#116400 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:29 pm Subject: Alberto's note sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Pt, Alberto & all, here are a few brief notes Alberto sent after his visit to the Foudation & Sat discussion with K.Sujin: Here is a brief synopsis :-) of what I remember of the saturday talk with KS - Alberto A:> 1. The purpose of the Dhamma (KS asked me) - Is to get out of samsara (my reply) - She said that that can only happen after having directly known the dhammas. 2. She then talked about vitakka cetasika but I didnt pay proper attention to what she was saying (udhacca based cittas on my part I think) 3. I then asked her about the disappearence of the aryas (dhamma issue based on Gotami sutta, SN and others) , I was worried about the "expiry date" - She said that it is the self that does that, trying to stamp that figure on the sasana. 4. RobertK asked about miccha ditthi in animals - She said that animals dont have it **** S: Pt, the last point was included in our discussion yesterday, wasn't it? I think I mentioned the same thing to indicate that there is mostly just ignorance and attachment in a day and that animals and small children don't have wrong view because they don't think about realities or take things for being real - they just cling and go around blindly. The point about "trying to stamp the figure on the sasana" is interesting. Quite useless. Thx again, Alberto! Easy to miss parts or forget parts, but it can come back later. Apart from the sense experiences of seeing, hearing and so on, the other cittas (apart from higher jhanas), need vitakka to 'touch' the object in order to experience it. Vitakka now at each moment that we think about the Dhamma, but usually no awareness of its characteristic of 'touching'. Metta Sarah ===== #116401 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:18 pm Subject: How can we develop Equanimity? bhikkhu5 A friend asked this good question: >How can we develop Equanimity? Answer: In any circumstance or during any event recollect this Kamma-vda doctrine: "All beings are born, created, conditioned and constrained by their prior actions. They are owner, debtor and inheritor of their actions (kamma = karma) Their past actions produce and induce their future. Whatever actions they do; good as evil, the resulting reaction = An echo of future effect, will be theirs only These causal, yet delayed effects of their past actions = intentions follow them like a shadow that never leaves" This Kamma-vda reflection is the proximate cause of the arising of the state of equanimity! When repeated many times over a long period, then equanimity (upekkh) grows stronger and stronger, eventually defying agitation even at events as death, mutilation etc. Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net #116402 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] After Right views, what then? nilovg Dear Alex, Op 22-jul-2011, om 19:17 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Unless one has removed obstructions that hinder wisdom (AN 5.51), > even studying can be going the wrong way. The kilesas can twist the > Dhamma to serve them. Or at least block the vision of the truth. > Insight needs clean glassess for truth to be in-sight. Hindrances > is like dirt and imperfections of the lenses. Meditation "cleans > them". ------- N: Only when one has reached access concentration and appana- concentration (jhaanacitta), the hindrances are temporarily subdued, but not eradicated. The question is: is one able to do this? I agree that study can also go the wrong way. It should go hand in hand with satipa.t.thaana, awareness of realities that appear, or rather, a beginning of awareness. That is the way to check. The first mentioned condition is association with the right friend. Discussion can help one to consider realities for oneself. --------- > > > A: I am not very happy when I read something that almost says "you > can't do right because things are anatta". This seems to be > misusing the Dhamma. Anatta is a tool to let go off, not to cling > to unwholesome tendencies. ----- N: Of course, what you say here is obvious. However, I do not see anattaa as a tool. We begin to see that realities arising because of their own conditions are not in anyone's power, that they have no owner, as is said in the suttas. But to fully understand the truth of anattaa, that is a long way of developing understanding. ------ In another post you mention mindfulness of the body: A: Mindfulness of the Body is often said to be requirement for wisdom and even the first path. It is impossible to reach anything worthwhile (insight, wisdom, paths) without kayagatasati. "600. Bhikkhus, they that do not partake mindfulness of the body,[1] do not partake deathlessness and they that partake mindfulness of the body, partake deathlessness." ------- N: To see the body in the body, or ruupa in ruupa, does not mean that one is not mindful of naama. It includes mindfulness of naama and ruupa, becoming familiar with their characteristics and distinguishing the difference between naama and ruupa, which is the first stage of insight. -------- Nina. #116403 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:12 pm Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! ptaus1 Hi Sarah, Jon and all, Yes, a very good day, always inspiring to meet Sarah and Jon. Among the things we discussed: What exactly is attanu ditthi - I thought it's every time I take something for a thing, like a cup, or a printer, so 99% of the time in everyday life. However, attanu ditthi is only when I think about the existence or non-existence of these things - does the cup really exist, is the printer real or not, etc. So in general, when I use printers and cups in most of every day circumstances without really thinking whether they exist or not - these wouldn't be instances of attanu ditthi. How to regard accumulation, in particular of latent tendencies - as simply two piles of good and bad ones increasing with the arising of every corresponding citta? No, it's better if they are considered relative to each other, e.g. even strong akusala tendencies can be countered by very basic panna and good tendencies. Of course, the relative balance will keep changing between the good and bad ones, depending on the circumstances and actions, until there is a radical change brought about by a magga citta that cuts off some of the anusayas completely. How exactly does right livelihood become a part of the path moment along with other path factors as a cetasika - through abstention. Is the rupa we later conceptualise as a rock, and a rupa that is the visual object we later conceptualise as "seeing a rock" - are these two rupas in fact not two but one and the same thing? Yes. So that rupa would be conditioned by temperature only. How does the rebirth-linking consciousness gets its object for the new life, if all the bhavnga cittas as well as rebirth-linking and death consciousness all have the same object: basically, the object of the last javana cittas process of this life in fact becomes the object of the next life bhavanga, rebirth-linking and death cittas. So this new object "carries over" into the new life even though the last javana cittas with the new object will be followed by the death citta with the old object first. What are the differences between conditions and tendencies? Strictly speaking, tendencies are cetasikas, so dhammas, whereas conditions (the 24 conditions) in fact define how dhammas relate to one another. Which is why "conditional relations" is a good term for the 24. Further of course, a dhamma can condition another dhamma to arise, but it would do so in some of the 24 ways. How does past good kamma exactly translate into development of wisdom: thanks to past good deeds, good kamma results in the ability to hear - ear-sense, and hearing of pleasant auditory objects (such as Dhamma). So in abhidhamma terms, this is a vipaka citta strictly speaking. Then however, when javana cittas follow in the following mind-door processes, the development of wisdom will happen if the good tendencies are there to condition its arising - in other words, tendencies are responsible for the araising of wise consideration of what is heard. Of course, other stuff discussed too, like there really being nothing during the day that can impede the arising of awareness. It doesn't choose, and can arise anywhere anytime. Having had no time for meditation in the last four months, I can really attest that it made absolutely no impact on the frequency of arising of awareness, pretty much the same as before when I used to meditate daily. I do miss meditating because it feels so great, but then, so does work, so not much difference. Also spoke of how good it would be to be able to meet regularly other dsg members - Alex, KenH, Phil and all Best wishes pt #116404 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:28 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: six worlds (part 2) nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 24-jul-2011, om 17:30 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > I know everything is supposed to happen in the correct order > according to the appropriate accumulations, and you are right to > 'stick with the texts' in determining what happens when, but I do > think that we have moments when things happen that may be 'in > advance' of our actual stage and that they lead to other > developments in the future. I've had some experiences that just > came about that seemed way ahead of where I 'really am' in > understanding, and that just lasted for a short period of time but > left a strong impression. .... > It also seems to me that sometimes we just "let go" because we "let > go," but I understand that this is sort of unjustified and > unexplained in the texts and so may not be something that can be > certified or accounted for, if it happens at all. > ------- N: It may be some event that made a strong impression. Could it be a thought of letting go, but not real eradication of clinging? When time has passed after such an event, things are back to usual? -------- > > > R: Is thinking always conceptual? If one is "conceiving" the melody > that is formed by a number of notes, is that concept or just a way > of ordering perception? I understand that thoughts "about" melody, > associations with a "story" are concepts. But is there a level of > direct thinking, tied to perception, that is pre-conceptual? > > Still, the distinction between "thinking" that unifies the melody > for citta, and "hearing" which takes in just the raw sounds, is > useful. > ------- N: We can use the word thinking in a very wide sense. It can denote an experience through the mind-door. Not necessarily thinking about something. When the object is not a paramattha dhamma it is a concept. But even concept, pa~n~natti, has several meanings. It can be the concept of a whole, such as a melody. Because of sa~n~naa we remember different notes which seem to occur all at the same time, but they do not. Just now I listen to the music of Gabrieli I copied on my computer. I do not think about the melody, I 'hear' it, that is, I experience the concept of a whole. When we are precise, hearing just hears sound which is a paramattha dhamma, it does not experience anything else. The cetasika vitakka is translated as thinking, but it arises with many cittas, also at those moments it seems that there is no thinking. It does not arise with seeing and the other sense- cognitions, but it arises with the cittas arising after seeing in a sense-door process, such as receiving-consciousness and the javana- cittas in that process and with cittas arising in a mind-door p- rocess. It touches or hits the object and assists the citta in that way so that it cognizes that object. So we may use the word thinking in a very precise sense or a wider sense. -------- > > > N: Well said. When understanding attachment as such, as a dhamma, > > there is already a degree of detachment from attachment. > > R: :-) For one who is still very attached, that is a nice thought - > that we can see the attachment as a dhamma, and thus, even while > still attached, take a step back from attachment. > -------- N: Yes, in the same way all kinds of akusala can and should be objects of mindfulness, to see them as just dhammas, impersonal elements. -------- Nina. > #116405 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Alberto's note nilovg Dear Sarah and Alberto, Thank you for the report. Op 25-jul-2011, om 9:29 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > . I then asked her about the disappearence of the aryas (dhamma > issue based on Gotami sutta, SN and others) , I was worried about > the "expiry date" > > - She said that it is the self that does that, trying to stamp that > figure on the sasana. -------- N: Perhaps she meant, self thinking of a story. When studying the present moment there will not be any worry about the disappearance of the sasana. It has not disappeared yet. Nina. #116406 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! nilovg Dear pt, Thank you for your report. Many topics were discussed! Op 25-jul-2011, om 10:12 heeft ptaus1 het volgende geschreven: > Of course, other stuff discussed too, like there really being > nothing during the day that can impede the arising of awareness. It > doesn't choose, and can arise anywhere anytime. Having had no time > for meditation in the last four months, I can really attest that it > made absolutely no impact on the frequency of arising of awareness, > pretty much the same as before when I used to meditate daily. I do > miss meditating because it feels so great, but then, so does work, > so not much difference. ------ N: You expressed this well: sati does not choose when it will arise, it does not matter in what situation one is. Nina. #116407 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:40 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Dhamma Discussion in Bhutan, no 7. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/25/2011 2:17:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > But also, from another tradition: > Silence and Practice Trump Study > /All my days I have been raised among the Sages, and I found nothing > better for oneself than silence; not study, but practice is the > main thing; and > one who talks excessively brings on sin./ > (Shimon ben Rabban Gamliel, Ethics of the Fathers 1:17) ------ N: This is interesting. I think just practice without 'study' may not be possible. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: I agree that what you say here is true in the vast majority of cases. Some degree of initial understanding is important, even critical. Do note, though, that the material I quoted doesn't say that practice is the ONLY thing, but just the MAIN thing. --------------------------------------------------- How could one be aware of naama and ruupa without knowing what they are? ------------------------------------------------- HCW: I have always distinguished mentality from materiality, for example bodily sensations from the knowing of them. I find it difficult to imagine NOT being able to distinguish these. (The names, of course, are unimportant.) --------------------------------------------------- It depends what kind of study, study of the present moment? I agree that talking excessively is likely to be useless talk, akusala cittas may motivate this. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116408 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:09 am Subject: Alone with Dhamma. nilovg Dear pt and friends, I read to Lodewijk from my India talk, alone with dhamma, and here is a passage that is like pt. was writing about today; < At the end of our pilgrimage we spend a few days in Kashmir on houseboats. I was clinging to Dhamma discussions and I asked Acharn Sujin whether we could have a discussion the next day. She answered that we do not know what the next moment will bring and that also hearing Dhamma is anatt. The truth has to be applied in daily life. Whatever we hear is conditioned, hearing is the result of kamma. Hearing Dhamma is the result of kusala kamma; hearing is vipkacitta which is conditioned and which nobody can cause to arise. It is of no use to wish for the arising of certain vipkas or to have any expectations. Acharn Sujin said that whenever there is more understanding it indicates that there has been right consideration of realities. When we consider and investigate different dhammas, this is accompanied by a level of sati, sati stemming from listening to the Dhamma. In this way direct awareness of realities will arise naturally, without one trying to be aware. If one tries to make awareness arise it is counteractive; clinging to self obstructs the development of pa. She also said that nobody can tell whether there will be sati now. Sati can arise before we are thinking about it. We should know the difference between forgetfulness of dhammas and mindfulness of one dhamma at a time as it appears through one doorway. Otherwise we keep on talking about sati but we are ignorant of its characteristic. We may be discouraged to realize that very few moments of sati arise in a day or none at all. Acharn Sujin said: "Instead of attending to the characteristics of realities there is thinking about them. But we should not have any expectations, otherwise it is me who would like to have progress." I was grateful for such reminders. Time and again attachment to result arises but we do not notice this. Acharn Sujin said: "The development of understanding has to go along with detachment all the way, and that is against the current of life." We are inclined to think of a self who has to become proficient. ***** Nina. #116409 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:42 am Subject: Re: Death kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ----- <. . .> >> KH: In studying those things, we should never forget that they *all* pertain to the present moment. That's where people go wrong. >> > RE: There are many things spoken about the moment and accumulations and tendencies in Abhidhamma and various commentaries that are about the relation between one moment and the next <. . .> > Realizing the true nature of a single dhamma in a single moment of insight is of course the mechanism by which insight, panna, understanding, take place and develop, but much of what that understanding leads to in terms of accumulation and development can only be understood in relation to strings of moments, rather than single moments. ----- KH: Yes, of course, the Abhidhamma doesn't only tell us about dukkha, its cessation and the path ; it also tells us about the cause of dukkha. No one is denying that. The fact that there has been a cause doesn't mean there must be something more (than the presently arisen dhammas) does it? Ken H #116410 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:47 am Subject: Re: Death epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > ----- > <. . .> > >> KH: In studying those things, we should never forget that they *all* pertain to the present moment. That's where people go wrong. > >> > > > RE: There are many things spoken about the moment and accumulations and tendencies in Abhidhamma and various commentaries that are about the relation between one moment and the next > <. . .> > > Realizing the true nature of a single dhamma in a single moment > of insight is of course the mechanism by which insight, panna, understanding, take place and develop, but much of what that understanding leads to in terms of accumulation and development can only be understood in relation to strings of moments, rather than single moments. > ----- > > KH: Yes, of course, the Abhidhamma doesn't only tell us about dukkha, its cessation and the path ; it also tells us about the cause of dukkha. No one is denying that. > > The fact that there has been a cause doesn't mean there must be something more (than the presently arisen dhammas) does it? I agree that experience is given one moment at a time, and that the presently arisen dhamma is what is present in any given moment. However, the question is whether we can understand the path as a single-moment path, or whether we have to take into account relations between moments to understand correctly. It seems that you are willing to acknowledge that accumulations take place through relations between dhammas, and that this is the "cause" for what arises now. In that sense I would say there is some mutual understanding. Of course we only experience one moment at a time. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #116411 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:09 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Dhamma Discussion in Bhutan, no 7. kenhowardau Hi Howard CW, I didn't see this when you first posted it. ---------- > "One hears what one has not heard before. One clarifies what one has heard before. One gets rid of doubt. One's views are made straight. One's mind grows serene. "These are the five rewards in listening to the Dhamma."/ (From the Dhammassavana Sutta, AN 5.202) But also, from another tradition: Silence and Practice Trump Study /All my days I have been raised among the Sages, and I found nothing better for oneself than silence; not study, but practice is the main thing; and one who talks excessively brings on sin./ (Shimon ben Rabban Gamliel, Ethics of the Fathers 1:17) --------- KH: As you said, the second quote was from another tradition. By "tradition" in this context can I take it we both mean "way leading to the end of suffering"? Given that there is only one such way, any other tradition would be a wrong tradition, wouldn't it? The Dhamma teaches right understanding of the present-moment reality, and there is no other teaching even close to it. All the others teach a set of instructions to be followed. Certainly there can be superficial similarities. Other traditions can *sound* remarkably similar to the conventional language teachings found in the Suttapitaka. But that's where the similarity ends. When we know the real meaning of the suttas (consistent with the Abhidhamma) there is no similarity whatsoever. Any apparent similarity should be a warning sign - telling us we have an incorrect grasp of the Dhamma. Ken H #116412 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:10 pm Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: six worlds (part 2) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 24-jul-2011, om 17:30 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > > I know everything is supposed to happen in the correct order > > according to the appropriate accumulations, and you are right to > > 'stick with the texts' in determining what happens when, but I do > > think that we have moments when things happen that may be 'in > > advance' of our actual stage and that they lead to other > > developments in the future. I've had some experiences that just > > came about that seemed way ahead of where I 'really am' in > > understanding, and that just lasted for a short period of time but > > left a strong impression. .... > > It also seems to me that sometimes we just "let go" because we "let > > go," but I understand that this is sort of unjustified and > > unexplained in the texts and so may not be something that can be > > certified or accounted for, if it happens at all. > > > ------- > N: It may be some event that made a strong impression. Could it be a > thought of letting go, but not real eradication of clinging? When > time has passed after such an event, things are back to usual? > -------- It is hard to be precise about such a thing, but you ask a good question. My sense of it has been that things go back to the usual to an extent, but there is also a lasting effect of the experience as well, at least on a subtle level. I think the effects of experiences, even ones of genuine insight I would guess, are gradual in their overall effect on the habits and understandings of any person. > > > > R: Is thinking always conceptual? If one is "conceiving" the melody > > that is formed by a number of notes, is that concept or just a way > > of ordering perception? I understand that thoughts "about" melody, > > associations with a "story" are concepts. But is there a level of > > direct thinking, tied to perception, that is pre-conceptual? > > > > Still, the distinction between "thinking" that unifies the melody > > for citta, and "hearing" which takes in just the raw sounds, is > > useful. > > > ------- > N: We can use the word thinking in a very wide sense. It can denote > an experience through the mind-door. Not necessarily thinking about > something. When the object is not a paramattha dhamma it is a > concept. But even concept, pa~n~natti, has several meanings. It can > be the concept of a whole, such as a melody. Because of sa~n~naa we > remember different notes which seem to occur all at the same time, > but they do not. Just now I listen to the music of Gabrieli I copied > on my computer. I do not think about the melody, I 'hear' it, that > is, I experience the concept of a whole. I like that sense of "experiencing the concept" as opposed to "thinking of it. I do think it takes a certain understanding, in coordination with sanna, as you point out, that allows us to experience such "wholes." > When we are precise, hearing > just hears sound which is a paramattha dhamma, it does not experience > anything else. So it seems then that the association between the sense door in question and the mind door is what allows sensory experiences to become part of a conceptual whole...? > The cetasika vitakka is translated as thinking, but it arises with > many cittas, also at those moments it seems that there is no > thinking. It does not arise with seeing and the other sense- > cognitions, but it arises with the cittas arising after seeing in a > sense-door process, such as receiving-consciousness and the javana- > cittas in that process and with cittas arising in a mind-door p- > rocess. It touches or hits the object and assists the citta in that > way so that it cognizes that object. > So we may use the word thinking in a very precise sense or a wider > sense. Very interesting. > -------- > > > > > N: Well said. When understanding attachment as such, as a dhamma, > > > there is already a degree of detachment from attachment. > > > > R: :-) For one who is still very attached, that is a nice thought - > > that we can see the attachment as a dhamma, and thus, even while > > still attached, take a step back from attachment. > > > -------- > N: Yes, in the same way all kinds of akusala can and should be > objects of mindfulness, to see them as just dhammas, impersonal > elements. Thanks, that is good to point out. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #116413 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Citta is creating future realities epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > Phil wrote: We are householders living infatuated by sense objects. That is why I place emphasis on the precepts. If there is going to be attachment at the root of things we need at least some kind of milepost to know that the Buddha's teaching is reaching us. ...in my opinion abstaining ftom bad deeds is a concrete indication of listening to and respecting the Nuddha, "wisdom shines forth in behaviour" as my favourite sutta puts it. Rob E.: I think you are right, Phil. It gives a clear idea of where we really are. By that measure, I am not very advanced at all, though I may have some interesting ideas. Most of my life is spent revolving around attachment to various sense experiences, although like you I fulfill my responsibilities and do some other good things because it is correct behavior. It's kind of sobering to look at things that way. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #116414 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:32 pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (116106) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > I am seeing this pattern in several commentaries where the commentator says "this really means X" but presents no logical bridge between the content of the sutta and "X." This is also true in the simile of the flood, where the commentary says that "not striving" and "not standing still" is really about the middle way. Well what about what the Buddha actually says about striving and standing still, is it is possible that there is a point to be derived directly from what he says, without benefit of a totally different point being made by the commentary? I don't revere the commentators in the same way as the Buddha, and someone would have to give me a damned good reason to substitute their intellectual understanding for the words of the Buddha, a reason which does not seem to be presented in most cases. To me the "close" interpretation of the "flood" sutta is that is not to define the "middle way" but to define "right effort." After all, the sutta is about how to get through the "flood" of samsara successfully, and Buddha says not to strive and not to stand still. That is about effort in particular, not the middle way in general. So we should perhaps contemplate what the Buddha is actually saying about the type of effort that is correct for the path. The commentary takes this practical and specific teaching of the Buddha and turns it into an intellectual exegesis about Dhamma in general - the "middle way." I don't respect this kind of lifting of the authority of the Buddha and applying it to the agenda of the Buddhist intellectuals who came after him. > > =============== > > J: I don't think we're going to get anywhere discussing the commentaries in general terms. I suggest instead discussing specific passages. Shall we look at the simile of crossing the flood again? > > SN 1.1 > Ogha-tarana Sutta: Crossing over the Flood > > ******************** > "I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place."[1] > > "But how, dear sir, did you cross over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place?" > > "When I pushed forward, I was whirled about. When I stayed in place, I sank. And so I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place." > ******************** > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn01/sn01.001.than.html#fn-1 > translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu > > > In a footnote to his translation of this sutta (n. 2 at p.341 of CDB), Bhikkhu Bodhi makes reference to the commentary ("Spk") as follows: > > **************************** > The word "flood" (ogha) is used metaphorically, but here with technical overtones, to designate a doctrinal set of four floods, so called, according to Spk, "because they keep things submerged within the round of existence and do not allow them to rise up to higher states and Nibbaana." > > The four (with definitions from Spk) are: > (i) the flood of sensuality (kaamogha) = desire and lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure (agreeable forms, sounds, etc.); > (ii) the flood of existence (bhavogha) = desire and lust for form-sphere existence and formless-sphere existence and attachment to jhaana; > (iii) the flood of views (dit.t.hogha) = the sixty-two views; and > (iv) the flood of ignorance (avijjogha) = lack of knowledge regarding the Four Noble Truths. > **************************** > > Do you have any problem with the commentary as represented here so far? Although not sure if this is exactly the way the Buddha meant the metaphor, it seems like a plausible explanation that sheds light on what was actually said, so I have no problem with it. :-) Best, Robert = = = = = = = = #116415 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:47 am Subject: Infinite Loving-Kindness! bhikkhu5 Friends: Friendly Loving Kindness Beams, Blazes and Shines! Mettā is defined thus: Loving-Kindness has the mode of friendliness as characteristic. Its natural function is to promote friendliness. It manifests as disappearance of ill-will. Its source is seeing with kindness. When succeeding, then it eliminates all angry enmity. When it fails, then it degenerates into egocentric lust and desire. It can be practiced anywhere and at anytime, but ideally sitting cross-legged in a quiet secluded place and then whole-heartedly wishing, first beaming it out in front, then to the right, then back, then to the left and finally below and above in this very effective and exhaustive way: May I be happy and free from suffering... May I keep myself free from hostility, trouble and thereby live happily... May I become happy in this way by repeated training of this excellent goodwill praxis... Just as I want happiness, absence of pain, life and not death, so do all other beings! Therefore: May all beings become thus happy... May all breathing things become thus happy... May all creatures become thus happy... May all deities become thus happy... May all human beings become thus happy... May all who have form become thus happy... May all the Noble and not Noble become thus happy... May all those in the states of deprivation become thus happy... By being freed from all enmity, distress & anxiety, may they thus guide themselves to bliss." The blessed Buddha often pointed out: Bhikkhus, whatever kinds of worldly merit there are, all are not worth one 16th part of the release of mind by infinitely universal friendliness: In shining, beaming, glow & radiance the release of mind by infinite, immeasurable and inexhaustible friendliness far excels them all! Itivuttaka 27 <....> Source: BPS Wheel no 7: The Practice of Loving-Kindness (Metta) as taught by the Buddha in the Pali Canon. Compiled and translated by 'anamoli Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel007.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <....> #116416 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:43 pm Subject: Kusala intention (was, Re: The clansman who is a beginner ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: e thousands of children who went through the agony of hunger and malnutrition and then early death were experiencing the results of deeds performed in this lifetime (I would assume not). Likewise for all the victims of famine, drought, fires, floods (inc tsunamis), war (10's of millions during WWII), epidemics/pandemics, etc. It's not all or nothing. There can be some vipaka that comes from past kamma, and some that is more recent. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #116417 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Somehow we got from dominoes to soup-tasting! I think it's because it always seems to be time for soup tasting when I write to you! Perhaps you'd better stick to billiards with Pt:-) I am happy to play billiards with pt, but still, I would apprecaite another serving of the soup. Thanks for your explanation of the vipaka and subsequent reactivity. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #116418 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is meant by Anatta sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- On Mon, 11/7/11, truth_aerator wrote: >In most cases this is how the Buddha has framed it: >========================================================== "'is the eye constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord."" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.147.than.html Repeat the same for other sense bases, aggregates, elements, etc. >============================================================= Please note exactly what the Buddha is rejecting. He is rejecting an idea of Atta that is permanent and happy. He is not rejecting the empirical individual and effort by the person. In fact he never heard such a nihilistic doctrine of total no-control (where there is no self or other influence of any kind). .... S: Firstly he is referring to dhammas, realities - sense bases, khandhas, dhatus as you mentioned above. Each of these realities, such as eye-sense, seeing and visible object are impermanent, dukkha and 'not fitting' to be regarded as 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'. "This is mine" (eta"m mama) refers to craving (without wrong view), "this am I" (eso'ham asmi) to conceit (without wrong view) and "this is myself" (eso me attaa") to wrong view of atta. So what the Buddha is 'rejecting' is the idea that dhammas which arise and fall away and which are thereby unsatisfactory should be clung to with attachment, conceit or wrong view of atta. There is no atta at all to make an effort or control dhammas in anyway. There are just conditioned dhammas rolling on. ... A:> Past causes alone are not sufficient causes to make one an alcoholic, a sensualist or whatever. ... S: Again, there is not an atta or a 'one' to be anything. There are just conditioned tendencies, accumulations and deeds - all conditioned by past and present causes. Metta Sarah ======= #116419 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:10 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- On Sun, 10/7/11, truth_aerator wrote: >>S:In other religions, the core of the practice revolves around a >Self, an Atman, a Soul, an Inner Light or a God. >================================================================ >A: Many religions do not really have what we call "Practice to develop wisdom that will make all suffering cease". <...> >>S:What is radical about the Buddha's Teachings is >A: The way to make all Dukkha cease even in this life. .... S: There is no cessation of dukkha without an understanding of dhammas arising now as anicca, dukkha and anatta. While we cling to an idea of dhammas as atta, there is not even a beginning of understanding these dhammas. .... S:>>"Body, monks, is not self. Now were this body self, monks, this >body would not tend to sickness, and one might get the chance of >saying in regard to the body, 'Let body become thus for me, let >body not become thus for me'. >A: It seems that the emphasis is in inability to prevent such big things as sickness, aging and death. I am not completely sure that the Buddha wanted to deny such kind of control as moving a finger after intention to move it. .... S: The Buddha goes through an explanation of all the khandhas to indicate how the hardness, the colour taken for the body and all the other khandhas arising now are not in the control of any atta. Intentions are included in sankhara khandha. These are also conditioned and not atta. Metta Sarah ====== #116420 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Sun, 10/7/11, philip wrote: >> So, in short, I think it's more useful to understand the cittas and mental states arising now than to think and speculate about particular situations. >Ph: I would like to take note of the above. If a "particular situation" is habitually breaking a precept (recreational drinking) very unfortunate if one believes that it is anything other than a deplorable habit in and of itself, irregardless of what cittas we speculate (and isn't that what we do?) are behind it. ... S: It's not a matter of speculating about cittas, but about directly understanding the reality now. Through the growth of direct understanding, there is less doubt, less thought about the 'particular situation' and more confidence that the understanding 'takes care' and conditions the abstaining from harmful deeds, including drinking. For example, it doesn't occur to me to go 'recreational drinking'. This is not because I speculate about cittas or try not to think of a situation but because there is sufficient appreciation of the harm, as you say - to oneself and others, that such thoughts don't arise. .... >If I habitually and without regret broke the precepts I would feel like a fraud to be talking about awareness of fleeting mind states. Emphasis on "habitually" and "without regret" .... S: Yes, I think it would indicate something very wrong in the understanding - a book knowledge without any real understanding. There are many examples like this - again it comes back to the sincerity, sacca, of the practice now with understanding. ... > and I'm not suggesting that you are such a fraudulent follower of the Buddha, I'm almost certain you're not....(but who's to know, you are one of the tribe of surf embracing sensualists after all.... .... S: :-)) We're all 'sensualists' - only anagamis are not. But most of the time, it's common, ordinary (sama) lobha which doesn't harm others. It is the harming of others through breaking the precepts that is the grossest akusala that is eradicated first. Like Nina, I think that it's not helpful to be so critical of the situations and circumstances we and others find ourselves in. We know there is akusala most of the day and right understanding gradually knows more and more about the danger and harm of it and we can find we hurt others less. But having aversion or looking for akusala in one's own or other's deeds that have gone is not understanding present dhammas. I also liked Nina's example of appreciating your kusala when visiting your mother. Yes, we know there are bound to be many, many akusala cittas at such a time, but appreciating any kusala that others show is a kind of kusala itself, mudita or anumodana (sympathetic joy). So when we say we appreciate your Dhamma study and interest or your kind deeds, it doesn't for a moment suggest that we believe there are only kusala cittas, but appreciating others' kusala deeds rather than dwelling on their akusala deeds is far more worthy. So, I can say I appreciate your helpful discussions with Nina recently! Metta Sarah ====== Metta, Phil p.s Nina, thanks for your helpful post in that other thread, back to you in a few days... > > 2. You agree that much of what we're used to taking for kusala is in fact akusala but object to "the presumption that certain activities that are meant to develop more awareness actually do the opposite and merely promote more self-view and thus more akusala." You also say that it is stated "that meditation should be avoided since it gives a false sense of being able to develop awareness when in fact it cannot." > > The question, I see it, is what is Buddhist meditation? When does it occur? What is involved? For me, Buddhist meditation is simply the development of right understanding of realities that appear, one by one, now. If there's any idea of pursuing particular activities of any kind in order to "do" "Buddhist Meditation" to follow the Path - whether that be by reading, listening, going on retreat, sitting on a cushion or visiting A.Sujin - then it's not understanding, it's not Buddhist Meditation. The reason is, as you suggest above, that such activities are being pursued to "promote more self-view" if there is the idea that by pursuing them there will be more awareness. > > 3. You say that by cutting out particular practices of meditation, that the Noble 8-fold path is cut out and it "reduces the entire path to Right Understanding and the study of the Dhamma on paper, an inherently intellectual path......". > > I think that by understanding conditioned dhammas rather than thinking in terms of particular situations, places and steps, we come closer and closer to understanding what is meant by the development of satipatthana. We come closer to understanding and developing all the other path factors, which are all conditioned dhammas too. In other words, we begin to understand that the entire development of the Path is made up of dhammas which are anatta, not in anyone's control. We also begin to understand that the only 'study' that matters is the direct understanding, the direct 'study' of the nama or rupa which appears at this very moment. This is not an intellectual path, quite the contrary. > > 4. You say "it is possible to embrace the Abhidhamma and commentaries without this unfounded prejudice against Right Practice that the Buddha taught...." > > Again, we come back to what is the "Right Practice" as taught by the Buddha. It is impossible to "embrace the Abhidhamma...." without understanding that the right practice has to be at this moment and has to involve the direct understanding of what appears now. Otherwise, it's just an idea about right practice, imitating the lifestyle of a community of Buddhists or thinking about ideas of physical seclusion rather than directly understanding the mental seclusion and calm now at moments of kusala. > > 5. You say "it is possible to cultivate Right View and study the Dhamma *and* meditate, as is described in both the Vism and Abhidhamma." > > I would say that if Right View is being cultivated, if the Path is being followed, then that is bhavana, meditation. > > to be contd > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > #116421 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:03 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Sun, 10/7/11, upasaka@... wrote: >S:"Body, monks, is not self. Now were this body self, monks, this body would not tend to sickness, and one might get the chance of saying in regard to the body, 'Let body become thus for me, let body not become thus for me'. But inasmuch, monks, as body is not self, therefore body tends to sickness, and one does not get the chance of saying in regard to body, 'Let body become thus for me, let body not become thus for me'." >S:In other words, it's an illusion that through meditation or any other means that the body can be controlled in any way. ------------------------------------------------------ >HCW: But, of course, Sarah, it can. It can be made to stand or sit or lie down or walk or run. It can, through intentional actions, be calmed or energized. The body and its breath can clearly be affected by a multitude of conditions including volition and volitional activities. This is not control in the sense of absolute determinative mastery, causing the body to do *whatever* one wishes, but it *is* obvious influence. Even tai chi, for example, has its effects. ;-) There simply is no controller involved in any of this. ------------------------------------------------------ S: Yes, "there simply is no controller involved in any of this." There are just conditioned dhammas as you've been pointing out so well to Alex recently. What we refer to as volitional activities, the body, standing, sitting or tai chi are actually just various namas and rupas which are conditioned and not in any atta's control. .... S:> We are used to thinking the same about our feelings, memories and other mental tendencies, that through the following of particular activities that they can be calmed or awakened in any way. -------------------------------------------------------- >HCW: And this is clearly so. --------------------------------------------------------- S: And yet as the sutta indicaes, if this were really so, we'd be able to prevent sickness, mental decay and become enlightened at will. And yet we know that even at this moment, we cannot awaken the cittas at will. ... S:> Again as the Buddha stressed from the outset: "Feeling is not self...and one does not get the chance of saying in regard to feeling, 'Let feeling become thus for me, let feeling not become thus for me'. ---------------------------------------------------------- >HCW: This is true in the short run. However, in the longer run, what is found to be unpleasant can be changed, and what is found to be pleasant can be changed. Did Angulimala find the thought of killing pleasant in his later years? Did the the Buddha find the thoughts of luxurious indulgence pleasant as he did when living as Gotama in his father's palace. Did intention play no role in Gotama eventually awakening? --------------------------------------------------------- S: The Buddha doesn't say that while it may be true that one cannot control one's feeling in the short term, one can in the longer run. What he says is that one doesn't have the chance of letting/making feelings be as one would like at any time. Angulimala could never change his feelings which arose and neither could the Buddha control his feelings. There was no atta, no Aungulimala or Buddha in an ultimate sense to do this. There were and are and ever will be just conditioned feelings which are not in the control of atta. It is through the development of the Path beginning with right understanding, not intention (cetana) that defilements are eradicated. ... S:> "Perception (sa~n~naa) is not self....The habitual tendencies are not self...one does not get the chance of saying in regard to the habitual tendencies, 'Let the habitual tendencies become thus for me, let the habitual tendencies not become thus for me'." ---------------------------------------------------------- >HCW: No "Let this be, and let that be" like waving a magic wand works!! We know that. For example, a cancer patient doesn't go into remission by thinking "May I be cleared of this!" But his/her intentionally taking certain actions (chemotherapy, proper nutrition, radiation, etc, etc) may, other conditions allowing, become cancer-free. Is it guaranteed? With complete control? Of course not. ---------------------------------------------------------- S: And as the sutta extract clearly points out, even habitual tendencies including cetana (intention) are conditioned and cannot be made to arise by waving the magic wand:-) When we speaking of the treatments that the cancer patient 'intentionally' takes, we are speaking conventionally, of course, of a multitude of namas and rupas, all conditioned to arise. We are used to thinking that patient A decides on X course and patient B decides on Y course, but actually the courses and actions are determined by the conditioned habitual tendencies, the results of kamma and many other conditions. .... S:> It might seem that if nothing 'can be done' that the path is therefore hopeless. On the contrary, it is the very understanding now of such dhammas as anatta and not being within anyone's control that is the Path that leads to enlightenment. ---------------------------------------------------------- >HCW: How does understanding come about? Is it random, a matter of luck, with no intention involved? Don't you know that this is not so, Sarah? ------------------------------------------------------ S: As the Buddha taught: through hearing the Dhamma, listening, considering and directly understanding presently arising dhammas. No, there is nothing 'random' in the way conditioned dhammas occur. As we were discussing with Pt at the weekend, the 'hearing' (or 'reading') of the Dhamma refers to moments of hearing particular sounds (or seeing particular visible objects) when meeting the Buddha or his disciples in person or in text. This is the result of past kamma. The considering and directly understanding of the Dhamma refer to conditioned 'habitual tendencies' of understanding and other factors. Yes, conditioned cetana arises at each moment. Metta Sarah ===== #116422 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- On Tue, 19/7/11, Robert E wrote: >> S: There are mental and physical realities arising and falling away now as we speak. both namas and rupas have to be known as they appear now. They are all real. However, the knowing, the understanding and the other path factors are all mental, all namas, not rupas. It is through the development of these mental factors that insight and eventually enlightenment is attained. .... R: >Well the question as always is what *in actuality* will develop those capacities. You actually have a strategy, just as I have, in your understanding - that the "right way" to develop the necessary factors for liberation is to understand completely what is arising now, leaving it to happen on its own while developing correct intellectual understanding of the path. That is as much a strategy with a willful intention behind it as the desire to practice meditation to develop insight and satipatthana. It's the same in terms of 'self-view.' So the real question is not who has the less "self-involved" path, but what methods are effective for producing the path factors. No one would study or discuss a sutta or commentary if they did not think that doing so would lead to liberation from this morasse of suffering. If there is no desire to "get out" there is no Buddhist path at all. .... S: OK, you've expressed yourself very well as usual and really got to the 'nub' of the discussion. All I can repeat is that whether we turn A or turn B, whether we're studying a sutta now or sitting on a cushion now, there are just conditioned dhammas to be understood. So I've never said that anyone 'should' study a sutta and 'should not' sit on a cushion. The Buddha never said anything like this either. What he said was that it is through the understanding of the "All", the understanding of the conditioned namas and rupas, that the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, will be realised, the end of Dukkha. He also taught that such an understanding develops through associating with the wise, hearing the Dhamma, considering it and directly penetrating the Truths as taught. I agree with you that self-view can arise in any circumstance, including discussions of Dhamma. .... R:> So I believe that *in reality* rather than theoretically that the actual practice of meditation develops the path factors, and I think that Buddha taught that this was the case very clearly and distinctly. He also clearly said to understand Dhamma and to develop further understanding of the teachings. ... S:> Again, I'd say that it is bhavana (mental development/meditation) and specifically vipassana bhavana that develops the path factors. Bhavana is the development of pa~n~naa, right understanding of realities. I agree with you that he clearly said to "understand Dhamma and to develop further understanding of the teachings" - this is bhavana or meditation as taught by the Buddha. ... >R:In either case, the object is the nature of dhammas that appear now. There is no difference in that regard. ... S: Well said. So now there are moments of seeing and hearing, there are moments of wise reflection, maybe moments of unwise reflection or agitation too. They're all passing dhammas that can be directly known when they are apparent without any attempt to 'do' or 'change' them in any way. This understanding is the 'here and now' meditation that we both agree the Buddha taught, I believe. Metta Sarah ====== #116423 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How is wisdom accumulated sarahprocter... Hi Rob E (& Pt), --- On Mon, 18/7/11, Robert E wrote: >> pt: How about the horisontal spin for the latent tendency? Say you hit the white ball with the cue, but you hit it on the side, so it spins from left to right, not just forward. So, it's merrily going straight along the table, and you can't even see that it's spinning left to right cause it's white. And then suddenly it hits the other ball, and the other ball, instead of going straight ahead like the white ball, suddenly goes right. And so the tendency gives rise to manifestation even though it was dormant (wasn't noticeable). ... R:I think maybe you've got it! If the higher authorities will agree that a latent tendency is actually active but not yet active in a way that is noticeable because it hasn't yet come into contact with something that is activated by its subtle [up until that point] action, I think we're in business! :-) .... S: I'm certainly not any 'higher authority', but I think you're on the right tracks, as far as I follow them:-) Each latent tendency is a mental factor and as we know there are 3 levels of these, latent (not arising), arising of medium strength as are common during the day and strong, leading to various deeds or kamma. For example, if we are talking about defilements (kilesa), we can refer to anusaya kiles, pariyutthaana kilesa and viitikkana kilesa. This is from a post Nina wrote before: N:> Defilements that are transgressions (viitikkama kilesa), coarse defilements of the degree of unwholesome courses of action. Defilements one is possessed by and that arise (pariyutthaana kilesa) are medium defilements that disturb the citta. Latent tendencies (anusaya kilesa) are subtle defilements that lie dormant in the citta and that can be completely eradicated by the four Paths (at the four stages of enlightenment).