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Latent Tendencies, Ch 3, no 4. nilovg Dear Han, Op 6-dec-2010, om 12:24 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Since you have mentioned Uppajjanavaaro of Anusaya Yamaka, I print > below the complete Pali text of Uppajjanavaaro. ------ N: Thank you very much. Later on I shall add the English. Nina. #112366 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 7:29 pm Subject: Re: PTS I want to order a book szmicio Hi pt, Thank you for your advise. Unfortunetly I dont live next to any university at the moment. But that may change soon, so I will ask. Best wishes Lukas P.S I dream about read Patthana in English, this is very proufound book in my opinion. > If you have a university library close to you, it might be worth checking it out - especially if the university has a department for Asian studies or something like that. It's possible they might have some PTS books. I found a lot of PTS books in a university library near me, including Patthana (the two translated volumes). Though I found it quite hard to read on my own, so instead i tried reading Narada's Guide to conditional relations (I think it's the same Ven.Narada who translated the two Patthana volumes into English, as well as abhidhamattha sangaha). > > Best wishes > pt > #112367 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 8:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: should one try one's best? truth_aerator Hi Sarah, all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob E,(and Alex) > > --- On Sat, 4/12/10, Robert E wrote: > >One time some years ago, I was meditating with a friend and noting whatever was arising at the moment. After a while I noted an intense smell, and then increasing smoke. So I'm going along noting this "phenomena" when my friend and I suddenly looked at each other and realized it was a fire nearby. We got up and got out quick. > ... > S: You were smart! > > Remnds me of an article I read in Yoga Journal several years ago about some meditators who were falling sick with dengue fever but were unwilling to leave their cushions or silent retreat. Ah, just found it. The link doesn't work - you'll need to google in "truth consequences dengue fever yoga journal". You'll love it! Alex, read it too and you may then consider addressing comments about avoiding the burning house to meditators from now on:-)) > > Metta > > Sarah > ======= I've heard that the the commentary to Bahiya sutta states that Bahiya in his former lives and his fellow meditator monks climbed on a steep mountain and threw away the ladder. They meditated till death. Some of them became awakened to different degrees. And Bahiya benefited quite well as in his future life he Awakened so quickly. Somewhere in Ptsm (and maybe the suttas?) I did read that one should keep the virtue even if it costs one's life. Perfected virtue is when nothing whatsoever can make one to break the precept... I wish I had that... With metta, Alex #112368 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 11:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Ken > > I thought you were taking a break! > > > A break? How is that possible if there is only this one moment of nama and rupa? You get one moment in bhavanga citta, and that's it. After that it's back to work. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #112369 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 11:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > I take that back too. Of course it's possible. ... > > A break? How is that possible if there is only this one moment of nama and rupa? Someone once said that the problem with taking a vacation is that no matter where you go, *you* are still there. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #112370 From: nichicon cp Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 3:31 am Subject: Sangiitisutta 7.4-5 nichiconn ?Dear friends, DN33 section 330 continues: CSCD < Kusiita indolent, inert, inactive. Often combd with hiinaviriya, devoid of zeal. The eight kusiitavatthuuni, occasions of indolence, are enumerated at A IV.332; D III.255 (Next section: 8s #4). -- akusiita alert, mindful, careful. Mu.t.tha having forgotten, one who forgets; forgetfulness, lit. forgotten-mindedness. duppa~n~no: dupid; dats thupid, stupid! CSCD < Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 3:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Suicide by Ariyan Disciples farrellkevin80 Hello Sarah, I believe Pt gave the correct link. which is http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/Ajahn_Brahmavamso_Vinaya_Notes.pdf . Unfortunately, I do not believe the author gave the specific quote from the Samantapasadika. Perhaps someone who is a language expert could search the document for keywords and find it in the original Pali. Thank you for your interest. And thank you Pt for providing the link. My link was copied from a webforum that I posted it on that compressed the link, it appears. Have a nice day, 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 From Sarah's message: ________________________________ Hi Kevin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kevin F wrote: > 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 â€" 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 â€" in this case also suicide is appropriate16.** > > > Source: http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/A...inaya_Notes.pdf ... S: I can't get your link to work. Does the author give an exact quote from the Samantapasadika for the second quote? (Unfortuantely the Samantapasadika - commentary to the Vinaya Pitaka- is not translated into English.) thx Sarah ======== #112372 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Dec 6, 2010 10:48 pm Subject: The 5 Feelings... bhikkhu5 Friends: The 5 Abilities producing Feeling! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these five mental abilities to feel (vedan a). What five? 1: The ability to feel pleasure (sukha ). 2: The ability to feel pain (dukkha ). 3: The ability to feel gladness (somanassa ). 4: The ability to feel sadness (domanassa ). 5: The ability to feel equanimity (upekkh a). Feelings are like bubbles , empty, void, without substance, quickly bursting! What, Bhikkhus, is the ability to feel pleasure? Whatever bodily pleasure there is, whatever bodily comfort, any pleasant agreeable feeling born of body-contact: This is the ability to feel pleasure. What, Bhikkhus, is the ability to feel pain? Whatever bodily pain there is, whatever bodily discomfort, painful, aching disagreeable feeling born of body-contact: This is the ability to feel pain. What, Bhikkhus, is the ability to feel gladness? Whatever mental pleasure there is, whatever mental comfort, and pleasing agreeable feeling born of mental contact: This is the ability to feel gladness. What, Bhikkhus, is the ability to feel sadness? Whatever mental frustration there is, whatever mental grief, disagreeable feeling born of mental contact: This is the ability to feel sadness. What, Bhikkhus, is the ability to feel equanimity? Whatever feeling there is, whether bodily or mental, that is neutral & thus neither comfortable, nor uncomfortable, neither agreeable nor disagreeable: This, Bhikkhus, is called the ability to feel equanimity. These five, Bhikkhus, are the five abilities to feel feelings. Noteworthy Central Implications: If unaware & untrained then bodily pleasure and mental gladness will incite greed, lust and derivatives such as desire, craving, wanting, urge & longing! If unaware and untrained, then bodily pain and mental sadness will induce aversion, hate and derivatives such as anger, wrath, irritation & opposition! If unaware and untrained, then mental equanimity will instigate ignorance, neglect, and derivatives such as doubt, hesitation, uncertainty & confusion! If aware and trained then mental equanimity will activate bliss, knowing & seeing and will through peace refine and complete all other good states! This core causality made Buddha exclaim: All states converges on Feeling!!! <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:209] section 48: The Abilities. 