#117200 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Sep 6, 2011 1:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna moellerdieter Hi Phil (and Howard), you wrote: 'Different accumulations, I guess. When I was without my computer for a few weeks last year, there was a huge impact on my meditation. I find info overload and other aspects of media consumption have a significant fuelling effect on the hindrances but judging from the multiple outbursts of LOLs it ain't that way for you guys.' (Howard: My answer was curt, and my "LOL!" pertained to that comedic - to the form of my answer to your inquiry and nothing else. (And Dieter's "LOLOL!" was just a response to that as well, I am certain.) D: yes, it was .. having Howard in front of my eyes after 7 days of high inconvenience , fingering his beart while contemplating about a possible blessing (Mmm) and concluding curtly ( nope) ...not really an issue of different accumulations. In principle you are right , Phil. There is an overload of info ( not to forget that the Buddha stressed seclusion ) . with Metta Dieter ----- Original Message ----- From: philip To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 2:33 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna Hi Howard, Dieter and all Different accumulations, I guess. When I was without my computer for a few weeks last year, there was a huge impact on my meditation. I find info overload and other aspects of media consumption have a significant fuelling effect on the hindrances but judging from the multiple outbursts of LOLs it ain't that way for you guys. Metta, Phil > > Hi Howard (and Phil) , > > you wrote: > > P:Thanks for alliowing me to wax on. By tge way, Howard, didn't you find a week without electricity was a blessing in disguise in some ways? > --------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Mmm, nope! LOL! > ------------------------------------------------ > > > D: LOLOL! > > > with Metta Dieter > > > #117201 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 6, 2011 2:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara ashkenn2k Dear Nina > >> KO: Now remember when Buddha said the world, you forget to say that >> mind objects >> can be a concept. In the commentary of MN1, when the description >> of earth, it >> is by four description. There is conventional earth, objective >> earth, - are >> all concepts. >--------- >N: Different aspects of Earth, true. But touch now something, and >hardness appears. The element of earth, and this is not self, only an >element, a ruupa dhamma. >As to mind-objects, the fourth applcation: for example the five >khandhas, these are just paramattha dhammas. They can be directly >experienced without naming them or thinking about them. They have >characteristics that appear one at a time. KO: All dhammas are not self that is true fact. You forget about the first application where breathing is a conceptual object. Or recollection of body parts and foul are all conceptual. > >There are not two kinds of collecting the body. Reading on and >continuing your quote makes this clear: just primary ruupas and >derived ruupas. The body parts are a way of teaching in conventional >language that leads us on to the true characteristics. That is what >really matters. > KO: The text does not support your statements. This text said by collection of body parts or by collection of materiality. Unless you can tell me that there are other text that said this commentary statements were wrong, it only supposed to be only collection of materiality and not collection of body parts. >As to the stages of insight: >N: Vis. XX, 4: Herein, the plane of full-understanding of the known >>[~naata pari~n~na) extends from the Delimitation of Formations [N: >>first stage: naama/ruupa/ pariccheda ~naa.na] (Ch. XVIII) up to the >>Discernment of Conditions (Ch XIX) [N: the second stage]. >>See Ch XVIII for the first stage of tender insight. >>------- > >This is in the context of the pari~n~nas, the three kinds of full >understanding that include all stages of insight, also the three >tender stages. > >See Vis. Ch XVIII: Purity of View , this is 'the correct seeing of >mentality materiality". After the soil and the roots we have now the >trunk. This is not merely intellectual understanding, it is insight. > >------ KO: yes, we know that is purification level which is directly experience of nama and rupa. I never dispute that. However, I am not talking about this level, I am talking before this level. Direct experiential understanding is only possible through inferential understanding. Ken O #117202 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Sep 6, 2011 8:51 am Subject: Re: What happend to DSG site? ptaus1 Hi Lukas, Do you do any coding - like HTML, CSS, or maybe PERL, JS or PHP? Can I email you offlist about this? I need some help with coding a file for Jon and Sarah. Best wishes pt --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Jon, > I think I can support you with quite nice domains, and also link this to the site, for free of course. I am starting a company. Me and Adam are doing quite proffesional sites. But really I like this simple dsg site :P No need to change :P > Best wishes > Lukas > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > Hi again All > > > > I think the problem has been fixed. Apparently our domain name expired and needed renewal. This has now been done, and things should be back to normal within an hour or so, I'm told. > #117203 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Sep 6, 2011 8:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? kenhowardau Hi Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Ken H, > > you wrote: > > 'KH: If, as you rightly say, there is ultimately only the rising and ceasing of phenomena, what need is there to overcome anything? > > As the Vism. says: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found." So, where's the problem? > > > D:Suffering exists ..although no sufferer can be found. So where suffering still exist , there isn't yet a cessation of suffering , is it? > -------------- KH: That's true, but the suffering is borne by paramattha dhammas. And paramattha dhammas are not our selves. When I see people