< Metta Sarah ====== #116424 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How is wisdom accumulated epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob E (& Pt), > > --- On Mon, 18/7/11, Robert E wrote: > >> pt: How about the horisontal spin for the latent tendency? Say you hit the white ball with the cue, but you hit it on the side, so it spins from left to right, not just forward. So, it's merrily going straight along the table, and you can't even see that it's spinning left to right cause it's white. And then suddenly it hits the other ball, and the other ball, instead of going straight ahead like the white ball, suddenly goes right. And so the tendency gives rise to manifestation even though it was dormant (wasn't noticeable). > ... > R:I think maybe you've got it! If the higher authorities will agree that a latent tendency is actually active but not yet active in a way that is noticeable because it hasn't yet come into contact with something that is activated by its subtle [up until that point] action, I think we're in business! :-) > .... > S: I'm certainly not any 'higher authority', but I think you're on the right tracks, as far as I follow them:-) > > Each latent tendency is a mental factor and as we know there are 3 levels of these, latent (not arising), arising of medium strength as are common during the day and strong, leading to various deeds or kamma. Thanks Sarah. Appreciate the discussion of the "three strengths" or levels of defilements. The third or latent ones now seem to be encapsulated by a billiard ball that has not yet hit another ball but is still spinning, and a line of dominoes that has not yet reached the domino that is observable or experienceable. Not perfect, but working on it... :-) Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - #116425 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > All I can repeat is that whether we turn A or turn B, whether we're studying a sutta now or sitting on a cushion now, there are just conditioned dhammas to be understood. So I've never said that anyone 'should' study a sutta and 'should not' sit on a cushion. The Buddha never said anything like this either. What he said was that it is through the understanding of the "All", the understanding of the conditioned namas and rupas, that the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, will be realised, the end of Dukkha. > > He also taught that such an understanding develops through associating with the wise, hearing the Dhamma, considering it and directly penetrating the Truths as taught. [...And through focused deliberate meditation practice, whether sitting in a formal practice, or under other circumstances where the practice is continued...] :-) ... > R:> So I believe that *in reality* rather than theoretically that the actual practice of meditation develops the path factors, and I think that Buddha taught that this was the case very clearly and distinctly. He also clearly said to understand Dhamma and to develop further understanding of the teachings. > ... > S:> Again, I'd say that it is bhavana (mental development/meditation) and specifically vipassana bhavana that develops the path factors. Bhavana is the development of pa~n~naa, right understanding of realities. I agree with you that he clearly said to "understand Dhamma and to develop further understanding of the teachings" - this is bhavana or meditation as taught by the Buddha. With that I would not agree. I would say that, yes, he said to understand Dhamma, but I believe that meditation is an additional step, not contained in study of the teachings, but in applying them to actual moments, not intellectually but with the senses and mindful regard or attention. Whether it is physical or mental experience that is being mindfully observed, it is attention at that particular moment that allows sati to take in the actuality of that moment. The attending to the actuality of the moment as it occurs is meditation to me, ie, practice of mindfulness, and that practice of mindfulness is not contained in study of Dhamma per se, no matter how well understood, unless of course one is taking the objects of study, such as book, words, discussion, hearing, thinking, etc., as objects of mindfulness to discern their reality. That would not then be the study itself which was the meditation, or the intellectual understanding of the words and concepts that might arise from that - that is all framework for what the perceived reality is - but the actual attending to it with clear attention and mind that is the meditation or practice of mindfulness. I would agree that such practice of mindfulness, leading to development of stronger mindfulness, panna, vipassana, etc., can occur anywhere, anytime, but I add that through practice and development of the skill of attending to the moment in that way it develops and accumulates in a much more consistent way. > ... > >R:In either case, the object is the nature of dhammas that appear now. There is no difference in that regard. > ... > S: Well said. So now there are moments of seeing and hearing, there are moments of wise reflection, maybe moments of unwise reflection or agitation too. They're all passing dhammas that can be directly known when they are apparent without any attempt to 'do' or 'change' them in any way. This understanding is the 'here and now' meditation that we both agree the Buddha taught, I believe. What you say above is agreeable to both of us. Any time that the moment, the present arising dhamma, is seen clearly with mindfulness and understood with sampajana etc., it is a moment of meditation and causes further bhavana, development, of the clarity and understanding of what is experienced. I guess what it comes down to is whether it's a good idea to sit down and concentrate on the development of mindfulness through anapanasati/satipatthana practice or not. ...And now back to samsara, which is already in progress... Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #116426 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:49 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Dhamma Discussion in Bhutan, no 7. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 7/25/2011 10:10:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard CW, I didn't see this when you first posted it. ---------- > "One hears what one has not heard before. One clarifies what one has heard before. One gets rid of doubt. One's views are made straight. One's mind grows serene. "These are the five rewards in listening to the Dhamma."/ (From the Dhammassavana Sutta, AN 5.202) But also, from another tradition: Silence and Practice Trump Study /All my days I have been raised among the Sages, and I found nothing better for oneself than silence; not study, but practice is the main thing; and one who talks excessively brings on sin./ (Shimon ben Rabban Gamliel, Ethics of the Fathers 1:17) --------- KH: As you said, the second quote was from another tradition. By "tradition" in this context can I take it we both mean "way leading to the end of suffering"? Given that there is only one such way, any other tradition would be a wrong tradition, wouldn't it? The Dhamma teaches right understanding of the present-moment reality, and there is no other teaching even close to it. All the others teach a set of instructions to be followed. Certainly there can be superficial similarities. Other traditions can *sound* remarkably similar to the conventional language teachings found in the Suttapitaka. But that's where the similarity ends. When we know the real meaning of the suttas (consistent with the Abhidhamma) there is no similarity whatsoever. Any apparent similarity should be a warning sign " telling us we have an incorrect grasp of the Dhamma. Ken H ================================== The Buddha did actually say something along the lines that wherever is found teaching that is conducive to calm and understanding, the Dhamma is to be found. (I don't have the reference, but I'm not making it up.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116427 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:56 am Subject: A smell and colour together? philofillet Hi Nina Maybe it is not so important, or way above my head, but I find the teaching of the eight inseparable rupas completely baffling. When there is a smell, there is an accompanying visible object (colour) but it cannot be experienced, it doesn't arise to awareness but it is....accompanying. I re-read the chapter in your book on rupa but still don't get it. Thanks Nina. (Or anyone who can explain it as it's taught in Abhidhamma, i.e not by personal theorizing, thanks.) Metta, Phil #116428 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 11:14 am Subject: Re: wisdom and doing philofillet Hi Sarah On i-phone, so can't edit or trim (at least don't know how to) so will just say thank you for your words re my kusala in Canada, such as it was. I was personally very pleased that I made it through that hard time without resorting to alcohol. There could have been reflection that a cocktail before going to the horrific dining room would help more generous cittas, there were no conditions to think having one gin and tonic (oh yum!!! I can almost taste it!!!) would be harmful at that time. The only condition for abstaining was a firm resolution not to ignore the Buddhha's advice! Thanks, I think I have said all there is to say on the trip to Canada. Another very very juicy confidential topic is lurking on the tip of my tongue, we'll see if I post about it or not.....no, not the one about my wife's lover...;) Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > --- On Sun, 10/7/11, philip wrote: > > >> So, in short, I think it's more useful to understand the cittas and mental states arising now than to think and speculate about particular situations. > > >Ph: I would like to take note of the above. If a "particular situation" is habitually breaking a precept (recreational drinking) very unfortunate if one believes that it is anything other than a deplorable habit in and of itself, irregardless of what cittas we speculate (and isn't that what we do?) are behind it. > ... > S: It's not a matter of speculating about cittas, but about directly understanding the reality now. Through the growth of direct understanding, there is less doubt, less thought about the 'particular situation' and more confidence that the understanding 'takes care' and conditions the abstaining from harmful deeds, including drinking. > > For example, it doesn't occur to me to go 'recreational drinking'. This is not because I speculate about cittas or try not to think of a situation but because there is sufficient appreciation of the harm, as you say - to oneself and others, that such thoughts don't arise. > .... > >If I habitually and without regret broke the precepts I would feel like a fraud to be talking about awareness of fleeting mind states. Emphasis on "habitually" and "without regret" > .... > S: Yes, I think it would indicate something very wrong in the understanding - a book knowledge without any real understanding. There are many examples like this - again it comes back to the sincerity, sacca, of the practice now with understanding. > ... > > and I'm not suggesting that you are such a fraudulent follower of the Buddha, I'm almost certain you're not....(but who's to know, you are one of the tribe of surf embracing sensualists after all.... > .... > S: :-)) We're all 'sensualists' - only anagamis are not. But most of the time, it's common, ordinary (sama) lobha which doesn't harm others. It is the harming of others through breaking the precepts that is the grossest akusala that is eradicated first. > > Like Nina, I think that it's not helpful to be so critical of the situations and circumstances we and others find ourselves in. We know there is akusala most of the day and right understanding gradually knows more and more about the danger and harm of it and we can find we hurt others less. But having aversion or looking for akusala in one's own or other's deeds that have gone is not understanding present dhammas. > > I also liked Nina's example of appreciating your kusala when visiting your mother. Yes, we know there are bound to be many, many akusala cittas at such a time, but appreciating any kusala that others show is a kind of kusala itself, mudita or anumodana (sympathetic joy). So when we say we appreciate your Dhamma study and interest or your kind deeds, it doesn't for a moment suggest that we believe there are only kusala cittas, but appreciating others' kusala deeds rather than dwelling on their akusala deeds is far more worthy. > > So, I can say I appreciate your helpful discussions with Nina recently! > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== > > > > Metta, > > Phil > > > > p.s Nina, thanks for your helpful post in that other thread, back to you in a few days... > > > > > > > > > > 2. You agree that much of what we're used to taking for kusala is in fact akusala but object to "the presumption that certain activities that are meant to develop more awareness actually do the opposite and merely promote more self-view and thus more akusala." You also say that it is stated "that meditation should be avoided since it gives a false sense of being able to develop awareness when in fact it cannot." > > > > > > The question, I see it, is what is Buddhist meditation? When does it occur? What is involved? For me, Buddhist meditation is simply the development of right understanding of realities that appear, one by one, now. If there's any idea of pursuing particular activities of any kind in order to "do" "Buddhist Meditation" to follow the Path - whether that be by reading, listening, going on retreat, sitting on a cushion or visiting A.Sujin - then it's not understanding, it's not Buddhist Meditation. The reason is, as you suggest above, that such activities are being pursued to "promote more self-view" if there is the idea that by pursuing them there will be more awareness. > > > > > > 3. You say that by cutting out particular practices of meditation, that the Noble 8-fold path is cut out and it "reduces the entire path to Right Understanding and the study of the Dhamma on paper, an inherently intellectual path......". > > > > > > I think that by understanding conditioned dhammas rather than thinking in terms of particular situations, places and steps, we come closer and closer to understanding what is meant by the development of satipatthana. We come closer to understanding and developing all the other path factors, which are all conditioned dhammas too. In other words, we begin to understand that the entire development of the Path is made up of dhammas which are anatta, not in anyone's control. We also begin to understand that the only 'study' that matters is the direct understanding, the direct 'study' of the nama or rupa which appears at this very moment. This is not an intellectual path, quite the contrary. > > > > > > 4. You say "it is possible to embrace the Abhidhamma and commentaries without this unfounded prejudice against Right Practice that the Buddha taught...." > > > > > > Again, we come back to what is the "Right Practice" as taught by the Buddha. It is impossible to "embrace the Abhidhamma...." without understanding that the right practice has to be at this moment and has to involve the direct understanding of what appears now. Otherwise, it's just an idea about right practice, imitating the lifestyle of a community of Buddhists or thinking about ideas of physical seclusion rather than directly understanding the mental seclusion and calm now at moments of kusala. > > > > > > 5. You say "it is possible to cultivate Right View and study the Dhamma *and* meditate, as is described in both the Vism and Abhidhamma." > > > > > > I would say that if Right View is being cultivated, if the Path is being followed, then that is bhavana, meditation. > > > > > > to be contd > > > > > > Metta > > > > > > Sarah > > > ===== > > > > #116429 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 11:36 am Subject: Re: wisdom and doing philofillet Hi again, Sarah and all Leaped on the computer to apologize for the following wrong speech > Thanks, I think I have said all there is to say on the trip to Canada. Another very very juicy confidential topic is lurking on the tip of my tongue, we'll see if I post about it or not.....no, not the one about my wife's lover...;) Ph: Speech that is baffling or might lead to discomfort in others is to be avoided. Yes, my wife has a lover (a woman) but has for 6 years, people on the K K trip got to here about it. We're having an amicable divorce in September, thus my many references to sexual temptation over the last few years, in case you wondered.... So clear speeech, good speech, considerate speech. "Wisdom shines forth in behaviour." Metta, Phil p.s not seeking to discuss the marital situation, just disclosing so as to clear up the discombobulating reference in the previous post... #116430 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:01 am Subject: Pure Merit! bhikkhu5 Friends: To whom should one give, to gain most Merit? The gods became gods as a result of their giving! The young Brahmin Māgha once asked the Blessed Buddha: When giving food, where would this offering be most purified for the donor? The Blessed One answered: If any open-handed householder, a lordly giver, Māgha, seeking merit, looking for merit, sacrifices, giving food and drink to others, such one would achieve the most merit, if the recipient is pure & Noble . Such, who indeed wander unattached in the world, having & wanting nothing, fully accomplished, in complete self-control, upon them, at the right time one should bestow an offering. Those who have cut all mental bonds and fetters, who are tamed, completely released, without affliction, without desire, upon them, at the right time, should one bestow an offering. Upon these purified & Noble Ones should any Brahmin, who is looking for merit, place his sacrifice! Sutta-Nipāta verses 488-491 Edited excerpt. Pure giving cut short: Give 2 those who don't want anything! <....> Giving is getting, since this kamma wealth, will be reflected back as a future echo :-) Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <...> #116431 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:34 pm Subject: Re: Alberto's note ptaus1 Hi Sarah, > S: Pt, the last point was included in our discussion yesterday, wasn't it? I think I mentioned the same thing to indicate that there is mostly just ignorance and attachment in a day and that animals and small children don't have wrong view because they don't think about realities or take things for being real - they just cling and go around blindly. pt: Yes, you've mentioned this in regard to differences between craving, wrong view and conceit, and in aprticular attanu ditthi. I'd assume since animals don't engage in verbal thinking, they're unable to philosophy on the topic of existence of thinhgs and beings. Though I remember as a child thinking whether cartoon characters are real or not. Best wishes pt #116432 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! sarahprocter... Hi Pt, You gave a great summary of some of the Dhamma points discussed. You have a very good ability to listen carefully and extract the points and recall them later. --- On Mon, 25/7/11, ptaus1 wrote: >...Of course, other stuff discussed too, like there really being nothing during the day that can impede the arising of awareness. It doesn't choose, and can arise anywhere anytime. Having had no time for meditation in the last four months, I can really attest that it made absolutely no impact on the frequency of arising of awareness, pretty much the same as before when I used to meditate daily. I do miss meditating because it feels so great, but then, so does work, so not much difference. .... S: !! ... >Also spoke of how good it would be to be able to meet regularly other dsg members - Alex, KenH, Phil and all .... S: It is great meeting friends one has been writing to for years. We all understand each other so well, I feel. Btw, when I offered you a choice of drinks including ginger beer, you reacted a little strongly to the suggestion and afterwards it occurred to me that you may have thought that ginger beer is alcoholic. I assure you that it's not, however! Phil would have had something to say if I were offering alcoholic drinks around at a Dhamma discussion:-) Metta Sarah ====== Best wishes pt #116433 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A smell and colour together? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Wed, 27/7/11, philip wrote: >Maybe it is not so important, or way above my head, but I find the teaching of the eight inseparable rupas completely baffling. When there is a smell, there is an accompanying visible object (colour) but it cannot be experienced, it doesn't arise to awareness but it is....accompanying. ... S: Nina will answer in more detail, but to put it simply, rupas always arise in groups of at least eight inseperable rupas, as you say. However, each citta can only experience one object, so it depends on kamma whether seeing arises to experience visible object/colour or smelling arises to experience smell. So when visible object or smell is experienced, the other rupas in the group arise with it but are not experienced. Even now as we speak, there are countless groups of rupas arising and falling away in the body and outside the body. It just depends on kamma whether any one of the rupas is experienced now. Metta Sarah ======= #116434 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Farewell Dhamma Friends sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, I'm wondering how you've been getting on in London and whether you met up with Alan Weller for dhamma discussion? --- On Sun, 3/7/11, Lukas wrote: >We are living Monday, I hope all will be good. I am looking for a rest that I don't have in my life. I have to change the way I live. .... S: The only real rest is when kusala cittas arise. So there can be a good rest now when there is kindness, generosity, good deeds or right understanding. ... >Today I heard:< People are not their thoughts, they are not what they think they are. The thoughts are not their, they arise and fall away. They are not theirs> ... S: Yes, thinking just arises and falls away, thinking up all sorts of complicated stories. If there is no thinking about oneself and one's problems, there is no self and there are no problems. ... >L:Still I feel a lot of worries before our trip, and whats the worst earlier I reflected non-self very , and now I totally forget the anatta, and the need for awarness. I dont know why I am so ignorant. .... S: There are always worries because of the accumulated tendency for dosa. Again, so often we're lost in stories about what will happen and 'me' again. Lots and lots of common, ordinary ignorance. If it's taken for me and I who is so ignorant, we forget about dhammas as anatta again. Begin again! Dhammas to be known now! ... >I take the thoughts for mine, for myself and feel like I going down into darkness. >I feel unconfortable. ... S: Because of being lost in the thoughts and finding them so important. We're very attached to our thoughts, but it's only thinking that plays these tricks, just like a magician. Understanding now is the only answer. Metta Sarah ====== #116435 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alberto's note sarahprocter... Hi Pt, --- On Wed, 27/7/11, ptaus1 wrote: >pt: Yes, you've mentioned this in regard to differences between craving, wrong view and conceit, and in aprticular attanu ditthi. I'd assume since animals don't engage in verbal thinking, they're unable to philosophy on the topic of existence of thinhgs and beings. Though I remember as a child thinking whether cartoon characters are real or not. .... S: The attanu ditthi is with reference to the nature of realities. It's an interesting example of the cartoon characters (or father Xmas, perhaps). I don't see these as examples of attanu ditthi, more of just thinking about such characters as one might about any book or movie characters. Of course, only pa~n~naa can know when attanu ditthi arises, not by trying to speculate about or catch it! Now, do we think the computer really is something rather than just experiences through the sense doors and thinking about concepts? Or are we just using the keyboard without thinking about it in any special way, like an animal goes about catching food without having any ideas of the food as 'some thing' which exists? Tricky. If there's thinking or wondering, there can be awareness now of those cittas - just passing dhammas. Btw, I'd like to repeat the following good para you wrote to Alex: >PT: Okay, but the issue is how "does one set kusala habits"? Is there anything more to it than hearing about the value of good habits, and then realising this experientially upon the arising of the habit? I think my contention is that there's nothing else that could be done, and in fact, whatever is done will be to the detriment of development of the good habit. Let's see how well that hypothesis holds. ... S: Well said! Even if there's a 'trying-to-work out- the- present-reality-or label-it', it will be to the 'detriment of development of the good habit'. Always back to the present dhamma appearing. Metta Sarah ======= #116436 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing sarahprocter... Hi Vince & Phil, --- On Wed, 27/7/11, philip wrote: >- so will just say thank you for your words re my kusala in Canada, such as it was. I was personally very pleased that I made it through that hard time without resorting to alcohol. ... S: I'm very pleased to hear it too. ... >The only condition for abstaining was a firm resolution not to ignore the Buddhha's advice! ... S: This is wise reflection on the Dhamma conditioning the firm resolution. I thought both of you would be interested in this extract which Ven Samahita shared in #116327: >When a bhikkhu is devoted to this recollection of the Dhamma, he thinks: I never in the past met a master, who taught a law that led onward thus, who possessed this talent, nor do I now see any such a master other than the Blessed One. Seeing the Dhamma's special qualities in this very way, he is respectful and deferential towards the Master. He entertains great reverence for the Dhamma and attains the fullness of faith and insight. He has much happiness and gladness. He conquers fear and dread. He is able to endure pain. He comes to feel as if he were living in the Dhamma's presence. When recollecting the Dhamma's special qualities, dwelling in this remembrance, his body becomes as worthy of worship as a shrine room. His mind tends towards the realization of the peerless Dhamma. When he encounters an opportunity for transgression, then he has vivid awareness of conscience and shame induced by recollecting the well-regulatedness of the Dhamma. And if he penetrates no higher, he is at least headed for a happy destiny...< S: Reflecting on and understanding the Dhamma conditions hiri and ottappa (conscience and shame) and firm resolutions of abstention, as you find, when there are such opportunities. Metta Sarah ====== #116437 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Farewell Dhamma Friends nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 27-jul-2011, om 10:18 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > Sarah: Again, so often we're lost in stories about what will > happen and 'me' again. Lots and lots of common, ordinary ignorance. > If it's taken for me and I who is so ignorant, we forget about > dhammas as anatta again. Begin again! Dhammas to be known now! ------ N: Lukas, this is encouraging: begin again. Past worries are gone completely. I am also lost in stories, quite often. This is very common. There can be a fresh beginning now, there is the present moment. ----- Nina. #116438 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A smell and colour together? philofillet Thank you Sarah. I think you explained it well, it depends on kamma which rupa arises as sense object. But this inseparable is difficult. Of course it doesn't mean, for example, that a nauseous odor arises, say of a rotting corpse, and smellung consciousness arises too, phassa etc, but the smell is accompanied by the visual aspwct of the corpse (colour) but at that moment there is only smelling, perhaps a monent later seeing color, also vipaka of akusala kamma, that is not what inseparable means, is it? Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > --- On Wed, 27/7/11, philip wrote: > > >Maybe it is not so important, or way above my head, but I find the teaching of the eight inseparable rupas completely baffling. When there is a smell, there is an accompanying visible object (colour) but it cannot be experienced, it doesn't arise to awareness but it is....accompanying. > ... > S: Nina will answer in more detail, but to put it simply, rupas always arise in groups of at least eight inseperable rupas, as you say. However, each citta can only experience one object, so it depends on kamma whether seeing arises to experience visible object/colour or smelling arises to experience smell. > > So when visible object or smell is experienced, the other rupas in the group arise with it but are not experienced. > > Even now as we speak, there are countless groups of rupas arising and falling away in the body and outside the body. It just depends on kamma whether any one of the rupas is experienced now. > > Metta > > Sarah > ======= > #116439 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:56 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Dhamma Discussion in Bhutan, no 7. sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Mon, 25/7/11, upasaka@... wrote: > But also, from another tradition: > Silence and Practice Trump Study > /All my days I have been raised among the Sages, and I found nothing > better for oneself than silence; not study, but practice is the > main thing; and > one who talks excessively brings on sin./ > (Shimon ben Rabban Gamliel, Ethics of the Fathers 1:17) ------ >N: This is interesting. I think just practice without 'study' may not be possible. ... S: And as Jim Anderson wrote a long time ago: >JA: The Buddha made a vinaya rule against the practice of silence (muugabbata) as follows: "Monks, an observance of members of other sects, the practice of silence, should not be observed. Whoever observes it, there is an offence of wrong-doing." -- The Book of the Discipline, Part 4, p. 211 trs. I.B. Horner. It also comes with a story of several pages long leading up to the Buddha making this rule. It involved several monks deciding to observe silence together during a rains-retreat (it's at the beginning of the Pavaara.naakkhandhaka, Mahaavagga). .... S: When asked to add more details, Jim wrote: #6572 >JA: Here's a condensed version of quotes from pp. 208-11, The Book of the Discipline, Part IV. (trs. I.B. Horner): [While the Lord was staying near Savatthi,] "several monks, friends, and associates, entered on the rains in a certain residence in the Kosala country. Then it occurred to these monks: 'Now by what means can we, all together, on friendly terms and harmonious, spend a comfortable rainy season and not go short of almsfood?' " "Then it occurred to these monks: 'If we should neither address one another nor converse, but whosover should return first from the village . . . [a long passage on how the duties are to be performed] . . . by signalling with his hands, having invited a companion (to help him) by a movement of his hand; but he should not for such a reason break into speech . . . Then the monks neither addressed one another nor conversed . . . [same passage repeated verbatim with tense changes to show that all this had taken place for the duration of the retreat] . . . did not break into speech." [At the end of the three months rains retreat these monks then went to see the Lord near Savatthi.] "Then the Lord spoke thus to these monks, I hope that you kept going, I hope that, all together, on friendly terms and harmonious, you spent a comfortable rainy season and did not go short of almsfood?' [The monks replied that things had gone well for them.] "Now, Truthfinders (sometimes) ask knowing, and knowing (sometimes) do not ask . . . In two ways, Lords question monks, either: . . . or 'Shall we lay down a training rule for disciples?' Then the Lord spoke thus to these monks: 'But in what way, monks, did you, all together, on friendly terms . . . not go short of almsfood?' 'In that connection, did we, Lord, several friends and associates enter on the rains . . . [all what took place is repeated from the beginning] . . . but not for such a reason did he break into speech. Thus did we, Lord, . . . not go short of almsfood.' "Then the Lord addressed the monks, saying: 'Indeed, monks, these foolish men having spent an uncomfortable time pretend to have spent an equally comfortable time. Indeed, monks, these foolish men having spent communion like beasts, pretend to have spent an equally comfortable time. Indeed . . . like sheep, pretend to have spent an equally comfortable time . . . How, monks, can these these foolish men observe an observance of members of (other) sects: the practice of silence?' " [Here's an interesting footnote on the practice of silence, p. 211: "custom of being dumb (muuga), according to VA. 1073, for three months. Cf. the monks who sat like dumb swine, (muugasuukaraaa), when they might have been speaking dhamma, above p.131."]< ***** S: I remember Jim saying that these extracts from the Vinaya had had a profound impact on his understanding of practice. Without listening, study and discussion of the Dhamma, there is no development, no practice. Metta Sarah ===== #116440 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:58 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Dhamma Discussion in Bhutan, no 7. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 25-jul-2011, om 16:40 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > N: How could one be aware of naama and ruupa without > knowing what they are? > ------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I have always distinguished mentality from materiality, for example > bodily sensations from the knowing of them. I find it difficult to > imagine > NOT being able to distinguish these. (The names, of course, are > unimportant.) > --------------------------------------------------- > N: The point you bring up is useful. We may believe that we know that seeing is not visible object and body-consciousness is not the hardness impinging on it, even without thinking. Still, it is different from insight wisdom knowing this. Let me first explain a little more about the first stage of insight as I understood it from Kh Sujin. Pa~n~naa knows through the mind- door the difference between the characteristic of naama and of ruupa and it also knows what a mind-door process is. Just now hardness is experienced in a sense-door process and after that hardness is experienced through the mind-door. Cittas succeed one another so fast that it is hard to discern when the hardness is experienced through the mind-door, the mind-door process seems to be concealed. The whole day there are sense-door processes to be followed by mind-door processes, but so fast. At the moments of insight naama and ruupa are realised through the mind-door, one at a time. There is no doubt what the mind-door is. When seeing arises there is also visible object, but only one reality at a time can be object of mindfulness. It seems that they appear together. I remember that you call visible object the content of seeing. In reality they have different characteristics and when we take them together there is no understanding of them as conditioned dhammas. -------- BTW, I told a neighbour who is a pastor about the quote: (Shimon ben Rabban Gamliel, Ethics of the Fathers 1:17 >. He was very pleased with this. We can and should appreciate the good siila in other religions. ****** Nina. #116441 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hindrances. Was: concepts can lead to awakening sarahprocter... Dear Nina & Alex, --- On Thu, 21/7/11, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >N: When someone who develops vipassanaa but not jhaana, and he is about to attain enlightenment, he realizes whatever reality appears as either, impermanent, or dukkha or anattaa. That reality can even be lobha. During the process enlightenment is attained, then upacaara arises shortly before the magga-citta. The magga-citta experiences nibbaana with concentration of the strength equal to the first stage of jhaana. Upacaara is not necessary before this process starts. ... S: Appreciating your helpful discussion. As I recall K.Sujin saying, all the vipassana nanas are equivalent in strength to upacara, just as the concentration of the magga citta is equivalent in strength to jhana as you say. It's all rather complicated, isn't it? Metta Sarah ======= #116442 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:20 pm Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Citta is creating future realities nilovg Dear Philip, Op 25-jul-2011, om 0:58 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I learned once that the commentary to MN10 says(or perhaps Vism) > that physical postures are obstacles to satipatthana, they > interfere with the arising of satipatthana. ------ N: No, why should they? But people may cling to the whole of a posture and then when they feel pain change the posture. With reference to this misunderstandings about the realisation of dukkha arise. What we call posture are only different ruupas of the body and in the ultimate sense there is no posture. -------- > Ph: I wonder then if thinking with attachment to concepts of what > is arising now does not also create an obstacle to satipatthana? As > you know, I belueve there is a lot of thinking about what nama and > rupa are arising now rather than direct understanding. And that all > this thinking with attachment could obstruct in the same way that > attachment to postures could. ------- N: Also attachment to concepts is a reality and it can be known as such. It is not an obstruction. You write:there is a lot of thinking about what nama and rupa are arising now rather than direct understanding. That is very common. But there is right thinking and wrong thinking. Thinking in the right way with understanding can be a condition for direct awareness and understanding. --------- N: As to your other post: Ph: Maybe it is not so important, or way above my head, but I find the teaching of the eight inseparable rupas completely baffling. When there is a smell, there is an accompanying visible object (colour) but it cannot be experienced, it doesn't arise to awareness but it is....accompanying. I re-read the chapter in your book on rupa but still don't get it. ------- N: It is not so difficult to understand that a dhammas such as smell or visible object impinging on the appropriate doorway is not floating alone in the air, it arises in a unit or group of ruupas. It needs a foundation: it needs solidity to support it, it needs cohesion, it needs heat and wind. As Sarah explained, it depends on kamma which vipaakacitta experiences which object, but only one object at a time can be experienced. As to the derived ruupas that also accompany smell, these have to arise together with smell. There are colour, flavour and nutritive essence. Here is just an illustration: you may experience the smell of a flower. When you lick the flower there is flavour, when you eat it, there is some nutritive essense. When you touch it there is hardness. These ruupas we call a flower can be experienced one at a time. When you taste the flower, there cannot be smelling at the same time, but this does not mean that there is no odour. In the ultimate sense there is no flower, there are only different units of ruupas consisting of the eight inseparable ruupas, arising and falling away. ------- Nina. #116443 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:32 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Dhamma Discussion in Bhutan, no 7. nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 27-jul-2011, om 10:56 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > S: I remember Jim saying that these extracts from the Vinaya had > had a profound impact on his understanding of practice. Without > listening, study and discussion of the Dhamma, there is no > development, no practice. ------ N: I remember now, it is interesting. There is also the ariyan silence mentioned in the suttas, but this is another context. But for laypeople the quote as I understood is referring to useless talk, and then it is better to keep quiet. ----- Nina. #116444 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hindrances. Was: concepts can lead to awakening nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 27-jul-2011, om 11:01 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > As I recall K.Sujin saying, all the vipassana nanas are equivalent > in strength to upacara, just as the concentration of the magga > citta is equivalent in strength to jhana as you say. ------ N: Very good, concentration during vipassanaa ~naanas must be of a high degree, by conditions. Some people think that access in developing jhaana is necessary in order to attain enlightenment, as I read. ----- Nina. #116445 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:06 pm Subject: A smell and colour Re:Q. [dsg] Citta is creating future realities philofillet Hi Nina Thanks for your comments in the satipatthana related thread. I am quite suure I read somewhere tgat attachment to or interest in postures can interfere with satipatthana, but not to worry. As for the rupa question, I guess I am being toi stringent about wanting to break rupa down into tiny units, that are too tiny to have anything to do with being recognizable as a flower, a rupa lasts longer than a nama before falling away, but not much, if I recall. I can understand a flower as beingcomprised of various kinds ofsupporting rupa, but I can't understand tiny units of rupa containing smell as well as colour, invariably. Never mind Nina, this is just one of those mind bogglers I can't get yet. When we can't get things yet, I don't think racking the brain works, not with Dhamma... No fault of yours, you explained as clearly as could possibly be done. A reminder that different people have different degrees of panna at different times, thereare very rarely conditions for "my" panna to cut through concepts to reality effectively.. Ok, I was naughty overusing the i-phone today. Now I really mean it, back next weekend!!! :) metta, phil Here is just an illustration: you may experience the smell > of a flower. When you lick the flower there is flavour, when you eat > it, there is some nutritive essense. When you touch it there is > hardness. These ruupas we call a flower can be experienced one at a > time. When you taste the flower, there cannot be smelling at the same > time, but this does not mean that there is no odour. In the ultimate > sense there is no flower, there are only different units of ruupas > consisting of the eight inseparable ruupas, arising and falling away. > > ------- > Nina. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #116446 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:17 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: six worlds (part 2) nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 26-jul-2011, om 4:10 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > When we are precise, hearing > > just hears sound which is a paramattha dhamma, it does not > experience > > anything else. > > So it seems then that the association between the sense door in > question and the mind door is what allows sensory experiences to > become part of a conceptual whole...? ------ N: The mind-door process that follows upon a sense-door process still has the same ruupa as object, thus, not a concept. Only later on there can be mind-door processes of cittas that think of concepts and conceptual wholes. On account of visible object that is experienced one thinks of persons, things, situations. Nina. #116447 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:55 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Dhamma Discussion in Bhutan, no 7. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/27/2011 4:58:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 25-jul-2011, om 16:40 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > N: How could one be aware of naama and ruupa without > knowing what they are? > ------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I have always distinguished mentality from materiality, for example > bodily sensations from the knowing of them. I find it difficult to > imagine > NOT being able to distinguish these. (The names, of course, are > unimportant.) > --------------------------------------------------- > N: The point you bring up is useful. We may believe that we know that seeing is not visible object and body-consciousness is not the hardness impinging on it, even without thinking. Still, it is different from insight wisdom knowing this. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: I didn't mean that I conceptually distinguished them. My direct experience senses them as quite different in nature. ---------------------------------------------------- Let me first explain a little more about the first stage of insight as I understood it from Kh Sujin. Pa~n~naa knows through the mind- door the difference between the characteristic of naama and of ruupa and it also knows what a mind-door process is. Just now hardness is experienced in a sense-door process and after that hardness is experienced through the mind-door. Cittas succeed one another so fast that it is hard to discern when the hardness is experienced through the mind-door, the mind-door process seems to be concealed. The whole day there are sense-door processes to be followed by mind-door processes, but so fast. At the moments of insight naama and ruupa are realised through the mind-door, one at a time. There is no doubt what the mind-door is. When seeing arises there is also visible object, but only one reality at a time can be object of mindfulness. It seems that they appear together. I remember that you call visible object the content of seeing. In reality they have different characteristics and when we take them together there is no understanding of them as conditioned dhammas. -------- BTW, I told a neighbour who is a pastor about the quote: (Shimon ben Rabban Gamliel, Ethics of the Fathers 1:17 >. He was very pleased with this. We can and should appreciate the good siila in other religions. ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, the Buddha himself said this. (Please send my best regards to your "pastor neighbor". :-) ----------------------------------------------------- ****** Nina. ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116448 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:58 pm Subject: Why Many Jubus (Jewish Buddhists) Seem to Favor Practice Over Theory upasaka_howard Hi, all - This material is slightly off-topic for this list, for which I apologize in advance. I will not continue in this vein, I promise: Judaism is known, among other things, for STUDY!! And yet mere practice trumps even study, which may explain in part why many Jewish Buddhists favor meditation and other Buddhist practice even over study of the Dhamma. What is the basis for the Jewish emphasis on practice? The following material from the web site Aish.com ('aish' means "fire," BTW), referring to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai may answer this: _____________________________________________ Moses came and told the people all the words of God. The people responded with one voice and said, 'All the words that God has spoken, we will do.' Moses wrote down all the words of God. He arose early in the morning and built an altar beneath the mountain, and also twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. He sent youths of the Sons of Israel and they offered burnt-offerings, and sacrificed oxen as peace offerings to God. Moses ... then took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the ears of the people. They said, 'All that God has spoken, we will do and we will hear.' (Exodus 24:3-7) Perhaps the best known passage in Jewish literature concerning the covenant at Sinai is the following passage of Talmud: Rabbi Simai expounded, "When Israel uttered na'aseh before nishma, or "we will do" before "we will hear," 600,000 ministering angels came to each and every Jew and tied two crowns to each Jew, one corresponding to na'aseh and one corresponding to nishma. (Talmud, Sabbos, 88a) The statement "we will do, and we will hear," amounts to a commitment to carry out God's commandments even before hearing what the observance of those commandments actually involves. Only someone who is totally willing to shape his entire life around Torah observance would be willing to make such a commitment. ____________________________________________ Others somewhat disagree with the analysis in that last paragraph. Their alternative analysis is that Judaism takes the behavioral approach of (proper) practice leading to wisdom and understanding. The proper and very specific "doing" comes first, and the "hearing," i.e., understanding, naturally follows. Of course, there must be known before any of this exactly what the proper and very specific practice IS! And to that extent, wisdom comes first. With metta, Howard Silence and Practice Trump Study /All my days I have been raised among the Sages, and I found nothing better for oneself than silence; not study, but practice is the main thing; and one who talks excessively brings on sin./ (Shimon ben Rabban Gamliel, Ethics of the Fathers 1:17) #116449 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:59 am Subject: Q. [dsg] Re: six worlds (part 2) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 26-jul-2011, om 4:10 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > > When we are precise, hearing > > > just hears sound which is a paramattha dhamma, it does not > > experience > > > anything else. > > > > So it seems then that the association between the sense door in > > question and the mind door is what allows sensory experiences to > > become part of a conceptual whole...? > ------ > N: The mind-door process that follows upon a sense-door process still > has the same ruupa as object, thus, not a concept. Only later on > there can be mind-door processes of cittas that think of concepts > and conceptual wholes. On account of visible object that is > experienced one thinks of persons, things, situations. I am wondering whether the citta that experiences the visible object in the mind door process after the seeing process is aware of the seeing of the object as well as the object itself? In other words, do the cetasikas involved identify the visible object as the result of seeing, or does it just see "visible object," with no other association? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #116450 From: "connie" Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 8:19 am Subject: Sangiiti 8.8-9 nichiconn dear friends, sorry! #116122 was 8.7, as Nina said in #116135. now: i believe we are at the end of cscd 337: <> Walshe DN.33.3.1(8) 'Eight assemblies: the assembly of Khattiyas, Brahmins, householders, ascetics, devas of the Realm of the Four Great Kings, of the Thirty-Three Gods, of maaras, of Brahmaas (as Sutta 16, v.3.21). to wit, {p.248: DN 16, 3.21 'Aananda, these eight [kinds of] assemblies. What are they? They are the assembly of Khattiyas, the assembly of Brahmins, the assembly of householders, the assembly of ascetics, the assembly of devas of the Realm of the Four Great Kings, the assembly of the Thirty-Three Gods, the assembly of maaras, the assembly of Brahmaas.} Olds [ 8.8 ] Eight Assemblies:[ 8.8 ] Assemblies of Nobles, assemblies of Brahmans, assemblies of householders, assemblies of shamen, assemblies of The Four Great Kings, assemblies of the Three and Thirty, assemblies of Mara, Assemblies of Brahma. RDs [ 8.8 ] Eight assemblies, to wit, those of nobles, brahmins, householders, religious orders, four-king devas, Three-and-Thirty devas, Maara devas and Brahma devas.8.8 ***rd: 8.8 There is no comment on the absence of parisaa's in other worlds. Presumably it is because no such assemblies are recorded in the Suttas, nor mention of any hierarchy or government, as e.g., in Dial. I, 282; II, 242 f., 293 (21), etc. CSCD < Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:48 am Subject: How to Cure Cruelty? bhikkhu5 Friends: Cruelty, Mercilessness & Revengefulness are diluted Hate: How to cure these evil derivatives of Cruelty: 1: Review the Danger in Cruelty like this: This can bring me to a bad destination, the downfall, to pain, even to hell! This is a path of thorns, an evil way, a dark state, conflict, violence, pain! 2: How does a friend dwell pervading all with his heart endued with pity? Just as he would feel pity on seeing an unlucky, unfortunate person, so he pervades all beings with infinite pity. Therefore first of all he imagines a poor man, unlucky, unfortunate, in every way a fit object for pity, ugly, reduced to utter misery, with hands and feet cut off, sitting in the shelter for the helpless, with an empty pot in front of him, with maggots oozing from sores on hands and legs, moaning, infinite pity should be felt for him in this way: 'This being has been reduced to utter misery! If he just could be freed from this misery...' Then later one can arouse the same pity and compassion for a neutral person and later for even a wrong-doing person! This is the complete mastery of pity: Compassion even with the Evil One! 3: All wrong doing is caused by blindness: A real pity for the wrong-doers! All wrong-doers will thus suffer immensely in the future. How sad for them! 4: Begin and Cultivate meditation on Infinite pity: Sit down a silent, empty place with closed eyes & beam this from the heart: May I & all beings be free from cruelty by cultivating awareness of pity. May I & all beings be free from cruelty by cultivating examination of pity. May I & all beings be free from cruelty by cultivating energetic pity. May I & all beings be free from cruelty by cultivating joyous infinite pity. May I & all beings be free from cruelty by cultivating stilled infinite pity. May I & all beings be free from cruelty by cultivating concentrated pity. May I & all beings be free from cruelty by cultivating imperturbable pity. Beaming first out in front, then right, left, down below and also up above: May all beings live happily and free from suffering, pain and frustration. May all beings be free from hate, cruelty, mercilessness & revengefulness! One who is virtuous and wise Shines like a blazing fire; Like a bee collecting nectar He acquires wealth by harming none! Digha Nikya III, 188 May all breathing creatures, all living things, All beings, every one without exception, Experience good fortune only! May they not fall into harm. Anguttara Nikya II, 72 Solitude is happiness for one who is content, Who has heard the Dhamma and clearly sees. Non-violence is happiness in the world Harmlessness towards all living beings. Udana 10 JOY Oh let us live happily! Freed from all cruelty! Living even among those, who always flames by hate! Among those dominated by anger, let us live free from anger! Dhammapada Illustration 197 Background Story 197 <....> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #116452 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:58 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Sarah, and Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > >HCW: > How does understanding come about? Is it random, a matter of luck, > with no intention involved? Don't you know that this is not so, Sarah? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > S: As the Buddha taught: through hearing the Dhamma, listening, considering and directly understanding presently arising dhammas. > > No, there is nothing 'random' in the way conditioned dhammas occur. As we were discussing with Pt at the weekend, the 'hearing' (or 'reading') of the Dhamma refers to moments of hearing particular sounds (or seeing particular visible objects) when meeting the Buddha or his disciples in person or in text. This is the result of past kamma. The considering and directly understanding of the Dhamma refer to conditioned 'habitual tendencies' of understanding and other factors. Just jumping in to ask a question. It occurs to me that the idea that the hearing of the Dhamma is the root of all development towards awakening seems to indicate that the path to enlightenment is completely dependent on understanding language and linguistic concepts. Is this your understanding of the Dhamma? That it is only contained in words? My understanding is that the path and the reality of the moment can be realized by direct perception that is not necessarily dependent on language, although for most of us we will first form an idea of the Dhamma and the path and then form experiences based on this as we go through life and practice. But, for instance, for someone sharp who was able to just "get" the reality of namas and rupas directly, I would assume they would be able to see this truth through perception without necessarily ever forming an explicit concept of it in language. Likewise for sati, if one were to focus with understanding on what is arising at the moment, one might very well just "see" this without thinking or speaking about it. Even the first three Noble Truths could be realized through naturally arising awareness of the nature of samsara followed by a conviction that suffering could be ended by detachment from sense objects, etc., and then the fourth Noble Truth could be realized through direct experience based on this realization. Would your view of Dhamma rule out such events or forms of development? I realize that the Dhamma will not exist as a viable form in the way that it does if a Buddha does not appear in the world, but I am wondering whether it is really all as linguistic and conceptual as the pariyatti-based view makes it appear. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #116453 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A smell and colour together? sarahprocter... Dear Phil & all, --- On Wed, 27/7/11, philip wrote: >Thank you Sarah. I think you explained it well, it depends on kamma which rupa arises as sense object. .... S: To be more precise, "it depends on kamma which rupa, which has already arisen, is experienced as sense object." For example, there are countless groups of the 8 inseperable rupas arising at any instant, i.e the four great elements, colour, flavour, odour and nutritive essence, but it depends on past kamma whether its result, such as seeing or smelling, arises to experience colour or odour at that instant. ... >If bodyconsciousness experiences hardness, earth element or solidity is the object, and the accompanying ruupas of that group, including colour, are not experienced, they are not objects. Colour arises as part of that group but it is not object. .... S: Exactly right. They are supporting the earth element which is experienced and that earth element could not have arisen without their support. All the inseperable rupas condition and 'affect' each other when they arise too. ... >Groups of rupas are arising and falling away time and again, and it depends on conditions what object is experienced by which citta. ... S: Exactly right (not sure if you or I said it:-). ... >But this inseparable is difficult. Of course it doesn't mean, for example, that a nauseous odor arises, say of a rotting corpse, and smellung consciousness arises too, phassa etc, but the smell is accompanied by the visual aspwct of the corpse (colour) but at that moment there is only smelling, perhaps a monent later seeing color, also vipaka of akusala kamma, that is not what inseparable means, is it? .... S: No, this is not the meaning of inseperable (avinibhoga) rupas. Groups of inseperable rupas arise and because of past kamma, smelling consciousness smells odour. The smelling consciousness is accompanied by phassa and the other universal cetasikas. They all experience that same object, as do the other cittas in that sense door experience. That group (kalapa) of rupas which includes the odour experienced then completely falls away, never to arise or be experienced again. Immediately afterwards, there are some bhavanga cittas and then the same object (odour) is experienced through the mind-door by a series of cittas and accompanying cetasikas by way of being nimitta. More mind-door series are likely to follow with a concept as object. Later, seeing consciousness (as result of past kamma again) may experience a visible object. Again, that visible object/colour has already arisen in a new kalapa of rupas consisting of at least the 8 inseperable (avinibhoga) rupas, but this is a completely different group to the odour in the group which was experienced before. Again, the eye-door cittas experience the visible object until (after a max of 17 cittas in the process) the visible object (and supporting rupas) fall away. You're raising good questions which will be helpful to many here. I appreciate the opportunity to add to the discussion as I learn from it too. Metta Sarah p.s Also see in U.P.: 'Rupa12-groups (kalapas), inseparable (avinibhoga) rupas' ======= #116454 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 4:59 pm Subject: Sangiitisutta, the Eights, suttas 8 and 9, and commentary. nilovg Dear friends, sutta 8. Walshe DN.33.3.1(8) 'Eight assemblies: the assembly of Khattiyas, Brahmins, householders, ascetics, devas of the Realm of the Four Great Kings, of the Thirty-Three Gods, of maaras, of Brahmaas (as Sutta 16, v.3.21). --------- N: The khattiyas are the highest socal class and birth as a khattiya is the result of kusala kamma. All kings were khattiyas. The Buddha was born a khattiya. The devas of the Realm of the Four Great Kings and of the Thirty- Three Gods are the lowest classes of devas. The six classes of devas belong to the sensuous planes of existence. Nobody can choose his birth, it is conditioned by kamma committed in the past. After a happy rebirth there may be an unhappy rebirth. It is uncertain what kind of birth will occur, so long as one is not freed from the cycle of birth and death. ******** Sutta 9. Walshe DN.33.3.1(9) 'Eight worldly conditions (loka-dhammaa): gain and loss, fame and shame (yaso ca ayaso ca), blame and praise, happiness and misery. (A.t.tha lokadhammaa - laabho ca, alaabho ca, yaso ca, ayaso ca, nindaa ca, pasa.msaa ca, sukha~nca, dukkha~nca.) ------ N: the co states: The worldly dhammas are the dhammas of the world. Nobody is free of these, they exist even for Buddhas. This is also said: "the eight worldly dhammas, monks, keep the world rolling, and the world revolves around the eight worldly dhammas. As to the words gain and loss, this should be known as: when gain has come, loss comes. And it is the same with fame etc. ------- The Tiika states with regard to the dhammas of the world: these are the dhammas that are inevitable for the world of beings. It explains that at times these dhammas follow the world, and at times the world follows them. Gain is the obtainment of food, clothing, etc. and the absence of them is loss. Because of the obtainment of gain there is compliance, whereas because of loss there is dismay. Compliance is followed by dismay when gain has disappeared. -------- N: Nobody can escape the worldly conditions, not even Buddhas and arahats. Gain and loss are among the vicissitudes of life. Kusala kamma is the cause of the experience of pleasant objects through the senses and akusala kamma is the cause of the experience of unpleasant objects through the senses. When pleasant objects disappear we are agitated, we suffer. This can also be applied to the loss of dear people. Their company gives us pleasure and when they have passed away we lament our lack of this pleasure. We dwell in our thoughts for a long time on the loss we suffered, but a moment of vipaakacitta does not last, it falls away immediately. When we think with affliction about the unpleasant object we experienced there is akusala citta with aversion. When we think about gain and loss, these are all gone. There are only conditioned dhammas arising and falling away. When thinking less in terms of persons or situations and have more understanding of cittas arising because of conditions one can gradually learn to be less affected by the worldly conditions of gain and loss, praise and blame, honour and dishonour, happiness and misery. Clinging to the pleasant worldly conditions is accumulated as alatent tendency and this will condition the arising again and again of clinging. Quoting from Kh Sujin's Perfections, Ch 4, the Perfection of > Wisdom: > < Through the study of the Dhamma we gradually come to have more > understanding of the vicissitudes of the world, of gain and loss, > honour and dishonour, praise and blame, wellbeing and pain. We > shall understand that the pleasant "worldly conditions" of gain, > honour, praise and wellbeing only lead to dukkha, suffering, if > there is no paa that knows the causes and their appropriate > results in life....Thus, we should see the incomparable value of > pa and we should apply ourselves to its development so that it > can become fully accomplished. If we develop satipa.t.thaana time > and again, pa will be gradually accumulated so that it becomes > keener, and reaches the degree of a perfection which realizes the > four noble Truths. (end quote). --------- Nina. #116455 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 5:09 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 28-jul-2011, om 2:58 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > I realize that the Dhamma will not exist as a viable form in the > way that it does if a Buddha does not appear in the world, but I am > wondering whether it is really all as linguistic and conceptual as > the pariyatti-based view makes it appear. -------- N: Pariyatti is not merely linguistic and conceptual; it means, studying the present reality, it is not merely thinking of a concept. We consider what seeing now is, we consider its characteristic that is different from hearing now. We, at the present time, need to listen and consider again and again. We are not like Asajjii and Saariputta who could attain enlightenment after just hearing a few words. They had accumulated great pa~n~naa in former lives. ------ Nina. #116456 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:22 pm Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! ptaus1 Hi Sarah, > S: Btw, when I offered you a choice of drinks including ginger beer, you reacted a little strongly to the suggestion and afterwards it occurred to me that you may have thought that ginger beer is alcoholic. I assure you that it's not, however! Phil would have had something to say if I were offering alcoholic drinks around at a Dhamma discussion:-) pt: No, it's just that ginger and chili are two things I can't really handle - all I get from them is pain rather than taste. Not sure what that means in terms of kalapas :) Too much earth element, and not enough nutritive essence? Or wait, not enough kamma for tasting consciousness to arise and appreciate ginger? I have no idea. I remember though once before we had a discussion at your place, I think the first time I came over, and someone brought a wine made from herbs, so non-alcoholic, and put it there on the table on your balcony. And then every single person that walked out on the balcony ended up asking the same question in mild astonishment - What?! Is that alcohol?! That's the first time ever that I felt I was in the company of like-minded people. And then of course came dhamma discussion so it got even better :) Best wishes pt #116457 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:47 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Sukin about pariyatti. Was: six worlds (part 2) nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 27-jul-2011, om 18:59 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > I am wondering whether the citta that experiences the visible > object in the mind door process after the seeing process is aware > of the seeing of the object as well as the object itself? In other > words, do the cetasikas involved identify the visible object as the > result of seeing, or does it just see "visible object," with no > other association? > -------- > N: The latter. The same object, visible object, is exprienced in the following mind-door process. It has just fallen away, but it can still be called the present object. The comparison is used of; being a photocopy, or the nimitta or sign. Awareness and understanding may arise and then in another process there can be awareness of visible object or of seeing, but only one object at a time is experienced during one process. -------- In my last post to you, we discussed pariyatti. On Rob K' forum there is along correspondence with Sukinder about this subject. I just quote part of it: paripatti is the actual practice. S: I think both pariyatti and patipatti must always go hand in hand. There must be I believe, moments of direct experience, though they may be too little to be noticed, otherwise I think, there cannot be the confidence in and to continue with pariyatti....So I don't think that pariyatti is preliminary and patipatti is the subsequent step, as in one following the other. I think we do have a tendency to draw lines and in the process take what is not real to be real, namely the conventional activities. Dhammas arise and fall by conditions, and none of us have directly seen enough of this to go beyond doubt that this is quite different from what we usually think. Attachment to our conventional view can only make it harder to appreciate this fact, I think. This is why I wanted us to be clear from the very beginning what pariyatti is, and how it relates to patipatti. I wanted to show you in the last post, that `study' is not the matter of accumulation of words, but the `understanding' which is something that arises because of conditions and cannot be willed. Of course it does involve `words' on one level, whether this is apprehended through the eye door, the ear door or the mind. And each time there is any understanding, it is `verbalized' mentally. But note that this does not happen automatically when one reads or hears the teachings, it must depend on other conditions as well, the primary of which is the accumulated panna, from hearing and reflecting in the past.> (end quote). ****** Nina. #116458 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:03 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Dhamma Discussion in Bhutan, no 7. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 27-jul-2011, om 16:55 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > N: The point you bring up is useful. We may believe that we know that > seeing is not visible object and body-consciousness is not the > hardness impinging on it, even without thinking. > Still, it is different from insight wisdom knowing this. > --------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > I didn't mean that I conceptually distinguished them. My direct > experience senses them as quite different in nature. ------ N: Yes, I know what you mean. This is different from thinking about them. Still, I find the subject of vipassanaa ~naa.na quite difficult. I just read on Rob K's web a post by Sarah quoting a conversation with Kh Sujin which may interest others who would like to know the difference between thinking and direct understanding. It has to be emphasized that the mind-door appears at those moments and this may be forgotten. The quote begins with the second stage of insight, knowing directly conditions. I myself am learning while rereading this quote. Never enough considering! Quote: ******* Sarah: Another extract. Note : The first 3 stages of insight are referred to as 'tender insight' or taru.na vipassanaa. Panna is referred to as 'cintaa ~naa.na' or thinking insight. The higher levels are 'balava vipassanaa' or 'insight as power'. Sarah asks about cinta nana. ..... Sujin: At higher levels, there is still thinking in between (other realities), but panna knows thinking and there is less and less clinging to the idea of self. With full understanding, there is no 'falling down', less doubt, less idea of self. <....> Sarah How can space be known as it is asabhava (without it's own nature)? ..... Sujin: There can be understanding of space between groups of rupas, space between kalapas. it can be proved when panna is developed and can experience many groups of rupas, not just one at sammasananana (3rd stage). One group is smaller than dust. Panna develops more and more, seeing closer and closer. Hardness is just one characteristic. Usually one reads further than one knows. There is no question about how many (are experienced) because at the moment of vipassana nana, there is no counting - just seeing closer and closer. The best thing is to develop what one can know, so that one knows what can be proven first. Then there is no question about how many. At vipassana nana, there's no counting or thinking. Still (at the 3rd stage), only one reality like hardness - smaller than dust. That hardness has now gone. There is the arising and falling away. Khandha refers to anything which arises and falls away so fast. Whenever it (the khandha) arises, it is conditioned to be different from past and future ones. It is never the same. This is the meaning of khandha. The one that is coarse or fine, good or bad, in the past, future or now. (At this stage), there is no doubt about what and why is khandha - it is anything which arises and falls away. The Mahabhuta rupas (4 primary rupas) arise together and with other rupas, (just as) cittas arise with cetasikas. Khandha, dhatu and ayatana are the bhumi (?sphere?) of satipatthana, but there must be understanding of realities first. In order to understand khandha, first there must be the understanding that visible object is the rupa experienced through the eyes, in order to understand groups (later). There has to be the understanding of many javanas and vithi cittas (process cittas) - (an) uncountable (number). *********** Nina. #116459 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! sarahprocter... Hi Pt, --- On Thu, 28/7/11, ptaus1 wrote: >pt: No, it's just that ginger and chili are two things I can't really handle - all I get from them is pain rather than taste. Not sure what that means in terms of kalapas :) Too much earth element, and not enough nutritive essence? Or wait, not enough kamma for tasting consciousness to arise and appreciate ginger? I have no idea. .... S: I understand well - I have the same reaction to even a tiny amount of chili. I have to taste very carefully in Thailand as it can easily seem I'm having a trip to the hell realms otherwise:-/ Like you, chili sauce would be my last choice with the kebab, but ginger is fine for me. What does it all mean? It means some past akusala kamma probably conditions the tasting of unpleasant taste, but more so, there must be the experiencing through the body sense, accompanied by unpleasant bodily feeling when experiencing tangible objects. Rather like when one looks into the sun - not just the seeing of visible object but the bodily experience accompanied by unpleasant bodily feeling when experiencing tangible objects. Conventionally speaking, we experience the same tastes when drinking the ginger beer or eating the chili sauce or looking at the surf, but of course this is not so. Not only do the experiences depend on different past kammas for us all, but at each moment of sipping the drink, eating the food or looking at the view, the experience is different - many moments of vipaka, many moments of mind-door processes in between the different experiences. As you say, the 'appreciation' of different tastes, the thinking about different experiences also plays a part. We may 'aquire' tastes or preferences for what are unpleasant experiences and vice versa. For example, we acquire a liking for the taste of coffee or an ice-cold drink. Many different moments of kusala and akusala vipaka and thinking with attachment involved. ... >I remember though once before we had a discussion at your place, I think the first time I came over, and someone brought a wine made from herbs, so non-alcoholic, and put it there on the table on your balcony. And then every single person that walked out on the balcony ended up asking the same question in mild astonishment - What?! Is that alcohol?! That's the first time ever that I felt I was in the company of like-minded people. And then of course came dhamma discussion so it got even better :) ... S: Yes, I remember Vince and Nancy brought the bottle. I was still hesitant even after being told it was non-alcoholic. I have to even avoid the mouth-wash at the dentist or any desert with any alcohol in it because I'm so sensitive to it. I almost fainted a couple of years ago when I was given a homeopathic remedy, unknowingly, in alcohol. I had just taken a couple of drops and it knocked me out! Having said all that, I have many very dear Buddhist friends who may have a glass of wine with their meals and I don't have any particular concern about this. We all just learn for ourselves what is helpful or harmful and what tendencies accumulate at any time. I'm not judgmental about it - we just don't keep any alcohol to offer any visitors! I'll soon be with lots of my family members in England who drink quite a lot, especially at weddings - just like now, opportunities for kindness, patience and right understanding. Metta Sarah ====== #116460 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:45 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, > -------- >N: Pariyatti is not merely linguistic and conceptual; it means, >studying the present reality, it is not merely thinking of a concept. >We consider what seeing now is, we consider its characteristic that >is different from hearing now. We, at the present time, need to listen >and consider again and again. We are not like Asajjii and Saariputta >who could attain enlightenment after just hearing a few words. They >had accumulated great pa~n~naa in former lives. >========================================================= I am glad that we agree on the need for intentional development ("considering what happens now"). "Considering what happens now" is an intentional action that is different from intentional actions of worldling who do not know about Dhamma. With best wishes, Alex #116461 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:24 am Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! kenhowardau Hi Pt and Sarah, What a pity I wasn't there: three hyperacidity hypochondriacs together! And not to forget Jon who could have told us about his lactose intolerance. :-) --------- >> pt: No, it's just that ginger and chili are two things I can't really handle - all I get from them is pain rather than taste. Not sure what that means in terms of kalapas :) Too much earth element, and not enough nutritive essence? Or wait, not enough kamma for tasting consciousness to arise and appreciate ginger? I have no idea. ---------- KH: My suggestion as to what it meant "in terms of kalapas and kamma" would have been "nothing at all!" As the self-appointed anti-formal-practice policeman of the group I would have reminded you that only namas had kamma and vipaka. Concepts have concepts. When people (concepts) have pains in their bellies (concepts) they should look to conventional science for the cause, not to the Dhamma. -------------------- > S: I understand well - I have the same reaction to even a tiny amount of chili. I have to taste very carefully in Thailand as it can easily seem I'm having a trip to the hell realms otherwise:-/ Like you, chili sauce would be my last choice with the kebab, but ginger is fine for me. > What does it all mean? It means some past akusala kamma probably conditions the tasting of unpleasant taste, but more so, there must be the experiencing through the body sense, accompanied by unpleasant bodily feeling when experiencing tangible objects. Rather like when one looks into the sun - not just the seeing of visible object but the bodily experience accompanied by unpleasant bodily feeling when experiencing tangible objects. -------------------- KH: There is no real reason for me to object to this conversation. To be fair to you both, you were just using your medical conditions as metaphors for vipaka. You were not professing to identify an actual dhamma and its cause. By the way, ginger is not fine for me, but, with the particular brand of antacid that I told Sarah about, I can eat all the green Thai curry I want. And that's quite a lot! :-) ------------------- > S: Conventionally speaking, we experience the same tastes when drinking the ginger beer or eating the chili sauce or looking at the surf, but of course this is not so. Not only do the experiences depend on different past kammas for us all, but at each moment of sipping the drink, eating the food or looking at the view, the experience is different - many moments of vipaka, many moments of mind-door processes in between the different experiences. -------------- KH: Just like now! (As the saying goes.) ----------------------- <. . .> > S: Having said all that, I have many very dear Buddhist friends who may have a glass of wine with their meals and I don't have any particular concern about this. ----------------------- KH: Yes, how much worse would it have been if they had wrong view with their meals? Or any of the other akusala kamma-pathas. Ken H #116462 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:00 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) kenhowardau Hi Alex, --------- <. . .> > A: I am glad that we agree on the need for intentional development ("considering what happens now"). "Considering what happens now" is an intentional action that is different from intentional actions of worldling who do not know about Dhamma. ---------- KH: I shouldn't hope for too much, but I suspect you are almost agreeing with Nina. You seem to be acknowledging that a person can try to consider wisely but still won't be able to if he hasn't studied the Dhamma. Next thing, you'll be agreeing that even trying itself is dependent on the required conditions for its arising. But I won't get my hopes up about that; it will all depend on conditions. :-) Ken H #116463 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:17 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, >KH: I shouldn't hope for too much, but I suspect you are almost >agreeing with Nina. You seem to be acknowledging that a person can try >to consider wisely but still won't be able to if he hasn't studied the >Dhamma. >================================================ It also depends on what you mean by "study". Mere theoretic knowledge is only a start, at best. "Meditation" if properly done, is a sort of study of presently arisen reality (namarupa). >KH: Next thing, you'll be agreeing that even trying itself is >dependent >on the required conditions for its arising. >====================================================== Of course. Things are conditioned. But does this imply a domino effect type of causality? Or only necessary conditionality? Trying is itself a condition for future (and present conascent) results. Sometimes past conditions may be too strong and sweep its effects, but sometimes not. Sometimes trying as a condition accumulates enough momentum to overpower previous conditions and helps breakthrough to occur. Is theoretic study a necessary or sufficient condition for practice. A crucial question. With best wishes, Alex #116464 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! philofillet Hi Sarah > > Btw, when I offered you a choice of drinks including ginger beer, you reacted a little strongly to the suggestion and afterwards it occurred to me that you may have thought that ginger beer is alcoholic. I assuree you that it's not, however! Phil would have had something to say if I were offering alcoholic drinks around at a Dhamma discussion:-) Ph: I doubt it, not when $$$live$$$ discussion was happening. I wouldn't have wanted to derail the rare opportunity to discuss Dhamma $$$live$$$ to broach the topic for long. But it wouldn't happen. Only a foolish person would serve or consume alcohol during a Dhamma discussion (blatantly ignoring the Buddha's advice while discussing Dhamma? Bizarre.）And you aren't a foolish person. Ok, let's say there is a consistent tendency for foolish (habitual) transgression level defilements not to arise in the mindstream operating behind (?) the conceptual entity known as Sarah Abbott. Well, how am I to know, but correct me if I am wrong.(Without misrepresenting the truth, of course.). How often do you habitually break the precepts or perform akusala kamma patha? Key word is "habitually" because it points at all kinds of slackness and disrespect for the Buddha. Metta, Phil p.s my harping on this sort of thing is largely self-interested, I have been presented with a very nice opportunity for illicit sex and can only say I have not had sex with that woman by neo- Clintonian fudging. I think being a sila pest in this public way might be condition for abstention from a deepening of the evil entanglement ( thinking about what I wrote here might support hiri otappa) so I thank you all for your patience with my moralizing....) #116465 From: "philip" Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! philofillet Hi again all, > p.s my harping on this sort of thing is largely self-interested, I have been presented with a very nice opportunity for illicit sex and can only say I have not had sex with that woman by neo- Clintonian fudging. I think being a sila pest in this public way might be condition for abstention from a deepening of the evil entanglement ( thinking about what I wrote here might support hiri otappa) so I thank you all for your patience with my moralizing....) Ph: Yes, this is good. To take it further, I would like to promise that if I don't abstain from sex or any kind of messing around with that woman (married) I will confess it here (see Buddha's advice to Rahula) and that will put holier-than-thou Phil to bed. To add to the challenge, she's my fiercely competitve squash partner and anyone who's played squash knows what an invigorating blast it is... So let's see what happens! Let the heroic abstention commmence!!!! :) Metta, Phil #116466 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:18 am Subject: Outstanding Faith! bhikkhu5 Friends: How is the Ability of Faith Outstanding? With the development of the Ability of Faith, Enthusiasm arises. With the elimination of all Skeptical Doubt, Enthusiasm also arises, With the fading of the frustration inherent in all Skeptical Doubt, enthusiasm arises, with the eradication of all mental obstructions linked with wrong view, enthusiasm arises, with the removal of the gross mental obstructions, enthusiasm arises, with the dying out of subtle mental obstructions, enthusiasm arises, with extinction of all mental obstructions, enthusiasm arises as a Thunderbolt!!! When via this hilarious and energetic Enthusiasm, gladness arises, then the Ability of Faith is outstanding as Faith due to Gladness... When through gladness, happiness arises, then the Ability of Faith is outstanding as Faith due to Happiness...When through happiness, tranquillity emerges, then the Ability of Faith is outstanding due to calmed & stilled Tranquillity... When tranquil, sweet pleasure arises, then the Faith Ability is quite outstanding as Faith due to Pleasure... When through pleasure illumination arises, then the Ability of Faith is outstanding as Faith due to Illumination... When through revealing illumination a sense of urgency arises, then this single Faith Ability is outstanding as Faith due to the acute and vivid Sense of Urgency... When sensing urgency one concentrates the mind, then this Ability of Faith is outstanding as Faith due to Concentration... When one now thoroughly trains the mind thus concentrated, then this Ability of Faith is outstanding as Faith due to Effort. When one looks on with complete equanimity at mind thus wielded into solid focus, then the Faith Ability is outstanding as Faith due to Equanimity. When as a result of equanimity, mind is liberated from many kinds of mental obstructions, then the Faith Ability is outstanding as Faith due to Liberation. When mind is all liberated, this mentally unified state come to have a single function and taste, then the Faith Ability is outstanding as Faith due to development of single function & taste! When mind is being cultivated and refined, it therefore turns away to what is superior, namely towards Nibbna , then the Faith Ability is outstanding as Faith due to Turning Away. Then, because of mind remains turned away, one is now possessed of the Path! When one, as a consequence, relinquishes both all mental obstructions and all clusters of clinging, then the Faith Ability is outstanding as Faith due to Relinquishment . When due to mental release, all the mental obstructions and the clusters of clinging therefore cease with no re-arising trace remaining, then the Ability of Faith is outstanding as Faith due to Ceasing ... <....> Source: Sriputta - The General of the Dhamma - The Canonical: Path of Discrimination: Patisambhidamagga. IV. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=133494 Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #116467 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:45 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) kenhowardau Hi Alex, ------------- <. . .> > A: Of course. Things are conditioned. But ------------- KH: No buts about it, Alex! :-) Everything in this world is conditioned. Everything! ------------------ > A: does this imply a domino effect type of causality? Or only necessary conditionality? ------------------ KH: I don't quite follow that. When you say "a domino effect" I get the picture of a line of dominoes waiting to be knocked down. That doesn't really fit the bill because no one (except a Buddha) ever knows what the next citta will be. But apart from that I suppose it's a useful analogy: no self, just dominoes (conditioned dhammas) performing their functions one after another. ------------------------------ > A: Trying is itself a condition for future (and present conascent) results. Sometimes past conditions may be too strong and sweep its effects, but sometimes not. Sometimes trying as a condition accumulates enough momentum to overpower previous conditions and helps breakthrough to occur. ------------------------------- KH: When suttas use the terms "trying" and "doing nothing" they mean the types of effort that arise with wrong view. They arise whenever someone has a theory that denies pure conditionality. -------------------- > A: Is theoretic study a necessary or sufficient condition for practice. A crucial question. -------------------- KH: Right theoretical study means right theoretical understanding, doesn't it? It's a wonderful thing, and I think we can get glimpses of it here at DSG. Of course, there has to be a lot of gradual development before right theoretical understanding is followed by right direct understanding, but there is no extraneous practice that somehow turns one into the other. There is just a gradual development. Ken H #116468 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Fri, 29/7/11, philip wrote: >Ph: ...How often do you habitually break the precepts or perform akusala kamma patha? Key word is "habitually" because it points at all kinds of slackness and disrespect for the Buddha. .... S: No, I don't believe I break the precepts habitually if at all. I took some small shampoos from the hotel in Bangkok for my mother at her request, but I'd mentioned it to housekeeping on a previous visit. That's probably the closest I come. Or sugar lumps from a cafe we're visiting if we have a visitor as we usually don't have sugar in. I think I should ask next time. Jon wouldn't even do this and I don't recall any even border-line breaking of the precepts in his case during our 30 years of married life. As the sutta says, you have to live with someone to know their sila. Thx for helping me to reflect. I remember when I was young and working in an office, I asked my boss if I could use the type-writer and some paper for my own use during my lunch-hour and he was really bemused that I'd ask, but after that I felt at ease typing some Dhamma notes in that office every day! P: > p.s my harping on this sort of thing is largely self-interested, I have been presented with a very nice opportunity for illicit sex and can only say I have not had sex with that woman by neo- Clintonian fudging. I think being a sila pest in this public way might be condition for abstention from a deepening of the evil entanglement ( thinking about what I wrote here might support hiri otappa) so I thank you all for your patience with my moralizing....) ... S: You said several times that we didn't urge you in strong enough language to abstain from harmful deeds before when you went to Canada once. Now, I'll say, "just don't go there". Your marriage may have almost ended, but you also mention the other lady is married. Drop the squash or find another partner and break the contact which sounds like a lot of trouble and distress to all involved. You don't want to play a part in breaking up her marriage or causing grief to her and/or her husband. Visama lobha ("unusual" or exceptional lobha) is very dangerous when it leads to such deeds. Hope that's strong enough for you and that the hiri, ottappa and wise reflection on the Dhamma win out! Regardless, yes, conditions, accumulations and the development of understanding can arise any time. Metta Sarah ======= #116469 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How is wisdom accumulated sarahprocter... Hi Rob E (& Pt), --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Robert E wrote: >S: Each latent tendency is a mental factor and as we know there are 3 levels of these, latent (not arising), arising of medium strength as are common during the day and strong, leading to various deeds or kamma. ... R:>Thanks Sarah. Appreciate the discussion of the "three strengths" or levels of defilements. The third or latent ones now seem to be encapsulated by a billiard ball that has not yet hit another ball but is still spinning, and a line of dominoes that has not yet reached the domino that is observable or experienceable. Not perfect, but working on it... :-) .... S: :-) I had a swimming stroke correction lesson the other day and those were pretty much the instructor's words - not perfect, but making progress. We just slowly come closer and closer to understand the Truth about dhammas, first by way of pariyatti, then patipatti, then pativedha. Metta Sarah ====== #116470 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- On Tue, 26/7/11, Robert E wrote: >Whether it is physical or mental experience that is being mindfully observed, it is attention at that particular moment that allows sati to take in the actuality of that moment. ... S: Or rather sampajanna, right understanding. When there is right understanding of realities, there is sati, awareness, of the reality too and wise attention. ... >The attending to the actuality of the moment as it occurs is meditation to me, ie, practice of mindfulness, and that practice of mindfulness is not contained in study of Dhamma per se, no matter how well understood, unless of course one is taking the objects of study, such as book, words, discussion, hearing, thinking, etc., as objects of mindfulness to discern their reality. ... S: To clarify one point, when the Buddha taught about study, the study or realities, he was (and I am) referring to the direct understanding and awareness of realities, not to book study. However, as has been stressed, without hearing and considering the Teachings very carefully, there will be none of this study. .... >That would not then be the study itself which was the meditation, or the intellectual understanding of the words and concepts that might arise from that - that is all framework for what the perceived reality is - but the actual attending to it with clear attention and mind that is the meditation or practice of mindfulness. ... S: By 'intellectual understanding' of the Teachings, it is pariyatti that is being referred to. This is not theorising about words and concepts but the beginning of directly understanding the namas and rupas appearing now. If we haven't heard about seeing and visible object and their distinction as the dhamma which experiences and the dhamma which is experienced, no atta at all, there won't be any patipatti, direct understanding of those realities when they appear. Both pariyatti and patipatti are bhavana (meditation). ... >I would agree that such practice of mindfulness, leading to development of stronger mindfulness, panna, vipassana, etc., can occur anywhere, anytime, but I add that through practice and development of the skill of attending to the moment in that way it develops and accumulates in a much more consistent way. .... S: It is when 'stronger mindfulness, panna, vipassana' develops 'anywhere, anytime', that the confidence and unwavering strength of sati, panna etc also develop. There is no doubt at all then that such dhammas arise by conditions 'anywhere, anytime'. We can agree to differ on the last point:-) .... >> S: Well said. So now there are moments of seeing and hearing, there are moments of wise reflection, maybe moments of unwise reflection or agitation too. They're all passing dhammas that can be directly known when they are apparent without any attempt to 'do' or 'change' them in any way. This understanding is the 'here and now' meditation that we both agree the Buddha taught, I believe. R:>What you say above is agreeable to both of us. Any time that the moment, the present arising dhamma, is seen clearly with mindfulness and understood with sampajana etc., it is a moment of meditation and causes further bhavana, development, of the clarity and understanding of what is experienced. .... S: Nicely expressed! There can be sati sampajanna right now - no need to think of other occasions. ... >I guess what it comes down to is whether it's a good idea to sit down and concentrate on the development of mindfulness through anapanasati/satipatthana practice or not. ... S: At this moment, it's just thinking about another occasion instead of being aware, right now, of the thinking as a conditioned dhamma which is far more precious than ideas about another time or anything else. ... >...And now back to samsara, which is already in progress... ... S: Always in progress.... one moment at a time... Metta Sarah p.s On Sunday morning we'll be travelling back to Hong Kong and so there will be the usual delays for a couple days or so. ======== #116471 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:33 pm Subject: Re: A smell and colour Re:Q. [dsg] Citta is creating future realities sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- On Wed, 27/7/11, philip wrote: >...I am quite suure I read somewhere tgat attachment to or interest in postures can interfere with satipatthana, but not to worry. ... S: Try looking under 'posture (iriyapatha)' in 'U.P.' and you may find more on what you were thinking about. Metta Sarah ===== #116472 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:35 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) nilovg Dear Alex, Op 29-jul-2011, om 3:17 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Is theoretic study a necessary or sufficient condition for > practice. A crucial question. ------- N: Itdepends what you mean by theoretical study. I would rather say: pariyatti, and this is not theoretical, but it pertains to the reality appearing now. I requote from Sukinder's post: < I think both pariyatti and patipatti must always go hand in hand. There must be I believe, moments of direct experience, though they may be too little to be noticed, otherwise I think, there cannot be the confidence in and to continue with pariyatti....So I don't think that pariyatti is preliminary and patipatti is the subsequent step, as in one following the other. ... I wanted us to be clear from the very beginning what pariyatti is, and how it relates to patipatti. I wanted to show you in the last post, that `study' is not the matter of accumulation of words, but the `understanding' which is something that arises because of conditions and cannot be willed. Of course it does involve `words' on one level, whether this is apprehended through the eye door, the ear door or the mind. And each time there is any understanding, it is `verbalized' mentally. But note that this does not happen automatically when one reads or hears the teachings, it must depend on other conditions as well, the primary of which is the accumulated panna, from hearing and reflecting in the past.