36: Definitions ... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112373 From: "gazita2002" Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 9:14 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. gazita2002 hallo Herman, -- Az. > 'born from mother and father' of course, why not, he's a human, not a deva > > or one of those beings spontaneously born; and has to be nourished with > > 'human'food. > > > > So, is being human a concept or not? > azita; conventional world - no, human is not a concept. paramattha world - human is a concept, eg where can 'human' be found in the momentary arisings of mental/physical realities - nama and rupa? > > > Subject to birth, old age, sickness and death,, dukkha > > > > "his" consciousness [vinnana, citta] is supported by what do you think, > > Herman? > > Could be that this consciousness is supported by the form which is the base > > for its arising. Nama conditioning rupa? > > > > > Could it be no more than what it says, that the human body, the one born > from mother and father, the body that has to be fed to stay alive, is > inextricably tied to consciousness? > > Cheers > > Herman azita; if thats what you want it to mean Herman, than thats fine with me. I stick with what I originally wrote patience, courage and good cheer, azita #112374 From: "gazita2002" Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 9:24 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. gazita2002 hallo Howard, azita: I'm unsure what you mean by derail, however I agree with you that what I > wrote is a concept, as I am a concept :) > ------------------------------------------------ > Have you in effect just said "I don't exist"? Is that an atta-view or > what? (Seem like one to me.) Why is "I am a concept" any more meaningful > than "I am real"? They both presuppose an "I". And what, BTW, is a concept? > Is that a thing? Where is it found? Thinking occurs. But where are concepts? > Do they occur? > --------------------------------------------- azita: now thats a barrage of questions, Howard:) I should have said there is no 'I' to exist. > > The words citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana are concepts also but they > represent actual realities which can be known, when the conditions are right > for knowledge to arise. > -------------------------------------------- > Could be. How do you know that, Azita? You state this as fact, which > suggests to me that you at least *believe* you know it as fact. > ------------------------------------------ Azita; yes, I do believe the above statement that I made to be ultimate truth, gosh this is beginning to sound like a court hearing:) patience,courage and good cheer, azita #112375 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 10:51 am Subject: Sangiitisutta 7.4-5, and commentary. nilovg Dear friends, Book of the Sevens, sutta 4: Walshe DN. 33.2.3(4) 'Seven wrong practices (asaddhammaa): Here, a monk lacks faith, lacks moral shame, lacks moral dread, has little learning, is slack (kusiito), is unmindful (mu.t.thassati), lacks wisdom. Satta asaddhammaa - idhaavuso, bhikkhu assaddho hoti, ahiriko hoti, anottappii hoti, appassuto hoti, kusiito hoti, mu.t.thassati hoti, duppa~n~no hoti. ------- N: The commentary: The dhammas of those who are unmindful, or the wicked dhammas, the inferior dhammas, are the dhammas which are wrong qualities. co 4:Asata.m dhammaa asantaa vaa dhammaa laamakaa dhammaati asaddhammaa. ----- The tiika states that these are the dhammas of the wicked ones, resulting in a wicked nature. As to wicked, they are bad, contemptible. That is why it is said: inferior (laamaka). N: He lacks faith, lacks moral shame, lacks moral dread, has little learning, is slack (kusiito), is unmindful (mu.t.thassati), lacks wisdom. If there is lack of faith, saddhaa, confidence in kusala, there cannot be any generosity, siila or mental development. As to lack of moral shame, hiri, and moral dread, ottappa, the cetasikas hiri and ottappa arise with each kusala citta and they play their part in seeing the danger and disadvantage of akusala. If they are lacking, there cannot be any kind of kusala. As to being of little learning, this means that if one does not listen to the Dhamma or considers it carefully, there is bound to be akusala citta. When one lacks energy for kusala and there is no sati or wisdom, akusala citta will arise very often. ----------- sutta 5: Walshe: DN. 33.2.3(5) 'Seven right practices (saddhammaa): Here, a monk has faith, moral shame and dread, has much learning, has aroused vigour (aaraddha-viriyo), has established mindfulness (upa.t.thita-sati hoti), possesses wisdom. (Satta saddhammaa - idhaavuso, bhikkhu saddho hoti, hirimaa hoti, ottappii hoti, bahussuto hoti, aaraddhaviiriyo hoti, upa.t.thitassati hoti, pa~n~navaa hoti.) -------------- N: The co states that these are the opposites of the foregoing wrong dhammas. It states: The remaining of the text is clear in meaning. Confidence and also all of them are stated only with regard to a person who develops vipassanaa. For them pa~n~naa is mundane and supramundane. This is the distinction. They are the dhammas of the good men (sappurisa, enlightened ones). Co: Vipariyaayena saddhammaa veditabbaa. Sesamettha uttaanatthameva. Saddhammesu pana saddhaadayo sabbepi vipassakasseva kathitaa. Tesupi pa~n~naa lokiyalokuttaraa. Aya.m viseso. Sappurisaana.m dhammaati sappurisadhammaa. ---------- The Tiika states as to the words, only with regard to a person who develops vipassanaa, that this was said in order to teach the arousing of vipassanaa. Pa~n~naa accompanying the magga-citta with the qualification of the realisation of the four Truths can be called vipassanaa, and endowed with this it is the ariyan who develops vipassanaa. These are the dhammas of the good men, not of those who are not good men, enlightened ones. -------- N: The good qualities mentioned above concern in particular the person who develops vipassanaa. This is shown by the words aroused vigour (aaraddha-viriyo), established mindfulness (upa.t.thita-sati hoti), who possesses wisdom. Aroused vigour refers to ardent energy for mindfulness of the present reality. The person who develops vipassanaa has established mindfulness. This means: mindfulness of whatever reality appears through one of the six doorways. This sutta is an exhortation not to be forgetful of realities but to develop vipassanaa with ardent energy that is firm and resolute. Vipassanaa can develop to the degree of pa~n~naa accompanying magga- citta that realises the four noble truths. Here we are reminded of the goal of the teachings. It is a long way to reach this goal, but one can begin at this moment with gladness and energy. There can be gladness since one has the opportunity to hear about the development of the right Path leading to this goal. ******* Nina. #112376 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 