engaging in so called "Buddhist practices" designed to bring about enlightenment I want to ask them why. Don't they understand "mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found"? Ken H #117204 From: Vince Date: Tue Sep 6, 2011 9:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Dear Nina you wrote: > N: Can we keep detachment at the moment of contact? We cannot select > moments of sati. I think it is best not to think of specific moments, > or is that not what you meant? Even the keeping detachment can be > motivated by "I" who tries. yes, I think you right. Anyone can check how in just one seconds there is a quick succession of moments and it is impossible to choose some specific instant and object to be detached. One is surpassed by the activity in itself. My point just was about how to create a good disposition for its arising regarding dependent origination. I'm reading sati is not like simple attention but it is sometimes defined like an high tower from where there is an higher and more embracing perspective. > N: That is right. We are used to think all the time of I see, I hear, > but now we learn that seeing and hearing are just conditioned dhammas. yes, I'm learning too. This is also the way to cultivate an higher perspective. I'm sorry if I have deviate the thread with the D.O; not my intention. best. Vince. #117205 From: Vince Date: Tue Sep 6, 2011 9:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Dear philip you wrote: >> As I wrote to Nina in the other message, I believe this is not very >> different of the "seeing" instead "I see" taught by Sujin. > I don't think A Sujin teaches "seeing" in a way different from, say, SN 35 > suttas on the way eye, visible object/form and contact condition seeing > consciousness . Where does the Buddha teach "I see?" Do modern teaches > encourage understanding in terms of "I see?" sorry for my grammatical failures. I mean Sujin stress the "seeing" and to leave the "I see" best, Vince. #117206 From: Vince Date: Tue Sep 6, 2011 9:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Dear Dieter you wrote: > In respect to the 7th step or Maha Satipatthana Sutta there are obviously > different interpretations . I.M.H.O. the development of sati in a skillful > way requires to train the contemplation of the 4 frameworks as described in > the sutta. I'm reading these days a very interesting book from Bhikkhu Analayo: "Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization". It has a complete chapter summarizing the different views on Sati (Suttas, Abhidhamma). I was a complete ignorant the depth of this matter. Now still I'm ignorant but at least I can see better the reasons for different approaches. There is not a fixed view to explain sati. Suttas show different approaches and descriptions and the later commentators were focused in this or that. > D: not sure whether I got the question right.. as long as I have to take > care that this I isn't involved ( the phenomena being impersonal/anatta )it > is still not the pure awareness > of seeing, hearing etc. , but seemingly a need for practise.. yes, of course; this is just a practice (or a work to understand) all the time. Your preventions with the -self are similar of what Nina said in the other message in this thread, and also I agree. Just I believe there is a way to create a good disposition, although I wouldn't name it an "effort" as something in dependence of a future effect. Well, or maybe it is just a personal view or a way to name the things. best, Vince. #117207 From: "philip" Date: Tue Sep 6, 2011 9:46 am Subject: Considering the disadvantages of akusala philofillet Hi Nina and all First of all, thanks everyone for responses to my posts, especially Ken H. I will not be able to respond for a couple of days. Nina, a question about this quotation from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas. > Akusala dhamma arises because of conditions, and when it has arisen, > we should, instead of worry about it again and again, be aware of its > characteristic, investigate it and understand it as not self. This is > the only way to have less akusala and to eventually eradicate it. Ph: Where in the above is consideration of the disadvantage of akusala? Is it implied by "investigate it?" I think that consideration of the disadvantage of akusala must come before consideration of the anattanness of arisen akusala. Otherwise we may be prematurely released from a sense of responsibility for our deeds, in my opinion. We may have insufficient fear of wrongdoing. (" Fear of wrongdoing" was taught by the Buddha, at least those English words are used, though we know fear is akusala. Probaby hiri/otappa was meant?) I would like to discuss the importance of considering the disadvantage of akusala. Are these disadvantages always to be understood in paramattha terms? I think not. See the warnings about illicit sex with a married woman, for example, punishment by the king, lack of sound sleep, etc. Such conventional considerations can be very helpful in conditioning a turning away from bad deeds. Turning away ftom bad deeds should not be dismissed as meaningless just because there is an underapprecition of anattaness, in my opinion. Of course understanding the anattaness is best but the turning away should come first, if possible. Sometimes it doesn't. In my case I find that that is when consideration of anattaness is helpful, to release one from remorse. But a lot of reflection on anataness during a leading up to a deed or in the midst of often repeated habitual bad deeds could be very dangerous, in my opinion. (But I must say I don't believe this with as much fervid certainty as I did, obnoxiously, over the last few years.) Metta, Phil #117208 From: Lukas Date: Tue Sep 6, 2011 7:34 pm Subject: To Phil. Letter to Lucas in prison szmicio Hi Phil, Howard, Nina, Sarah, and all Phil, I've just translated your letter to Lucas my friend in prison. I did fast translation, due to scarcity of my time. I liked it very much, and I am pretty sure that Lucas will enjoy. I think when Lucas will get your letter he will want to write back directly to you. Then I will do as middleman as now. Any one interested pls write to Lucas, he now suffers a lot cause he