> (end quote) It is understanding that is crucial, and there are many levels of it. ---- Nina. #116473 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:47 pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses jonoabb Hi Robert E (116414) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > [J:] In a footnote to his translation of this sutta (n. 2 at p.341 of CDB), Bhikkhu Bodhi makes reference to the commentary ("Spk") as follows: > > > > **************************** > > The word "flood" (ogha) is used metaphorically, but here with technical overtones, to designate a doctrinal set of four floods, so called, according to Spk, "because they keep things submerged within the round of existence and do not allow them to rise up to higher states and Nibbaana." > > > > The four (with definitions from Spk) are: > > (i) the flood of sensuality (kaamogha) = desire and lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure (agreeable forms, sounds, etc.); > > (ii) the flood of existence (bhavogha) = desire and lust for form-sphere existence and formless-sphere existence and attachment to jhaana; > > (iii) the flood of views (dit.t.hogha) = the sixty-two views; and > > (iv) the flood of ignorance (avijjogha) = lack of knowledge regarding the Four Noble Truths. > > **************************** > > > > Do you have any problem with the commentary as represented here so far? > > [RE:] Although not sure if this is exactly the way the Buddha meant the metaphor, it seems like a plausible explanation that sheds light on what was actually said, so I have no problem with it. :-) > =============== J: So far so good, then. :-)) Here is the next part of the commentary as quoted by Bhikkhu Bodhi in his translation of the sutta. To make sense of this, I give also BB's translation of the exchange between the Buddha and the deva. The commentary passage is in a note to the Buddha's answer to the deva's first question ("How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?"). Sutta: "How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?" "By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood." "But how is it, dear sir, that by not halting and by not straining you crossed the flood?" "When I came to a standstill, friend, then I sank; but when I struggled, then I got swept away. It is in this way, friend, that by not halting and by not straining I crossed the flood." Commentary: "The Buddha's reply is intended to be paradoxical, for one normally crosses a flood by halting in places that offer a foothold and by straining in places that must be crossed. The Blessed One deliberately gave an obscure reply to the deva in order to humble him, for he was stiff with conceit yet imagined himself wise. humbled, the deva would ask for clarification and the Buddha would explain in such a way that he could understand." I thought interesting the explanation that "one normally crosses a flood by halting in places that offer a foothold and by straining in places that must be crossed". Seems a reasonable explanation, but not one that I'd have ever thought of. Jon #116474 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:57 pm Subject: Kusala intention (was, Re: The clansman who is a beginner ...) jonoabb Hi Robert E (116416) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > [RE:] It's not all or nothing. There can be some vipaka that comes from past kamma, and some that is more recent. > =============== J: Quite so. So I don't see how the law of kamma could ever be tested against events within a single lifetime. In the case of the young children who suffer the pain of hunger and malnutrition leading to death, it would I think be reasonable to assume that this was not the result of unwholesome deeds done in the present lifetime. And the same could be said for any person who suffers an early and traumatic death. Then there are the unpleasant characters who live a life of deceit or crime but never get caught and who are able to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. And so on. Jon #116475 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:52 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Alex) - In a message dated 7/28/2011 8:00:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Alex, --------- <. . .> > A: I am glad that we agree on the need for intentional development ("considering what happens now"). "Considering what happens now" is an intentional action that is different from intentional actions of worldling who do not know about Dhamma. ---------- KH: I shouldn't hope for too much, but I suspect you are almost agreeing with Nina. You seem to be acknowledging that a person can try to consider wisely but still won't be able to if he hasn't studied the Dhamma. Next thing, you'll be agreeing that even trying itself is dependent on the required conditions for its arising. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Is there anyone on this list who doesn't accept that??! As the Buddha taught, and as I strongly believe, there is nothing that arises at all, including effort and intention, that doesn't do so entirely dependent on requisite conditions. Only nibbana is unconditioned - and it does not arise. -------------------------------------------------- But I won't get my hopes up about that; it will all depend on conditions. :-) Ken H ================================== With metta, Howard Conditionality /"When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that."/ (From the Bodhi Sutta, Udana 1.1) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /"Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could."/ (From "The Sound of Music") #116476 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:27 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 28-jul-2011, om 2:58 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > I realize that the Dhamma will not exist as a viable form in the > > way that it does if a Buddha does not appear in the world, but I am > > wondering whether it is really all as linguistic and conceptual as > > the pariyatti-based view makes it appear. > -------- > N: Pariyatti is not merely linguistic and conceptual; it means, > studying the present reality, it is not merely thinking of a concept. > We consider what seeing now is, we consider its characteristic that > is different from hearing now. We, at the present time, need to > listen and consider again and again. We are not like Asajjii and > Saariputta who could attain enlightenment after just hearing a few > words. They had accumulated great pa~n~naa in former lives. > ------ Hm...well I think it might be good to hear more about what pariyatti and patipatti really are and how they are related. The idea that they are two aspects of the same moment, rather than necessarily different stages, is very interesting. I wonder if pariyatti itself is a kind of "considering" that is not "thinking" but is being in the presence of the dhamma and its reality, then what is the difference between pariyatti and patipatti - they seem more like almost the same thing in that case. If one is listening, considering and understanding, that seems like getting the right concept - then applying it to real live dhammas to see what has been understood. But perhaps that is not the distinction...? The silent presence of nama and rupa arising, for instance - I understand that as direct seeing, but it would be good to clarify the different elements of understanding that go into this and lead up to it. It seems like cetasikas like vittaka and vicara and such must be involved, but at what stage is there this kind of direct probing and touching the object, and is there a stage before that where it is just getting the right concept, and is that stage mainly a linguistic one - understanding what the Buddha said...? Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - #116477 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:16 am Subject: Kusala intention (was, Re: The clansman who is a beginner ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (116416) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > [RE:] It's not all or nothing. There can be some vipaka that comes from past kamma, and some that is more recent. > > =============== > > J: Quite so. So I don't see how the law of kamma could ever be tested against events within a single lifetime. > > In the case of the young children who suffer the pain of hunger and malnutrition leading to death, it would I think be reasonable to assume that this was not the result of unwholesome deeds done in the present lifetime. And the same could be said for any person who suffers an early and traumatic death. Then there are the unpleasant characters who live a life of deceit or crime but never get caught and who are able to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. And so on. I agree it is complex. Yet I would say that there are some things that seem to be traceable to a series of events, and there are some patterns in one's life that seem to lead in a particular direction. One may be able to safely assume that this is at least part of a pattern that one has become accustomed to, and may reflect a broader proportion of that person's tendencies and accumulations. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #116478 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:32 am Subject: Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > (116414) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > [J:] In a footnote to his translation of this sutta (n. 2 at p.341 of CDB), Bhikkhu Bodhi makes reference to the commentary ("Spk") as follows: > > > > > > **************************** > > > The word "flood" (ogha) is used metaphorically, but here with technical overtones, to designate a doctrinal set of four floods, so called, according to Spk, "because they keep things submerged within the round of existence and do not allow them to rise up to higher states and Nibbaana." > > > > > > The four (with definitions from Spk) are: > > > (i) the flood of sensuality (kaamogha) = desire and lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure (agreeable forms, sounds, etc.); > > > (ii) the flood of existence (bhavogha) = desire and lust for form-sphere existence and formless-sphere existence and attachment to jhaana; > > > (iii) the flood of views (dit.t.hogha) = the sixty-two views; and > > > (iv) the flood of ignorance (avijjogha) = lack of knowledge regarding the Four Noble Truths. > > > **************************** > > > > > > Do you have any problem with the commentary as represented here so far? > > > > [RE:] Although not sure if this is exactly the way the Buddha meant the metaphor, it seems like a plausible explanation that sheds light on what was actually said, so I have no problem with it. :-) > > =============== > > J: So far so good, then. :-)) > > Here is the next part of the commentary as quoted by Bhikkhu Bodhi in his translation of the sutta. To make sense of this, I give also BB's translation of the exchange between the Buddha and the deva. The commentary passage is in a note to the Buddha's answer to the deva's first question ("How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?"). > > Sutta: > "How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?" > "By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood." > "But how is it, dear sir, that by not halting and by not straining you crossed the flood?" > "When I came to a standstill, friend, then I sank; but when I struggled, then I got swept away. It is in this way, friend, that by not halting and by not straining I crossed the flood." > > Commentary: > "The Buddha's reply is intended to be paradoxical, for one normally crosses a flood by halting in places that offer a foothold and by straining in places that must be crossed. The Blessed One deliberately gave an obscure reply to the deva in order to humble him, for he was stiff with conceit yet imagined himself wise. humbled, the deva would ask for clarification and the Buddha would explain in such a way that he could understand." > > I thought interesting the explanation that "one normally crosses a flood by halting in places that offer a foothold and by straining in places that must be crossed". Seems a reasonable explanation, but not one that I'd have ever thought of. This second part of the commentary is the part that I *do* have a problem with. In fact I have two problems. Perhaps I am "stiff with conceit" too in order to doubt the commentary, but it seems thoroughly ridiculous to me. First of all, there is absolutely no evidence from the exchange that the deva was conceited or thought he was wise when he was really foolish, or that Buddha merely gave a "paradoxical" answer to bring him down a peg. In fact the Buddha's answer does not seem paradoxical to me, and I also don't agree that one normally finds a foothold and stands still etc. in order to get through a real flood. The language of the sutta makes it quite clear that the deva is polite and inquiring seriously and that he asks the Buddha for advice on how to get through the flood of samsara with respect and is interested in the real answer. He calls him "dear Sir" and does not offer his own explanation or any doubt for Buddha's answer so as to suggest any kind of conceit or blown-up sense of his own wisdom. Second of all, the Buddha's message seems to be a sincere and specific answer to a very important question, not an exercise in arbitrary paradox to have a personal effect on the deva's ego. The lesson of this sutta is a very important one in my view, and it is obscured rather than clarified by the commentary. If the water is deep and you "stand still" you will in fact sink. It is better at that time to tread water or to gently swim forward. On the other hand when the water is turbulent you have to go with the current and not thrash around and try to fight the current, and so it is important not to strain and fight, but to go with the current. So I do not take the Buddha's advice as a paradox but as an important lesson in neither fighting adversity in a way that causes tension, resistance, confusion and exhaustion, or to passively allow oneself to sink and drown. If you apply that advice to the struggle with samsara, it makes a lot of sense and is excellent advice, and it also sheds light on how to regard dhammas. When we struggle against conditions instead of recognizing their conditionality, we are exhausted and frightened and cause greater suffering. In our confusion we cannot see the nature of things clearly. When we passively declare "it's all dhammas" and use that as an excuse to passively ignore our responsibilities either in life or to the path, we head in the direction of sloth and complacency and do not take the necessary effort to develop the path. To me this is the message and it is a clear indication of where the middle way forward lies. To take a clear and specific lesson of the Buddha's and say that it is a paradox used to stymie some old deva seems like a real lost opportunity to understand what the Buddha said and why he said it. It's exchanging a teaching for a made-up story that has little merit. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #116479 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: Nicely expressed! There can be sati sampajanna right now - no need to think of other occasions. > S: At this moment, it's just thinking about another occasion instead of being aware, right now, of the thinking as a conditioned dhamma which is far more precious than ideas about another time or anything else. Well, it is true that to talk about anything is generally thinking of "another time" or another situation, so in that sense we should merely be focused on what is happening now. On the other hand, when we are thinking about whether or not to meditate, we can use that occasion to see that this is a nama, and that its object is, I guess, a concept. But that is neither a reason to practice meditation or not to practice meditation. The issue of whether to sit or not to sit will thus remain unresolved. I guess when sitting, those who sit will sit, and when not sitting, those who do not sit will be doing something else. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #116480 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How is wisdom accumulated epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: :-) I had a swimming stroke correction lesson the other day and those were pretty much the instructor's words - not perfect, but making progress. We just slowly come closer and closer to understand the Truth about dhammas, first by way of pariyatti, then patipatti, then pativedha. :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #116481 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:51 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) kenhowardau Hi Howard and Alex, ---------- <. . .> >> KH: Next thing, you'll be agreeing that even trying itself is dependent on the required conditions for its arising. >> > HCW: Is there anyone on this list who doesn't accept that??! ---------- KH: I think Alex said recently that anatta was a tool for gaining enlightenment and did not mean there was absolutely no control over dhammas. --------------------------- > HCW: As the Buddha taught, and as I strongly believe, there is nothing that arises at all, including effort and intention, that doesn't do so entirely dependent on requisite conditions. Only nibbana is unconditioned - and it does not arise. --------------------------- KH: Before joining DSG I strongly believed that too, but I had no idea of what it meant. I thought it meant sentient beings were devoid of self. But that would be the same as saying sentient beings were devoid of sentient beings. To be anatta means to be devoid of anything that is not the characteristic of an absolute reality. Only dhammas are anatta. Ken H #116482 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:02 am Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 7/29/2011 6:51:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard and Alex, ---------- <. . .> >> KH: Next thing, you'll be agreeing that even trying itself is dependent on the required conditions for its arising. >> > HCW: Is there anyone on this list who doesn't accept that??! ---------- KH: I think Alex said recently that anatta was a tool for gaining enlightenment and did not mean there was absolutely no control over dhammas. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Saying that thinking, planning, and willing have consequences, what I mean by "control," BTW, does not mean that effort and willing are unconditioned. ---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- > HCW: As the Buddha taught, and as I strongly believe, there is nothing that arises at all, including effort and intention, that doesn't do so entirely dependent on requisite conditions. Only nibbana is unconditioned - and it does not arise. --------------------------- KH: Before joining DSG I strongly believed that too, but I had no idea of what it meant. I thought it meant sentient beings were devoid of self. But that would be the same as saying sentient beings were devoid of sentient beings. To be anatta means to be devoid of anything that is not the characteristic of an absolute reality. Only dhammas are anatta. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: I'm not at all following what you are asserting, Ken. :-( ------------------------------------------------ Ken H =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116483 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:16 am Subject: is study necessary or sufficient condition for patipatti? truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, is study necessary or sufficient condition for patipatti? With best wishes, Alex #116484 From: "philip" Date: Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! philofillet Hi Sarah Thanks a million for the below, there are so many powerful conditions at work on the bad side (Mara's army is mighty, i.e defilements arise in such a great many ways) but I know your wise words will fortify the good guys greatly! Thanks also for telling me about visama lobha, sounds right down my alley! Also, allow me to share your kusala, being able to speak truthfully about long years of such a consistency of sila is a ... blessing? Back tomorrow on the smells etc, thanks. Metta, Phil > S: You said several times that we didn't urge you in strong enough language to abstain from harmful deeds before when you went to Canada once. > Now, I'll say, "just don't go there". Your marriage may have almost ended, but you also mention the other lady is married. Drop the squash or find another partner and break the contact which sounds like a lot of trouble and distress to all involved. You don't want to play a part in breaking up her marriage or causing grief to her and/or her husband. Visama lobha ("unusual" or exceptional lobha) is very dangerous when it leads to such deeds. > > Hope that's strong enough for you and that the hiri, ottappa and wise reflection on the Dhamma win out! Regardless, yes, conditions, accumulations and the development of understanding can arise any time. > > Metta > > Sarah > ======= > #116485 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:26 pm Subject: Re: Pariyatti, was: Direct Textual Evidence. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 29-jul-2011, om 15:27 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > Hm...well I think it might be good to hear more about what > pariyatti and patipatti really are and how they are related. The > idea that they are two aspects of the same moment, rather than > necessarily different stages, is very interesting. I wonder if > pariyatti itself is a kind of "considering" that is not "thinking" > but is being in the presence of the dhamma and its reality, then > what is the difference between pariyatti and patipatti - they seem > more like almost the same thing in that case. -------- N: Pariyatti: one begins to attend to the characteristic that appears now, like seeing. You do not have to say: seeing, seeing, or: this is seeing. But you begin to understand that this is the experience of what is visible, different from thinking of the concept of people you seem to see. This stems from listening to the Dhamma and understanding more and more what the realities are that appear. Of course there is a lot of thinking about realities, about their names, that is natural. Also thinking is a reality, different from seeing. As Sukinder wrote:< `study' is not the matter of accumulation of words, but the `understanding' which is something that arises because of conditions and cannot be willed.> -------- > Pa.tipatti: when understanding has developed more so that > awareness of one reality at a time is more precise. All the way > there is also more detachment, less inclination to take dhammas for > self. Understanding sees the reality that appears as a mere dhamma. ---------- > > > R: If one is listening, considering and understanding, that seems > like getting the right concept - then applying it to real live > dhammas to see what has been understood. But perhaps that is not > the distinction...? -------- N: I would avoid the word concept as something that you apply to realities. Realities appear already and it depends on the pa~n~naa that has been accumulated how much understanding of them there is. But no expectations. ------- > > > R: The silent presence of nama and rupa arising, for instance - I > understand that as direct seeing, but it would be good to clarify > the different elements of understanding that go into this and lead > up to it. It seems like cetasikas like vittaka and vicara and such > must be involved, ------ N: Vitakka and vicara accompany all cittas of the sense-sphere, except the sense-cognitions of seeing, hearing, etc. They are different from what we mean by thinking in conventional language. Most involved is understanding. ------- > R: but at what stage is there this kind of direct probing and > touching the object, and is there a stage before that where it is > just getting the right concept, and is that stage mainly a > linguistic one - understanding what the Buddha said...? ------- N: Pariyatti is not a matter of getting the right concept, it is not conceptual and not linguistic. We listen, and then we hear what we did not heard before. Before we only thought of stories of a whole, like a person, a tree. We touched a tree. It never occurred to us that only one object is experienced through one doorway. Through touch only tangible object is experienced, not a tree. Then we become more interested in the objects experienced through the different doorways, the attention turns towards this, by conditions. Very gradually this happens, as we listen again and again and understanding grows. There is a beginning coarse awareness, and interspersed with a lot of thinking about realities. In this way understanding of the level of pariyatti can become pa.tipatti. It is a very slow process, but this is different in the case of each individual. It is good you insist with this subject, Rob. ------ Nina. #116486 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] is study necessary or sufficient condition for patipatti? nilovg Dear Alex, Op 30-jul-2011, om 2:16 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > is study necessary or sufficient condition for patipatti? ------ N: There are many kinds and levels of study. It stems from listening to the Dhamma. There is first study with intellectual understanding, and then verifying what was heard by beginning to attend to the present reality. There can be study with awareness and later on pa.tipatti. (See my post to Rob E today) Nina. #116487 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:37 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) nilovg Hi Howard, Op 29-jul-2011, om 14:52 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Ken H: Next thing, you'll be agreeing that even trying itself is > dependent on the > required conditions for its arising. > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Is there anyone on this list who doesn't accept that??! > As the Buddha taught, and as I strongly believe, there is nothing that > arises at all, including effort and intention, that doesn't do so > entirely > dependent on requisite conditions. Only nibbana is unconditioned - > and it > does not arise. ------- N: We agree that effort and intention are conditioned dhammas, and how could these be self or mine? However, so long as one is not a sotaapanna, the idea of self can occur when we try to do something or have the intention to be aware. Also this is conditioned, but it is good and necessary to realize when there is an idea of self. It may occur without being known, one is so used to this idea one's whole life. It is so tenacious, hard to eradicate. Nina. #116488 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:03 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/30/2011 9:37:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 29-jul-2011, om 14:52 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Ken H: Next thing, you'll be agreeing that even trying itself is > dependent on the > required conditions for its arising. > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Is there anyone on this list who doesn't accept that??! > As the Buddha taught, and as I strongly believe, there is nothing that > arises at all, including effort and intention, that doesn't do so > entirely > dependent on requisite conditions. Only nibbana is unconditioned - > and it > does not arise. ------- N: We agree that effort and intention are conditioned dhammas, and how could these be self or mine? ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes. Being entirely dependent and contingent, they are neither "me" nor "mine", nor are they "self" in the sense of being "their own". ------------------------------------------------ However, so long as one is not a sotaapanna, the idea of self can occur when we try to do something or have the intention to be aware. --------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes. And so long as one is not an arahant, the *sense* of self occurs again and again and again. --------------------------------------------- Also this is conditioned, but it is good and necessary to realize when there is an idea of self. It may occur without being known, one is so used to this idea one's whole life. It is so tenacious, hard to eradicate. --------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes! Tenacious, hard to eradicate, and trickily subtle - a constant adversary personified as Mara. Of all the things we should not lose sight of, I believe, this heads the list. --------------------------------------------- Nina. =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116489 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:39 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) kenhowardau Hi Howard, --------- <. . .> >>KH: To be anatta means to be devoid of anything that is not the characteristic of an absolute reality. Only dhammas are anatta. >> > HCW: I'm not at all following what you are asserting, Ken. :-( --------- KH: I don't want to be too blunt about what I am asserting. :-) But I suppose, in the long run, I am saying that Nagarjuna was wrong. When he said anatta meant no own being, he was just plain wrong. With a his wrong understanding of anatta there can never be right understanding of the present reality. And without right understanding of the present reality, any "view" that might arise will be a wrong view. Ken H #116490 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 31, 2011 5:04 am Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 7/30/2011 6:39:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, --------- <. . .> >>KH: To be anatta means to be devoid of anything that is not the characteristic of an absolute reality. Only dhammas are anatta. >> > HCW: I'm not at all following what you are asserting, Ken. :-( --------- KH: I don't want to be too blunt about what I am asserting. :-) ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Ahh! Something NEW!! LOL! ------------------------------------------------ But I suppose, in the long run, I am saying that Nagarjuna was wrong. When he said anatta meant no own being, he was just plain wrong. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and interpret this as your BELIEVING/CONSIDERING him to be just plain wrong, but I'm afraid that is not how you think about this. ----------------------------------------------- With a his wrong understanding of anatta there can never be right understanding of the present reality. And without right understanding of the present reality, any "view" that might arise will be a wrong view. --------------------------------------------- HCW: It is wrong, according to the Buddha himself, to confuse opinion with knowledge. Such confusion is based on ego, which, of course, is "just plain wrong"!! ;-) ----------------------------------------------- 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) #116491 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 am Subject: Kusala intention (was, Re: The clansman who is a beginner ...) jonoabb Hi Robert E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > [J:] In the case of the young children who suffer the pain of hunger and malnutrition leading to death, it would I think be reasonable to assume that this was not the result of unwholesome deeds done in the present lifetime. And the same could be said for any person who suffers an early and traumatic death. Then there are the unpleasant characters who live a life of deceit or crime but never get caught and who are able to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. And so on. > > [RE:] I agree it is complex. Yet I would say that there are some things that seem to be traceable to a series of events, and there are some patterns in one's life that seem to lead in a particular direction. One may be able to safely assume that this is at least part of a pattern that one has become accustomed to, and may reflect a broader proportion of that person's tendencies and accumulations. > =============== J: I'm afraid you've lost me here. We are discussing the question of kamma (deeds, actions) and result (things experienced). As I recall, you advanced the idea that kamma committed routinely brings its result within the same lifetime, and that this makes it possible for the law of kamma and result to be confirmed by direct experience. I think general experience in life tends to point to results not making a good match with deeds within the same lifetime. I am wary about attributing experienced results to particular preceding deeds, since there is nothing in results to link them with those preceding deeds rather than any others (within the same lifetime or an earlier one). On the whole, I think it better not to speculate too much in this area. :-)) Jon #116492 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:21 am Subject: Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses jonoabb Hi Robert E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > Commentary: > > "The Buddha's reply is intended to be paradoxical, for one normally crosses a flood by halting in places that offer a foothold and by straining in places that must be crossed. The Blessed One deliberately gave an obscure reply to the deva in order to humble him, for he was stiff with conceit yet imagined himself wise. humbled, the deva would ask for clarification and the Buddha would explain in such a way that he could understand." > > > > I thought interesting the explanation that "one normally crosses a flood by halting in places that offer a foothold and by straining in places that must be crossed". Seems a reasonable explanation, but not one that I'd have ever thought of. > > [RE:] This second part of the commentary is the part that I *do* have a problem with. In fact I have two problems. Perhaps I am "stiff with conceit" too in order to doubt the commentary, but it seems thoroughly ridiculous to me. ... > > To take a clear and specific lesson of the Buddha's and say that it is a paradox used to stymie some old deva seems like a real lost opportunity to understand what the Buddha said and why he said it. It's exchanging a teaching for a made-up story that has little merit. > =============== J: Well there are different kinds of flood and different meanings the simile used by the Buddha could have. The point you raised initially concerned commentaries that you saw as contradicting the sutta text. While your own reading may be a plausible one, the commentary explanation is far from being a contradiction to the sutta text. Jon #116493 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:54 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) kenhowardau Hi Howard, ---------- <. . .> >> KH: Nagarjuna was wrong. When he said anatta meant no own being, he was just plain wrong. >> > HCW: I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and interpret this as your BELIEVING/CONSIDERING him to be just plain wrong, but I'm afraid that is not how you think about this. ---------- KH: If a two-year-old were to tell me that the moon was bigger than the stars I would understand from commonsense how he could have that mistake. And I would know, from my basic knowledge of science, that he was wrong. You wouldn't expect me to think, "Maybe he's right," would you? Similarly, I think I know why Nagarjuna taught the way he did, and I have learnt enough from the Theravada teaching to tell me that he was just plain wrong. No doubt about it. Ken H #116494 From: "Christine" Date: Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:55 pm Subject: Any Aussies/others interested in Pilgrimage to India and Nepal Feb. 2012? christine_fo... Hello all, Dhammagiri Forest Monastery in Brisbane is arranging a Pilgrimage to Nepal and India to the Buddhist Holy Places in February 2012. This will consist of one busload with either a two week or a three week option, fully escorted. The bus will be modern with an on-board toilet. :-) The tour will be accompanied by Bhante Dhammasiha of the Thai Forest Tradition (he is a monk who speaks impeccable english and is well-versed in the Dhamma, originally from Germany. He strictly follows the Vinaya). Anyone interested please contact the company arranging it - Travelscene Springwood: http://travelscenespringwood.com.au/product/135539.aspx with metta Chris #116495 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:52 pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > Commentary: > > > "The Buddha's reply is intended to be paradoxical, for one normally crosses a flood by halting in places that offer a foothold and by straining in places that must be crossed. The Blessed One deliberately gave an obscure reply to the deva in order to humble him, for he was stiff with conceit yet imagined himself wise. humbled, the deva would ask for clarification and the Buddha would explain in such a way that he could understand." > > > > > > I thought interesting the explanation that "one normally crosses a flood by halting in places that offer a foothold and by straining in places that must be crossed". Seems a reasonable explanation, but not one that I'd have ever thought of. > > > > [RE:] This second part of the commentary is the part that I *do* have a problem with. In fact I have two problems. Perhaps I am "stiff with conceit" too in order to doubt the commentary, but it seems thoroughly ridiculous to me. ... > > > > To take a clear and specific lesson of the Buddha's and say that it is a paradox used to stymie some old deva seems like a real lost opportunity to understand what the Buddha said and why he said it. It's exchanging a teaching for a made-up story that has little merit. > > =============== > > J: Well there are different kinds of flood and different meanings the simile used by the Buddha could have. The point you raised initially concerned commentaries that you saw as contradicting the sutta text. While your own reading may be a plausible one, the commentary explanation is far from being a contradiction to the sutta text. It is a contradiction in the sense that it doesn't have the slightest bit of interest in what the sutta is about. Dressing down a deva may be an interesting pastime, but it has nothing to do with crossing a flood or the difference between right effort and wrong effort, which is clearly what the actual words of the Buddha are talking about. As far as I can tell, the commentary is fantasizing and is on its own separate track that is NOT what the Buddha spoke about in that sutta in any way, shape or form, nor does it even purport to interpret what the Buddha said. Instead it merely says that what the Buddha said had no importance, and it was just an inter-species squabble. It's worse than a contradiction - it's a sidetrack away from what the Buddha was teaching on that occasion. If that is a valid commentary, I'd rather read a comic book. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #116496 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 31, 2011 5:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 31-jul-2011, om 7:52 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > the commentary is fantasizing and is on its own separate track that > is NOT what the Buddha spoke about in that sutta in any way, shape > or form, nor does it even purport to interpret what the Buddha > said. Instead it merely says that what the Buddha said had no > importance, and it was just an inter-species squabble. It's worse > than a contradiction - it's a sidetrack away from what the Buddha > was teaching on that occasion. If that is a valid commentary, I'd > rather read a comic book. ------ N: The Buddha knew the cittas of that deva, that he was full of pride. He uttered the right words, so that the deva would consider again. As the Co stated: 'humbled, the deva would ask for clarification and the Buddha would explain in such a way that he could understand.'. The Buddha knew ahead of time how the deva would react. ------- Nina. #116497 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:28 pm Subject: Calm and Content! ;-) bhikkhu5 Friends: What is the Cause of Contentment? The blessed Buddha once said: Contentment is the Highest Treasure! Dhammapada 204 Solitude is happiness for one who is content, Who clearly sees and understands this Dhamma. Udana 10 What is the proximate cause of contentment? Mutual joy with others success is the proximate cause of contentment... Therefore: If one is always gladdened by other's success, one will always be content! Therefore: If one is never gladdened by other's success, one will always be discontent! Therefore is contentment caused by an altruistic mental state & not by external richness... Example: Rich people possessing all the things they ever desired, can still be very discontent! And vice versa: Poor people not having much, can still be very content and very much smiling! <...> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #116498 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:01 am Subject: Envy and Jealousy! bhikkhu5 Friends: Envy and Jealousy are a Mix of Greed & Hate! How to cure these agonizing mental states of Envy & Jealousy: 1: Review the Dangers in Envy and Jealousy like this: This Acid is eating up my mind from within! All joy & happiness is destroyed! 2: Know that Envy arises because one craves for something, that others have! The aversion towards these persons arises due to greed for a desired object. Wanting=greed is craving towards an object, while aversion=hate is craving away from an object. All forms of Craving cause Suffering! Know that Envy and Jealousy is the proximate cause of Discontent and Dissatisfaction! 3: Envy is cured by rejoicing in others' success = Mutual Joy! (Mudita ) like: How good that this being, having done good in the past, now earns the well deserved fruit!!! Thus one substitutes a disadvantageous mental state with an advantageous mental state. Know that this subtle Mutual Joy! (Mudita ) is the proximate cause of Contentment! Contentment is the highest Treasure... 4: Begin and Cultivate meditation on Infinite Mutual Joy: Sit down a silent & empty place with eyes closed and beam from the heart: May I be successful, rich, beautiful, famous, intelligent, popular & praised! May my friends be successful, rich, beautiful, famous, intelligent, & praised! May my enemies be successful, rich, beautiful, famous, intelligent, & praised! May all in this village be successful, beautiful, famous, intelligent, & praised! May all in this country be successful, rich, beautiful, intelligent, & praised! May all on this earth be successful, rich, beautiful, intelligent, and praised! May all in this galaxy be successful, rich, beautiful, intelligent, and praised! May all in the universe be successful, rich, beautiful, intelligent, and praised! Beam-out this tender sympathy from the heart first out in front, the right, left, back, above as below, thereby gradually expanding beyond the limitations of space and into the infinitude! When a cause is infinite, so will be the effect! 5: Keep on doing that 15-45 min every day. Note the difference in day joy! May all beings rejoice in Mutual Joy celebrating all beings success & progress! The Blessed Buddha said One should not despise any giving. One should not envy others. One who envies others cannot attain absorption and will never enter any concentrated trance. Dhammapada 365 Neither nice speech, nor serene behaviour Makes one accomplished, if one is still Possessed of envy, miserliness or deceit. Dhammapada 262 Absorbed in distractions, Not paying appropriate attention, Giving up the goal, following after the pleasant, One comes to envy those, who enjoy right effort! Dhammapada 209 <...> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <...> #116499 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 31, 2011 5:39 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 7/30/2011 9:54:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, ---------- <. . .> >> KH: Nagarjuna was wrong. When he said anatta meant no own being, he was just plain wrong. >> > HCW: I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and interpret this as your BELIEVING/CONSIDERING him to be just plain wrong, but I'm afraid that is not how you think about this. ---------- KH: If a two-year-old were to tell me that the moon was bigger than the stars I would understand from commonsense how he could have that mistake. And I would know, from my basic knowledge of science, that he was wrong. You wouldn't expect me to think, "Maybe he's right," would you? --------------------------------------------------- HCW: The comparison is absurd. ------------------------------------------------ Similarly, I think I know why Nagarjuna taught the way he did, and I have learnt enough from the Theravada teaching to tell me that he was just plain wrong. No doubt about it. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: Right, "no doubt". So, you dismiss, then, what the Buddha taught about protecting the truth. Okay, as you will. Among the things that people cling to, opinion and belief is a major one, especially for "smart" folks. --------------------------------------------------- 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) #116500 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 31, 2011 5:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Robert & Jon) - In a message dated 7/31/2011 3:57:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Rob E, Op 31-jul-2011, om 7:52 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > the commentary is fantasizing and is on its own separate track that > is NOT what the Buddha spoke about in that sutta in any way, shape > or form, nor does it even purport to interpret what the Buddha > said. Instead it merely says that what the Buddha said had no > importance, and it was just an inter-species squabble. It's worse > than a contradiction - it's a sidetrack away from what the Buddha > was teaching on that occasion. If that is a valid commentary, I'd > rather read a comic book. ------ N: The Buddha knew the cittas of that deva, that he was full of pride. He uttered the right words, so that the deva would consider again. As the Co stated: 'humbled, the deva would ask for clarification and the Buddha would explain in such a way that he could understand.'. The Buddha knew ahead of time how the deva would react. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: That might have been the case, Nina, but I see *nothing* in the sutta itself suggesting this. Are we to believe something entirely on the basis of the "authority" of a commentary? I think the Buddha taught otherwise. ---------------------------------------------- ------- Nina. =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116501 From: "Lukas" Date: Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:25 pm Subject: Re: Death szmicio Dear Ken H and Nina, I like that cetasikas the only friends and enemies. This is true. We study, consider, learn Dhamma in our daily life..I like this from AS. 'Leave it all to its functions(citas, cetasikas)'. So it seems like we can change things, try more..but this is all nama that was conditioned to arise. No more, no less of this or that. This is only as it is. The panna is nothing new, it knows all perfectly, without any effort, any try. Very natural. Panna is always there, we just make it harder trying to do this or have more of that. Panna doesnt need it, it's an obstracle. Best wishes Lukas > > KH: Thanks Lukas, I agree about the 'great opportunity' we have > > been given. > > > > I also share your appreciation of reminders. For them we rely on > > our Dhamma friends at DSG and elsewhere. But ultimately, of course, > > in the reality of the present moment, our only friends (and > > enemies) are the cetasikas that have been conditioned to arise. > > > > We should learn more about conditioned dhammas, and get to know who > > our real friends are. > ------- > N: I am happy about this reminder. Well said. It also makes us less > dependent on "people".> #116502 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 12:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: on commentaries. was: Satipatthana Sutta nilovg Hi Howard, Op 31-jul-2011, om 13:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > As the Co stated: 'humbled, the deva would ask for > clarification and the Buddha would explain in such a way that he > could understand.'. The Buddha knew ahead of time how the deva would > react. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > That might have been the case, Nina, but I see *nothing* in the sutta > itself suggesting this. Are we to believe something entirely on the > basis > of the "authority" of a commentary? I think the Buddha taught > otherwise. ------- N: I am always happy to study the ancient commentaries, since they help to understand passages of the suttas which may be condensed at times. Different people take different attitudes towards the commentaries and I understand this. Nina. #116503 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 12:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Death nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 31-jul-2011, om 15:25 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > So it seems like we can change things, try more..but this is all > nama that was conditioned to arise. No more, no less of this or > that. This is only as it is. The panna is nothing new, it knows all > perfectly, without any effort, any try. Very natural. Panna is > always there, we just make it harder trying to do this or have more > of that. Panna doesnt need it, it's an obstacle. ------ N: Well said, Lukas. ----- Nina. #116504 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: on commentaries. was: Satipatthana Sutta upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/31/2011 10:13:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 31-jul-2011, om 13:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > As the Co stated: 'humbled, the deva would ask for > clarification and the Buddha would explain in such a way that he > could understand.'. The Buddha knew ahead of time how the deva would > react. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > That might have been the case, Nina, but I see *nothing* in the sutta > itself suggesting this. Are we to believe something entirely on the > basis > of the "authority" of a commentary? I think the Buddha taught > otherwise. ------- N: I am always happy to study the ancient commentaries, since they help to understand passages of the suttas which may be condensed at times. Different people take different attitudes towards the commentaries and I understand this. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Is it your perspective that the authority of commentaries is absolute, regardless of the content of the sutta involved? In the Kalama sutta the following is said: On the basis of this, one should not go by another's seeming ability or by tradition (And that would include commentators, would it not?), or, more radically, even by what is in a scripture, or, most radically, even by "The monk is our teacher"! So, this last, most amazingly, shows us that the Buddha cautions even accepting something just on the basis of his having taught it!! How much less so should we use the commentaries as sufficient for belief? It is certainly clear here that one should not use claimed "authority" as sole basis for belief. It is, certainly, a good basis for giving serious consideration to what is said, for contemplation and discussion of it, and for attempted experiential verification of it, but NOT for blind acceptance. --------------------------------------------- Nina. ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116505 From: "philip" Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 1:08 am Subject: Smell etc, inseparable rupas philofillet Hi Nina I am confused about rupas and concepts Here is just an illustration: you may experience the smell > of a flower. When you lick the flower there is flavour, when you eat > it, there is some nutritive essense. When you touch it there is > hardness. These ruupas we call a flower can be experienced one at a > time. When you taste the flower, there cannot be smelling at the same > time, but this does not mean that there is no odour. In the ultimate > sense there is no flower, there are only different units of ruupas > consisting of the eight inseparable ruupas, arising and falling away. > Ph: But there id a flower lying on the ground that I can hold in my hands and lick and bite and sniff? If there is a solid object that I csn pick up and hold, I have no trouble understanding how rupas can rise as inseparables, how fragrance must gave a support etc. Or how a waterfall has a sound tgat is different from the sound of a car, we duscussed sound of a waterfall some months ago, is therea solid mass ofwayerthat makesa sound, or millions of liitle units or rupas arising and falling to give theillusion of a waterfall or flower or rotten body? Can I pick up an object that we call and think of as a flower flower and sniff it according to the Buddha? I'm perplexed, sorry. A dead body lies on the ground, decomposing. Moment by moment is there actually no body there but rupas rising and falling away, somehow more rotten than the ones that rose and fell away a moment earlier, but no solid body? What are wrinkles.Don't wrinkles indicate that a solid body covered by skin is changing over time? Why does the Budha talk about old bodies, wrinled, with teeth falling out etc. They are not real. Isn't the point of the teaching of paramattha dhammas and concepts that a panna can see through objects and reducethem yo dhammasforthesake of detachment and liberation, and the Buddha didn't say that tge objects don't exist? I guess this has been discused for ages at DSG but I wasn't keen on it yet, e.g the tree that someone is always inviting someone else to drive into and see what happens.. Thanks Nina, and back to you tomorrow, Sarah. Metta, Phil Metta, Phil #116506 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 3:17 am Subject: Re: Pariyatti, was: Direct Textual Evidence. truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >N:Pariyatti is not a matter of getting the right concept, >it is not conceptual and not linguistic. We listen, and then we >hear what we did not heard before. >================================================================= But isn't "listening & considering" a linguistic process? We listen and consider using words. Words are linguistic conventions. Even words such as "citta" is just a concept as a word. Considering its stated momentariness, we cannot take the same citta and examine it. So even a word "citta", as a word, is a category that doesn't point to any particular moment of citta frozen in time that exists now and can be cognized by two people. About "direct experience". What you seem to say is not very different from direct experience in "vipassana meditation". And of course, meditation, like everything, happens when appropriate conditions are met. With best wishes, Alex #116507 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 3:42 am Subject: Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses truth_aerator Hi RobertE, all, I like what you have said in msg#116478. I think that answer could be found in suttas such as: "Just so, when the mind is sluggish it is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of tranquillity, concentration and equanimity, because a sluggish mind is hard to arouse through these factors... "But, monks, when the mind is sluggish, that is the right time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor of investigation-of-states, the enlightenment-factor of energy, the enlightenment-factor of rapture.[2] What is the reason? A sluggish mind is easy to arouse by these factors... "Monks, when the mind is agitated,[3] that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of investigation-of-states, of energy, of rapture. Why? An agitated mind is hard to calm through these factors... "When the mind is agitated, that is the right time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of tranquillity, concentration, equanimity. Why? Because an agitated mind is easy to calm[4] through these factors. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn46/sn46.053.wlsh.html So when one has An agitated mind it is good to "stay still". When the mind is sluggish, then it is good to stuggle. IMHO. With metta, Alex #116508 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 6:11 am Subject: Re: Farewell Dhamma Friends szmicio Dear Sarah, Thanks for your pointing out. It's very helpful. > I'm wondering how you've been getting on in London and whether you met up with Alan Weller for dhamma discussion? L: I contacted Alan, but he's on his vacation out of UK. I appointed us for autumn. I will be in autumn for one month. Best wishes Lukas #116509 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 7:40 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) kenhowardau Hi Howard and Robert E, ----------- <. . .> > HCW: Right, "no doubt". So, you dismiss, then, what the Buddha taught about protecting the truth. Okay, as you will. Among the things that people cling to, opinion and belief is a major one, especially for "smart" folks. ------------ KH: I know how you feel. My stubbornness appears to you the same way your stubbornness appears to me. One difference, however, is that I have shared your point of view in the past. Not only have you never shared my point of view, you have refused to even consider it. Take, for example, the way you and Robert E are currently raging against the commentaries. If you had considered for one moment the "dhammas only - no control" point of view you would have seen that the commentaries were not saying anything different from the Ongha Sutta. If there really is no self - if there really is only one citta with its associated cetasikas and rupas - then of course "striving" and "standing still" must be understood in that context. And that is all the commentaries are doing. The Buddha said it first; the commentaries are just helping those of us who don't already know the details. Ken H #116510 From: A T Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 8:04 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, >KH:I know how you feel. My stubbornness appears to you the same >way >your stubbornness appears to me. When the suttas and commentaries say "do this" you keep telling us that what they really say is that "one should NOT do this". If the suttas didn't have all the practice suttas, and VsM had only the last 3rd part, then I'd accept a certain unorthodox approach. If "don't take these as prescription, only as description", then wouldn't such points be repeated over and over again in the suttas and commentaries? Buddha went to great length, sometimes explaining the most basic terms in lots of detail so not to have any misinterpretations, and yet we don't have such a crucial point being explicitly said anywhere. I am all for studying. All, If I have any mistakes, I welcome corrections backed by definitive statements from suttas/commentaries (no hapax legomenon, irrelevant passages, or highly creative usage of vague phrases, please). VsM was very detailed about very many aspects (sometimes perhaps too detailed), and yet we fail to find "don't ever practice any of these" things in them. Could all the venerable monks be wrong in their interpretation of VsM when it comes to practice? Buddha has never defined anatta as "don't you ever practice, live life normally". He didn't teach such teaching to Ananda and some other noble people who threw away their wealth and became monks under Him. Buddha didn't lead normal life in search for Awakening. Many wealthy people have became monks (which was not part of their normal daily life). Was the Buddha misleading us when He kept emphasising things to be done? ======= "Now a clansman who, as a beginner, wants to develop this meditation subject should go to a good friend of the kind already described (Ch. DI, §§61-73) and learn it. And the teacher who expounds it to him should tell him the sevenfold skill in learning and the tenfold skill in giving attention." - VIII,48 Did the Ven actually meant that one "should NOT go to a good friend" or that one "should NOT want to develop this meditation subject". >================================================================ "This meditation subject consists in giving attention to repulsiveness. Even if one is master of the Tipitaka, the verbal recitation should still be done at the time of first giving it attention. For the meditation subject only becomes evident to some through recitation, as it did to the two elders who learned the meditation subject from the Elder Maha-Deva of the Hill Country (Malaya). On being asked for the meditation subject, it seems, the elder [242] gave the text of the thirty-two aspects, saying 'Do only this recitation for four months'. Although they were familiar respectively with two and three Pitakas, it was only at the end of four months of recitation of the meditation subject that they became stream-enterers, with right apprehension [of the text]. So the teacher who expounds the meditation subject should tell the pupil to do the recitation verbally first" - VIII,49 >================================================================ Was Buddhaghosa breaking 4th precept or misleading us when he has said 157. ...So the Blessed One said 'gone to the forest', etc., to point out a forest abode as a place likely to hasten his advancement. 158. Herein, gone to the forest is gone to any kind of forest possessing the bliss of seclusion among the kinds of forests characterized thus: 'Having gone out beyond the boundary post, all that is forest' (Ps.i,176;Vbh. 251), and 'A forest abode is five hundred bow lengths distant' (Vin.iv,183). To the root of a tree: gone to the vicinity of a tree. To an empty place: gone to an empty, secluded space. And here he can be said to have gone to an 'empty place' if he has gone to any of the remaining seven kinds of abode (resting place).42 [271] ============ Did the Venerable mean that one should NOT do these? Is there ANY indication that these are merely descriptions of habits that that monk was doing? If there are only Dhammas, isn't one asked to be mislead about concepts (which do not exist as only dhammas do?). Wasn't the commentary supposed to give additional details and make clear what was not clear? Why didn't the Ven. keep telling us "these are not instructions to be done. Don't you do them. Don't develop Self view about control". If there are "only Dhammas" doesn't DN31 (and many other similar suttas) false? In DN31 the Buddha taught lay follower how to properly treat parents, teachers, wife & children, friends & associates, servants & employees, ascetics & brahmins. He failed to mention for 1000th time that these things don't exist and are just momentary cittas. Or is there conspiracy to remove all passages about "people don't exist. Don't ever do anything. Don't take what I say as prescription. What I say is only a description of habits of people who are already had this habit for many lifetimes... Wait, didn't I say that people didn't exist at all? So who has what habit? When it comes to practice, I like this quote: "Those who believe in the reality of the soul are torn by the teeth of heresy; those who do not recognize the conventional self let their good actions fall away, and perish" - Abhidharmakosabhasyam pg 1334 (Volume 4) 165. By oneself (Attanā'va) is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another. Attanā'va kataṃ pāpaṃ attanā saṃkilissati Attanā akataṃ pāpaṃ attanā'va visujjhati Suddhi asuddhi paccattaṃ nāññamañño visodhaye. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.budd.html "So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned (sattā paññāyant"); of such beings, this is the self-doer (attakāro), this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one " moving forward by himself, moving back by himself " say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html Buddha does teach that beings are discerned, they can be objects of discernment, "sattā paññāyant"". Buddha did allow such possibility and refuted the idea that there isn't any sattā or attakāro. But they are. With best wishes, Alex #116511 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 6:16 am Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 7/31/2011 5:40:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard and Robert E, ----------- <. . .> > HCW: Right, "no doubt". So, you dismiss, then, what the Buddha taught about protecting the truth. Okay, as you will. Among the things that people cling to, opinion and belief is a major one, especially for "smart" folks. ------------ KH: I know how you feel. My stubbornness appears to you the same way your stubbornness appears to me. One difference, however, is that I have shared your point of view in the past. Not only have you never shared my point of view, you have refused to even consider it. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: You do not know that. In fact I *have* considered it. ------------------------------------------- Take, for example, the way you and Robert E are currently raging against the commentaries. --------------------------------------------- HCW: If you reread what I have said and view it as it is without prejudice, you would not refer to it as "raging against the commentaries." I have done no such thing! ------------------------------------------------------ If you had considered for one moment the "dhammas only - no control" point of view you would have seen that the commentaries were not saying anything different from the Ongha Sutta. ------------------------------------------ HCW: I disagree with you. ----------------------------------------- If there really is no self - if there really is only one citta with its associated cetasikas and rupas " ----------------------------------------- HCW: At any moment, that is so. At another moment, the mind state is not the same. ----------------------------------------- then of course "striving" and "standing still" must be understood in that context. ---------------------------------------- HCW: I understand the sutta. It is subtle, but I understand it. I believe that if you were a practitioner, you might too. ;-) --------------------------------------- And that is all the commentaries are doing. The Buddha said it first; the commentaries are just helping those of us who don't already know the details. ---------------------------------------- HCW: You have faith in all commentaries. Enjoy! :-) ---------------------------------------- Ken H ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116512 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 11:05 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) kenhowardau Hi Alex, --------- <. . .> > A: When the suttas and commentaries say "do this" you keep telling us that what they really say is that "one should NOT do this". --------- KH: Can you give an example of where this has happened? I could find a hundred examples of where you have made that exact same allegation against me and others. Our response has always been to explain there is no 'doing' or 'not doing' *as those things are conventionally understood*. There are only conditioned dhammas arising one citta at a time. Therefore, the Buddha's exhortations to "do" certain things and "not do" certain things have to be understood in terms of a single-moment universe. You don't believe that, and I can understand your disbelief. But I would be grateful if you would stop this inane repetition. No one is saying, "When the Buddha said 'do this' he actually meant 'do not do this'. No one! :-) ------------------ > A: If the suttas didn't have all the practice suttas, and VsM had only the last 3rd part, then I'd accept a certain unorthodox approach. ------------------ KH: You are already accepting a heterodox. The orthodox Theravada is the one that is consistent with the ancient commentaries. --------------------------- > A: If "don't take these as prescription, only as description", then wouldn't such points be repeated over and over again in the suttas and commentaries? ------------------ KH: Suppose the Buddha did use those words. If he had said, "Don't take my teaching as a prescription, take it as a description," how would you have understood those words? Would you have taken them to be a prescription - "Do not do take this as a prescription!" - or would you have taken them to be a description - "When a monk has right understanding he takes these words as a description, not as a prescription"? -------------------------------- > A: Buddha went to great length, sometimes explaining the most basic terms in lots of detail so not to have any misinterpretations, and yet we don't have such a crucial point being explicitly said anywhere. -------------------------------- KH: Actually, we do. People at DSG are constantly giving quotes from the suttas in support of their "dhammas only" understanding. All quotes, however, can be understood in various ways, right and wrong. -------------------- > A: I am all for studying. All, If I have any mistakes, I welcome corrections backed by definitive statements from suttas/commentaries (no hapax legomenon, irrelevant passages, or highly creative usage of vague phrases, please). VsM was very detailed about very many aspects (sometimes perhaps too detailed), and yet we fail to find "don't ever practice any of these" things in them. Could all the venerable monks be wrong in their interpretation of VsM when it comes to practice? -------------------- KH: The desire to be a person who practises Dhamma can be very strong. It can easily block out the truth that there is no person. ---------------------------- > A: Buddha has never defined anatta as "don't you ever practice, live life normally". He didn't teach such teaching to Ananda and some other noble people who threw away their wealth and became monks under Him. Buddha didn't lead normal life in search for Awakening. Many wealthy people have became monks(which was not part of their normal daily life). Was the Buddha misleading us when He kept emphasising things to be done? ---------------------------- KH: Good questions, I only wish you would listen to the answers. On hearing and understanding the Dhamma some people - including some rich people - will take up the homeless life, while others - including some rich people - will not. There are no rules for that sort of thing. It depends on the individual. --------------- <. . .> > A: If there are "only Dhammas" doesn't DN31 (and many other similar suttas) false? --------------- KH: There *are* only dhammas, and one of those dhammas is lobha (desire). And that can include the desire to be a Dhamma-practitioner. Lobha leads to aversion, and that can include aversion towards the true Dhamma. Ken H #116513 From: A T Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 11:33 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) truth_aerator Hello KenH, all, >KH:...Our response has always been >to explain there is no 'doing' >or >'not doing' *as those things are >conventionally understood*. >There are >only conditioned dhammas >arising one citta at a time. >Therefore, the >Buddha's exhortations to >"do" certain things and >"not do" certain >things have to be >understood in terms of a >single->moment universe. >=================================================== And how do these to be understood? VsM VIII, 157. ...So the Blessed One said 'gone to the forest', etc., to point out a forest abode as a place likely to hasten his advancement. 158. Herein, gone to the forest is gone to any kind of forest possessing the bliss of seclusion among the kinds of forests characterized thus: 'Having gone out beyond the boundary post, all that is forest' (Ps.i,176;Vbh. 251), and 'A forest abode is five hundred bow lengths distant' (Vin.iv,183). To the root of a tree: gone to the vicinity of a tree. To an empty place: gone to an empty, secluded space. And here he can be said to have gone to an 'empty place' if he has gone to any of the remaining seven kinds of abode (resting place).42 [271] 159. Having thus indicated an abode that is suitable to the three seasons, suitable to humour and temperament,43 and favourable to the development of mindfulness of breathing, he then said sits down, etc., indicating a posture that is peaceful and tends neither to idleness nor to agitation. Then he said having folded his legs crosswise, etc., to show firmness in the sitting position, easy occurrence of the in-breaths and out-breaths, and the means for discerning the object. 160. Herein, crosswise is the sitting position with the thighs fully locked. Folded: having locked. Set his body erect: having placed the upper part of the body erect with the eighteen backbones resting end to end. For when he is seated like this, his skin, flesh and sinews are not twisted, and so the feelings that would arise moment by moment if they were twisted do not arise. That being so, his mind becomes unified, and the meditation subject, instead of collapsing, attains to growth and increase. Where in VsM is it explained that one shouldn't do these? >KH: You are already accepting a heterodox. The orthodox Theravada is >the one that is consistent with the ancient commentaries. >--------------------------- The VsM and suttas are clear. >A: If "don't take these as prescription, only as description", then >wouldn't such points be repeated over and over again in the suttas and >commentaries? > ------------------ > >KH: Suppose the Buddha did use those words. If he had said, "Don't >take >my teaching as a prescription, take it as a description," how >would you >have understood those words? >====================================== His teaching would be different then, and I would accept that teaching. So far what you are saying doesn't match suttas or VsM. >KH: Actually, we do. People at DSG are constantly giving quotes >from >the suttas in support of their "dhammas only" understanding. >================================================ Except these suttas often talk about things to be DONE, and without mentioning that "these are only descriptions. Don't ever do them." >KH: The desire to be a person who practises Dhamma can be very >strong. >It can easily block out the truth that there is no person. > ==================================================== And the Buddha has never denied the existence of a conventional person. Thanks again for telling us that you do not teach what the Buddha has tought. 165. By oneself (Attanā'va) is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another. Attanā'va kataṃ pāpaṃ attanā saṃkilissati Attanā akataṃ pāpaṃ attanā'va visujjhati Suddhi asuddhi paccattaṃ nāññamañño visodhaye. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.budd.html "So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned (sattā paññāyant"); of such beings, this is the self-doer (attakāro), this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one " moving forward by himself, moving back by himself " say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html No excuses only on past conditions. One of the condition sis what one does now. "By oneself (Attanā'va) is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. " This was a big discovery by the Buddha. Some other philosophers taught that nothing could be done, we are like ball of string unwinding as it rolls down the mountain. Or that freedom comes through the grace of God, or some other person (even the Buddha). >KH: On hearing and understanding the Dhamma some people " including some >rich people " will take up the homeless life, while others " including >some rich people - will not. All this is due to the actual choice a person makes. "Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another." - Dhp 165 . 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain. 161. The evil a witless man does by himself, born of himself and produced by himself, grinds him as a diamond grinds a hard gem. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.budd.html Note, it says that it depends on oneself. The fault is all on the person, never due to strict determinism that was what some heretical teachers taught which the Buddha rejected. With best wishes, Alex #116514 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 11:03 am Subject: Mutually Rejoicing Joy! bhikkhu5 Friends: Unselfish Joy! How to Rejoice in Other's Success: Mutual Joy (Mudit) is developed by seeing that: If only happy at one's own success, such egoistic Joy is rare and limited! If happy at all other's success also, this Joy is more frequent & even infinite! By observing that: It starts with basic sympathy, develops into acceptance, genuine approval, & appreciation. It culminates in rejoicing altruistic gladness by directing mind to initiation, much cultivation and boundless expansion of Mutual Joy! By knowing that: Mutual Joy is the proximate cause of sweet, fully satisfied contentment! Lack of mutual joy is therefore the proximate cause of discontentment! Mutual Joy instantly eliminates acidic jealousy, grudge and green envy! Mutual Joy is an infinite, truly divine, elevating and sublime mental state! Mutual Joy is 1 of the 4 mental states of the Brahma-devas (Brahmavihra ) The Blessed Buddha pointed out: If it were impossible to cultivate this Good, I would not tell you to do so! Buddhaghosa : See how this worthy being is very Happy! How fine! How excellent! How sweet! Let there be Happiness. Let there be open Freedom. Let there be Peace. Let there be Bliss from cultivating this. Let there be Understanding of this mental state of Mutual Joy ! <...> Mudit: The Buddha's Teaching on Unselfish Joy: BPS Wheel Publication No. 170 4 essays by Nyanaponika Thera, Natasha Jackson, C.F. Knight, and L.R. Oates http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Wheels/wh170.pdf Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #116515 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 4:19 pm Subject: pic of Alberto, David & Ivan sarahprocter... Hi Sukin, (Alberto, David & Ivan), Thx for uploading the great pic of Alberto, David & Ivan. So glad to hear that you Alberto made it to Bangkok and the Foundation and that you guys are hanging out together. I know you'll be having lots of discussion on the true meaning of 'study', 'pariyatti' and 'patipatti'. All we need now is for you all to share a little with us:-) They were good comments of yours that Nina shared on pariyatti and patipatti developing together. Needless to say, I agreed with them all:-) Alberto, have a safe trip home. Any more snippets from Sat? Metta Sarah p.s David, I heard you were asking when we might be visiting - the earliest possibility will be in Sept. I need to go to England soon for a family get-together and Jon has no more leave due.... =========== #116516 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 4:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses nilovg Dear Alex, Op 31-jul-2011, om 19:42 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > So when one has An agitated mind it is good to "stay still". When > the mind is sluggish, then it is good to stuggle. IMHO. ------- N: There is no need to take a decision what to "do", it happens already by conditions. Let us just listen more in order to have more understanding of the present reality, that is all that matters. Nina. #116517 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 4:57 pm Subject: Re: pic of Alberto, David & Ivan szmicio Dear Sukin, Alberto and all. Nice to hear Alberto is still here. I remember him from his good Patthana studies with a lot of yoniso manasikara in that. I was wondering if that would be possible to pose some questions to Acharn Sujin through you guys? One of them: 1.Ditthi hinders a path. Does it makes us not to understand Dhamma, not to understand realities? This is only ditthi that makes us not knowing? Does ditthi stops panna to arise? What kind of miccha ditthi there are? I feel it would be so beneficial to have even few words conversation(rising questions and hearing answers) with Acharn Sujin. Her answers always teach me how to live with Dhamma. Best wishes Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Sukin, (Alberto, David & Ivan), > > Thx for uploading the great pic of Alberto, David & Ivan. So glad to hear that you Alberto made it to Bangkok and the Foundation and that you guys are hanging out together. > > I know you'll be having lots of discussion on the true meaning of 'study', 'pariyatti' and 'patipatti'. All we need now is for you all to share a little with us:-) > > They were good comments of yours that Nina shared on pariyatti and patipatti developing together. Needless to say, I agreed with them all:-) > > Alberto, have a safe trip home. Any more snippets from Sat? > > Metta > > Sarah > p.s David, I heard you were asking when we might be visiting - the earliest possibility will be in Sept. I need to go to England soon for a family get-together and Jon has no more leave due.... > =========== > #116518 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 5:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Smell etc, inseparable rupas nilovg Dear Phil, Op 31-jul-2011, om 17:08 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > I am confused about rupas and concepts > > Here is just an illustration: you may experience the smell > > of a flower. When you lick the flower there is flavour, when you eat > > it, there is some nutritive essense. When you touch it there is > > hardness. These ruupas we call a flower can be experienced one at a > > time. When you taste the flower, there cannot be smelling at the > same > > time, but this does not mean that there is no odour. In the ultimate > > sense there is no flower, there are only different units of ruupas > > consisting of the eight inseparable ruupas, arising and falling > away. > > > > Ph: But there is a flower lying on the ground that I can hold in my > hands and lick and bite and sniff? If there is a solid object that > I csn pick up and hold, I have no trouble understanding how rupas > can rise as inseparables, how fragrance must gave a support etc. > ------ N: Just an example to show that in the ultimate sense there are different objects experienced through different doorways, one at a time. In reality there is no flower that exists. We may think that it was there already and that it lasts. But we can think of a flower, we do not have to avoid thinking of concepts. ----- > Ph: Or how a waterfall has a sound tgat is different from the sound > of a car, we duscussed sound of a waterfall some months ago, is > there a solid mass of water that makesa sound, or millions of > liitle units or rupas arising and falling to give the illusion of a > waterfall or flower or rotten body? > ----- N: Sounds are not the same. Because of conditions they are different. Sound can be heard, that is all. No need to think of units of ruupa or how this sound is produced. ------- > > Ph: Can I pick up an object that we call and think of as a flower > flower and sniff it according to the Buddha? I'm perplexed, sorry. > A dead body lies on the ground, decomposing. Moment by moment is > there actually no body there but rupas rising and falling away, > somehow more rotten than the ones that rose and fell away a > moment earlier, but no solid body? > ------ N: When odour, unpleasant odour impinges on smellingsense, there are conditions for smelling. Then odour is the object and no need to think of the source of the odour, that is another object, namely a concept. -------- > What are wrinkles.Don't wrinkles indicate that a solid body covered > by skin is changing over time? Why does the Budha talk about old > bodies, wrinled, with teeth falling out etc. They are not real. > Isn't the point of the teaching of paramattha dhammas and concepts > that a > panna can see through objects and reduce them to dhammas for the > sake of detachment and liberation, and the Buddha didn't say that > the objects don't exist? > ------- N: The Buddha wanted to help people to come closer to the truth in speaking about parts of the body, or a body that is decaying. One can see the whole, solid body as mere elements. When the time was right he would explain that each of the khandhas we cling to are like foam, a bubble, a dream: Vis. Ch XIV, 224 there are similes pertaining to each of the five khandhas separately and this is how they are seen in detail. --------- ------- N: The Tiika elaborates on these similes, and the text is partly similar to the 'Dispeller of Delusion' (p. 36-38). Ruupa is just like a lump of froth without any substance and it cannot be grasped, since it breaks up immediately. Ruupa is like wood surrounding the pith of a tree, without core or substance, it is weak, and it should not be taken as "I" or "mine". Ruupa continually breaks up from the first stage of a foetus on, until it finally breaks up at death. The Dispeller adds: Feeling is like a bubble of water. Just as a bubble of water is unsubstantial, is ungraspable, and does not last long, so is feeling. Just as a bubble arises due to four causes: the water surface, the drop of water, wetness of the water and the air which holds it up by drawing it together as an envelope, just so feeling also arises due to four causes: the physical base, the object, the flame of defilements and the impact of contact (phassa). ... Saaa is like a mirage, since it is unsubstantial and cannot be grasped. One cannot grasp it, drink it, wash in it, bathe in it or fill a pot with it. A mirage quivers and deceives many people. .. The khandha of formations is like a plantain stem since it is unsubstantial and cannot be grasped. Just as a plantain stem is a combination of many sheets and is without core, evenso the khandha of formations which is a combination of many dhammas, the cetasikas, it is without core, and cannot be grasped. It cannot be taken as permanent, etc. ... The khandha of consciousness, viaa.na, is like an illusion (maya). It is without substance or core, and it cannot be grasped. Just as an illusion is changeable and appears swiftly, so is citta. ...> ------ Nina. #116519 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 5:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: on commentaries. was: Satipatthana Sutta nilovg Hi Howard, Op 31-jul-2011, om 16:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Is it your perspective that the authority of commentaries is absolute, > regardless of the content of the sutta involved? ... > It is certainly clear here that one should not use claimed "authority" > as sole basis for belief. It is, certainly, a good basis for giving > serious consideration to what is said, for contemplation and > discussion of it, > and for attempted experiential verification of it, but NOT for blind > acceptance. > --------------------------------------------- N: Nobody here thinks of blind acceptance. We have to verify the truth ourselves, clear. Best is to read the commentaries themselves so that one can acquire an idea of their value. I just quoted from the Visuddhimagga to Phil about the khandhas compared to a lump of foam, etc. This is also dealt with in a sutta, a sutta that you quote. We can see for ourselves whether the elaboration by Buddhaghosa is helpful or not. Read many, many commentaries, next to the suttas, then one can see for oneself. You could use Ven. Bodhi translations and his notes to begin with, although his notes of the Co are only a summary. Nina. #116520 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 1, 2011 6:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, >Thanks also for telling me about visama lobha, sounds right down my alley! .... S: This is what I wrote before to Scott in a discussion about sama (ordinary) lobha and visama (extraordinary) lobha: >S:Visama lobha is the kind of lobha that leads to improper behaviour of one kind or other and which is likely to lead to extreme measures to cover the tracks. This is the kind of lobha which I mentioned can be a 'block', especially if one is obsessed with it and it leads one away from association with the wise. Visama lobha is conditioned by kamma and accumulations, but still if the inclination is there, there can be listening to the dhamma and gradually the extreme lobha can be eradicated if not in this lifetime, then over lifetimes. I think the Agga~n~na Sutta in DN gives some very good examples. Lots of other examples of truly deviant behaviour which would qualify. As usual, however, it's not so much about categorising situations as about particular cittas.< S: "conditioned by kamma and accumultions" in the sense that they are the accumulated tendencies to what is experienced through the senses, the result of kamma. Here's an extract from the other sutta I referred to on how someone’s virtue, honesty, courage and wisdom is known: (SN3:11 Seven Jatilas) 1.“It is by living together with someone, great king, that his virtue is to be known, and that after a long time, not after a short time; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is wise, not by a dullard. 2.“It is by dealing with someone, great king, that his honesty is to be known, and that after a long time, not after a short time; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is wise, not by a dullard. 3.“It is in adversities, great king, that a person’s fortitude is to be known, and that after a long time, not after a short time; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is wise, not by a dullard. 4.“It is by discussion with someone, great king, that his wisdom is to be known, and that after a long time, not after a short time; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is wise, not by a dullard.” Metta Sarah ====== #116521 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 12:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti, was: Direct Textual Evidence. nilovg Dear Alex, Op 31-jul-2011, om 19:17 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > But isn't "listening & considering" a linguistic process? We listen > and consider using words. Words are linguistic conventions. Even > words such as "citta" is just a concept as a word. ------- N: at first we think of words, but then we learn by means of the words of the teachings that there are characteristics of realities that can be attended to and it is not necessary to think all the time of words. Seeing has a characteristic different from hearing or thinking. Sound is different from smell. There can be more understanding of these so that they are seen as only dhammas. ------- > > > A: Considering its stated momentariness, we cannot take the same > citta and examine it. So even a word "citta", as a word, is a > category that doesn't point to any particular moment of citta > frozen in time that exists now and can be cognized by two people. ------ N: There is citta now, and all the time citta is different. It is a conditioned dhamma and we can learn that not "I" experiences, but citta. ------- > > > A: About "direct experience". What you seem to say is not very > different from direct experience in "vipassana meditation". And of > course, meditation, like everything, happens when appropriate > conditions are met. ------- N: Direct experience by pa~n~naa, and this is at first only beginning and can slowly develop. And yes, as you say, depending on conditions. ------ You asked for texts to prove that we cannot do anything about realities such as intention or effort. Sarah quoted a text about the five khandhas, stating that we should not wish may it be such or such or otherwise. This goes for sankhaarakkhandha which includes effort and intention. Quoting Sarah:< The habitual tendencies are not self...one does not get the chance of saying in regard to the habitual tendencies, 'Let the habitual tendencies become thus for me, let the habitual tendencies not become thus for me'." It might seem that if nothing 'can be done' that the path is therefore hopeless. On the contrary, it is the very understanding now of such dhammas as anatta and not being within anyone's control that is the Path that leads to enlightenment. If we are still attempting to control/calm/condition the bodily phenomena, the feelings and habitual tendencies that arise now with an idea that we have a chance of saying 'Let them be this way or that way', it indicates a lack of understanding of the core of the Buddha's message. > Nina. #116522 From: "Kelvin" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 1:12 am Subject: Appreciation of the Group kelvin_lwin Dearest All, I thought of all of you during my 10-day retreat from which I got back last night. The importance of study, reflection and discussion really hit me. Without a proper suta-maya panna there can not even be the right cinta-maya panna, far away is the proper bhanava-maya panna. So it's critical we have a proper guide or map and there's no arguing that the only ancient map still intact is the whole Tipitaka including the Commentaries. While other traditions maps were there they are not available to us as a whole and an incomplete map is almost as bad as a wrong map because one can get stuck or be led through blind alleys. So the faith in ancient wisdom and descriptions from ones who surely have walked through the correct path is critical. All this skeptical doubts really does not properly prepare one to have a stable and grounded understanding of the basic suta-maya panna of this profound Dhamma; saddha is an indriya for a reason. Samma ditthi is the first factor as often stated in this group and now I see why it is so critical. Another progression as we all know is sila, samadhi and panna. Contentment of life through proper and absolute sila surely is a foundation needed before we can even talk about samma samadhi. I found they are proper condition for clarity of thought needed for realization which is grounded on previous proper cinta-maya-panna. So when Sarah talked before about Jon's sila and how only someone living with the person would know, I realized this mode of practice works great for people of their inclination. I do think we all just need that moment of clarity and how one gets there is going to be different. But if the mind is free of crap that occupies most worldlings then the proper conditions exists already. Surely there are plenty of examples in suttas where one stanza is enough to give that moment of clarity and why would such mode of realization be only possible in the past? One just needs a proper map pointed out to them to see the world for what it is and rise above it instantly. I also been investigated into the "dark nights" syndrome (James ala Daniel Ingram) and it's all due to lack of proper suta-maya panna. It's easy to get led astray and find oneself in quite dark alleys. When one does not trust the proper map or try to use too many, one gets confused on the path. The mind is so malleable and powerful so it can also do a lot of dangerous things. Also with proper cinta-maya panna one would mistake bhanga-nana (Howard) as a terrifying experience instead of being joyous at finally experiencing the underlying reality. I believe all meditation experiences are shared by many different traditions, it is the lack of proper understanding that leads to different results. Surely this is why Joy is one of the factors of enlightenment. I took Dhamma vicaya to heart and really sat down to just study the world albeit on a cushion with the map that's been given to me since birth. To me it was experiencing the compounded nature of our existence through sensations but being able to tune into different ones amidst this sea gave some glimpses of the different sense-doors and mental factors. Some reflection after gave rise to thoughts about anatta gave me better intellectual understanding of what I experienced so once again former discussions came to be very helpful. Some years back I also thought like Christine that if the questioner just asked Buddha a follow-up question or did a "yea but" Buddha could've made everything so much clearer. It seems that when 4 doctrinal possibilities of Atta was asked, they were seeing in 2D and asking about corners of a square. Buddha saw in 3D and was looking at a cube instead. Buddha always knew best and I am just a fool for thinking otherwise. It was humbling and realization of the depth of Buddha's knowledge and as a teacher was profound. I thought the sutta endings were embellishments before but I literally shouted in my head. Oh Blessed one, Oh Magnificent one is truly a sight to behold and his vantage point is the proper one and he answers all completely without anything to add or subtract. I am not sure what language it was in : English, Burmese or Pali but the feeling was undeniable at realizing the Master's wisdom. I share my merits with you all (except KenH). - Kel #116523 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 7:35 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) kenhowardau Hi Howard, ---------- <. . .