9:12 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. upasaka_howard Hi, Azita - In a message dated 12/7/2010 4:25:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, gazita2002@... writes: hallo Howard, azita: I'm unsure what you mean by derail, however I agree with you that what I > wrote is a concept, as I am a concept :) > ------------------------------------------------ > Have you in effect just said "I don't exist"? Is that an atta-view or > what? (Seem like one to me.) Why is "I am a concept" any more meaningful > than "I am real"? They both presuppose an "I". And what, BTW, is a concept? > Is that a thing? Where is it found? Thinking occurs. But where are concepts? > Do they occur? > --------------------------------------------- azita: now thats a barrage of questions, Howard:) I should have said there is no 'I' to exist. ---------------------------------------------------- Good, great!! :-) ----------------------------------------------------- > > The words citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana are concepts also but they > represent actual realities which can be known, when the conditions are right > for knowledge to arise. > -------------------------------------------- > Could be. How do you know that, Azita? You state this as fact, which > suggests to me that you at least *believe* you know it as fact. > ------------------------------------------ Azita; yes, I do believe the above statement that I made to be ultimate truth, gosh this is beginning to sound like a court hearing:) -------------------------------------------------- Yeah, I've been thinking about that, and you are correct about that. I apologize! (I get "bothered" when people state opinion as fact, but that is *my* problem.) ---------------------------------------------------- patience,courage and good cheer, azita ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #112377 From: Herman Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 9:21 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. egberdina Hi azita, On 7 December 2010 20:14, gazita2002 wrote: > > > > Subject to birth, old age, sickness and death,, dukkha > > > > > > "his" consciousness [vinnana, citta] is supported by what do you think, > > > Herman? > > > Could be that this consciousness is supported by the form which is the > base > > > for its arising. Nama conditioning rupa? > > > > > > > > > Could it be no more than what it says, that the human body, the one born > > from mother and father, the body that has to be fed to stay alive, is > > inextricably tied to consciousness? > > > > azita; if thats what you want it to mean Herman, than thats fine with me. I > stick with what I originally wrote > I think it is very unfair to suggest that I am wanting words to mean something they already don't. Your response is yet another instance, IMO, of the view that the poor old Buddha was unable to say what he meant, and that he needs to be re-interpreted every step of the way. Cheers Herman #112378 From: Herman Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 9:51 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. egberdina Hi Nina (and KenH), On 4 December 2010 20:39, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > Hi Herman, Ken H, > Op 4-dec-2010, om 2:59 heeft Herman het volgende geschreven: > > > > What you imply, and I agree with > > you, is that the theory of perception with rupas lasting upto 17 > > nama is > > speculative, not Dhamma. > -------- > N: Perhaps it is less strange if you consider that this number > seventeen is a comparative notion. > Yes, I understand this to be the case. That is, of course, why the notion of paramatta could not possibly apply. One cannot arrive at an absolute by comparing. > Matter does not fall away as > quickly as mind. > As we all agree, this cannot be known in the context of the theory. > The number seventeen: it is the duration of a > process of cittas that experience a sense object such as visible > object, with the addition of preceding bhavangacittas. During those > moments that ruupa has not fallen away yet. > I was interested to read from your book that for you, decay is the moment that is close to the falling away of a rupa. I hope you will understand that this too is pure speculation, because it simply cannot be known. It would be an act of kindness if you, as one of KenH's friends and mentors, did tell him that this theory of perception we are discussing is not to be found in the Abhidhamma. For he will believe you, but not others who say exactly the same thing :-) You are good enough to acknowledge in your book that the Dhammasangani, in reference to decay, talks about decrepitude, hoariness, wrinkles, the shrinkage in length of days, the over-ripeness of the faculties, and that it is the Atthasalini, a commentary some 800 years younger than the Abhidhamma, that sees a need to help the Buddha say what what he really meant. Cheers Herman #112379 From: Herman Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 9:57 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. egberdina Hi KenH (and Nina) On 4 December 2010 15:03, Ken H wrote: > > > > The Abhidhamma explains how the rupas that arise at the mind door can last > as long as seventeen cittas. If the Abhidhamma is not good enough for you > then I can't help you. > > As I wrote to Nina: "It would be an act of kindness if you, as one of KenH's friends and mentors, did tell him that this theory of perception we are discussing is not to be found in the Abhidhamma. For he will believe you, but not others who say exactly the same thing :-) You are good enough to acknowledge in your book that the Dhammasangani, in reference to decay, talks about decrepitude, hoariness, wrinkles, the shrinkage in length of days, the over-ripeness of the faculties, and that it is the Atthasalini, a commentary some 800 years younger than the Abhidhamma, that sees a need to help the Buddha say what what he really meant." Until you realise the differences between what the Abhidhamma says, and what the Atthasalinini et al say, you will continue to embarrass yourself. But hey, ignorance (of that) is bliss :-) Cheers Herman #112380 From: Herman Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 10:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Calm, no 4. egberdina Hi Sarah, On 4 December 2010 18:35, sarah abbott wrote: > > > Dear Nina & Rob E, > > --- On Sun, 21/11/10, Nina van Gorkom > > wrote: > >For the development of samatha one should change one's lifestyle, > there should be a total dedication to a life of fewness of wishes. > .... > S: While I agree that for the attainment of jhana, naturally the lifestyle > will be very different. > > However, I think that we should stress that in the beginning, the > development of samatha can occur now in our daily lives and that the > important factor is pa~n~naa, not a change of lifestyle. > > Even as we read or go about our household chores there may be conditions > for metta to develop, for there to be wise reflection on death, breath or > any other object depending on accumulations. It depends on pa~n~naa > understanding the cittas, understanding moments of kusala and akusala, not > on any wishing to develop samatha, of course. > > You appear to be saying that "wandering on" is a condition for its ending. If I have that right, I'd have to say that is a very silly to suggest :-) Nowhere does the Buddha teach anyone to just keep doing whatever they've always done. Cheers Herman #112381 From: Herman Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 10:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction egberdina Hi pt, On 4 December 2010 15:45, ptaus1 wrote: > > > > Hi Herman, > > > H: From my perspective, a dhamma is a thing, a quality, an essence, a > nature. A > > > dhamma is *what* a thing is. It is this whatness that differentiates it > from > > other things. Sankhara, on the other hand, is *how* a dhamma is ie it is > > constituted in dependence on other dhammas. > ... > > There is nothing about the *what* of a quality, a dhamma, that renders it > > impermanent, or unsatisfactory. It is the *how* of a quality that renders > it > > such. The fabricated nature of dhammas is captured in the teachings on > > dependent arising in the Suttas. > > pt: Thanks for explaining. Trying to understand your pov in the light of > what I've learned here so far, it seems that your notion of "dhamma" is > equal to what commentaries call the individual characteristics of a dhamma - > e.g. what makes feeling a feeling, as distinct from perception for example. > So, pretty much the quality or nature of a dhamma. > > Yes and no :-) My mistake, because I did talk about dhamma in the singular. But really, for me, there is no such thing as an individual, discrete, irreducible dhamma. Dhammas always occur in context of other dhammas. So, to paraphrase your last sentence, it would be the quality or nature of dhammas. > On the other hand, your notion of "sankhara" seems to me to resemble what > the commentaries call the general characteristics of a dhamma - its anatta, > anicca and dukkha characteristics. I understand these three are also in > essence directly related to dependent arising of any conditioned dhamma, as > you seem to conclude as well. > > OK, as long as we remember that I will insist that anicca and dukkha cannot apply to a single dhamma. > Am I getting this right so far? > > With those provisos, yep :-) > > H: The commentators have, however, introduced the notion of a paramatta > dhamma, > > > an irreducible quality. They say that such a paramatta dhamma has three > > phases, it appears, changes while standing, and it disappears. In other > > words, it endures. Yet, somehow, they also maintain that in its very > > enduring, in being what it is, it is impermanent. In its duration, it > > doesn't endure. This is not a paradox, it is a contradiction. > > pt: Hm, I think these issues of duration, 3 sub-moments (and the related > issue of how a dhamma can be directly experienced if it lasts for only one > moment and then falls away completely) belong to a slightly different topic > than what we're discussing now regarding individual and general > characteristics of a dhamma. So, I'll address it in the next post because it > might also be of interest to KenH and Howard who are also discussing the > same topic with you. > > Cool. Cheers Herman #112382 From: Herman Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 10:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: science vs dhamma - small correction egberdina Hi pt, On 5 December 2010 17:40, ptaus1 wrote: > > > > Hi Herman, Howard, KenH, > > I thought your post was very good. I have one comment at the bottom. > This topic is discussed in several threads, so I thought I'll make some > comments here. Sorry it turned out a bit long. Looks like RobE-Sukin virus > is spreading. > > > Herman: The commentators have, however, introduced the notion of a > paramatta dhamma, > > > an irreducible quality. They say that such a paramatta dhamma has three > > phases, it appears, changes while standing, and it disappears. In other > > words, it endures. Yet, somehow, they also maintain that in its very > > enduring, in being what it is, it is impermanent. In its duration, it > > doesn't endure. This is not a paradox, it is a contradiction. > > pt: I find these issues will be understood differently depending on what > fundamental approach one takes towards the terminology in the commentaries. > > If I take the commentaries to speak in a scientific/philosophical language > that is attempting to describe the world, the universe, time, etc, then I > get confused largely on the same points that Howard and Herman mention - if > there's duration then there's infinite divisibility; what persists even for > an infinitesimal amount of time in essence then endures as a thing in > defiance of conditionality, etc. > > But, if I take the commentaries to speak in terms of describing an > experience of insight, then everything starts to make sense to me and sounds > very much like the suttas. I.e. > > Firstly, during an experience of insight a dhamma is said to be experienced > by panna as the individual and general characteristics. Does this mean that > a little self thing is argued? I doesn't seem so to me, but rather that it's > just a description of an experience of insight. Similar like when the Buddha > says "feeling is anatta, feeling is anicca, feeling is dukkha". Sure, later > on we can speculate - "but wait, a dhamma cannot arise alone and in > isolation from other phenomena," etc, and that might be theoretically right. > But for whatever reason, the closest description of insight they could > express in words is that it's an experience of characteristics of a single > dhamma. > > Secondly, in insight, this dhamma is said to be experienced to arise, > persist and fall away. Does this mean that it's argued that a dhamma endures > unchanging for some infinitesimal amount of time? It doesn't seem so to me, > but rather, again, it seem like a description of what is actually > experienced during insight - and for whatever reason, that's the closest > description they could express in words. > > Again, we can then speculate and argue - "but wait, this little sub-moment > of persisting must also be subject to change if it's to conform to > conditionality" etc. Again, that might be right in theory, but when it comes > to describing an experience of insight, it seems the 3 submoments is as > accurate/sharp description as it can ever get. So, it's not about time, > temporal duration of a moment, its potential divisibility nor other > scientific explanations. Rather, it's just a description of how insight is > experienced to happen. > > Sort of like if you look at the sky and see that it's blue, and well, > that's probably the simplest and easiest explanation to understand regarding > what the experience of seeing the sky is like. Sure, one can then speculate > that it's blue because specific wavelengths of light are absorbed by the > air. Or you can get accused that you are positing a single self thing of > blue light separate from all the other wavelenghts of light. Or you can even > get accused that you are positing a theory of enduring blue light because > you're not taking into account different molecular densities of air in > different parts of the atmosphere, etc. But in the end, after all the > arguments, in terms of experience, the closest description you can give is > simply that the sky is blue. > > Lastly, there's the issue of how a dhamma (or its characteristics) can be > experienced if it has already fallen away. Again, for whatever reason (which > I think is called dhamma-niyama), the cognition process seems to work in > such a way that once a dhamma falls away, the nimitta (navataba) of it > becomes the object of the following mind-door process of cittas, and the > characteristics of the dhamma are known by panna at that time. And that > constitutes insight, as per the description in the