knows his girl wants to break up with him. She didnt tell him directly. But he told me in sorrow that he accepted that and feel very sad and depressed. I wrote to him back about kamma and vipaka, and that we all suffer and explained 4 Noble Truths. I added Phil letter as an attachment to the letter. Both letters compose greatly, cause Phil mentioned a lot of deeds and result, and encourage Lucas to develop more kusala and that akusala happens, he compared it(akusala) to a one small drop of water to the huge jar of water, in the context that he did a lot of goodness in his past lifes so now he's a human. Also gave him encouragement giving his short sincere background of life and his temper. Phil, this was your only letter or you wrote also another one? I asks cause I have only that one of yours and one of howard. If I missed any support letters to Lucas, from any of you pls, remind me and resend it to me. Best wishes Lukas P.s Howard, I have also your letter I didnt even read it yet, have no time. But I promise I will send it next time, very soon. So pls support Lucas further when I will inform you about Lucas's responds. I think Lucas will also enjoy if he sees that is a letter from someone from other countries. He was brought up in a poor family and never had chance actually to go to other country or meet a person from other countries. I signed Phil letter. Good Luck Phil in Polish and added (Japan). It would be so nice if you could always add Your name, date , city you live and country you live in when you sign yourself. All your messages or letters I am sending as an attachment to my letter to reduce costs and also inform Lucas a bit of your backgrounds. He's happy. For now he got letter from Sarah, Phil, and I mentioned some Nina's comments to him. He will be knowing you, he will be very happy to see so many friends and he could learn your backgrounds. He will be remember you, each one of you. With great respect. I am shocked how fast he learns, how he suddenly become interested to Buddha teachings. He've got two buddhist's books and a little material support from the polish programee "Buddhism in Prison". Since there is no any good Theravada book in Poland or the is non at all. I promised him that i will write a one for him. #117209 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 6, 2011 7:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara nilovg Dear Ken O, Op 5-sep-2011, om 18:04 heeft Ken O het volgende geschreven: > yes, we know that is purification level which is directly > experience of > nama and rupa. I never dispute that. However, I am not talking > about this > level, I am talking before this level. Direct experiential > understanding is > only possible through inferential understanding. ------ N: True, but the stages of tender insight are insight, not thinking about the truth. The body parts, breath. etc. , well i understand what you mean. Howard had a similar question about mindfulness of breathing, and see my answer later on. ------ Nina. #117210 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 6, 2011 8:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara ashkenn2k Dear Nina >> yes, we know that is purification level which is directly >> experience of >> nama and rupa. I never dispute that. However, I am not talking >> about this >> level, I am talking before this level. Direct experiential >> understanding is >> only possible through inferential understanding. >------ >N: True, but the stages of tender insight are insight, not thinking >about the truth. >The body parts, breath. etc. , well i understand what you mean. >Howard had a similar question about mindfulness of breathing, and see >my answer later on. > KO: I came from the dinosaur group so I know how you are going to answer. I know what you going to answer and I could always answer the way, you, Ken H, Sarah and Jon answers. Your pathway is the dry insightors like your teach AS, so for people like you to understand the samatha bhavana is quite difficult. Buddha talk about satipathana as the only way, the only way covered two important aspect, serenity and insight. This is written in the commentaries and visud and dispeller of delusion For those who practise samatha it is about concentration and vipassana mediation and for those who practise insight only, it is always about nama and rupa. Everyone practise differently, we are here to explain dhamma as according to the texts and not according to our own interpretation or using parts of the text to confirm our interpretation. I always believe since the day I disagree with you, we should do what is written in the text and not to our own interpretation. This is to maintain the continuance of the commentaries and Abhidhamma. By trying to force insight onto serenity, we are doing injustice to our ancient texts and discouraging people to read the texts which are immensely important to the understanding of dhamma. Maybe what I said may not convince you, but I felt I should say it with no disrespect to you. I just do not wish to see the credibility of commentaries being eroded by insistence of the interpretation of dhamma by just the insight way. Ken O #117211 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Sep 7, 2011 2:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? moellerdieter Hi Ken H, you wrote: (' D:Suffering exists ..although no sufferer can be found. So where suffering still exist , there isn't yet a cessation of suffering , is it?)