> > HCW: I understand the sutta. It is subtle, but I understand it. I believe that if you were a practitioner, you might too. ;-) ---------- KH: I am very interested to know this subtle understanding you have gained. However, I would be disappointed if you were to tell me it couldn't be explained in words. I think that sort of thing is the thin end of the wedge. Buddhism, as we all know, can attract some strange characters. The author David Maurice summed them up in a subheading, "freaks, frauds, fantasts, fanatics." And the one thing they all rely on is the concept of secret knowledge. If I were the moderator of a Dhamma group (and thank heavens I am not) the first rule would be: If you can't explain it in words, keep it to yourself! :-) Ken H > HCW: > You have faith in all commentaries. Enjoy! :-) #116524 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:25 am Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 8/1/2011 5:36:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, ---------- <. . .> > HCW: I understand the sutta. It is subtle, but I understand it. I believe that if you were a practitioner, you might too. ;-) ---------- KH: I am very interested to know this subtle understanding you have gained. However, I would be disappointed if you were to tell me it couldn't be explained in words. I think that sort of thing is the thin end of the wedge. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Then I won't tell you that! LOL! (Even though it's so, at least if one is looking for adequacy.) What I WILL say, as inadequate as are the words, is that I view the sutta as expressing the middle-way as applied to effort, and it is an effort with sense-of-self either absent or minimal, a non-doing doing. ------------------------------------------ Buddhism, as we all know, can attract some strange characters. The author David Maurice summed them up in a subheading, "freaks, frauds, fantasts, fanatics." And the one thing they all rely on is the concept of secret knowledge. ------------------------------------------ HCW: Direct knowledge of the supermundane is certainly not adequately conveyable by concept/language. For the most part, all that we can hope for is that 1) concept, the finger pointing at the moon, isn't too shaky and points reasonably in the right direction, and 2) on rare occasions we actually get a glimpse of the moon itself. ------------------------------------------ If I were the moderator of a Dhamma group (and thank heavens I am not) the first rule would be: If you can't explain it in words, keep it to yourself! :-) -------------------------------------------- HCW: By your criterion, this list would be quite silent except for sutta postings! (And even they are just steady fingers pointing well.) ------------------------------------------- Ken H ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116525 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 9:20 am Subject: Kusala intention (was, Re: The clansman who is a beginner ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > [J:] In the case of the young children who suffer the pain of hunger and malnutrition leading to death, it would I think be reasonable to assume that this was not the result of unwholesome deeds done in the present lifetime. And the same could be said for any person who suffers an early and traumatic death. Then there are the unpleasant characters who live a life of deceit or crime but never get caught and who are able to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. And so on. > > > > [RE:] I agree it is complex. Yet I would say that there are some things that seem to be traceable to a series of events, and there are some patterns in one's life that seem to lead in a particular direction. One may be able to safely assume that this is at least part of a pattern that one has become accustomed to, and may reflect a broader proportion of that person's tendencies and accumulations. > > =============== > > J: I'm afraid you've lost me here. We are discussing the question of kamma (deeds, actions) and result (things experienced). As I recall, you advanced the idea that kamma committed routinely brings its result within the same lifetime, and that this makes it possible for the law of kamma and result to be confirmed by direct experience. > > I think general experience in life tends to point to results not making a good match with deeds within the same lifetime. I am wary about attributing experienced results to particular preceding deeds, since there is nothing in results to link them with those preceding deeds rather than any others (within the same lifetime or an earlier one). Well I just don't agree with this. I think both logic and observation show that there are many connections between conventional events and the results that follow. I would understand that you would most likely say that this has nothing to do with the technical operation of kamma, and that conventional affairs have nothing to do with the operations of dhammas, but I would find it strange if you did not see that often particular conventional causes are obviously associated with logically following conventional results. I personally do not draw a strict line between conventional cause-effect and that of kamma, because I believe that conventional events are merely a conglomerated view of dhammic events. I realize that this is not a popular view around here. While I do not think we can trace the distant effects of current causes, I think we can see some of the effects which are more immediate, and they are not invisible. If some outcomes don't seem to match the causes that we observe, that may be due to other influences involved, to be sure, from this or other lives; but some do match, and they are observable. > On the whole, I think it better not to speculate too much in this area. :-)) Well I think it's okay to believe that current vipaka is the result of old kamma, as long as one understands that it is then an article of faith, since one can never see the evidence that this is the case, other than some mismatching in the current life between seeming causes and seeming results, which doesn't prove anything about past kamma and present results. For myself, I think that if one can understand how cause and effect operates in different arenas and time frames, it may lead to greater understanding. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #116526 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 9:33 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Howard and Robert E, > > ----------- > <. . .> > > HCW: Right, "no doubt". So, you dismiss, then, what the Buddha taught about protecting the truth. Okay, as you will. Among the things that people cling to, opinion and belief is a major one, especially for "smart" folks. > ------------ > > KH: I know how you feel. My stubbornness appears to you the same way your stubbornness appears to me. > > One difference, however, is that I have shared your point of view in the past. Not only have you never shared my point of view, you have refused to even consider it. > > Take, for example, the way you and Robert E are currently raging against the commentaries. If you had considered for one moment the "dhammas only - no control" point of view you would have seen that the commentaries were not saying anything different from the Ongha Sutta. > > If there really is no self - if there really is only one citta with its associated cetasikas and rupas - then of course "striving" and "standing still" must be understood in that context. > > And that is all the commentaries are doing. The Buddha said it first; the commentaries are just helping those of us who don't already know the details. I was not raging against anything the commentaries had to say about dhammas, or about the dhamma-based meaning of striving and standing still. I was raging against the totally unrelated and thoroughly *conventional* interpretation of the commentary that the sutta was really about correcting the egoic pride of some deva. You should be against this too, since it has nothing to do with dhammas but is all about beings and personalities, but apparently if a commentary says it, you like it, even if it goes 100% against your own often-stated belief in "dhammas only." So I guess I will hope that you will take a look at that section and realize that you are railing against yourself, and that I am closer to your view than you are in this case, and it is the commentary that is off-base. A deva, as Shakespeare once said, does not a dhamma make. The other part of the commentary also sheds no light at all on dhammas in any way - I am talking about the section in which the commentator gave his incredibly astute explanation for how one looks for something to stand on in a "shallow" flood, but doesn't stand still in deep water where he will sink. This is not about dhammas, but about conventional "floods," ignoring anything having to do with right effort, which is what the sutta is about. The Buddha says clearly that he neither stood still nor strived, not that he stood still here and there, and in some other places he strove. He said that both strategies were fruitless for crossing the flood, because they both led to disaster. Yet the commentary happily describes where is the good spot for doing one or the other, totally contradicting the Buddha. So to review, in this particular part of the Dhamma, there is not a single dhamma in sight. So why do you still think it's about dhammas when it is thoroughly conventional? Because you simply believe anything a Commentary says, no matter what? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #116527 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 10:03 am Subject: Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi RobertE, all, > > I like what you have said in msg#116478. > > I think that answer could be found in suttas such as: > > > > "Just so, when the mind is sluggish it is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of tranquillity, concentration and equanimity, because a sluggish mind is hard to arouse through these factors... > > "But, monks, when the mind is sluggish, that is the right time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor of investigation-of-states, the enlightenment-factor of energy, the enlightenment-factor of rapture.[2] What is the reason? A sluggish mind is easy to arouse by these factors... > > "Monks, when the mind is agitated,[3] that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of investigation-of-states, of energy, of rapture. Why? An agitated mind is hard to calm through these factors... > > "When the mind is agitated, that is the right time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of tranquillity, concentration, equanimity. Why? Because an agitated mind is easy to calm[4] through these factors. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn46/sn46.053.wlsh.html > > > So when one has An agitated mind it is good to "stay still". When the mind is sluggish, then it is good to stuggle. IMHO. In my view, the two suttas are a little difficult to compare, but I really like the above sutta. I don't think it's especially saying to ever "strive" or "stand still." I think the Buddha has ruled both of those out, because striving or straining is an agitated state, and standing still is a sluggish and ineffective one. In the sutta you quote, he is recommending the stimulative factors for one who is too sluggish [standing still] and the calming factors for one who is overstimulated. So this seems like a balancing action, rather than a straining or passive action. The sutta you quote also makes absolutely clear that one is to look at current conditions and take appropriate measures to cause balance and change. The idea that one should not do anything purposeful to develop proper conditions is once again clearly contradicted by the Buddha himself. So much for 'passively attending dhammas' as the only activity of the path. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #116528 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 10:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 31-jul-2011, om 7:52 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > the commentary is fantasizing and is on its own separate track that > > is NOT what the Buddha spoke about in that sutta in any way, shape > > or form, nor does it even purport to interpret what the Buddha > > said. Instead it merely says that what the Buddha said had no > > importance, and it was just an inter-species squabble. It's worse > > than a contradiction - it's a sidetrack away from what the Buddha > > was teaching on that occasion. If that is a valid commentary, I'd > > rather read a comic book. > ------ > N: The Buddha knew the cittas of that deva, that he was full of > pride. He uttered the right words, so that the deva would consider > again. As the Co stated: 'humbled, the deva would ask for > clarification and the Buddha would explain in such a way that he > could understand.'. The Buddha knew ahead of time how the deva would > react. > ------- I just don't think the sutta says anything to suggest that this is what the sutta is about. What you say above is a plausible explanation of the commentary, if one assumes the commentary is correct, but the commentary provides no evidence from the sutta or elsewhere that this is what the sutta is about. There is an important lesson for the reader in what lies beyond both "standing still and striving/straining," which defines the area of right effort. The commentary distracts from, rather than illuminates, this point. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = #116529 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 10:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Nina (and Robert & Jon) - > > In a message dated 7/31/2011 3:57:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 31-jul-2011, om 7:52 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > the commentary is fantasizing and is on its own separate track that > > is NOT what the Buddha spoke about in that sutta in any way, shape > > or form, nor does it even purport to interpret what the Buddha > > said. Instead it merely says that what the Buddha said had no > > importance, and it was just an inter-species squabble. It's worse > > than a contradiction - it's a sidetrack away from what the Buddha > > was teaching on that occasion. If that is a valid commentary, I'd > > rather read a comic book. > ------ > N: The Buddha knew the cittas of that deva, that he was full of > pride. He uttered the right words, so that the deva would consider > again. As the Co stated: 'humbled, the deva would ask for > clarification and the Buddha would explain in such a way that he > could understand.'. The Buddha knew ahead of time how the deva would > react. > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > That might have been the case, Nina, but I see *nothing* in the sutta > itself suggesting this. Are we to believe something entirely on the basis > of the "authority" of a commentary? I think the Buddha taught otherwise. > ---------------------------------------------- I agree. So far the discipline is still called Buddhism and not Commentarialism. I think it is a mistake to confuse the words of the commentaries those actually spoken by the Buddha, and give them equal weight. They may have many insightful things to say, but they do not have the same status as the Buddha's own words, and what he himself purported to be talking about in his suttas. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #116530 From: A T Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 11:23 am Subject: Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, As I understand it, there is an appropriate time for this or that action. It is not one tool for the job. When the mind is sluggish, one focuses on: Enlightenment-factor of investigation-of-states, energy, of rapture When the mind is agitated, one focuses on: enlightenment-factors of tranquillity, concentration, equanimity. >RE: The sutta you quote also makes absolutely clear that one is to look >at current conditions and take appropriate measures to cause balance and >change. The idea that one should not do anything purposeful to develop >proper conditions is once again clearly contradicted by the Buddha >himself. So much for 'passively attending dhammas' as the only activity >of the path. Right. Also another interesting sutta "A monk endowed with six qualities is incapable of realizing the unexcelled cooled state. Which six? There is the case where a monk doesn't rein (niggaṇhāti) in his mind when it should be reined in. He doesn't exert (paggaṇhāti) his mind when it should be exerted. He doesn't gladden (sampahaṃseti) his mind when it should be gladdened. He doesn't watch over (ajjhupekkhati) his mind when it should be watched over. He is intent on what is lowly (h"nādhimuttiko). And he delights in self-identity (sakkāyābhirato). A monk endowed with these six qualities is incapable of realizing the unexcelled cooled state. "A monk endowed with six qualities is capable of realizing the unexcelled cooled state. Which six? There is the case where a monk reins in his mind when it should be reined in. He exerts his mind when it should be exerted. He gladdens his mind when it should be gladdened. He watches over his mind when it should be watched over. He is intent on what is exquisite. And he delights in Unbinding. A monk endowed with these six qualities is capable of realizing the unexcelled cooled state." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.085.than.html "He should develop [contemplation of] the unattractive so as to abandon lust. He should develop good will so as to abandon ill will. He should develop mindfulness of in-and-out breathing so as to cut off distractive thinking. He should develop the perception of inconstancy so as to uproot the conceit, 'I am.' For a monk perceiving inconstancy, the perception of not-self is made firm. One perceiving not-self attains the uprooting of the conceit, 'I am' " Unbinding in the here and now." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.4.01.than.html These do not sound like things have happened all by themselves without any current effort. 165. By oneself (Attanā'va) is evil done; by oneself (attanā) is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.budd.html "So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned (sattā paññāyant"); of such beings, this is the self-doer (attakāro), this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one " moving forward by himself, moving back by himself " say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html No excuses only on past conditions. One of the condition is what one does now. "By oneself (Attanā'va) is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. " While I understand about western philosophical arguments about lack of free will (hard determinism), I believe that we should be careful with adding western metaphysical concepts especially when they contradict clear statements of the Buddha above in Attavaggo of Dhammapada , AN 6.38 and others. With best wishes, Alex #116531 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 2:43 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------------- <. . .> > RE: I was not raging against anything the commentaries had to say about dhammas, or about the dhamma-based meaning of striving and standing still. I was raging against the totally unrelated and thoroughly *conventional* interpretation of the commentary that the sutta was really about correcting the egoic pride of some deva. -------------- KH: Oh, I see what you mean! :-) Wiping the egg from my face, I might point out that the commentaries' explanation is the most likely one. The deva asked a perfectly sensible question to which the Buddha would normally have replied, "I crossed the flood by means of the Eightfold Path. " (Or, keeping to the metaphor, he might have said by the "raft" of the Eightfold Path.") On this occasion he answered in a confusing way that his audience needed to hear. You will find similar things happening in other suttas. ---------------------- > RE: You should be against this too, since it has nothing to do with dhammas but is all about beings and personalities, but apparently if a commentary says it, you like it, even if it goes 100% against your own often-stated belief in "dhammas only." --------------------- KH: The Buddha, the disciples and the commentaries often taught in conventional language. So long as we don't get caught out by that language we will be OK. If we can't handle it, we should go back to the direct language of the Abhidhamma. -------------------------- > RE: So I guess I will hope that you will take a look at that section and realize that you are railing against yourself, and that I am closer to your view than you are in this case, and it is the commentary that is off-base. ------------------------- KH: I have apologised for that (almost) but, as I have just tried to argue, the commentaries were right whichever way you look at it. ------------------------------ > RE: A deva, as Shakespeare once said, does not a dhamma make. ------------------------- KH: I won't go so far as to say there never was a deva but, to my mind, it doesn't matter whether the sutta was conventionally true or not. The ultimate truth is the one I am interested in. Ultimately, the deva can be seen as akusala citta afflicted with mana (conceit). Right understanding destroys conceit - as it did in this case. ------------------------------------ > RE: The other part of the commentary also sheds no light at all on dhammas in any way - I am talking about the section in which the commentator gave his incredibly astute explanation for how one looks for something to stand on in a "shallow" flood, but doesn't stand still in deep water where he will sink. This is not about dhammas, but about conventional "floods," ignoring anything having to do with right effort, which is what the sutta is about. ----------------------------------- KH: Talk about raging! You should listen to yourself sometimes, Robert. The flood is a metaphor, isn't it? When the deva asked, "How did you cross the flood," he meant, "How did you overcome sensuality, existence, views and/or ignorance." And the Buddha replied in kind - keeping to the same metaphor. Most people, as Jon alluded, would have thought standing still meant not doing anything, but that would have been a bit lame wouldn't it? People don't cross a flood by just standing there looking at it. The commentaries' take on it was much more in keeping with the metaphor. -------------------------------------------- > RE: The Buddha says clearly that he neither stood still nor strived, not that he stood still here and there, and in some other places he strove. He said that both strategies were fruitless for crossing the flood, because they both led to disaster. Yet the commentary happily describes where is the good spot for doing one or the other, totally contradicting the Buddha. --------------------------------------------- KH: Tosh! :-) ---------------------------------------------------- > RE: So to review, in this particular part of the Dhamma, there is not a single dhamma in sight. So why do you still think it's about dhammas when it is thoroughly conventional? Because you simply believe anything a Commentary says, no matter what? --------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: Now you've got me completely confused. You do realise the flood was a metaphor, don't you? I think in your raging you have got carried away. :-) Ken H #116532 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:18 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > ------------- > <. . .> > > RE: I was not raging against anything the commentaries had to say about dhammas, or about the dhamma-based meaning of striving and standing still. I was raging against the totally unrelated and thoroughly *conventional* interpretation of the commentary that the sutta was really about correcting the egoic pride of some deva. > -------------- > > KH: Oh, I see what you mean! :-) > > Wiping the egg from my face, I might point out that the commentaries' explanation is the most likely one. The deva asked a perfectly sensible question to which the Buddha would normally have replied, "I crossed the flood by means of the Eightfold Path. " > > (Or, keeping to the metaphor, he might have said by the "raft" of the Eightfold Path.") > > On this occasion he answered in a confusing way that his audience needed to hear. You will find similar things happening in other suttas. Yeah, well I think when the Buddha says things that are not so straightforward-seeming, it is because he is giving a more interesting teaching, not that he is trying to confuse some poor conceited deva by being "paradoxical." I have tried to explain how sensible it is for the Buddha to describe the "middle way" between sinking and struggling, but to no avail! Buddha explained it in clear, easy terms that even a deva can understand: "When I stood still I sank, when I strained, I was carried away, therefore I crossed the flood by neither straining nor standing still." It's absolutely straightforward Ken, and it makes perfect sense just the way it is! Yes, it's a metaphor, but a very close one. If one struggles on the path of life, the suffering is made worse. When you fall into sloth and torpor and do nothing, you don't progress on the path. The middle way is to follow the path with right effort, which means to accept and understanding what arises, and to take the courses of action that are skillful. What is so confusing about this metaphor? Nothing! ... > KH: I have apologised for that (almost) but, as I have just tried to argue, the commentaries were right whichever way you look at it. I have pointed out very logically why I disagree with both the intent and content of this commentary, and I'll leave it at that. ... > Ultimately, the deva can be seen as akusala citta afflicted with mana (conceit). Right understanding destroys conceit - as it did in this case. That's lovely, except that there's no evidence that this is what the sutta was about, and is not mentioned by the Buddha in his "paradoxical" explication. I just don't think the commentary has any reason to say what it does, nor does it illuminate anything useful. > ------------------------------------ > > RE: The other part of the commentary also sheds no light at all on dhammas in any way - I am talking about the section in which the commentator gave his incredibly astute explanation for how one looks for something to stand on in a "shallow" flood, but doesn't stand still in deep water where he will sink. This is not about dhammas, but about conventional "floods," ignoring anything having to do with right effort, which is what the sutta is about. > ----------------------------------- > > KH: Talk about raging! You should listen to yourself sometimes, Robert. Actually I'm just being straightforward, Ken, and cutting through the nonsense in this case. You love to do that yourself, but I guess it's harder to observe it than to do it. > The flood is a metaphor, isn't it? Yes, but it's not a parodoxical or crazy metaphor. It's not a wild hip-hop metaphor, or an obscure metaphor written in ancient Mesopotamian. It's a very straightforward metaphor about what kind of relation to effort will get one safely across the flood of samsaric conditionality. > When the deva asked, "How did you cross the flood," he meant, "How did you overcome sensuality, existence, views and/or ignorance." Well, duh....! :-) [I like your and/or above - you mean it's multiple choice?] ;-) > And the Buddha replied in kind - keeping to the same metaphor. Right, so it's not nonsense and it's not paradoxical, and it's not weird, and it's not 'finishing school for devas.' It's an actual teaching of the Buddha's! What a shock! > Most people, as Jon alluded, would have thought standing still meant not doing anything, but that would have been a bit lame wouldn't it? People don't cross a flood by just standing there looking at it. The commentaries' take on it was much more in keeping with the metaphor. Uh.....not! > -------------------------------------------- > > RE: The Buddha says clearly that he neither stood still nor strived, not that he stood still here and there, and in some other places he strove. He said that both strategies were fruitless for crossing the flood, because they both led to disaster. Yet the commentary happily describes where is the good spot for doing one or the other, totally contradicting the Buddha. > --------------------------------------------- > > KH: Tosh! :-) That's easy for you to say! > ---------------------------------------------------- > > RE: So to review, in this particular part of the Dhamma, there is not a single dhamma in sight. So why do you still think it's about dhammas when it is thoroughly conventional? Because you simply believe anything a Commentary says, no matter what? > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > KH: Now you've got me completely confused. You do realise the flood was a metaphor, don't you? Uh...yeah. But I always thought that what you so loved about the commentaries is that they explicated the meaning of the Buddha's teachings in terms of actual dhammas, not that they told a little tale about a very naughty deva that the Buddha confused to cut him down to size. But hey, live and learn. As I suspected, you like anything that's in a commentary, regardless of content. > I think in your raging you have got carried away. :-) Yes, I've been carried away by my own raging flood - help..... I'm floating out to sea.....! Heeeeelllllppppp me Ken H. ........ Come out on your surfboard and save me..... Oh, never mind, a giant deva just plucked me out of the ocean with his enormous hand. What a relief! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #116533 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:20 pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana Sutta - Reflection on corpses epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, A T wrote: > No excuses only on past conditions. One of the condition is what one does now. "By oneself (Attanā'va) is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. " Nice material Alex. It's always good to see what the Buddha had to say about these things. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #116534 From: "aubecolette" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 11:46 am Subject: "THE EXPERIENCE OF SAMADHI" aubecolette Hi Group, I'm reading the book THE EXPERIENCE OF SAMADHI and can easily verify everything in the first chapter. It's amazing how it seemlessly fits into TANTRA. Does anybody know how I can, in meditations, resolve the issue of SPACE as existing? It cannot exist just as TIME cannot exist since then they would cease to be NOUMENA and MIND ONLY concepts, they have to be RUPA as long as they are EXISTENT. I can easily TRANSCEND TIME but this is the first time I've tried it with the concept of SPACE. Any ideas would be helpful. toodles, colette #116535 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 9:46 am Subject: Evaporate the inner Enemy! bhikkhu5 Friends: Evaporate the Enemy inside by Friendliness! Suppose an enemy has hurt you now, in what is his domain, his house etc... Why try yourself additionally to hurt your mind? That is not his domain! In tears you have left your family, though they had been both kind & nice. So why not leave your 'enemy': The anger that brings you internal harm? This anger that we harbour is gnawing at the very roots of all the qualities and virtues, that we otherwise try to guard and protect! Anger is foolish! Another behaves badly... Then stirred one becomes angry! But how is this? Does one really want to copy the bad behaviour, that he just committed? Suppose another, to annoy, provokes you with some offensive behaviour: Why suffer then by letting anger spring up? One is certainly punished so... If anger-blinded enemies plans conflict, getting angry one-self only grows even more hostility! Therefore put this bitter anger down, since why should one be harassed groundlessly? Since all states last only a moment's time, this 'enemy' has already evaporated, when the sweet revenge is planned... But why then attack an 'absence', that is only an image maintained inside? The 'enemy' never really was there 'outside', but only became interpreted so, by an inner mental pollution called hate, anger, aversion, irritation etc... Source: The Path of Purification: (Visuddhimagga) 301 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <...> #116536 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 8:41 pm Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! ptaus1 Hi Sarah and Phil, Thanks for the discussion. > S: "conditioned by kamma and accumultions" in the sense that they are the accumulated tendencies to what is experienced through the senses, the result of kamma. In terms of kamma and tendencies, how about strong attachment between two people - it seems that this would depend on accumulations in sanna as much as on lobha? Especially if the two people have met in recent previous lives, there'd be pre-conditions for strong dis/like due to sanna, no? Of course, most of it with concepts as objects, I'd think. In fact, now that I think about it, there's a sutta where the Buddha advises a couple on how to get reborn together again or smth like that. Not sure how collective rebirth exactly fits in with kamma and tendencies? Regarding abstention, there seem to be three varieties: - without understanding, when one abstains because of intellectual beliefs like - god will punish me, it's the law, etc. - with intelectual understanding, when one intellectually understands what'll be the detrimental consequences of a deed, and thus abstains. - with direct understanding, when there's recognition of craving for this, or against that, as anatta. Anything else I'm missing? Best wishes pt #116537 From: "philip" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 11:22 pm Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! philofillet Hi Pt and Sarah > In fact, now that I think about it, there's a sutta where the Buddha advises a couple on how to get reborn together again or smth like that. Not sure how collective rebirth exactly fits in with kamma and tendencies? Ph: Yes, if their virtue is in perfect tune they will rejoice together in the next life, I think in a deva realm. One of the most explicit cases of tge Buddha holding out the carrot of favourable destination, this time a family plan I think the Buddha understood very well (well, duh!) that people of weak understanding and perhaps shaky sila might be motivated by this sort of thing. His purpose was to free people ftom suffering, so this sutta that must struck some people as awfully Xtian sounding had its valid purpose. > Regarding abstention, there seem to be three varieties: > - without understanding, when one abstains because of intellectual beliefs like - god will punish me, it's the law, etc > - with intelectual understanding, when one intellectually understands what'll be the detrimental consequences of a deed, and thus abstains. > - with direct understanding, when there's recognition of craving for this, or against that, as Ph: Thanks for reminding me of this. In my case, struggling to abstain from sex with a married woman, I notuce that the Buddha uses an appeal to the intellectual understanding described above. A verse in Dhammapada lists 5 or 6 undesirable results of such a liaison, and it's very easy to imagine the resukts arising fron this. A really conventional teaching, because the cuttas involved are not the point, it's the harsh worldly results. Well, of course they are ultimayely experienced through cittas, and being dominated by a concern about the 8 worldly dhammas is certainly not as cool as getting downto the paramatthic nitty gritty. Sarah, there were not conditions for accepting your advice ti not see the woman. We played squash together today, and I'm afriad the akulsala conditional forces pushing us together are threatening to overpower the good guys, but the batle goes on, we shall see... Also, Sarah and Nina, thanks so much for the excellent posts yesterday, will respond from the computer when I get a chance... Metta, Phil #116538 From: "philip" Date: Tue Aug 2, 2011 11:51 pm Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! philofillet --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Pt and Sarah > > > In fact, now that I think about it, there's a sutta where the Buddha advises a couple on how to get reborn together again or smth like that. Not sure how collective rebirth exactly fits in with kamma and tendencies? > > > Ph: Yes, if their virtue is in perfect tune they will rejoice together in the next life, I think in a deva realm. One of the most explicit cases of tge Buddha holding out the carrot of favourable destination, this time a family plan I think the Buddha understood very well (well, duh!) that people of weak understanding and perhaps shaky sila might be motivated by this sort of thing. His purpose was to free people ftom suffering, so this sutta that must struck some people as awfully Xtian sounding had its valid purpose. Ph: Hi again, ifwe accept the sutta in question not as a cheap motivating carrot as I suggested it was but rather asa teaching on how kamma operates, whuch isobvioulya betterwayto see it, doesn't it lend weight to the arguments of those of us who say that kamma from this one lifetime have greater influence on the rebirth to come than those of countless past lives? How else could the kamma of two people who lived together in this lifetime play out with such a perfect cohesion(?) if countless kammas ofcountless past lives were equally probable candidates to be the rebirth citta? Of course we know that speculating about the workings of kamma is discouraged by the Buddhda. Metta Phil > > > Regarding abstention, there seem to be three varieties: > > - without understanding, when one abstains because of intellectual beliefs like - god will punish me, it's the law, etc > > - with intelectual understanding, when one intellectually understands what'll be the > detrimental consequences of a deed, and thus abstains. > > - with direct understanding, when there's recognition of craving for this, or against that, as > > Ph: Thanks for reminding me of this. In my case, struggling to abstain from sex with a married woman, I notuce that the Buddha uses an appeal to the intellectual understanding described above. A verse in Dhammapada lists 5 or 6 undesirable results of such a liaison, and it's very easy to imagine the resukts arising fron this. A > really conventional teaching, because the cuttas involved are not the point, it's the harsh worldly results. Well, of course they are ultimayely experienced through cittas, and being dominated by a concern about the 8 worldly dhammas is certainly not as cool as getting downto the paramatthic nitty gritty. > > Sarah, there were not conditions for accepting your advice ti not see the woman. We played squash together today, and I'm afriad the akulsala conditional forces pushing us together are threatening to overpower the good guys, but the batle goes on, we shall see... > > > > Also, Sarah and Nina, thanks so much for the excellent posts yesterday, will respond from the computer when I get a chance... > > Metta, > Phil > #116539 From: "philip" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 9:53 am Subject: Factors for predominance condition philofillet Hi Nina Are virya and chanda more common than citta as the factor for predominance condition? I mean , of the four factors, do vimamsa and citta represent more rarefied factors than virya or chanda when there is kusala? I think your book says at one point that citta as kusala predominance factor is "pure"... Thanks Nina, only when you have time... Metta, Phil #116540 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 10:37 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) kenhowardau Hi Alex, You wrote: ----------- >>> A: When the suttas and commentaries say "do this" you keep telling us that what they really say is that "one should NOT do this". --------- And I replied: ------------------- >> KH: Can you give an example of where this has happened? I could find a hundred examples of where you have made that exact same allegation against me and others. Our response has always been to explain there is no 'doing' or 'not doing' *as those things are conventionally understood*. There are only conditioned dhammas arising one citta at a time. Therefore, the Buddha's exhortations to "do" certain things and "not do" certain things have to be understood in terms of a single-moment universe. >> You don't believe that, and I can understand your disbelief. But I would be grateful if you would stop this inane repetition. No one is saying, "When the Buddha said 'do this' he actually meant 'do not do this'. >> No one! ---------------- KH: You chose not to give the examples I asked for. That is understandable, because there aren't any. But you did write: ----------------------- > A: VsM VIII, 157. ...So the Blessed One said 'gone to the forest', etc., to point out a forest abode as a place likely to hasten his advancement. <. . .> > A: Where in VsM is it explained that one shouldn't do these? ------------------- KH: For the millionth time, Alex: No one is saying that! You had also written in the original message: ---------------------------- >>> A: If "don't take these as prescription, only as description", then wouldn't such points be repeated over and over again in the suttas and commentaries? ---------------------------- KH: I thought that hypothetical situation would be a good one to discuss. And so I asked you to imagine for a minute that the texts did actually use those exact words over and over again. How would you have understood those words? What meaning would you have given them? The reason I asked was that I believed you still wouldn't get it. You would still take those words to be a prescription, rather than a description. If the Buddha said, "Take my Teaching as descriptive, not as prescriptive," you would have taken that as a prescription to do so wouldn't you? (You wouldn't have taken it as a description of the middle way.) My point is, it doesn't matter how the Dhamma is phrased, you always insist on seeing it the way you do. Changing the wording wouldn't make a scrap of difference. -------------------- <. . .> >> KH:People at DSG are constantly giving quotes from the suttas in support of their "dhammas only" understanding. >> > A: Except these suttas often talk about things to be DONE, and without mentioning that "these are only descriptions. Don't ever do them." --------------------- KH: You have ignored my request: " I would be grateful if you would stop this inane repetition. No one is saying, "When the Buddha said 'do this' he actually meant 'do not do this'," And I don't blame you for ignoring it. It's a free world; repeat it as often as you like! :-) Apart from a high five from Robert E, however, you can't expect much response, can you? People can take only so much. -------------------------------------- >> KH: The desire to be a person who practises Dhamma can be very strong. It can easily block out the truth that there is no person. >> > A: And the Buddha has never denied the existence of a conventional person. Thanks again for telling us that you do not teach what the Buddha has tought. ------------------------------------- KH When the Buddha used the words "person" "I" "you" "they" etc, he was actually referring to the five khandhas (fleeting nama and rupa). And so he certainly did not deny the existence of the "person" in that respect. However, he did deny it in every other respect. The entire Dhamma is a constant reminder that all conditioned dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta, and all dhammas (including nibbana) are anatta. "....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) You will eventually have to accept that, Alex. You and Ven Thanissaro, and ten million Thanissaro supporters, will eventually have to accept there is no self. Or find yourselves an eternalist religion. Ken H > A: Note, it says that it depends on oneself. The fault is all on > the person, never due to strict determinism that was what some > heretical teachers taught which the Buddha rejected. #116541 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 10:48 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) truth_aerator Dear KenH, all, > KH: I thought that hypothetical situation would be a good one to >discuss. And so I asked you to imagine for a minute that the texts >did actually use those exact words over and over again. How would >you have understood those words? What meaning would you have given >them? > > The reason I asked was that I believed you still wouldn't get it. >You would still take those words to be a prescription, rather than >a description. If the Buddha would have said to take His message as descriptive rather than prescriptive, then I would definitely take His word and take His message to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. If He taught that there are only Dhammas, than I would accept that as Buddha's teaching. >KH:(You wouldn't have taken it as a description of the middle way.) I would take it as a description of the middle way if He would clearly tells us so. >KH: My point is, it doesn't matter how the Dhamma is phrased, you >always insist on seeing it the way you do. Changing the wording >wouldn't make a scrap of difference. It would. I believe that phrasing that the Buddha used IS IMPORTANT. Unlike some people here, He does not use past passives. He uses present active or even present imperative verbs. The grammatical structure and words that He uses do imply "thing to be done". I would really love it to be true that He taught only descriptions and No-Control where one could become "Arahant while cooking". It would be awesome to explore the presently arisen reality while lying in a bed watching Old HK flicks with Deadly Asian Girls brutalize guys and each other.... Too bad it doesn't seem to be the case, as much as I wish it to be the case... Doing hard work is so, well, hard... With best wishes, Alex #116542 From: "philip" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 11:39 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) philofillet Hi Alex and all Alex makes a very good point about grammar. Unless any Pali experts can cone forward and state that the Buddha did not speak in the imperative voice, it must be pretty difficult or impossible to convincingly deny that the teachings are prescroprive, don't you think? I suppose the "the listeners in the Buddhas day were of more developed understanding so they saw through the imperative to a deeeper truth" argument is the only way to do so, but I've never heard it anywhere except at DSG. Rather than denying that the teachings about physical seclusion are prescriptive, I think critics of meditation as it is practiced today would in my opinion be better off arguing that there are impediments prevalent in modern society (desire for fast results, information overload fouled minds, guru-centred orgsnizations like Goenka and Mahasi etc that don't teach strictly in line with the ancient texts and make a cult out of retreats etc) that make it unlikely that there are suitable conditions for the prescriptive teachings to be followed with correct understanding...) But denying that the Buddha prescribed physical seclusion to his listeners is consistenly peculiar, in my opinion, for what it's worth... Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear KenH, all, > > > KH: I thought that hypothetical situation would be a good one to >discuss. And so I asked you to imagine for a minute that the texts >did actually use those exact words over and over again. How would >you have understood those words? What meaning would you have given >them? > > > > The reason I asked was that I believed you still wouldn't get it. >You would still take those words to be a prescription, rather than >a description. > > If the Buddha would have said to take His message as descriptive rather than prescriptive, then I would definitely take His word and take His message to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. If He taught that there are only Dhammas, than I would accept that as Buddha's teaching. > > > >KH:(You wouldn't have taken it as a description of the middle way.) > > I would take it as a description of the middle way if He would clearly tells us so. > > > >KH: My point is, it doesn't matter how the Dhamma is phrased, you >always insist on seeing it the way you do. Changing the wording >wouldn't make a scrap of difference. > > It would. I believe that phrasing that the Buddha used IS IMPORTANT. > > Unlike some people here, He does not use past passives. He uses present active or even present imperative verbs. The grammatical structure and words that He uses do imply "thing to be done". > > I would really love it to be true that He taught only descriptions and No-Control where one could become "Arahant while cooking". It would be awesome to explore the presently arisen reality while lying in a bed watching Old HK flicks with Deadly Asian Girls brutalize guys and each other.... > > Too bad it doesn't seem to be the case, as much as I wish it to be the case... Doing hard work is so, well, hard... > > With best wishes, > Alex > #116543 From: A T Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 12:04 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) truth_aerator Hi Phil, all, There are such phrases as: 18. "What can be done for his disciples by a Master who seeks their welfare and has compassion and pity on them, that I have done for you, Cunda.