commentaries. > > Now sure, there are other description of insight that people have come up > with and invested somewhat different meanings in the similar terms > (Buddhadasa comes to mind for example). But in either case, I feel it's > important to try to approach any given terminology in a way that helps - > i.e. a way that would enable learning about insight and detachment. > > I mean, it seems more practical that way than when terminology is used for > the sake of arguments, which can be enjoyable, though usually not very > practical in terms of actually encouraging insight. > My only problem is that, for me, "insight" into a single dhamma would actually be the height of delusion. I readily accept that in order to understand a particular theory, we have to assume the terminology of that theory. Your advice in that regard is good advice. But what are we doing if we massage the world to accomodate the theory? Wouldn't it be more insightful to come to understand that the world of our experience is the way it is precisely because we already have a theory (read:view)? Cheers Herman #112383 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 11:04 pm Subject: The 108 Feelings! bhikkhu5 Friends: Classification of Feeling gives good Understanding! The Blessed Buddha once said: What, bhikkhus, are the 2 kinds of feelings? Bodily feeling and mental feeling. These are the 2 kinds of feelings... What are the 3 kinds of feelings? Pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. These are the 3 kinds of feelings... What are the 5 kinds of feelings? The ability to feel pleasure, pain, gladness, sadness and equanimity. These are the 5 kinds of feelings... What are the 6 kinds of feelings? Feeling produced by eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, and feeling from mental-contact. These are the 6 kinds of feelings... What are the 18 kinds of feelings? Such 6 sense-evaluations produces gladness, 6 sense-evaluations produces sadness, and 6 sense-evaluations produces equanimity. These are the 18 kinds of feelings... What are the 36 kinds of feelings? Six types of household life gladness, 6 types of Noble Life gladness, 6 types of household life sadness, 6 types of Noble Life sadness, 6 types of household life equanimity, 6 types of Noble Life equanimity. These are the 36 kinds of feelings... What are the 108 kinds of feelings? The above 36 feelings here and now in the present, those 36 feelings in the future, and the above 36 feelings in the gone by past. These are the 108 kinds of feelings... This, Bhikkhus, is the Dhamma explanation of the 108 feelings. Comment: Whenever feeling something, then classify the feeling into one or more of these groups... Further classification of feeling does neither seem necessary nor practical... Detailed explanation is given here: Atthasata Sutta: The One-hundred-and-eight Exposition http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.022.than.html <...> Classification of the object in various ways makes one understand it better! Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV [231-2] section 36: On Feeling: Vedana. The 108... 22. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112384 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Dec 7, 2010 11:40 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. kenhowardau Hi Howard (and Azita), ----------- <. . .> H: > Have you in effect just said "I don't exist"? Is that an atta-view or what? (Seem like one to me.) Why is "I am a concept" any more meaningful than "I am real"? They both presuppose an "I". ----------- When talking amongst like-minded friends it is possible to say 'I don't exist' 'there is no you' 'we are just concepts' without being misunderstood. I hear that sort of thing in the recorded talks with K Sujin, for example. It's a pity DSG hasn't reached that stage yet. But DSG hasn't reached that stage, and it won't while it remains divided into two camps. One camp - the meditators - accuses the other of saying we don't exist, and the other camp - the no controllers - accuses the meditators of saying we do. If only we would all accept there were only the presently arisen namas and rupas! Then these basic disagreements would end. We could fight over something more advanced. :-) --------------------- H: > And what, BTW, is a concept? Is that a thing? Where is it found? Thinking occurs. But where are concepts? Do they occur? ---------------------- They don't do anything. They don't exist. Here, there shouldn't be any disagreement. When we are talking about paramattha dmammas and pannatti (realities and concepts) we can say without fear of contradiction that the former exist and the latter do not. However, we will never all be talking about realities and concepts until we have all accepted that there are only the presently arisen realities (namas and rupas). ---------------- H: > (I get "bothered" when people state opinion as fact, but that is *my* problem.) ---------------- You needn't get bothered by Abhidhamma students; they will be the last to state opinion as fact. For as long as there is no direct knowledge of cittas, cetasikas and rupas, no one can know for sure what truly exists. And Abhidhamma students know that for sure. :-) Ken H #112385 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:06 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 12/7/2010 6:40:36 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: --------------------- H: > And what, BTW, is a concept? Is that a thing? Where is it found? Thinking occurs. But where are concepts? Do they occur? ---------------------- They don't do anything. They don't exist. Here, there shouldn't be any disagreement. ----------------------------------------------------- With regard to concepts, I believe we agree. -------------------------------------------------- When we are talking about paramattha dmammas and pannatti (realities and concepts) we can say without fear of contradiction that the former exist and the latter do not. ------------------------------------------------ I consider the so called paramattha dhammas to be only conventional, because of their being conceived of as separate entities. The moment that I read of a single earth rupa, I believe I am fundamentally reading fiction. At the same time, however, I do not consider experience to possess a drab one-dimensionality. Experience is complex and varied, and certainly all that is experienced as "solid," is similar in quality, and that is the basis of coming to think in terms of the concept "earth element". For me, reality is like a great river in which there are deeps & shallows, becalmed regions & rapids, streams & whirlpools - a grand, dynamic variety, but seamlessly interconnected and all just river. --------------------------------------------- However, we will never all be talking about realities and concepts until we have all accepted that there are only the presently arisen realities (namas and rupas). ---------------- H: > (I get "bothered" when people state opinion as fact, but that is *my* problem.) ---------------- You needn't get bothered by Abhidhamma students; they will be the last to state opinion as fact. --------------------------------------------- Hmm. So, then, they KNOW! Is that it? I -------------------------------------------- For as long as there is no direct knowledge of cittas, cetasikas and rupas, no one can know for sure what truly exists. And Abhidhamma students know that for sure. :-) ------------------------------------------------ Stating what one has read