-------------- KH: That's true, but the suffering is borne by paramattha dhammas. And paramattha dhammas are not our selves. D: where is the difference to suffering is (born by) 'khanda attachment ' ? Abhidhammikas specify that by paramattha dhammas, don't they? KH: When I see people engaging in so called "Buddhist practices" designed to bring about enlightenment I want to ask them why. Don't they understand "mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found"? D: what do you mean by ' so called "Buddhist practices" ? (hopefully not refering to the samadhi sequence of the Noble Path training (? ) ) Taking about myself , I think there is an understanding what is meant by anatta but I know , the necessary insight is a process of disentchantment, dispassion and consequently detachment of that khanda attachment. There are the fetters to get over , and Mana (conceit/ self esteem) is the one just before the state of Arahant. (Having this in mind , it becomes clear why it is said that the Saints are recognizing themselves by not higher,not even or not lower ) I do not know whether these fetters can ever be overcome by the intellect /dry insight alone which I assume is your way . with Metta Dieter #117212 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Sep 7, 2011 2:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? moellerdieter Dear Vince , you wrote: 'I'm reading these days a very interesting book from Bhikkhu Analayo: "Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization". It has a complete chapter summarizing the different views on Sati (Suttas, Abhidhamma). I was a complete ignorant the depth of this matter. Now still I'm ignorant but at least I can see better the reasons for different approaches. There is not a fixed view to explain sati. Suttas show different approaches and descriptions and the later commentators were focused in this or that D: The Buddha specified (samma) sati by proclaiming the 4 frameworks within Maha Satipatthana Sutta . As the different approach is concerned : different teachers, different interpretations. Well, somehow I believe one is looking for an easier way than this key teaching is actually requesting.... V: yes, of course; this is just a practice (or a work to understand) all the time. Your preventions with the -self are similar of what Nina said in the other message in this thread, and also I agree. Just I believe there is a way to create a good disposition, although I wouldn't name it an "effort" as something in dependence of a future effect. Well, or maybe it is just a personal view or a way to name the things. D: why not ? I recall that the path link of Right Effort has been/is a matter of DSG dispute . Right effort by guarding the senses provides the ground for (samma) sati and (samma ) samadhi, but - as far as I understand , and would appreciate to be corrected - that does not really fit to the view of our friends from K.S. school. with Metta Dieter #117213 From: Vince Date: Wed Sep 7, 2011 7:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Hi Dieter you wrote: > I recall that the path link of Right Effort has been/is a matter of DSG > dispute . > Right effort by guarding the senses provides the ground for (samma) sati and > (samma ) samadhi, but - as far as I understand , and would appreciate to be > corrected - that does not really fit to the view of our friends from K.S. > school. I have read inside the Suttas different formulations for the seclusion notion. In example, here there is somebody who achieve seclusion just by hearing Dhamma: ".. he approaches him at the appropriate times to ask & question him: 'What, venerable sir, is the meaning of this statement?' He[1] reveals what is hidden, makes plain what is obscure, and dispels perplexity in many kinds of perplexing things. This is the second cause, the second requisite condition... Having heard the Dhamma, he[2] achieves a twofold seclusion: seclusion in body & seclusion in mind. This is the third cause, the third requisite condition..." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.002.than.html it says "he achieve a twofold seclusion: seclusion in body & seclusion in mind" but obviously he is not suddenly in the middle of a forest in cross-legged position after hearing the Dhamma. And here there is mention to both physical and mind seclusion. However, it seems the translator uses "restraint of the senses" for the mind-side, while he prefers the word "seclusion" for the physical-side (I don't know Pali but I suspect): "'Come, friends, dwell with your sense faculties guarded, with mindfulness as your protector, with mindfulness as your chief, with your intellect self-protected, endowed with an awareness protected by mindfulness.' Thus they should be encouraged, exhorted, & established in restraint of the senses. [...] "'Come, friends, dwell in the wilderness. Resort to remote wilderness & forest dwellings.' Thus they should be encouraged, exhorted, & established in physical seclusion. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.114.than.html I believe the first meaning of seclusion is of not being engaged with meanings of the conventional side but with Dhamma meanings. In example, if we see a wonderful female but we only are able to see bones and meat, or nama and rupa, this is seclusion. Or when we have brilliant ideas and mind-images but just we can see its arising and falling, this is also seclusion. Although I'm not sure if this is the only seclusion meaning. Neither I'm sure the "restraint of the senses" it's the same of "seclusion". I understand the word "restraint" is close to "force to"... although my English is not good. Anyway, I understand mind-seclusion is not living with conventional meanings but with Dhamma meanings, Just my view (another view). I remember some words from A.Chah in where he was alone in the forest and he was disturbed by many sex images. The restraint of the senses does not equal to live in seclusion in a direct way. It can be an important factor to facilitate that (obviously if those objects are missing the things can be easier). Truth is that I don't remember about seclusion meanings inside DSG books. Perhaps somebody can help in the point without need to re-open an old discussion if this is not needed. best, Vince. #117214 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Sep 7, 2011 4:26 pm Subject: Re: Not Who, but What? kenhowardau Hi Dieter, ------- <. . .