[27] There are these roots of trees, there are empty places. Meditate, Cunda, do not delay, lest you later regret it. 'This is my message to you." jhāyatha, cunda, mā pamādattha, mā pacchāvippaṭisārino ahuvattha’ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.008.nypo.html [similar is said to monks in M1.118 , S 4.132 A3.87 and other places.] jhāyatha is either Present Active 2nd person plural or active imperative 2nd person plural. Buddha is instructing us to meditate using active tone! With best wishes, Alex #116544 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 12:13 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) kenhowardau Hi Phil and all, ------- <. . .> > Ph: But denying that the Buddha prescribed physical seclusion to his listeners is consistenly peculiar, in my opinion, for what it's worth... ------ KH: The point is there are only the presently arisen dhammas. They are all that exists. And they have already arisen! It makes it hard if you really want to be able to do something in absolute reality. But what can you do? Ken H PS: > Ph: but I've never heard it anywhere except at DSG. KH: And in Thailand, don't forget. #116545 From: A T Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 12:30 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, >KH: The point is there are only the presently arisen dhammas. Right, and so is meditation (verb jhāyati) said in present-active or present-imperative tone (jhāyatha). There is no pali passive references to meditation (jhāyati) anywhere in the tipitaka or commentaries. Its not even possible. Causative passive forms (jhāp"*) are grammatically possible, but are not encountered in tipitaka or ANY commentaries, except as perhaps a Thai word said in 20-21st century. With best wishes, Alex #116546 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 1:24 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) kenhowardau Hi Alex, Thanks for the question. --------- <. . .> > A: Right, and so is meditation (verb jhāyati) said in present-active or present-imperative tone (jhāyatha). > There is no pali passive references to meditation (jhāyati) anywhere in the tipitaka or commentaries. Its not even possible. Causative passive forms (jhāp"*) are grammatically possible, but are not encountered in tipitaka or ANY commentaries, except as perhaps a Thai word said in 20-21st century. --------- KH: Holy smoke! Whatever gave you the impression samatha and vipassana bhavana were passive? Nothing could be further from the truth! Bhavana is the most difficult thing in the world, attainable only with the most concentrated effort. There is nothing remotely passive about it. Oh, unless you are talking about sentient beings and other forms of atta. They have no role to play in ultimate reality - passive or active. They are just concepts. Ken H #116547 From: "philip" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 1:30 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) philofillet Hi Ken I think insight when developed reveals that there is only the presently arisen nama and rupa, yes, but that is when insight is developed, and the Buddha wisely prescribes recommended behaviour in body, speech and mind in order to foster conditions for that insight to develop. You take thinking and talking about that insight as tge starting point. There may be value in that and there is certainly no doubting your saddha, but I still wonder if all this thinking and talking/writing in terms tyat represent the understanding of the noble ones is conducive to fostering conditions for deeper understanding...it may be, but ut may also be an obstacle because you may be depriving yourself of helpful conditional factors found through the conventional teachings and you may also have such confidence in the value of your thinking in paramattha terms that it interferes with concern about akusala kamma pattha etc. Just my suspicion, you may be right and I may be wrong.. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Phil and all, > > ------- > <. . .> > > Ph: But denying that the Buddha prescribed physical seclusion to his listeners is consistenly peculiar, in my opinion, for what it's worth... > ------ > > KH: The point is there are only the presently arisen dhammas. They are all that exists. And they have already arisen! > > It makes it hard if you really want to be able to do something in absolute reality. But what can you do? > > Ken H > > PS: > > Ph: but I've never heard it anywhere except at DSG. > > KH: And in Thailand, don't forget. > #116548 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 8:19 am Subject: Clever Presence! bhikkhu5 Friends The 4 Foundations of Awareness: Which Four Foundations? 1: Only if and when the Noble Friend resides regarding any Body -own or other- simply as a heaped up group, just as a transient, compounded and complex form, only as a fragile, accumulated and alien assemblage, while being alert, aware and thereby clearly comprehending, then will he cause effective removal of all urge and frustration rooted in this world! 2: Only if and when a Noble Friend dwells observing any Feeling -from within or from without- simply as an affective emotional reaction, as an assigned response, only as a fleeting sensation, while being keen, fully conscious and continuously attentive, then will he thereby consequently eliminate all desire and discontent caused simply by being in and contacting this world! 3: Only if and when a Noble Friend abides viewing any Mood -present or remote- simply as a fancy temper, just as a made up mentality, only as a conscious moment, while being ready, actively investigating and deliberately discriminating, then will he thereby naturally eradicate all longing and sadness inherent in this world! 4: Only if and when a Friend lives interpreting any Phenomenon -internal or external - simply as a passing mental state, just as a mentally created and conditioned construct, only as an experienced appearance, merely as a created imaginary reflected imprint, while being acutely awake, mindful and carefully understanding, then will he thereby overcome all attraction and repulsion entrenched and ingrained in this world! A Direct Hit: Without any even single exception: Whoever in the distant and ancient past has Awakened to full Enlightenment; Whoever in the present, right now is Awakening to complete Enlightenment; Whoever in the near and far future will ever Awaken to perfect Enlightenment; All those have been freed, is being freed, and will be freed only through and by: Initiating, Cultivating & Establishing these unique 4 Foundations of Awareness! The single and sole cause of really Being Mentally Present! Check it Out: It pays off inestimably! http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Crucial_Foundation.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/One_and_only_Way.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Four_Foundations_of_Awareness.htm Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Clever Presence! #116549 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 8:07 pm Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! ptaus1 Hi Phil, > Ph: Thanks for reminding me of this. In my case, struggling to abstain from sex with a married woman, I notuce that the Buddha uses an appeal to the intellectual understanding described above. A verse in Dhammapada lists 5 or 6 undesirable results of such a liaison, and it's very easy to imagine the resukts arising fron this. A > really conventional teaching, because the cuttas involved are not the point, it's the harsh worldly results. Well, of course they are ultimayely experienced through cittas, and being dominated by a concern about the 8 worldly dhammas is certainly not as cool as getting downto the paramatthic nitty gritty. pt: Interesting about the Dhammapada verse, could you please let me know which one. Another interesting bit in this connection is that adultery I think basically equals to akusala kamma patha, i.e. a deed which has all the strength to result in rebirth in a hell plane. So, in a situation that you describe, both people commit adultery and thus both are eligible for rebirth in hell. That's one thing that kept me away from sex in a similar situation to yours. The point is, if I know better, then I should back off rather than condemning the woman to rebirth in hell due to adultery, since she's not aware that this might be the possible result. Difficult of course, because craving leading to sex feels so good (i.e. craving is accompanied with pleasant feeling) and generally feels much better than the actual sex and especially the aftermath when you realize what was actually done. It's even more trickier when you're not involved in a relationship - so don't have a partner anymore, and the other woman is in a bad marriage and wants out... Is she then officially committing adultery? Would her official partner care, and does that matter? ... Difficult. One thing though, craving is craving, and it is akusala, and relinquishment is the whole point of the path to freedom... Perhaps its time to re-read A.S.'s Perfections. Best wishes pt #116550 From: Lukas Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 9:09 pm Subject: Getting back home szmicio Hi Dhamma friends, We are getting back home with Adam now. We have our bus to Poland in 1 hour. Pretty much tired, cause we are in travel since 30 hours now. best wishes Lukas #116551 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 9:24 pm Subject: Re: "THE EXPERIENCE OF SAMADHI" szmicio Hi colette, I think you may be pretty much involved in astral projections, lucid dreams or out of body exeperiences. I also used to be involved to that, and from my experience I know that this is not kusala. Cause the point of the teachings is like understanding the 4 Noble Truths, that will bring the eradiction of kilesas(very different than normal samadhi experiences). And I think if you mention akasa, a space here during samatha this may be samatha with wrong view involved. So this is pleasant experience only, but I am not sure if this goes with right understanding. So develop more and more right understanding :P if we mention akasa , it's just a ruupa that seperates others ruupas, so you cant be with it or whatever... Ruupa can be known in moments of awarness. The practice to understand space ruupa is never samatha. Samatha cannot know akasa ruupa. Only develped panna of satipatthana that is right understanding of level of vipassana nana can know space ruupa as it is. Such is areality, no matter what we think of it. Samatha is only the moment of knowing what is kusala and what is akusala, and the way to develop more kusala. Another meaning of space ruupa I think is the denotion of space around us, so this is different designation. I think this is experienced also by panna of vipassana nana. Train yourself even in this distinction by intelectuall understanding. This is according to Buddha words and it sonner or later brings more right understanding. Just Dont go into those concepts of ideas or philosphy of space. This is not the Buddha words. best wishes Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "aubecolette" wrote: > > Hi Group, > > I'm reading the book THE EXPERIENCE OF SAMADHI and can easily verify everything in the first chapter. It's amazing how it seemlessly fits into TANTRA. > > Does anybody know how I can, in meditations, resolve the issue of SPACE as existing? It cannot exist just as TIME cannot exist since then they would cease to be NOUMENA and MIND ONLY concepts, they have to be RUPA as long as they are EXISTENT. > > I can easily TRANSCEND TIME but this is the first time I've tried it with the concept of SPACE. > > Any ideas would be helpful. > > toodles, > colette > #116552 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 5:36 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Ken) - In a message dated 8/2/2011 8:48:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear KenH, all, > KH: I thought that hypothetical situation would be a good one to >discuss. And so I asked you to imagine for a minute that the texts >did actually use those exact words over and over again. How would >you have understood those words? What meaning would you have given >them? > > The reason I asked was that I believed you still wouldn't get it. >You would still take those words to be a prescription, rather than >a description. If the Buddha would have said to take His message as descriptive rather than prescriptive, then I would definitely take His word and take His message to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. If He taught that there are only Dhammas, than I would accept that as Buddha's teaching. -------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Alex, on this point, you confuse me a bit: In order to disabuse us of falsely considering the macroscopic entities of "our world" as realities, the Buddha pointed out, a la the chariot metaphor, that such things are not individual realities but merely conventional things that are only mentally delineated assemblages of the simpler namas and rupas. In this regard, Alex, what are you implying? Are you implying that there is more to macroscopic worldly objects than mere assemblages of simpler dhammas? Are you asserting that in a tree or person or building there is a core of essence, identity, own-being and individuality that makes it an instance of yet one more category of "realities"? -------------------------------------------------------- >KH:(You wouldn't have taken it as a description of the middle way.) I would take it as a description of the middle way if He would clearly tells us so. >KH: My point is, it doesn't matter how the Dhamma is phrased, you >always insist on seeing it the way you do. Changing the wording >wouldn't make a scrap of difference. It would. I believe that phrasing that the Buddha used IS IMPORTANT. Unlike some people here, He does not use past passives. He uses present active or even present imperative verbs. The grammatical structure and words that He uses do imply "thing to be done". I would really love it to be true that He taught only descriptions and No-Control where one could become "Arahant while cooking". It would be awesome to explore the presently arisen reality while lying in a bed watching Old HK flicks with Deadly Asian Girls brutalize guys and each other.... Too bad it doesn't seem to be the case, as much as I wish it to be the case... Doing hard work is so, well, hard... With best wishes, Alex ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116553 From: Vince Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 9:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "THE EXPERIENCE OF SAMADHI" cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Hi Colette you wrote: > I can easily TRANSCEND TIME but this is the first time I've tried it with the > concept of SPACE. > Any ideas would be helpful. take a look to Nyaponika Thera's book "Buddhist explorations of consciousness and time". This is one of the better books about Time and Space in Buddhism. It seems there are not many more. best, Vince. #116554 From: "philip" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 10:12 pm Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! philofillet Hi Pt > pt: Interesting about the Dhammapada verse, could you please let me know which one. Another interesting bit in this connection is that adultery I think basically equals to akusala kamma patha, i.e. a deed which has all the strength to result in rebirth in a hell plane. So, in a situation that you describe, both people commit adultery and thus both are eligible for rebirth in hell. ph: Thanks for adding to the force of the good guys (kusala dhammas) that will or will not arise to prevent the bad deed. When one has been celibate for many years and meets someone that one clicks with, and, as is also in a sexless marriage (for different reasons), and when both people have affectionate albeit sexless relationships with their spouses, it is easy to talk oneself into believing that there is nothing wrong with it. But you helpfully remind me that it is a heavy deed. Interesting though that it is a conventional act that leads to rebirth in hell, rather than the cittas invovled. In that sense it would seem to be incorrect, for there is no way to be sure that akusala cittas are involved in an extra-marital affair, why would the cittas involved so certainly be akusala? It doesn't make sense...see the rationalization that goes on? Fortunately, the Buddha makes it clear. The Dhammapada verse in question is 309-310, suitably enough in the Chapter entitled "Hell." "Four conditions the heedless man comes by, who resorts to the wives of others; acquisition of demerit, lack of agreeable sleep, disgrace is the third; hell is the fourth. Acquisition of demerit and a lowly future course. And brief the delight of a frightened man with a frightened woman, The king too gives a heavy punishment - so let a man not resort to the wife of another." Talk about patriarchical! Surely this represents an antiquated view of women as the property of men, not relevant in this day and age....the rationalization is endless. Meditation is helping a lot. I don't know if the meditation I'm doing is truly Buddhist, I think it's more like yoga since it involves intentionally manipulating the breath to give rise to pleasant sensations in the body, but it is this meditation that finalized my victory over alcohol, because the hangover from even one beer ruined the next day's meditation, and the buzz from a beer is not as good as the buzz I get from the meditation. I don't think the meditation (?) is powerfully pleasant enough to compete with sex, but it's getting there. I used to put on the timer for 30 minutes, but now it's an hour and even after the bell goes off I want to keep sitting...this might be building an abide in which there will be shelter from the need for sex at all costs... Anyways, thanks again pt, I appreciate it. Metta, Phil p.s yes, the Perfections, great book! THe image of the good guys coming to help me is inspired perhaps from the bit about reinforcements rushing in to prop up a castle under attack, or something like that. It's a stirring book, especially when read by Lodewijk. > > That's one thing that kept me away from sex in a similar situation to yours. The point is, if I know better, then I should back off rather than condemning the woman to rebirth in hell due to adultery, since she's not aware that this might be the possible result. Difficult of course, because craving leading to sex feels so good (i.e. craving is accompanied with pleasant feeling) and generally feels much better than the actual sex and especially the aftermath when you realize what was actually done. > > It's even more trickier when you're not involved in a relationship - so don't have a partner anymore, and the other woman is in a bad marriage and wants out... Is she then officially committing adultery? Would her official partner care, and does that matter? ... Difficult. One thing though, craving is craving, and it is akusala, and relinquishment is the whole point of the path to freedom... Perhaps its time to re-read A.S.'s Perfections. > > Best wishes > pt > #116555 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 10:36 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) nilovg Dear Philip, Op 3-aug-2011, om 3:39 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > But denying that the Buddha prescribed physical seclusion to his > listeners is consistenly peculiar, in my opinion, for what it's > worth... ------ N: What I read is: , not: go to the forest. I remember Kh Sujin saying: he is there already. ----- Nina. #116556 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 10:43 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) nilovg Dear Alex, Op 3-aug-2011, om 4:04 heeft A T het volgende geschreven: > jhāyatha is either Present Active 2nd person plural or active > imperative 2nd person plural. > > Buddha is instructing us to meditate using active tone! ----- N: Yes, correct. For t For those who are interested in the commentary (but do not read this if you are not): here is explained that meditation (upanijjhaana) is either contemplation of the thirty meditation subjects of samatha or contemplation of the three characteristics of impermanence, dukkha, anattaa. Also the Atthasåliní (Expositor, Part V, Ch I, 167), with regard to contemplation of the object, uses the term upanijjhåna, and explains this as twofold: as closely examining the object, which are the meditation subjects of samatha; and as examining closely the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattå. Insight, the Path and Fruition are called “characteristic examining jhåna”. ------- Nina. #116557 From: "philip" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 11:14 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) philofillet Hi Nina > > But denying that the Buddha prescribed physical seclusion to his > > listeners is consistenly peculiar, in my opinion, for what it's > > worth... > ------ > N: What I read is: , not: go to the forest. I > remember Kh Sujin saying: he is there already. > ----- Ph: Thanks Nina. I wonder if the structure involved is similar to another controversial translation, the "having removed desires and discontent with respect to the world" at thr beginning of the satipatthana sutta, some feel that the present perfect tense is not right, I think I hear a sayadaw say. And again, thanks for the post on rupas, thought Iwould get to it today, but no. Metta, Phil #116558 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 11:30 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) truth_aerator Hi Howard, > -------------------------------------------------------- >HCW: >a la the chariot metaphor, that such things are not >individual realities but merely conventional things that are only >mentally delineated assemblages of the simpler namas and rupas. >============================================================= The chariot simile simply states that we can take apart the whole. It does not deny the whole as assemblage of parts that can be taken apart into component parts. Though we need to remember that some of the factors cannot physically be separated from others, only in theory for the sake of analysis. Hopefully this is clearer. With best wishes, Alex #116559 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 11:36 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) truth_aerator Dear Nina, KenH, all, The discussion was not about "samatha" vs "vipassana". The discussion is about the usage of active-present or active-imperative verb form. To me, it doesn't sound like the Buddha was being descriptive, it sounds like He is prescriptive. If He was descriptive, then I am sure he would use past-passives, and/or causatives, rather than active-imperative and active-present. With best wishes, Alex #116560 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 11:52 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) nilovg Dear Philip, Op 3-aug-2011, om 15:14 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > the "having removed desires and discontent with respect to the > world" at thr beginning of the satipatthana sutta ------ N: I found this passage difficult, since I would expect this to be the result of the practice. But there are several explanations to this passage. The world stands for the five khandhas. One explanation: at the moment of mindfulness he has no attachment nor aversion towards the khandhas. Actually, he has not preference for whatever object appears, he does not select. Nor is he dismayed. Whatever appears already can be object of understanding, no matter it is kusala, akusala, pleasant, unpleasant. ----- Nina. #116561 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 11:56 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) nilovg Dear Alex, Op 3-aug-2011, om 15:36 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > The discussion was not about "samatha" vs "vipassana". The > discussion is about the usage of active-present or active- > imperative verb form. > > To me, it doesn't sound like the Buddha was being descriptive, it > sounds like He is prescriptive. If He was descriptive, then I am > sure he would use past-passives, and/or causatives, rather than > active-imperative and active-present. ------ N: I take your point. I added about samatha and vipassana to show that there was not a command to do this or that. Who could command dhammas to appear as objects? ------ Nina. #116562 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 12:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections, was: Pt's Galaxy ... nilovg Dear Philip, Op 3-aug-2011, om 14:12 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > yes, the Perfections, great book! THe image of the good guys > coming to help me is inspired perhaps from the bit about > reinforcements rushing in to prop up a castle under attack, or > something like that. It's a stirring book, especially when read by > Lodewijk. ------ N: Glad to hear this, this will encourage him. Just at random opening the book, on patience: < Patience is the nature of those with supreme pa. In order to develop pa it is necessary to have endless patience: patience to listen to the Dhamma and to consider it in all details so as to understand the deep meaning of the teachings and their benefit. In that way we shall know that listening is not enough, that we should also apply the teachings. If someone wishes to have pa he should first of all have endurance and accumulate the perfection of patience. As we read: "Patience is an ocean on account of its depth." Patience is profound. Akusala arises more often than kusala. When sati-sampajaa arises, someone realizes the disadvantage of akusala citta, and he has patience to refrain from it, be it lobha, dosa, jealousy, avarice or conceit. This shows that patience is profound. If someone has no understanding, he cannot develop the perfection of patience. The perfection of patience and sati-sampajaa are very subtle and refined, they are conditions for refraining from akusala. Patience is "a shore bounding the great ocean of hatred; a panel closing off the door to the plane of misery." Many people are afraid of unhappy planes and they perform kusala so that they will not be born there. However, if someone does not want to be reborn in an unhappy plane, he should be patient and refrain from akusala, because patience is "a panel closing off the door to the plane of misery." Patience is "a staircase ascending to the worlds of the gods and Brahmas; the ground for the habitation of all noble qualities; the supreme purification of body, speech and mind." We should consider again and again whether we have further developed patience in each situation of our life. When we train ourselves often in good qualities, sobhana cetasikas, when we develop them, they can become our nature. > When doing good deeds all the perfections can develop together. I was reading to Lodewijk in "Alone with Dhamma" (an India talk) about Jonothan helping us in India and here he was developing all the perfections: < When we were in India we had many opportunities to rejoice in other people's kusala, their generosity and readiness to help others. Jonothan performed kusala all day long, without interruption, in recording the Dhamma discussions. He applied a great deal of effort to hold the microphone close to Acharn Sujin. When Lodewijk said that he was distracted by this, I said to him that Jonathan develops all the perfections while doing this. He performs dna, he gives the great gift of Dhamma. He performs sla while helping many people by bodily acts, while holding the microphone so that people all over the world can hear our dhamma discussions. He develops renunciation since he renounces his own comfort while he has little time for relaxation. He develops wisdom while listening with understanding, and asking questions that are useful to all. He applies energy since he is not inert to perform wholesome deeds. He has patience and endurance which is needed day after day in order to continue to perform kusala. He develops truthfulness to perform the kusala he is determined to do: acting according to what he has promised he would do. He has determination to perform kusala and continue with it. He has mett because he thinks of many people's benefit and welfare. He has equanimity because even when he is tired he continues with equanimity in all circumstances. This shows that all the perfections can be developed together, at the same time. We do not have to think about the perfections; they are developed while we perform kusala through body, speech and mind without thinking of our own gain or profit. Jonothan and Sarah are always working hard to edit all the recordings of Dhamma discussions just for our benefit. They even listened to them and edited them during our long bus drives. > ------- Nina. #116563 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 12:27 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) truth_aerator Dear Nina, Thank you for your reply. However you still have not answered: Why did the Buddha use active/imperative present verb form rather than talk in passives if He didn't want it to be taken as a command to develop it? I would accept "descriptive rather than prescriptive" if the Buddha would use passive or past-passive voice. With best wishes, Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alex, > Op 3-aug-2011, om 15:36 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > > > The discussion was not about "samatha" vs "vipassana". The > > discussion is about the usage of active-present or active- > > imperative verb form. > > > > To me, it doesn't sound like the Buddha was being descriptive, it > > sounds like He is prescriptive. If He was descriptive, then I am > > sure he would use past-passives, and/or causatives, rather than > > active-imperative and active-present. > ------ > N: I take your point. I added about samatha and vipassana to show > that there was not a command to do this or that. Who could command > dhammas to appear as objects? > ------ > Nina. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #116564 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 8:39 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 8/3/2011 9:30:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: The chariot simile simply states that we can take apart the whole. It does not deny the whole as assemblage of parts that can be taken apart into component parts. Though we need to remember that some of the factors cannot physically be separated from others, only in theory for the sake of analysis. Hopefully this is clearer. ================================ What do you understand the Buddha's purpose to have been in giving this metaphor? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #116565 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 12:56 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) truth_aerator Hi Howard, > ================================ >What do you understand the Buddha's purpose to have been in giving >this metaphor? >============================= That whole lacks indivisible singular essence. The whole that is made of parts is impermanent, because this whole depends on parts functioning properly and together. What is impermanent is dukkha, and what is dukkha is anatta. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #116566 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Aug 3, 2011 9:05 pm Subject: Re: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - Good! :-) [And thanks for the reply.] With metta, Howard In a message dated 8/3/2011 10:56:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, > ================================ >What do you understand the Buddha's purpose to have been in giving >this metaphor? >============================= That whole lacks indivisible singular essence. The whole that is made of parts is impermanent, because this whole depends on parts functioning properly and together. What is impermanent is dukkha, and what is dukkha is anatta. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #116567 From: Ken O Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 4:09 am Subject: SN 1.1 A Reed - commentarian explanation ashkenn2k Dear Rob E In the context of this sutta is seen in the verse in which the Devatta said to Buddha (see below), it is about how to get rid of attachment to the world. By not standing still with defilements, one is not sink into samasara and swept away by the cylce of birth conditioned by the defilements of ignorance and cravings B Bodhi did a wonderful job in translating the commentaries of this standing still and straining and there are seven explanations. these are the explanations of the commentaries (i) "halting" by way of defilements, one sinks; "straining" by way of volitional formations, one gets swept away; (ii) by way of craving and views, one sinks; by way of other other defilements, one get swept away. (iii) by way of craving, one sinks; by way of views, one get swept away. (iv) by way of the eternalistic view, one sinks; by way of the annihilationist view; one get swept away; (v) by way of slackness one sinks, by way of -restlessness one gets swept away. (vi) by way of devotion to sensual pleasures one sinks, by the devotion to self-motification one swept away; (vii) by way of all unwholesome volitional formations one sink, by way of all mundane wholesome voltion formations one gets swept away In the later part, the Devata said <> There is nothing wrong with the commentarian positions because at times Buddha did act on certain way so that the person who asked the question will be ready for his imparting of Dhamma. For eg Ven Bhadiya, Buddha only answered him after the Ven Bhadiya ask the third time and not on the first time, the reason is to find the right time to deliver the dhamma to benefit the person who had to be ready to receive. In another story, Buddha waited for a person to rest enough so that the person's mind is ready for his teaching before he deliver the dhamma. The gist is the person must be ready to receive the teaching so that the person could attain enlightment, and only Buddha has the knowledge to do that and act accordingly. This knowledge is not share by his disciples. Ken O > > [RE:] This second part of the commentary is the part that I *do* have a >problem with. In fact I have two problems. Perhaps I am "stiff with conceit" too >in order to doubt the commentary, but it seems thoroughly ridiculous to me. ... > > > > To take a clear and specific lesson of the Buddha's and say that it is a >paradox used to stymie some old deva seems like a real lost opportunity to >understand what the Buddha said and why he said it. It's exchanging a teaching >for a made-up story that has little merit. > > =============== > > J: Well there are different kinds of flood and different meanings the simile >used by the Buddha could have. The point you raised initially concerned >commentaries that you saw as contradicting the sutta text. While your own >reading may be a plausible one, the commentary explanation is far from being a >contradiction to the sutta text. It is a contradiction in the sense that it doesn't have the slightest bit of interest in what the sutta is about. Dressing down a deva may be an interesting pastime, but it has nothing to do with crossing a flood or the difference between right effort and wrong effort, which is clearly what the actual words of the Buddha are talking about. As far as I can tell, the commentary is fantasizing and is on its own separate track that is NOT what the Buddha spoke about in that sutta in any way, shape or form, nor does it even purport to interpret what the Buddha said. Instead it merely says that what the Buddha said had no importance, and it was just an inter-species squabble. It's worse than a contradiction - it's a sidetrack away from what the Buddha was teaching on that occasion. If that is a valid commentary, I'd rather read a comic book. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #116568 From: Ken O Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 5:13 am Subject: Re: Samadhi -- Re: Welcome -- Re: Liking calmness -- Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing ashkenn2k Dear KB sorry for the late reply. I have seen the summary. The difference is because of not explaining Visud properly. Visud is not to replace the suttas but explain the practise done that are not explain in details by the suttas. I personally do not believe in vipassana mediation because people dont understanding that during jhanas one cannot do vipassana. Vipassana requires vittaka and vicara for the mind to think and investigate the dhamma while in jhanas there is no vittaka. Even in the suttas, it is after jhanas then one could start recollecting the former lives, divine eyes and enlightenment. It is not during jhanas such things happen, it is after jhanas. During jhanas it is not possible to recollect former lives because recollecting former lives means the object of concentration keep changing while jhanas is about concentration on one object. We have to understand the nature of dhamma and how they work before coming to a conclusion. You also said that it is in later Abhidhamma text,the 17 moments of sense process are written. Yes you are right in that view but this does not devalue the immense understanding derive from the Abhidamma commentaries. But sense process cannot be just one citta. for example if one see the sutta, like the restraining of our sense lso that no defilements affect the mind. The mind moves in series just like a monkey move from branch to branch as said by the Buddha. At the moment of seeing, it is not possible to restrain because seeing is a kamma result. How could a kamma result becomes a kamma producer at the same time if there are defilements during the moment of seeing. So it must another citta and not during seeing. Another explanation if defilement could affect senses straight, then there is no salvation and it would determining also. Because the senses will be deflied since defilements arise at the moment of sense citta arise. Then it is defiled, it cause a future birth. So how to get out of samasara then. There should be another cittas involved after the arisen of sense cittas. These are my personal opinions and not of the commentaries thanks Ken O > >From: Kumara Bhikkhu >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Thursday, 30 June 2011 10:53:48 >Subject: Re: Samadhi -- Re: Welcome -- Re: Liking calmness -- Re: [dsg] Re: >wisdom and doing > > >Ken O wrote thus at 23:36 29/06/2011: >>you say there is two kinds of jhanas, why is it difference and please quote your >> >>textual support. The difference in jhanas is that in Visud it is described >>fivefold while in sutta it is fourfold. > >The 5- and 4-fold difference is relatively minor. When we say of the 2 being >different, we're speaking of a far more apparent divergence in a variety of >aspects. > >>you are not the first one to suggest different intepretation of samadhi, pse >>elaborate more so that we could discuss further > >Instead of reinventing the wheel, let me point you to this talk: >http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2009/03/bg-114-different-types-of-jhana-sutta-vish\ udimagga-vipassana/ > > >I would love to show you all a table of comparison but I think the settings for >this egroup does not allow attachments. Anyway, the table is just a summary of >points and may be unsatisfactory to the reader unless he already has sufficient >background info wrt the matter. > >>regarding whether Buddha had classified into three baskets. In the commentary >>to the Last Day of Buddhas where it said Buddha told his disciples that vinaya, > >>suttta and abhidhamma will be their guide. Also the recitation of½ >> the vinaya, >>sutta and abhidhmma in the first council, this means there is already some form > >>of classification before the recitation > >My perception was somewhat similar to yours, until it was pointed out to me that >actually abhidhamma was not mentioned in the early texts. > >In the MahaParinibbana Sutta (DN16), we find this: >Then the Blessed One said to Ven. Ananda, "Now, >if it occurs to any of you ­ 'The teaching has lost >it its authority; we are without a Teacher' ­ do >not view it in that way. Whatever Dhamma & Vinaya >I have pointed out & formulated for you, that will >be your Teacher when I am gone. > >Of course we can say that "Dhamma" here would include abhidhamma teachings. As >Nina pointed out earlier, that's certainly available in various suttas that are >abhidharmic in nature. As to the classifications we find in abhidhamma books and >courses, they are actually taken from Abhidhammatthasangaha, a 10th-century >text; ie, not even the Abhidhamma Pitaka. > >In the Chapter of 500 in Culavagga (Vinaya Pitaka), we find that Ven Ananda was >asked to recite the Suttas, while Ven Upali, the Vinaya rules with their origin. >(Now, many scholars have valid reasons to doubt the authenticity of even this >account, but let's leave that alone for now.) Again, no abhidhamma as we know it >now recited. Ven Ananda would have simply recited whatever that is already in >the Suttas that he remembered. > >Another consideration is that while different lineages of Buddhism retain a >largely similar collections of early texts in terms of vinaya and sutta, their >abhidhammas are very different. This suggests that the abhidhamma is a later >development in the Buddhist history. Records of debates among the >"Abhidharmikas" further strengthens this notion. > >kb, an former hard-core Theravadin :-) > > > #116569 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 8:09 am Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! kenhowardau Hi Phil and Pt, --- <. . .> > ph: Thanks for adding to the force of the good guys (kusala dhammas) that will or will not arise to prevent the bad deed. When one has been celibate for many years and meets someone that one clicks with, <. . .> --- KH: Throughout history there have always been examples of where puritanical religious superstitions have kept people in unhappy, loveless marriages and away from happy, loving adulteries. The Dhamma should never be included amongst those, or any other, superstitions. To understand the Dhamma is to understand the realities of the present moment. Once we have that understanding it will be all we need. Concepts of adultery and marriage will no longer have a hold on us. There are only dhammas! If we don't have right understanding, however, then the Dhamma will mean nothing more to us than just another religious superstition. And in that case my advice would be; make your own decisions on the best evidence available to you. Don't rely on superstitions. Ken H #116570 From: "philip" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 9:26 am Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! philofillet Hi Ken Yes, I should have added this to the rationalizations I mentionned to pt, the teachings on the Hell realm don't refer to literal rebirth, they refer to mental states, or they should be ignored entirely because surely they represent a kind of old superstition, we came to the Dhamma to get away from that kind of J/Xtian crapola. It's natural and easy for me to do so. Alas (or fortunately) the Buddha teaches it again and again and again and as A.S once memorably said, "no one can change the Buddha's teaching, not even Ken H." (ok, not the last part.) :) BTW, not that it matters except to pride but neither the woman nor I are in an unhappy, loveless marriage. Just no sex, with a very good reason in Naomi and my case. She will soon start her new life with her female partner and I am happy about the way I have been supporting them, not an ounce of bitterness or acrimony in our relationship, I adore her as my dearest and deepest friend. :) But tgat is beside the point. Or is it? The fact that neither the woman (also loves her husband as a friend)nor I would be acting with hurt, spiteful cittas would presumably lessen the kammc toxicity. The rationalizatiin goes on and on. That's why I'm grateful that no one can change the Buddha's teaching on H, not even Ken H! Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Phil and Pt, > > --- > <. . .> > > ph: Thanks for adding to the force of the good guys (kusala dhammas) that will or will not arise to prevent the bad deed. When one has been celibate for many years and meets someone that one clicks with, <. . .> > --- > > KH: Throughout history there have always been examples of where puritanical religious superstitions have kept people in unhappy, loveless marriages and away from happy, loving adulteries. > > The Dhamma should never be included amongst those, or any other, superstitions. > > To understand the Dhamma is to understand the realities of the present moment. Once we have that understanding it will be all we need. Concepts of adultery and marriage will no longer have a hold on us. There are only dhammas! > > If we don't have right understanding, however, then the Dhamma will mean nothing more to us than just another religious superstition. And in that case my advice would be; make your own decisions on the best evidence available to you. Don't rely on superstitions. > > Ken H > #116571 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 9:33 am Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! truth_aerator KenH, >KH: To understand the Dhamma is to understand the realities of the >present moment. Once we have that understanding it will be all we >need. Concepts of adultery and marriage will no longer have a hold on >us. There are only dhammas! > >If we don't have right understanding, however, then the Dhamma will >mean nothing more to us than just another religious superstition. And >in that case my advice would be; make your own decisions on the best >evidence available to you. Don't rely on superstitions. >======================================================= Are you saying that Adultery is not wrong because "there are only dhammas"? What next? There is no Mass Murderer and his victims, and nothing wrong with it because it is all just presently arisen dhammas where one piece of iron is in between pieces of matter... ??? This is terrible, Ken! Total nihilism. Alex #116572 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 9:38 am Subject: Re: SN 1.1 A Reed - commentarian explanation epsteinrob Hi Ken O. Nice to hear from you. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Rob E > > > In the context of this sutta is seen in the verse in which the Devatta said to > Buddha (see below), it is about how to get rid of attachment to the world. By > not standing still with defilements, one is not sink into samasara and swept > away by the cylce of birth conditioned by the defilements of ignorance and > cravings B Bodhi did a wonderful job in translating the commentaries of this > standing still and straining and there are seven explanations. these are the > explanations of the commentaries > > (i) "halting" by way of defilements, one sinks; "straining" by way of volitional > formations, one gets swept away; (ii) by way of craving and views, one sinks; by > way of other other defilements, one get swept away. (iii) by way of craving, one > sinks; by way of views, one get swept away. (iv) by way of the eternalistic > view, one sinks; by way of the annihilationist view; one get swept away; (v) by > way of slackness one sinks, by way of -restlessness one gets swept away. (vi) > by way of devotion to sensual pleasures one sinks, by the devotion to > self-motification one swept away; (vii) by way of all unwholesome volitional > formations one sink, by way of all mundane wholesome voltion formations one gets > swept away In this part of the commentary, one can at least say that the commentary is *directly* related to explicating the very matter of the sutta. Whether all those metaphors are 'spot on' or not - which attachments are likened to sinking, and which to being swept away - is, I guess, subject to interpretation, but at least it is talking about the sutta, rather than side-gossip about devas. > In the later part, the Devata said > > < A brahim who is fully quenched > Who by not halting, not straining > Has cross over attachment to the world>> Here, as throughout the sutta, the deva is perfectly respectful and focused on the matter of the Buddha's teaching. I don't see any 'puffed up' attitude on the part of this deva anywhere. > There is nothing wrong with the commentarian positions because at times Buddha > did act on certain way so that the person who asked the question will be ready > for his imparting of Dhamma. You are making an argument that is generally valid, but not necessarily true in a given instance. Of course, sometimes it was necessary for Buddha to observe certain conditions before imparting the teaching, but tell me - where is the evidence that this was taking place here? There is no indication in the sutta that there was any problem, delay or any other conditions waiting to be satisfied for Buddha to be able to teach this deva. The deva did not immediately understand, but this was settled within the sutta, and by the end he *did* understand. So there is no *evidence,* no facts presented by the commentary that has any relation to what is said in the sutta, nor is there any evidence in the sutta itself that this took place in this case. It seems like a made-up story to me, and one that undercuts the importance of what the Buddha said, reducing it to a "trick" to cut the deva down to size. For eg Ven Bhadiya, Buddha only answered him after > the Ven Bhadiya ask the third time and not on the first time, the reason is > to find the right time to deliver the dhamma to benefit the person who had to be > ready to receive. In another story, Buddha waited for a person to rest enough > so that the person's mind is ready for his teaching before he deliver the > dhamma. The gist is the person must be ready to receive the teaching so that > the person could attain enlightment, and only Buddha has the knowledge to do > that and act accordingly. This knowledge is not share by his disciples. That is fine, but in these cases you mention, it is *said* in the sutta in question that this is what was taking place. There is no mention of anything like this in "crossing the flood," and the explanation contradicts the clearly respectful attitude of the deva. I think the deva should sue for defamation! Furthermore, the explanations of what happened in the other suttas does not give a reinterpretation of what was said in the sutta. It merely shows the conditions under which the sutta was delivered. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #116573 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 9:48 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Rather than denying that the teachings about physical seclusion are prescriptive, I think critics of meditation as it is practiced today would in my opinion be better off arguing that there are impediments prevalent in modern society (desire for fast results, information overload fouled minds, guru-centred orgsnizations like Goenka and Mahasi etc that don't teach strictly in line with the ancient texts and make a cult out of retreats etc) that make it unlikely that there are suitable conditions for the prescriptive teachings to be followed with correct understanding...) > > > But denying that the Buddha prescribed physical seclusion to his listeners is consistently peculiar, in my opinion, for what it's worth... It is based on the belief that anything physical is inconsequential, except as an object of citta, and that in fact physical action does not exist, except as an arising experiential rupa. People don't say this straight out, but they suggest it quite strongly. If you look at the statements that perplex you with this in mind, they will all make sense. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #116574 From: "philip" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 10:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections, was: Pt's Galaxy ... philofillet Hi Nina Thank you so much for this Nina. Prompted by pt and you, I will go thrpugh Perfections and write down some of my favourite passages to reinforce the good guys...and on the train to work I will listen to Lodewijk readingthe chapter on khanti, or virya, I think my two favourite in the book... I found the passage I mentionned to pt, on p.75. "As a small army going to battle might be repulsed, then they would tell tge king. The king would send a strong reinforcement. The king's army, being thus supported, would defeat the hostile army. Thus energy does notallow associated states to retreat; it uplifts, supports them. Hence has it been said that energy has the characteristic of supporting." And you and other friends here are supporting my kusala, very grateful for that, and I rejoice in your kusala. :) Metta, Phil Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Philip, > Op 3-aug-2011, om 14:12 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > > yes, the Perfections, great book! THe image of the good guys > > coming to help me is inspired perhaps from the bit about > > reinforcements rushing in to prop up a castle under attack, or > > something like that. It's a stirring book, especially when read by > > Lodewijk. > ------ > N: Glad to hear this, this will encourage him. Just at random opening > the book, on patience: > < Patience is the nature of those with supreme pa. In order to > develop pa it is necessary to have endless patience: patience to > listen to the Dhamma and to consider it in all details so as to > understand the deep meaning of the teachings and their benefit. In > that way we shall know that listening is not enough, that we should > also apply the teachings. If someone wishes to have pa he should > first of all have endurance and accumulate the perfection of patience. > As we read: "Patience is an ocean on account of its depth." > Patience is profound. Akusala arises more often than kusala. When > sati-sampajaa arises, someone realizes the disadvantage of akusala > citta, and he has patience to refrain from it, be it lobha, dosa, > jealousy, avarice or conceit. This shows that patience is profound. > If someone has no understanding, he cannot develop the perfection of > patience. The perfection of patience and sati-sampajaa are very > subtle and refined, they are conditions for refraining from akusala. > Patience is "a shore bounding the great ocean of hatred; a panel > closing off the door to the plane of misery." > Many people are afraid of unhappy planes and they perform kusala so > that they will not be born there. However, if someone does not want > to be reborn in an unhappy plane, he should be patient and refrain > from akusala, because patience is "a panel closing off the door to > the plane of misery." > Patience is "a staircase ascending to the worlds of the gods and > Brahmas; the ground for the habitation of all noble qualities; the > supreme purification of body, speech and mind." > We should consider again and again whether we have further developed > patience in each situation of our life. When we train ourselves often > in good qualities, sobhana cetasikas, when we develop them, they can > become our nature. > > > When doing good deeds all the perfections can develop together. I was > reading to Lodewijk in "Alone with Dhamma" (an India talk) about > Jonothan helping us in India and here he was developing all the > perfections: > < When we were in India we had many opportunities to rejoice in other > people's kusala, their generosity and readiness to help others. > Jonothan performed kusala all day long, without interruption, in > recording the Dhamma discussions. He applied a great deal of effort > to hold the microphone close to Acharn Sujin. > When Lodewijk said that he was distracted by this, I said to him that > Jonathan > develops all the perfections while doing this. He performs dna, he > gives the great gift of Dhamma. He performs sla while helping many > people by bodily acts, while holding the microphone so that people > all over the world can hear our dhamma discussions. He develops > renunciation since he > renounces his own comfort while he has little time for relaxation. He > develops wisdom while listening with understanding, and asking > questions that are useful to all. He applies energy since he is not > inert to perform wholesome deeds. He has patience and endurance which > is needed day after day in order to continue to perform kusala. He > develops truthfulness to perform the kusala he is determined to do: > acting according to what he has promised he would do. He has > determination to perform kusala and continue with it. He has mett > because he thinks of many people's benefit and welfare. He has > equanimity because even when he is tired he continues with equanimity > in all circumstances. > This shows that all the perfections can be developed together, at the > same > time. We do not have to think about the perfections; they are > developed while we perform kusala through body, speech and mind > without thinking of our own gain or profit. Jonothan and Sarah are > always working hard to edit all the recordings of Dhamma discussions > just for our benefit. They even listened to them and edited them > during our long bus drives. > > ------- > Nina. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #116575 From: "philip" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 10:33 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) philofillet Hi Rob E > > It is based on the belief that anything physical is inconsequential, except as an object of citta, and that in fact physical action does not exist, except as an arising experiential rupa. People don't say this straight out, but they suggest it quite strongly. > > If you look at the statements that perplex you with this in mind, they will all make sense. > Ph: It's good that they stress tgat the cittas behind actions are vital, the famous first verse of Dhammapada makes that clear. But it is also true that some conventional actionsare more likely to be rooted in kusala. See, forexample, theassumptiom that I was performing kusala just because I went to Canada to help takecare of my parents for awhile. The Dhamma is wide-ranging through various levels of panna, I don't believethe Buddha taught in the direct to paramattha way that A.S does but I'm glad she does, it helps to consider Dhamma from various angles and as perplexing as it is at times I think she is much closer to the heart of the Dhamma than most of the pop Dhamma out there, that's why we stay here, we can sense that... Metta, Phil #116576 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 11:07 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I don't believe the Buddha taught in the direct to paramattha way that A.S does but I'm glad she does, it helps to consider Dhamma from various angles and as perplexing as it is at times I think she is much closer to the heart of the Dhamma than most of the pop Dhamma out there, that's why we stay here, we can sense that... I stay here because I like to fight. Just kidding! :-) I am here for the good Sangha of course, and the good friends. The teaching is important of course, but to have spiritual friends is a real blessing. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #116577 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 11:08 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) kenhowardau Hi Howard and Alex, I think the chariot metaphor is the one that says, "Just as when chariot parts are correctly assembled we say a chariot exists, so too, when the five khandhas arise together, we say a person exists." Therefore, when the Buddha talks about a person we must always understand he is not talking about an assemblage of head, limbs and torso etc. He is talking about a single citta arising together with its cetasikas and rupa base. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > ================================ > >What do you understand the Buddha's purpose to have been in giving > >this metaphor? > >============================= > > That whole lacks indivisible singular essence. The whole that is made of parts is impermanent, because this whole depends on parts functioning properly and together. What is impermanent is dukkha, and what is dukkha is anatta. > > > IMHO. > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #116578 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 11:32 am Subject: chariots do exist as assemblage of parts. truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, >KH:I think the chariot metaphor is the one that says, "Just as when >chariot parts are correctly assembled we say a chariot exists, so too, >when the five khandhas arise together, we say a person exists." >============================================================ You yourself have admitted that chariot does exist (when its parts are correctly assembled). Same with person, even more so, because 4 of 5 khandhas can never be physically separated like the chariot's physical parts. With best wishes, Alex #116579 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 11:48 am Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! kenhowardau Hi Phil, ----------- > Ph: Yes, I should have added this to the rationalizations I mentionned to pt, the teachings on the Hell realm don't refer to literal rebirth, they refer to mental states, or they should be ignored entirely because surely they represent a kind of old superstition, we came to the Dhamma to get away from that kind of J/Xtian crapola. It's natural and easy for me to do so. Alas (or fortunately) the Buddha teaches it again and again and again and as A.S once memorably said, "no one can change the Buddha's teaching, not even Ken H." (ok,not the last part.) :) ------------ KH: What you say is true. But I was only trying to help. Whenever Buddhists reject or ignore the teaching of conditionality they are left with just another religion. It's a sorry business that such a noble teaching should be abused in that way, but that's the way things can happen. (This is just my opinion, of course. I am not speaking for anyone else.) Given that you are left with just another religion, I would advise you to get rid of it. When you need to make life-changing decisions you would be better off with a humanist ideology, or a socialist atheism, or something like that. -------------------------- > Ph: BTW, not that it matters except to pride but neither the woman nor I are in an unhappy, loveless marriage. -------------------------- KH: Yes, I gathered that. But did you know that in many religious countries people are bound to stay together even when they both want to separate? If your respective wife and husband were both urging you to leave your marriages and live together, so that all four of you could start afresh, would you still refuse on religious grounds? ------------------------------------ > Ph: Just no sex, with a very good reason in Naomi and my case. She will soon start her new life with her female partner and I am happy about the way I have been supporting them, not an ounce of bitterness or acrimony in our relationship, I adore her as my dearest and deepest friend. :) But tgat is beside the point. Or is it? The fact that neither the woman (also loves her husband as a friend)nor I would be acting with hurt, spiteful cittas would presumably lessen the kammc toxicity. The rationalizatiin goes on and on. That's why I'm grateful that no one can change the Buddha's teaching on H, not even Ken H! ------------------------------------- KH: Have it your way. Ken H #116581 From: "philip" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 12:22 pm Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! philofillet Hi Ken I'm glad we had a friendly exchange on this sensitive topic. As a recently decided rule, I tend not to read your posts because you always say the same thing (which is not a bad thing in itself, it can foster saddha) and it seems we are interested in different degrees of panna. Also you make far less references to texts than Sarah and Nina do. But I have no doubt you're a good fellow and it would be nice to meet you someday. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Phil, > > ----------- > > Ph: Yes, I should have added this to the rationalizations I mentionned to pt, the teachings on the Hell realm don't refer to literal rebirth, they refer to mental states, or they should be ignored entirely because surely they represent a kind of old superstition, we came to the Dhamma to get away from that kind of J/Xtian crapola. It's natural and easy for me to do so. Alas (or > fortunately) the Buddha teaches it again and again and again and as A.S once memorably said, "no one can change the Buddha's teaching, not even Ken H." (ok,not the last part.) :) > ------------ > > KH: What you say is true. But I was only trying to help. Whenever Buddhists reject or ignore the teaching of conditionality they are left with just another religion. It's a sorry business that such a noble teaching should be abused in that way, but that's the way things can happen. > > (This is just my opinion, of course. I am not speaking for anyone else.) Given that you are left with just another religion, I would advise you to get rid of it. When you need to make life-changing decisions you would be better off with a humanist ideology, or a socialist atheism, or something like that. > > -------------------------- > > Ph: BTW, not that it matters except to pride but neither the woman nor I are in an unhappy, loveless marriage. > -------------------------- > > KH: Yes, I gathered that. But did you know that in many religious countries people are bound to stay together even when they both want to separate? > > If your respective wife and husband were both urging you to leave your marriages and live together, so that all four of you could start afresh, would you still refuse on religious grounds? > > ------------------------------------ > > Ph: Just no sex, with a very good reason in Naomi and > my case. She will soon start her new life with her female partner and I am happy about the way I have been supporting them, not an ounce of bitterness or acrimony in our relationship, I adore her as my dearest and deepest friend. :) > But tgat is beside the point. Or is it? The fact that neither the woman (also loves her husband as a friend)nor I would be acting with hurt, spiteful cittas would presumably lessen the kammc toxicity. The rationalizatiin goes on and on. > That's why I'm grateful that no one can change the Buddha's teaching on H, not even Ken H! > ------------------------------------- > > KH: Have it your way. > > Ken H > #116582 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 1:10 pm Subject: Re: chariots do exist as assemblage of parts. kenhowardau Hi Alex, ------ > A: You yourself have admitted that chariot does exist (when its parts are correctly assembled). Same with person, even more so, because 4 of 5 khandhas can never be physically separated like the chariot's physical parts. ------------- KH: The existence of the chariot was a metaphor. It was figure of speech using a concept to represent a reality. Just as you seize on my conventional language you accuse me of admitting that a chariot "exists" so too you seize on the Buddha's conventional language to accuse him of admitting that a sentient being exists. If you would only drop the Thanissaro heterodoxy that you are so fond of you could begin to see what the Buddha was actually saying. (The saddest part is that so many modern-day Buddhists agree with you.) Ken H #116583 From: Rajesh Patil Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 3:53 am Subject: Identity crisis: Are Buddhists atheists? rajpat_00 Dear All, Some of our brothers and sisters are claiming (specially on Facebook) that they are atheist. If it is true that means every atheist should be Buddhists e.g. many Marxist mention their identity as atheist, but they are not Buddhist. It means that there is and should be some difference between Buddhists and atheists. What is that difference? I would like know from U and/or from any forum. Make India Buddhist Rajesh #116584 From: "aubecolette" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 4:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "THE EXPERIENCE OF SAMADHI" aubecolette Hi Vince, THANK YOU for the title of the book that can specifically focus on TIME & SPACE better than other books may try to. Is "Nyoponika Thera" a proper name of a person or is it a group of people? Now I'm gonna try to UN-RAVEL the gordian knot that Lucas is attempting to manifest or has already manifested. Well, then again, I only got 15 minutes left during this hour so maybe I'll wait 'til next hour to actually begin the process. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Vince wrote: > > Hi Colette > > you wrote: > > > I can easily TRANSCEND TIME but this is the first time I've tried it with the > > concept of SPACE. > > Any ideas would be helpful. > > take a look to Nyaponika Thera's book "Buddhist explorations of consciousness and > time". > > This is one of the better books about Time and Space in Buddhism. It seems there > are not many more. > > > best, > > Vince. > #116585 From: "aubecolette" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 4:38 am Subject: Re: "THE EXPERIENCE OF SAMADHI" aubecolette Hi Lucas, Only got 15 minutes but I'm gonna go with what I can confidently say without having to concentrate of the meanings of the PALI and/or SANSKRIT words. YOU MENTION RUPA: > if we mention akasa , it's just a ruupa that seperates others ruupas, so you cant be with it or whatever... Ruupa can be known in moments of awarness. The practice to understand space ruupa is never samatha. Samatha cannot know akasa ruupa. Only develped panna of satipatthana that is right understanding of level of vipassana nana can know space ruupa as it is. Such is areality, no matter what we think of it. Samatha is only the moment of knowing what is kusala and what is akusala, and the way to develop more kusala. > colette: NO! or WRONG! Rupa is NON-EXISTENCE and/or NON-EXISTENT. No "ifs" "ands" or "buts" about it. AS BEING NON-EXISTENT it is then SUNYA. All Rupa has this characteristic WITHOUT QUESTION. It is the foundation upon which the MADHYAMIKA manifests itself. As being part of the jhanic process, EXAMINATION, is REQUIRED and is nothing more than OCMMON SENSE. Without CLEAR COMPREHENSION a person cannot possibly expect to escape the repurcussions from THE WHEEL OF SAMSARA held by Lord Yama. Allowing Rupa to exist uncontested, unchallenged, you become tied to, bound with, THE WHEEL and thus subject to it's endless circular logic of RITUAL or OUTINE, over and over and over and.... There is no such thing as "space ruupa". I am saying, I am declaring, that SPACE ITSELF IS RUUPA and therefore is ILLUSORY and nothing more than an ILLUSION. You may care to consider THE SUNYATA OF SUNYATA before furthering your concept. ----------------------- "Samatha is only the moment of knowing what is kusala and what is akusala, and the way to develop more kusala. > colette: wow, that's a mouthful! SAMATHA is built up of so much more than just the oppinion of something being "Kusula or Akusala"! Alas, I have no time to complain about your misconceptions or my position, on this subject. be back later today though so you or we can certainly say "INCOMING" or "Look out, here it comes" lol toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Hi colette, > I think you may be pretty much involved in astral projections, lucid dreams or out of body exeperiences. I also used to be involved to that, and from my experience I know that this is not kusala. Cause the point of the teachings is like understanding the 4 Noble Truths, that will bring the eradiction of kilesas(very different than normal samadhi experiences). And I think if you mention akasa, a space here during samatha this may be samatha with wrong view involved. So this is pleasant experience only, but I am not sure if this goes with right understanding. > So develop more and more right understanding :P <...> #116586 From: "aubecolette" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 6:51 am Subject: Re: "THE EXPERIENCE OF SAMADHI" aubecolette Sorry, Lucas, but as I have warned practitioners of Western Kabbalism and Hermetics, since 2004, "I am OPERATIONAL", "I'M PRACTICING". Buddhism and Vajrayana, Yogacara, et al, are new forms of the same practice I have. If I were to "have my way with you" (jokingly, mockingly) through your MISCONCEPTIONS then I am CAUSING SUFFERING. The book I am reading now is a very good depiction of the experience I had while learning PRANAYAMA, ca. 1985, without an instructor or any kind of support system to assist me through the rigors of PRANAYAMA. I do not for a second believe that you've attempted the breathing technique nor have you experienced the foundational changes in consciousness that the technique imposes upon the practitioner. I accept your conception of ASTRAL PROJECTION as having a significance and, thus a value, to the Jhana practiced that the book deals with. HOWEVER, I am still experiencing the bliss of the absorption and it's equanimity. Due to my IGNORANCE of how well the Buddhists have practiced and documented THE SAME PRODEDURES I've always performed (see "Timelessness"), I feel that it would be COUNTER PRODUCTIVE to my path. Make no mistake, the Jewish community of Skokie has a documention of characteristics that I possess in my technique, thus they have imposed upon me a "NO RENEWAL" restriction on this book that I had to have ordered through the INTERLIBRARY LOAN SYSTEM. And so, being "CALLED ON THE CARPET", I've gotta stay focused and held within this "consciousness of REALITY" so that I can finisah as much as possible of the book, knowing full well that I probably will not finish reading the book, MY FIRST TRY. And so my dilema, and our dilema, is illuminated, but it should not be cognized as a frustration or an aggrivation. It is to be accepted as nothing more than SOP and abandoned. If I ever get the financing to begin creating another personal library of "GRIMOIRES", then I already know the first five books of Buddhism that I will purchase to compose my library. The first book is CRAZY WISDOM. Though it is interesting why you would care to raise the issue of ASTRAL PROJECTION, in this context. It's far too early, as I've said, inm the process to bother with such a deviant "off ramp" as that. I'm in the jungle, my jungle, that I'm comfortable with and I have found a path that I have not yet experienced or known. It has amazing similarities to paths I have previously trodden, yet it is in the Buddhist and Hindu CONTEXT. Thus, it is a blatant RED FLAG to raise my awareness and consciousness as to the path I'm trodding. That is to say: "LOCK & LOAD", all safeties off, all arsenals active. OVERCONFIDENCE will invite me to LOWER MY DEFENSES, GUARD. In my elation of finding COMPANIONSHIP on this lonely path, I have already said that "I can do this", "I'm attacking this". I have known the concept of "MURDER BY FRIENDLY FIRE" since the late 60s and early 70s (the Nixon admin. from living in a suburb of Washington D.C. at that time) and so my acknowledgement and awareness of MY GUERRILLA TACTICS are paramount i.e. lay back and absorb the conflict first, examine, then act. NO SIR, my enemy is SOP and the lethargy of INSTITUTIONALISATION. Thank you for you commetns and advice. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Hi colette, > I think you may be pretty much involved in astral projections, lucid dreams or out of body exeperiences. I also used to be involved to that, and from my experience I know that this is not kusala. Cause the point of the teachings is like understanding the 4 Noble Truths, that will bring the eradiction of kilesas(very different than normal samadhi experiences). And I think if you mention akasa, a space here during samatha this may be samatha with wrong view involved. So this is pleasant experience only, but I am not sure if this goes with right understanding. #116587 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 10:05 am Subject: Clinging to the Concept "I Am"! bhikkhu5 Friends: Releasing the Misconception "I Am" is Freedom! The Blessed Buddha once noted: It is by clinging, friends, that the notion: 'I am' occurs, not without clinging! And by clinging to what does the notion: 'I am' occur, not without clinging? It is by clinging to form, to feeling, to perception, to mental constructions, & to consciousness that the notion: 'I am' occurs, and not without this clinging! Suppose, friends, a young woman, or a young man, fond of fashion & jewelry, would examine her own facial image in a mirror or in a bowl filled with pure, clear, clean water: She would look at it with clinging, not without clinging... Even and exactly so too, it is by clinging to form, to feeling, to perception, to mental constructions, & to consciousness that the notion: 'I am' occurs! It is not without this subconscious, quite detrimental, deep and rigid clinging! Clinging to what is impermanent, transient and prone to decay is very painful.. What is changing & painful cannot be 'Mine', nor 'What I Am', nor 'My Self'! Understanding this, the intelligent Noble disciple is disgusted with all forms, all feelings, all perceptions, all mental constructions, and every consciousness. Being disgusted induces disillusion. This disillusion launches into mental release! When released, then mind becomes unagitated! By being entirely imperturbable one attains Awakening right there and then, and one instantly understands: This mind is irreversibly freed! Rebirth is ended, this Noble Life is concluded, done is what should be done, there is no state of being after or beyond this... Comments: Let's take a closer look at the seemingly self-evident statement "I Am"... There are two components: An "I" and an "Am"... Which is the wrong here? The "Am" part designating existence cannot be denied. This "existence" is however neither static, nor being of an entity, nor presence of an "I"...! What is it then that "Ams"=IS? It is just these 5 dynamic & ever-changing processes (& not entities!): Of form, feeling, perception, construction and consciousness, that arise and cease according to their conditioned causes! What is it then, that have a form, a body to be seen there in the mirror? It is the process of form itself, that has this frame of appearance... What is it then, that feels pleasure, pain and neutral feeling? It is the process of feeling itself, that feels pleasure, pain and neither! What is it then, that perceives, that experiences, if it is not "Me"? It is the process of perception itself, that perceives various 'objects'! What is it then, that constructs, intends, plans, & hopes, if it is not "I"? It is the process of mental construction itself, that creates tendencies! What is it then, that is conscious, if it is not "myself", "my ego or soul"? It is the process of consciousness itself, that arises & ceases ever again... Nothing else......, than these ownerless conditions, these selfless states, these coreless phenomena without independent substance, is ever there! <...> Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikya 22:83 III 105 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <...> #116588 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 2:10 pm Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > --- > > KH: Throughout history there have always been examples of where puritanical religious superstitions have kept people in unhappy, loveless marriages and away from happy, loving adulteries. > > The Dhamma should never be included amongst those, or any other, superstitions. > > To understand the Dhamma is to understand the realities of the present moment. Once we have that understanding it will be all we need. Concepts of adultery and marriage will no longer have a hold on us. There are only dhammas! > > +++++++++ Dear Kenh It seems you are saying that if one were to happily indulge in sex with a married woman - who was equally happy about the act- this wouldn't necessarily be against Dhamma (assuming one understood the present moment)? robert #116589 From: Ken O Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 2:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SN 1.1 A Reed - commentarian explanation ashkenn2k Dear Rob E > >In this part of the commentary, one can at least say that the commentary is >*directly* related to explicating the very matter of the sutta. Whether all >those metaphors are 'spot on' or not - which attachments are likened to sinking, > >and which to being swept away - is, I guess, subject to interpretation, but at >least it is talking about the sutta, rather than side-gossip about devas. Here, as throughout the sutta, the deva is perfectly respectful and focused on >the matter of the Buddha's teaching. I don't see any 'puffed up' attitude on the > >part of this deva anywhere. KO: As you said they are metaphors, just like describing the aggregates as bubbles, foam. There are many instances of metaphor used in the Buddhist suttas. KO: Regarding the puff up attitude of a Devata, a person who is concieted could still be very polite. Like a person who speaks loudly does not mean he is angry. A smiling face may not mean a pleasant person, the person who be cunning, shrewd and want to take advantage of another person. > >You are making an argument that is generally valid, but not necessarily true in >a given instance. Of course, sometimes it was necessary for Buddha to observe >certain conditions before imparting the teaching, but tell me - where is the >evidence that this was taking place here? There is no indication in the sutta >that there was any problem, delay or any other conditions waiting to be >satisfied for Buddha to be able to teach this deva. The deva did not immediately > >understand, but this was settled within the sutta, and by the end he *did* >understand. So there is no *evidence,* no facts presented by the commentary that > >has any relation to what is said in the sutta, nor is there any evidence in the >sutta itself that this took place in this case. It seems like a made-up story to > >me, and one that undercuts the importance of what the Buddha said, reducing it >to a "trick" to cut the deva down to size. > >That is fine, but in these cases you mention, it is *said* in the sutta in >question that this is what was taking place. There is no mention of anything >like this in "crossing the flood," and the explanation contradicts the clearly >respectful attitude of the deva. I think the deva should sue for defamation! >Furthermore, the explanations of what happened in the other suttas does not give > >a reinterpretation of what was said in the sutta. It merely shows the conditions > >under which the sutta was delivered. KO: yes, the condition, IMHO is that the Devatta attitude is a condition for Buddha to act in such a way in order to help the Devata. Buddha even leave a group if he felt that is the best way to help the group later on. Ken O #116590 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 2:26 pm Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! kenhowardau Hi Alex, ----------- > A: Are you saying that Adultery is not wrong because "there are only dhammas"? > What next? There is no Mass Murderer and his victims, and nothing wrong with it because it is all just presently arisen dhammas where one piece of iron is in between pieces of matter... ??? > This is terrible, Ken! Total nihilism. ------------ KH: I am saying that akusala dhammas are absolute realities; they are absolutely akusala. I don't recognise any such hard and fast rules with regard to concepts. Adultery is a concept. As for mass murderers, yes you are right; there is just one conditioned citta at a time. With that knowledge we can have the same metta for mass murderers as we have for anyone else. Is there anything wrong with that? Ken H #116591 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 2:47 pm Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! kenhowardau Hi Robert K, ---- <. . .> RK: It seems you are saying that if one were to happily indulge in sex with a married woman - who was equally happy about the act- this wouldn't necessarily be against Dhamma (assuming one understood the present moment)? ---- KH: I haven't committed adultery or anything near it since learning about namas and rupas. I can't say pariyatti was the cause of my abstinence, but it probably was. For people who don't know about namas and rupas my advice would be to be true to themselves. Act on your own best understanding of right and wrong; don't blindly follow priests and cult leaders. Ken H #116592 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 4:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: SN 1.1 A Reed - commentarian explanation epsteinrob Hi Ken O. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Rob E > > > > >In this part of the commentary, one can at least say that the commentary is > >*directly* related to explicating the very matter of the sutta. Whether all > >those metaphors are 'spot on' or not - which attachments are likened to sinking, > > > >and which to being swept away - is, I guess, subject to interpretation, but at > >least it is talking about the sutta, rather than side-gossip about devas. > > Here, as throughout the sutta, the deva is perfectly respectful and focused on > >the matter of the Buddha's teaching. I don't see any 'puffed up' attitude on the > > > >part of this deva anywhere. > > > KO: As you said they are metaphors, just like describing the aggregates as > bubbles, foam. There are many instances of metaphor used in the Buddhist > suttas. > > KO: Regarding the puff up attitude of a Devata, a person who is concieted > could still be very polite. Like a person who speaks loudly does not mean he is > angry. A smiling face may not mean a pleasant person, the person who be > cunning, shrewd and want to take advantage of another person. Sure, this is possible - but my point is that there is no indication of any kind in the sutta itself that this is the case. So what is the evidence that this story about the deva is correct, or that the Buddha tried to say something "paradoxical" to challenge the deva? I see no indication that what the Buddha said was "paradoxical" either. It is not paradoxical to me, but makes perfect sense. It also cannot be paradoxical and understandable at the same time. So when the commentator says the purpose was to give the deva a "paradox" that he will not be able to understand, this then contradicts his own statement about the various meanings of the "paradox," which he apparently has no problem understanding himself. So if he can understand it and explain it, as he does, and if we can understand it, then why would it be difficult for the deva to understand it? It doesn't make sense, as it is internally inconsistent and self-contradictory. > > > >You are making an argument that is generally valid, but not necessarily true in > > >a given instance. Of course, sometimes it was necessary for Buddha to observe > >certain conditions before imparting the teaching, but tell me - where is the > >evidence that this was taking place here? There is no indication in the sutta > >that there was any problem, delay or any other conditions waiting to be > >satisfied for Buddha to be able to teach this deva. The deva did not immediately > > > >understand, but this was settled within the sutta, and by the end he *did* > >understand. So there is no *evidence,* no facts presented by the commentary that > > > >has any relation to what is said in the sutta, nor is there any evidence in the > > >sutta itself that this took place in this case. It seems like a made-up story to > > > >me, and one that undercuts the importance of what the Buddha said, reducing it > >to a "trick" to cut the deva down to size. > > > > >That is fine, but in these cases you mention, it is *said* in the sutta in > >question that this is what was taking place. There is no mention of anything > >like this in "crossing the flood," and the explanation contradicts the clearly > >respectful attitude of the deva. I think the deva should sue for defamation! > >Furthermore, the explanations of what happened in the other suttas does not give > > > >a reinterpretation of what was said in the sutta. It merely shows the conditions > > > >under which the sutta was delivered. > > KO: yes, the condition, IMHO is that the Devatta attitude is a condition for > Buddha to act in such a way in order to help the Devata. This would be so if it were true. The only thing of this kind that I can see in the sutta is that the deva is confused about how to cross the flood of samsara, and the Buddha teaches him. I see nothing beyond this. If one believes that all the commentaries are the result of enlightened understanding, then I guess one must accept every commentary as truth. But I do not see this commentary as rising to that level, as it does not relate in an illuminating way to the Buddha's relationship to the deva. > Buddha even leave a > group if he felt that is the best way to help the group later on. Yes, but again, there is *no* indication in the sutta that anything of this kind is taking place. I believe that the commentary should make sense of the sutta, not contradict it. In that sense, I do not believe that this commentary has an illuminating function with relation to this sutta. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #116593 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 4:10 pm Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert K, > > ---- > <. . .> > RK: It seems you are saying that if one were to happily indulge in sex with a married woman - who was equally happy about the act- this wouldn't necessarily be against Dhamma (assuming one understood the present moment)? > ---- > > > KH: I haven't committed adultery or anything near it since learning about namas and rupas. I can't say pariyatti was the cause of my abstinence, but it probably was. > > For people who don't know about namas and rupas my advice would be to be true to themselves. Act on your own best understanding of right and wrong; don't blindly follow priests and cult leaders. It is Buddha who said not to engage in sexual misconduct, not a priest or a cult leader. So what is the status of the Buddha's admonitions in your view? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #116594 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 4:14 pm Subject: Re: Identity crisis: Are Buddhists atheists? epsteinrob Hi Rajesh. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Rajesh Patil wrote: > > Dear All, > Some of our brothers and sisters are claiming (specially on Facebook) that they are atheist. If it is true that means every atheist should be Buddhists e.g. many Marxist mention their identity as atheist, but they are not Buddhist. > > It means that there is and should be some difference between Buddhists and atheists. > > What is that difference? I would like know from U and/or from any forum. Even if every Buddhist is an atheist, it does not follow that every atheist will be a Buddhist. Just like every bird is an animal, but not every animal is a bird. Buddha as I understand it refused to answer whether or not there was a God. I think it is clear that he acknowledged the existence of gods, however, as supernatural beings who were subject to samsara. In that sense he may have not believed in one God who was the source and ruler of all reality, but he did acknowledge the existence of supernatural beings, forces and laws, which are not included in atheist beliefs. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #116595 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 5:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Any Aussies/others interested in Pilgrimage to India and Nepal Feb. 2012? sarahprocter... Hi Chris, --- On Sun, 31/7/11, Christine wrote: >Dhammagiri Forest Monastery in Brisbane is arranging a Pilgrimage to Nepal and India to the Buddhist Holy Places in February 2012. >This will consist of one busload with either a two week or a three week option, fully escorted. The bus will be modern with an on-board toilet. :-) .... S: Will you be going? If so, do report back. You'll be one of the experts this time..... and an "on-board toilet":-) You mean none of the joys of ditches, mango trees, prickly grass with several hundred others? Metta Sarah ===== #116596 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 5:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- On Sat, 30/7/11, Robert E wrote: >> S: At this moment, it's just thinking about another occasion instead of being aware, right now, of the thinking as a conditioned dhamma which is far more precious than ideas about another time or anything else. R:>Well, it is true that to talk about anything is generally thinking of "another time" or another situation, so in that sense we should merely be focused on what is happening now. ... S: Yes, and what "is happening now" is the arising and falling away of various namas and rupas. Gradually, we can become more familiar and begin to understand what appears right now - seeing or visible object, hearing or sound or thinking about them - just a dhamma. .... R:> On the other hand, when we are thinking about whether or not to meditate, we can use that occasion to see that this is a nama, and that its object is, I guess, a concept. But that is neither a reason to practice meditation or not to practice meditation. The issue of whether to sit or not to sit will thus remain unresolved. ... S: Yes, "when we are thinking about whether or not to meditate, we can use that occasion to see that this is a nama, and that its object is, I guess, a concept". And understand the thinking now as a nama, distinct from the concepts thought about, is 'practice' right now. There can be thinking about any kinds of concepts, but the reality is just the thinking. As for the 'unresolved' issue - the point is that all day we think we have to decide whether to do A or B, but when there's awareness, it's apparent the reality is just thinking and that the concepts we're used to finding so important, are just....well, concepts! This is why when sati-sampajanna develop, there are fewer and fewer 'issues', 'dilemmas' or concerns about what the practice is. .... R:> I guess when sitting, those who sit will sit, and when not sitting, those who do not sit will be doing something else. :-) ... S: Yes and to refine it further, there will be conditioned dhammas regardless :-) It just depends whether or not there is any awareness, any understanding right now. You appreciate the distinction between thinking and concepts and how the reality now, when we think about these issues, is just thinking which can be known as such. Dare I say that we're making good headway in the discussion? Metta Sarah ======= #116597 From: Rodney Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 2:09 pm Subject: Re: Identity crisis: Are Buddhists atheists? hamugbodas Atheists seem so obsessed with there being no god that they give the idea of one more popularity. I think it does not really matter to Buddhists. We are more concerned with inward spirituality than outward existence of such. Caine Das #116598 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------------ <. . .> > RE: It is Buddha who said not to engage in sexual misconduct, not a priest or a cult leader. So what is the status of the Buddha's admonitions in your view? ------------ KH: I think I know the difference between a Buddha and a cult leader, but do you? And I don't have any problems with the Buddha's admonitions, thanks very much. My concern in this conversation has been for people like Phil who think sila is something over which there is some control. For as long as people insist on believing that, they are not hearing the Buddha's admonitions at all. They can only hear the same sort of teaching found in religions and cults. That's fair enough for what it's worth, but I think secular moralists tend to be more helpful than religious ones. Ken H #116599 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 4, 2011 6:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pt's Galaxy met some books for the first time! sarahprocter... Dear Ken H (& Pt), --- On Fri, 29/7/11, Ken H wrote: >What a pity I wasn't there: three hyperacidity hypochondriacs together! And not to forget Jon who could have told us about his lactose intolerance. :-) .... S: :-) We'd have loved to have had you with us, but sorry to disappoint you, I don't believe anyone mentioned a single health issue at all:-) Pt just declined a ginger beer without further discussion, that was all! The further discussion is here! .... --------- >> pt: No, it's just that ginger and chili are two things I can't really handle - all I get from them is pain rather than taste. Not sure what that means in terms of kalapas :) Too much earth element, and not enough nutritive essence? Or wait, not enough kamma for tasting consciousness to arise and appreciate ginger? Ihave no idea. ---------- >KH: My suggestion as to what it meant "in terms of kalapas and kamma" would have been "nothing at all!" As the self-appointed anti-formal-practice policeman of the group I would have reminded you that only namas had kamma and vipaka. Concepts have concepts. When people (concepts) have pains in their bellies (concepts) they should look to conventional science for the cause, not to the Dhamma. -------------------- > S: <...> > What does it all mean? It means some past akusala kamma probably conditions the tasting of unpleasant taste, but more so, there must be the experiencing through the body sense, accompanied by unpleasant bodily feeling when experiencing tangible objects. Rather like when one looks into the sun - not just the seeing of visible object but the bodily experience accompanied by unpleasant bodily feeling when experiencing tangible objects. -------------------- >KH: There is no real reason for me to object to this conversation. To be fair to you both, you were just using your medical conditions as metaphors for vipaka. You were not professing to identify an actual dhamma and its cause. .... S: This reminds me a little of Phil's objection to Nina's example of a flower that can be smelt, tasted or touched - different rupas appearing. His objection was to the mixing of conventional truths with absolute truths. However, I don't see any problem in either set of examples. Instead of saying "reach for the medicine" or "avoid ginger" as we might in another setting, we're discussing dhammas here. We're not just using medical conditions as metaphors, we're discussing how there are various namas and rupas that can be known anytime. Of course, if there is an attempt to try and experience a particular nama or rupa, it's wrong. However, I think it's also useful to understand that when tasting ginger or looking at sunrises, there are many different experiences through different sense and mind-doors. The unpleasant bodily feeling, such as when experiencing the heat whilst eating a chili, can only be through the body-door. Let me know if you still have objections to the chat! ... >By the way, ginger is not fine for me, but, with the particular brand of antacid that I told Sarah about, I can eat all the green Thai curry I want. And that's quite a lot! :-) .... S: Now we could start a discussion about lobha, but you might prefer to keep it to the medical tips:-)) ... ------------------- > S: Conventionally speaking, we experience the same tastes when drinking the ginger beer or eating the chili sauce or looking at the surf, but of course this is not so. Not only do the experiences depend on different past kammas for us all, but at each moment of sipping the drink, eating the food or looking at the view, the experience is different - many moments of vipaka, many moments of mind-door processes in between the different experiences. -------------- >KH: Just like now! (As the saying goes.) ... S: Yes, exactly! We always agree here and all those other experiences have gone. ----------------------- <. . .> > S: Having said all that, I have many very dear Buddhist friends who may have a glass of wine with their meals and I don't have any particular concern about this. ----------------------- >KH: Yes, how much worse would it have been if they had wrong view with their meals? Or any of the other akusala kamma-pathas. ... S: Yes, exactly. Not necessarily any wrong view or akusala kamma-patha whilst drinking the wine at all- just a habit better not accumulated even by a sip. Metta Sarah p.s I'm a bit behind, so haven't seen whether Pt replied to your note to both of us. Hope he does too if he hasn't already. =======