but not experinced not as something believed in but as fact is something I've seen numerous Abhidhamma students engage in, and frequently. Doing so, though, is something the Buddha cautioned against. ------------------------------------------------ Ken H ================================= With metta, Howard Safeguarding the Truth "But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth." "If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth. "If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. (From the Canki Sutta) #112386 From: "ionutkrech" Date: Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:57 pm Subject: New to Dhamma ionutkrech Hello, my name is Ionut (Johnny in English), I am from Romania and I'm new to the teachings of Buddha and to this group. I have this feeling that I have to search and understand what this life is all about. I started my search recently and in this way I found this group. Please help me in starting this journey with some indications on what to read and where to start! I always have been attracted to abstract thinking and meditation. Never been able to meditate on deities or other personal gods though. I have some understanding about meditation since I've practiced Yoga some 10 years ago and renounced that path, but now I'm thirsty and restless, I need to find my way, so please help me ... #112387 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Dec 8, 2010 10:26 pm Subject: Re: New to Dhamma kenhowardau Hi Ionut, Welcome to DSG. The best advice I can give anyone is to treat Buddhism as a course of study. Don't treat it as a course of ritualistic practices and things to do. Hear what the Buddha taught, study it, and understand it. Ken H #112388 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Dec 8, 2010 11:02 pm Subject: Bound to be... bhikkhu5 Friends: Mental Causality implies Dual Co-Arising! When there is expectation, then there is bound to be disappointment. When expectation is absent, then disappointment cannot come into being. Whenever there is pride, then there is bound to be wounded pride. When pride is absent, then wounded pride cannot come into being. Whenever there is anger, then there is bound to be conflict. When anger is absent, then conflict cannot come into being. When there is perception, then there is bound to be deception. When perception is absent, then deception cannot come into being. When there is birth, then there is bound to be ageing, decay & death. When birth is absent, then ageing, decay & death cannot come into being. When there is craving, then there is bound to be suffering. When craving is absent, then suffering cannot come into being. When there is suffering, then happiness cannot come into being. When suffering is absent, then happiness comes into being. :-) When this arises, then that also emerges! When this ceases, then that also ends. When this is, then that also comes into being! When this is not, then that cannot come into being. <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samahita _/\_ * <...> #112389 From: "philip" Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 12:28 am Subject: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" philofillet Hi Nina (and all) Just a few quick thoughts and questions on this book, really enjoying it. I like this passage from the chapter on Decisive-Support condition. "Most of the time we are intent on acquiring pleasant objects for ourselves, objects which can be decisive support condition for clinging. There can be awareness of the realities which appear, also of clinging. We should not ignore clinging or despise it as an object of awareness. It arises naturally in our daily life because there are still conditions for its arising. If we do not know its true nature, we will take it for self and then it cannot be eradicated." I like the use of "despise." No good despising all that clinging, that would lead to madness. Where we might differ is that I think we should depise bad deeds, even while we acknowledge that there are strong conditions to do them, so no need to despise oneself (so to speak) for committing them. A question. WHen you and others say "awareness of realities" I am always confused, because according to Dhammapada, a reality is a split second in duration. Does awareness of realities actually mean awareness of millions of realities that have formed a nimitta or something. And what is the difference between a nimitta and a concept? Thanks! Metta, Phil #112390 From: "gazita2002" Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:52 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. gazita2002 hallo Herman, Sorry to have upset you, Herman, that wasnt my intention. I'll change what I said. firstly, I am a keen student of abhidhamma, and also believe the abhidhamma is the word of the Buddha; when I read suttas I do so from this stand point, for me it makes the teaching of anatta, aniccaa and dukkha more understandable on a more immediate level eg now, this present moment. if I read suttas without this intellectual knowledge of abhidhamma, then they wouldnt mean much more than "to mankind the love of worldly appetites is painted in glowing colors: women and children, and heaped-up mounds of gold and silver, and horses with fine markings, and livestock and fertile farmland. All that is merely the enjoyment of the life of this world" which comes from the Qur'an. However, I dont think Allah teaches anatta, anicca, dukkha. Dont know if that makes where I'm coming from any clearer, Herman. patiencee, courage and good cheer, azita > > > azita; if thats what you want it to mean Herman, than thats fine with me. I > > stick with what I originally wrote > > > > > I think it is very unfair to suggest that I am wanting words to mean > something they already don't. Your response is yet another instance, IMO, of > the view that the poor old Buddha was unable to say what he meant, and that > he needs to be re-interpreted every step of the way. > #112391 From: "philip" Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:32 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" philofillet Hi again Nina It's interesting that just after I posted the below, I opened one of my Dhamma notebooks and the first teaching I came across was "there are six hooks in the world for the calamity of beings, for the destruction of beings." Indeed it is wise not to be too stressed by the inevitability of clinging, but let's not be too comfortable in our attitude towards them. The Buddha did not invite us to be relaxed about the way we consume objects through the senses, and he certainly didn't warn against trying to respond to them in a wiser way. So at times some despising of the depth and intensity with which we cling to objects is in order, I think...at timesBMiddle way! Metta, Phil > I like the use of "despise." No good despising all that clinging, that would lead to madness. #112392 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 6:04 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" kenhowardau Hi Phil, ---------- <. . .