> >> KH: the suffering is borne by paramattha dhammas. And paramattha dhammas are not our selves. >> D: where is the difference to suffering is (born by) 'khanda attachment '? Abhidhammikas specify that by paramattha dhammas, don't they? ------- KH: We seem to be on different wavelengths. :-) I don't know why you are saying that suffering is attachment. All conditioned dhammas (not just lobha) are dukkha. ------------------ >>KH: When I see people engaging in so called "Buddhist practices" designed to bring about enlightenment I want to ask them why. Don't they understand "mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found"? >> > D: what do you mean by ' so called "Buddhist practices" ? (hopefully not refering to the samadhi sequence of the Noble Path training (? ) ) ------------------ KH: I mean all of them: all practices that are designed to bring about enlightenment. Why would anyone want to follow them? Are they not satisfied with the dhammas that are arising now? Do they want some other dhammas? Why? As I asked before, don't they understand mere dukkha (conditioned dhammas) exist; there is no owner of dukkha. ------------------------- > D: Taking about myself , I think there is an understanding what is meant by anatta but I know , the necessary insight is a process of disentchantment, dispassion and consequently detachment of that khanda attachment. There are the fetters to get over , and Mana (conceit/ self esteem) is the one just before the state of Arahant. (Having this in mind , it becomes clear why it is said that the Saints are recognizing themselves by not higher,not even or not lower ) > I do not know whether these fetters can ever be overcome by the intellect /dry insight alone which I assume is your way . ------------------------- KH: No, I don't have a way. The way taught by the Buddha is followed by conditioned dhammas. Conditioned dhammas arise (or fail to arise) purely by conditions. There is no control over them. They are nobody's self. Ken H #117215 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 7, 2011 6:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara nilovg Dear Ken O, Op 6-sep-2011, om 12:01 heeft Ken O het volgende geschreven: > KO: I came from the dinosaur group so I know how you are going to > answer. I > know what you going to answer and I could always answer the way, > you, Ken H, > Sarah and Jon answers. Your pathway is the dry insightors like your > teach AS, so > for people like you to understand the samatha bhavana is quite > difficult. > > Buddha talk about satipathana as the only way, the only way covered > two > important aspect, serenity and insight. This is written in the > commentaries and > visud and dispeller of delusion For those who practise samatha it > is about > concentration and vipassana mediation and for those who practise > insight only, > it is always about nama and rupa. ----- N: No problem. ------- > K: Everyone practise differently, we are here > to explain dhamma as according to the texts and not according to > our own > interpretation or using parts of the text to confirm our > interpretation. ------- N: On this forum there are different people with different accumulations, and they interprete texts differently. Using parts of the texts to confirm one's own interpretation would be insincere. I think we should not doubt people's sincerity here. Everyone tries to understand the texts as best as he is able to. Discussing also helps us to consider the texts more ourselves. The purpose is not arguing and trying to convince others. -------- > > > K: Maybe what I said may not convince you, but I felt I should say > it with no > disrespect to you. I just do not wish to see the credibility of > commentaries > being eroded by insistence of the interpretation of dhamma by just > the insight > way. ------ N: I see your point of view, but as far as I know there is no insisitence on the fact that there is only the dry insight way. I am just grateful that Kh Sujin always tries to bring us to the present moment. This is the Buddha's teaching, since the texts are not for pondering over, but for the development of understanding this moment. This leads to the application of the Dhamma in our life. I just read to Lodewijk from my 'Perseverance in Dhamma'. We asked Kh Sujin advice about problems we had with my late father. She always gives such good, practical advice. We discussed the sutta on the Deva Messengers: < If there is no understanding we are full of the idea of self. Lodewijk said that the sutta reminds us to perform noble deeds through body, speech and mind. He asked whether there are any limits to good deeds? Acharn Sujin said that deeds and speech depend on the citta that motivates them. When mett, loving kindness, arises, speech and deeds will be motivated by mett. We should not merely think about having more mett and practising it. When we have more understanding, kusala can become purer. If we do not consider the citta that arises, we may merely think of ourselves. When we are in the company of others we may behave in an agreeable manner and speak pleasant words, but if we do not consider the citta at that moment, there is attachment to ourselves or conceit. We may have conceit and we want to be considered a good person by our fellowmen. It is a gain to know at least when we cling to an underlying notion of self, no matter what our actions are, even when we perform kusala. Acharn Sujin asked us whether it is not true that we often perform kusala for our own sake. She said, "If one understands the teachings and there is less attachment to the self you think of the others more than of yourself. You think of helping others in deed and speech at any time." > This is to me the application of the Dhamma. It does not help to be always preoccupied what others are doing or thinking, and if understanding of the citta at this moment is being developed we also have more understanding of the texts. Moreover it is to the benefit of both ourselves and others. ------- Nina. #117216 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 7, 2011 7:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? nilovg Dear Dieter, Interesting remark, makes me consider more right effort. Op 6-sep-2011, om 18:35 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > Right effort by guarding the senses provides the ground for (samma) > sati and > (samma ) samadhi, but - as far as I understand , and would > appreciate to be > corrected - that does not really fit to the view of our friends > from K.S. > school. --------- N: The fourfold right effort is very important. In order to be a factor of the eightfold Path it has to accompany right understanding (sammaa di.t.thi) of the eightfold Path:Right effort (samm-vyma): the effort of avoiding or overcoming evil and unwholesome dhammmas, and of developing and maintaining wholesome dhammas. Viriya is a cetasika and it performs its own function by conditions. It is kusala when it accompanies kusala citta with sati and pa~n~naa. When understanding of a naama and ruupa arises there is already right effort and no need to think: 'I shall try to guard the senses' so that akusala citta does not arise. Most of the time there is forgetfulness of developing understanding of the present moment. We think of stories, people, situations. When the objective is not daana, siila or mental development the citta that thinks is akusala. Conceit arises so often. I just heard on a Thai recording that conceit can arise also on account of the unpleasant worldly conditions: I am old, I walk slowly, not as fast as others. There is some idea of 'poor me', finding oneself important. Here we are, thinking of stories again. Whereas, when there can be awareness of sound, hardness, seeing or any other dhamma we are not involved in 'stories' for that short moment. In this way we can learn the difference between the moments of forgetfulness and the moments of sati, even if it is just beginning and arises very rarely. ------- Nina. #117217 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Sep 6, 2011 8:12 am Subject: Feeling induces Latent Tendencies! bhikkhu5 Friends: Feeling induces Latent Tendencies! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these three feelings: Which three? 1: Pleasant Feeling, 2: Painful Feeling, 3: Neither-Painful-nor-Pleasant Feeling. The latent tendency to lust induced by pleasant feeling should be left... The latent tendency to aversion induced by painful feeling should be left... The latent tendency to ignorance induced by neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling should also be abandoned. When one has abandoned all the latent tendency to lust rooted in pleasant feeling, all latent tendency to aversion rooted in painful feeling, and all the latent tendency to ignorance rooted in neither-painful-nor-pleasant neutral feeling, then he is indeed called a Bhikkhu freed of latent tendencies, one who sees & understands rightly! He has thus stilled all craving, thus cut off the mental chains, and by also breaking completely through the conceit: "I am", he has ended Suffering... When one experiences pleasure, if one does not understand feeling, then the tendency to lust is present in anyone not seeing the escape from it. When one experiences pain, if one does not understand feeling, then the tendency to aversion is present in any one not seeing the escape from it. T he One of Vast Wisdom has taught that even if one seeks delight in this peace of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, then one is still not freed from suffering! But a bhikkhu who is enthusiastic, who does not neglect clear comprehension, such wise man fully understands feelings entirely. Having fully understood feelings, he is in this very life freed of all mental fermentation. Standing in this Dhamma, in this exquisite state, at body's breakup, such a master cannot be reckoned, assessed or estimated... Take-Home: Pleasant feeling produces greed! Painful feeling produces hate! Neither-painful-nor-pleasant neutral feeling causes neglect and will thus generate ignorance... The blessed Buddha Said: Everything converges on Feeling (Vedan): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Indifference_Creates_Ignorance.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Three_Basic_Kinds_of_Feeling.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Feeling_Causes_and_Effects.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_8_Aspects_of_Feeling.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Bodily_and_Mental_Feeling.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Detached_from_Feeling.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Dependent_on_Contact.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Focusing_on_Feeling.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Analysis_of _Feeling.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_108_Feelings.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Emotional_Storm.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Latent_Feeling.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Five_Feelings.htm Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikya. Book IV [205-6] 36: feeling. Vedan. Focused on Pleasure. 3. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * #117218 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Sep 7, 2011 7:07 am Subject: Patience is the Highest Praxis! bhikkhu5 Friends: Patience is the 6th Perfection: The characteristic of patience is acceptance, its function is to endure, and its manifestation is non-opposing tolerance! The cause of patience is understanding how things really are.. The effect of patience is calm tranquility despite presence of intensely stirring provocation.. Patience of the will produces forgiving forbearance! Patience of the intellect produces faith, confidence and certainty! Patience of the body produces resolute and tenacious endurance! Internal tolerance of states within oneself is patient endurance... External tolerance of other beings is forbearance and forgiveness... He who patiently protects himself, protects also all other beings! He who patiently protects all other beings, protects also himself! Not from speaking much is one called clever. The patient one is free from anger and free from fear, only such steady persisting one, is rightly called clever... Dhammapada 258 Patient tolerance is the highest praxis... Nibbna is the supreme Bliss! So say all the Buddhas. Dhammapada 184 The innocent one, who has done nothing wrong, Who endures abuse, flogging and even imprisonment, Such one, armed with stamina, the great force of tolerance, Such stoic one, who self-possessed can accept, I call a Holy One! Dhammapada 399 One should follow those who are determined, tolerant, and enduring, intelligent, wise, diligent, clever, good-willed and evidently Noble. One shall stick to them as the moon remains in its regular orbit. Dhammapada 208 Friends, even if bandits were to cut you up, savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, you should not get angry, but do my bidding: Remain pervading them and all others with a friendly Awareness imbued with an all-embracing good-will, kind, rich, expansive, and immeasurable! Free from hostility, free from any ill will. Always remembering this very Simile of the Saw is indeed how you should train yourselves. Majjhima Nikya 21 The five ways of removing irritating annoyance: Bhikkhus, there are these five ways of removing annoyance, by which any irritation can be entirely removed by a Bhikkhu, when it arises in him. What are these five ways? 1: Friendliness can be maintained towards an irritating person or state.. 