> Ph: > The Buddha did not invite us to be relaxed about the way we consume objects through the senses, ----------- I agree: in the Ongha Sutta we are told the flood could not be crossed by wrong view of a self that could stand still. --------------- Ph: > and he certainly didn't warn against trying to respond to them in a wiser way. ---------------- I can't agree with that. In the same sutta we are told the flood could not be crossed by wrong view of a self that could strive. ----------------- Ph: > So at times some despising of the depth and intensity with which we cling to objects is in order, I think...at times?BMiddle way! ------------------ No, the Middle Way is not watered-down aversion. The only way of crossing the flood is by right understanding of paramattha dhammas. Ken H (your favourite pen pal) #112393 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 6:40 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" epsteinrob Hi Ken H. - I thought you were *my* favorite penpal... ;-( --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Phil, > > ---------- > <. . .> > Ph: > The Buddha did not invite us to be relaxed about the way we consume objects through the senses, > ----------- > > I agree: in the Ongha Sutta we are told the flood could not be crossed by wrong view of a self that could stand still. For future reference it's the Ogha-tarana Sutta: [Crossing over the Flood.] And there is no mention in it anywhere of the right or wrong view of self. From what in the sutta do you derive this idea from? Here's a link to consult: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn01/sn01.001.than.html Please show me the line that says you can't cross over with wrong view of self. Thanks. > --------------- > Ph: > and he certainly didn't warn against trying to respond to them in a wiser way. > ---------------- > > I can't agree with that. In the same sutta we are told the flood could not be crossed by wrong view of a self that could strive. It doesn't say that either. Please enlighten me as to where it says any such thing. You are making up your own suttas, Mr. Buddha. The key line in this short sutta refers to the correct type of effort or action to engage on the path. It does not say anything about a "self that could strive," and insofar as it prescribes a course of action, it is neither striving nor non-striving: "I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place." Without pushing forward, means without undue effort, and without staying in place means without undue passivity or resistance to action. The "self" that you could say is rejected here is both the active and the passive self, not merely the one you don't like, "a self that could strive," the active self. It also rejects a self that cannot strive. You don't seem to realize that the "middle way" is not the same as your view. Your view is one of the two extremes. > ----------------- > Ph: > So at times some despising of the depth and intensity with which we cling to objects is in order, I think...at times?BMiddle way! > ------------------ > > No, the Middle Way is not watered-down aversion. The only way of crossing the flood is by right understanding of paramattha dhammas. Well that certainly is not the subject of this sutta, even in your wildest paramattha dreams. This sutta says that the Middle way is between striving and non-striving, and is not about right understanding per se. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #112394 From: "philip" Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 7:35 am Subject: Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" philofillet Hi Ken H >The only way of crossing the flood is by right understanding of paramattha dhammas. Ph: As you may have noticed, I am not interested in crossing the flood, though I know that sutta well. I have no Ariyan aspirations. I am more in line with the sutta that asks how is the holy life lived, and answers with painful struggle, in tears. That sutta is about how one goes against the flood, against the stream. So there is a deep and subtle sutta about how the flood is crossed, and a more mundane sutta about how one is to live the holy life in battle with one's defilements. They are both wonderful suttas, to be appreciated by different levels of understanding. But thanks! Metta, Phil #112395 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 7:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] New to Dhamma sarahprocter... Dear Ionut, Welcome to DSG and many thanks for your helpful introduction! I'm very glad you've mentioned you've joined us. I'd recommend you start your own threads (like this one) asking any questions about Buddhism, however basic and following those discussions. In the beginning, just leave the more complicated discussions here, but as you read more, I recommend printing out the simple Pali-English glossary that you can find in the DSG files (on the homepage). Also in those files, if you open "Useful Posts" and scroll down to "New to the list and new to the Dhamma" (or something similar) under "N", you can open those old messages which will give you some good pointers. Whenever anyone asks any questions, they can be sure that others lurking here have the same questions. Of course, you will get different answers and the Buddha's teachings are all about checking at this moment what is true. So here's a question for you: What is true or real now as we speak? Metta Sarah ======== --- On Wed, 8/12/10, ionutkrech wrote: >Hello, my name is Ionut (Johnny in English), I am from Romania and I'm new to the teachings of Buddha and to this group. I have this feeling that I have to search and understand what this life is all about. I started my search recently and in this way I found this group. Please help me in starting this journey with some indications on what to read and where to start! #112396 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:22 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Science and pa~n~naa. Was: The Nature of Cittas and Cetasikas. nilovg Dear Herman, Op 7-dec-2010, om 22:51 heeft Herman het volgende geschreven: >> N: Perhaps it is less strange if you consider that this number >> seventeen is a comparative notion. >> > > H: Yes, I understand this to be the case. That is, of course, why > the notion of > paramatta could not possibly apply. One cannot arrive at an > absolute by > comparing. ------ N: Here is some misunderstanding between us. I mean: ruupa that arises and falls away lasts as long as seventeen cittas. We stay here in the world of paramattha dhammas. -------- >> Matter does not fall away as >> quickly as mind. >> > ------- > H: As we all agree, this cannot be known in the context of the theory. ----- N: See what I said above about seventeen. I do not see this as theory. ------- > >> The number seventeen: it is the duration of a >> process of cittas that experience a sense object such as visible >> object, with the addition of preceding bhavangacittas. During those >> moments that ruupa has not fallen away yet. >> > > H: I was interested to read from your book that for you, decay is > the moment > that is close to the falling away of a rupa. I hope you will > understand that > this too is pure speculation, because it simply cannot be known. ------- N: It can, by developed insight as I understood. -------- > > H: It would be an act of kindness if you, as one of KenH's friends > and mentors, > did tell him that this theory of perception we are discussing is > not to be > found in the Abhidhamma. For he will believe you, but not others > who say > exactly the same thing :-) ------ N: It is best to just discuss Dhamma. -------- > H: You are good enough to acknowledge in your book > that the Dhammasangani, in reference to decay, talks about > decrepitude, > hoariness, wrinkles, the shrinkage in length of days, the over- > ripeness of > the faculties, and that it is the Atthasalini, a commentary some > 800 years > younger than the Abhidhamma, that sees a need to help the Buddha > say what > what he really meant. ----- N: We all agree that the Buddha had two ways of teaching: in conventional language and more directly by way of ultimate realities. It depended on the listeners in what way he chose to teach. This is no problem and we can appreciate both ways. Sometimes we live in the world of paramattha dhammas, sometimes in the conventional world. I just heard on a recording: we think of a person with mettaa, or with avarice, with conceit. We need to think in a conventional way to continue leading our lives. But if there is no right understanding of realities we believe that the person we are thinking about lasts, that it is a self, or that we are a self. Also the Buddha thought of persons but he had no wrong view about them. We learn by way of paramattha dhammas that only colour is seen, but since the ruupa that is colour arises in a group together with the four Great Eelements shape and form is perceived, and this is a sign, nimitta referring to the Great Elements. When we want to get hold of a pen or notebook we do not grab air, but we can get hold of them because we perceive this nimitta, referring to the Great Elements. I like this example, because it shows how we, quite naturally, step from the world of paramatthas to the conventional world, backwards and forwards. Reading in the sutta about decrepitude, wrinkles, we can appreciate this all the more when it reminds us that there is ageing and death at each moment, namely, ageing and death of naam and ruupa. Decay at each moment, cessation is impending. We better not delay to develop all kinds of kusala and understanding. To be kind and gentle in our speech. Nina. #112397 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" nilovg Dear Philip, good questions. Op 9-dec-2010, om 1:28 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I like the use of "despise." No good despising all that clinging, > that would lead to madness. Where we might differ is that I think > we should depise bad deeds, even while we acknowledge that there > are strong conditions to do them, so no need to despise oneself (so > to speak) for committing them. ------- N: You are using the word despising in different ways. Despising bad deeds: shall we say: seeing the disadvantages and dangers of akusala? ------- > > Ph: A question. WHen you and others say "awareness of realities" I > am always confused, because according to Dhammapada, a reality is a > split second in duration. Does awareness of realities actually mean > awareness of millions of realities that have formed a nimitta or > something. ------ N: Not only in the Dhammapada, in all of the teachings. There can be awareness and understanding of characteristics of realities that appear. Seeing has a characteristic different from hearing. Anger has a characteristic different from clinging. when we speak of awareness of the present reality, that reality has just fallen away, but its characteristic can still be object of awareness. It has been explained that we actually experience a nimitta of the realities that arise and fall away so fast. However, there is no need to think of nimitta, as Kh Sujin said. There can just be awareness of characteristics, even now. ------- > Ph: And what is the difference between a nimitta and a concept? ------- N: There are many types of concepts, some represent realities, others do not. I asked Kh Sujin the same question as you are asking. She answered: it is the nimitta of a reality. ----- Nina. #112398 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" nilovg Dear Rob E, just butting in. Op 9-dec-2010, om 7:40 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > Ken H: I can't agree with that. In the same sutta we are told the > flood could not be crossed by wrong view of a self that could strive. > > It doesn't say that either. Please enlighten me as to where it says > any such thing. You are making up your own suttas, Mr. Buddha. > > The key line in this short sutta refers to the correct type of > effort or action to engage on the path. It does not say anything > about a "self that could strive," and insofar as it prescribes a > course of action, it is neither striving nor non-striving: > > "I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying > in place." ------- N: From the teachings, not only this sutta, we learn about the four right efforts that are the right effort of the eightfold Path. Right effort of the eightfold Path has to accompany right understanding of the eightfold Path, otherwise it is not a Path factor. At the moment the Path factors arise a view of self is out of the question. Moreover, wrong view of self is the first defilement that has to be eradicated, before all the other defilements can be eradicated. Impossible to ever reach the further shore when one strives with the wrong view of self. ------ Nina. #112399 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 9, 2010 4:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A few thoughts from "Conditionality of Life" epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > just butting in. > Op 9-dec-2010, om 7:40 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > Ken H: I can't agree with that. In the same sutta we are told the > > flood could not be crossed by wrong view of a self that could strive. > > > > It doesn't say that either. Please enlighten me as to where it says > > any such thing. You are making up your own suttas, Mr. Buddha. > > > > The key line in this short sutta refers to the correct type of > > effort or action to engage on the path. It does not say anything > > about a "self that could strive," and insofar as it prescribes a > > course of action, it is neither striving nor non-striving: > > > > "I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying > > in place." > ------- > N: From the teachings, not only this sutta, we learn about the four > right efforts that are the right effort of the eightfold Path. Right > effort of the eightfold Path has to accompany right understanding of > the eightfold Path, otherwise it is not a Path factor. At the moment > the Path factors arise a view of self is out of the question. > Moreover, wrong view of self is the first defilement that has to be > eradicated, before all the other defilements can be eradicated. > Impossible to ever reach the further shore when one strives with the > wrong view of self.j Always nice to have you come in, and appreciate your comments. I don't doubt that right view and wrong view of self are *always* important, but I think it's a mistake to reduce every single thing the Buddha talked about to one factor. When he is talking about right effort, and how to navigate the path successfully through the middle way between action and inaction, that is a very subtle and important teaching of its own. For Ken H. to reduce this very specific teaching to "right view" and "discernment of dhammas" is like having a parrot or tape recorder make the same comment over and over again, no matter what the teaching happens to be. One can always add "and also, right view is necessary," but it is not the main point of this sutta. Ken H.'s comment about a "self that can strive" *is* more to the point, only I think his understanding of that is wrong. If you eliminate a "self that can strive" but think that leaves you with a "self that cannot strive" you have totally missed the point of this sutta, and don't understand the middle way as it is explained in this important sutta, and how it applies to right effort. Best, Robert E.