2: Understanding can be undertaken towards an irritating person or state.. 3: On-looking Equanimity can be kept towards an irritating person or state.. 4: One can forget and ignore the irritating person, mental or physical state.. 5: Ownership of Kamma of the irritating person can be reflected upon thus: This good person is owner of his actions, inherit the result his actions, is indeed born of his actions and only he is responsible for his actions be they good or bad. This too is how annoyance with the irksome can be instantly removed. These are the five ways of removing annoyance, and by which any irritation can be entirely removed in a friend, exactly when it arises... A nguttara Nikya V 161 Buddha to his son Rhula : Develop an Imperturbable Mind like the elements: Rhula, develop a mind like earth, then contacts of arisen like and dislike will not obsess your mind! Rhula, on the earth is dumped both the pure and the impure: excreta, urine, saliva, pus, blood, but the earth does not detest any of those... Even and exactly so make your mind stable like the earth! Rhula, develop a mind like water, then contacts of arisen pleasure and pain will not seize your mind. Rhula with water both the pure and the impure are cleaned... Washed away with water are excreta, urine, saliva, pus, and blood, yet the water does not despise any of that! Even so make the mind fluid and adaptable like the water! Rhula, develop a mind like fire, then the contacts of any arisen attraction or aversion will neither consume, nor hang on to your mind! Rhula, fire burns both the pure and the impure, burns excreta, urine, saliva, pus, and blood, yet the fire does not loathe any of that.. In the same manner refine the mind into a tool like an all consuming and purifying fire! Rhula, develop a mind similar to space, then contacts of arisen delight and frustration does neither take hold of, nor remain in your mind. Space does not settle anywhere! Similarly make the mind unsettled and unestablished like open space. When you expand mind like space, contacts of delight and frustration will neither be able to dominate, nor obsess your mind... Majjhima Nikya 62 More on the 10 mental perfections (paramis): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Ten_Perfections.htm Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * #117219 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Wed Sep 7, 2011 4:49 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Why Many Jubus (Jewish Buddhists) Seem to Favor Practice Over Theory dhammasaro Good friend Howard, et al On what you wrote, the following partial quotes: 1. 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. 2. 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) FWIW, I agree and in my minority experiences, the vast majority of Theravada Buddhist monks and lay persons prefer practice (meditation, rites & rituals) to serious Tipitaka study. Again, in my minority experiences, this is very true among Roman Catholic brothers, monks, nuns, priests and lay persons. Perhaps, it is "human nature" to prefer practice to deep Talmud/Tanakh/Theological/Tipitaka study. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:58:40 -0400 Subject: [dsg] Why Many Jubus (Jewish Buddhists) Seem to Favor Practice Over Theory 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) #117220 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 7, 2011 10:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why Many Jubus (Jewish Buddhists) Seem to Favor Practice Over Theory upasaka_howard Hi, Chuck - In a message dated 9/7/2011 8:19:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dhammasaro@... writes: Good friend Howard, et al On what you wrote, the following partial quotes: 1. 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. 2. 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) FWIW, I agree and in my minority experiences, the vast majority of Theravada Buddhist monks and lay persons prefer practice (meditation, rites & rituals) to serious Tipitaka study. Again, in my minority experiences, this is very true among Roman Catholic brothers, monks, nuns, priests and lay persons. Perhaps, it is "human nature" to prefer practice to deep Talmud/Tanakh/Theological/Tipitaka study. ------------------------------------------------------ HCW: No doubt it is "human nature," and in some cases the preference is due to study seeming "dry, boring, and unpleasant." However, I see the importance of practice as lying mainly in it being THAT which is the direct transformational mechanism, with study serving "only" as guide and corrective to that study. Study is also important, of course, because the understanding of what happens in practice and the insights gleaned from it - and even the approach to practice itself - can be faulty due to preconceived ideas and fundamental ignorance for which proper study can serve as protection. So, both are needed, but, IMO, and as you agree, practice "rules." -------------------------------------------------------- peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:58:40 -0400 Subject: [dsg] Why Many Jubus (Jewish Buddhists) Seem to Favor Practice Over Theory =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117221 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 8, 2011 12:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? nilovg Hi Howard and Ken O, Op 5-sep-2011, om 13:33 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > N: ...the Abhidhamma explains paramattha dhammas, and the > object of pa~n~naa of the eightfold Path, or vipassanaa is paramattha > dhammas. > =============================== > Howard: I think this is quite true. > However this should not be taken to mean that the cultivation of > (awareness of) the 4 foundations of mindfulness pertains entirely > and only to > paramattha dhammas: This is largely and most importantly so, by > far, but the > Satipatthana Sutta begins - and beginnings are important - with > mindfulness > of the body, the first foundation, and if one reads that section > just as > it is, without acrobatic reinterpretation, it is clear that it > deals with > attention to macroscopic, physical aggregations, with rupas per se > being the > objects of awareness only at the much later and advanced stage of the > fourth foundation. > All meditation begins at a gross level, with deeper, more intense, and > more precise levels of mindfulness, concentration, and insight arising > only after considerable progress occurs. > ---------- N: When following the commentary, there is first a description of a monk who attains jhaana with mindfulness of breathing. Then we read: N: Thus, here is a person who has accumulated skill for jhaana and develops it naturally. I know that you will agree that in the context of mahaasatipa.t.thaana, jhaana is not the goal, but that the whole sutta aims at insight. When emerging from jhaana he is aware of naama and ruupa that appear: jhaanacitta, jhaanafactors, ruupas; the primary ones and the derived ones. All of these are anattaa. Thus he develops insight and this is insight based on jhaana. The Buddha took account of different kinds of people, those who could attain jhaana and those who did not. I do not see a progression from understanding ruupas as non-self in the first Application towards the Fourth one. Objects of mindfulness are classified according to the four Applications and such classification is useful so that differentr aspects can be seen. I do not see any progression, but I think that it depends on sati what object it takes. One moment there is awareness of ruupa, another moment of feeling or of citta, no selection. To me it is advanced to transcend doubts, to see the D.O. This is insight that has been developed. The Commentary (what is in italics is the subcommentary) continues: Atthi kayoti va panassa sati paccupatthita hoti = "Or, indeed, his mindfulness is established, with the thought: 'The body exists.'" Mindfulness is established for the yogi through careful scrutiny. He thinks: There is the body, but there is no being, no person, no woman, no man, no soul, nothing pertaining to a soul, no "I," nothing that is mine, no one, and nothing belonging to anyone [kayoti ca attli, na satto, na puggalo, na itthi, na puriso, na atta, na attaniyam naham, na mama, na koci, na kassaciti evam assa sati paccupatthita hoti]. Yavadeva = "To the extent necessary." It denotes purpose. This is said: The mindfulness established is not for another purpose. What is the purpose for which it is established? Nanamattaya patissatimattaya = "For just knowledge and remembrance." [N: remembrance is a translation of sati]. That is just for the sake of a wider and wider, or further and further measure of knowledge and of mindfulness [aparaparam uttaruttari anapamanatthaya ceva satipamanattha-yaca]. For the increase of mindfulness and clear comprehension is the meaning. For the purpose of reaching the knowledge of body-contemplation to the highest extent [kayanupassana anam param pamanam papanatthaya] is the meaning of: To the extent necessary for just knowledge [yavadeva anamattaya]. Anissito ca viharati = "And he lives independent." He lives emancipated from dependence on craving and wrong views. With these words is stated the direct opposition of this meditation to the laying hold on craving and wrong views. Na ca kici loke upadiyati = "And clings to naught in the world." In regard to no visible shape... or consciousness, does he think: this is my soul; or this belongs to my soul.> ------ N: I would think that this is really advanced. He could attain arahatship. ------ Nina. #117222 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Sep 8, 2011 4:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? moellerdieter Hi Vince ( and Nina), you wrote: (D: I recall that the path link of Right Effort has been/is a matter of DSG dispute . Right effort by guarding the senses provides the ground for (samma) sati and (samma ) samadhi, but - as far as I understand , and would appreciate to be corrected - that does not really fit to the view of our friends from K.S. school.) I have read inside the Suttas different formulations for the seclusion notion. In example, here there is somebody who achieve seclusion just by hearing Dhamma D: We need to consider different context , though in the example you are stating (A.N. 8.2: Paa Sutta - Discernment ,the Buddha outlines the skills that the Bhikkhus must develop in order for wisdom to unfold) effort is needed as well. But the extract you picked up is quiet interesting: 'Having heard the Dhamma, he[2] achieves a twofold seclusion: seclusion in body & seclusion in mind. This is the third cause, the third requisite condition..." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.002.than.html V: it says "he achieve a twofold seclusion: seclusion in body & seclusion in mind" but obviously he is not suddenly in the middle of a forest in cross-legged position after hearing the Dhamma. D: yes, about that I stumpled upon too Nyanatiloka's (German) translation corresponds to Thanissaro's 'seclusion' but adds a footnote : kaya -vupakasa and citta-vupakasa, see viveka panc upadanakhana , i.e. 5 khanda detachment (always of 2 kinds :body and mind) . Rhys Davies defined vupakasa by 'estrangement, alienation, separation, seclusion - always twofold and adds DIII 283 (Dial III 260 not correctly "serenity " SV 57, A IV 132) ' well , serenity fits better for both ( calming body and mind , see elow ) .... V: And here there is mention to both physical and mind seclusion. However, it seems the translator uses "restraint of the senses" for the mind-side, while he prefers the word "seclusion" for the physical-side (I don't know Pali but I suspect): "'Come, friends, dwell with your sense faculties guarded, with mindfulness as your protector, with mindfulness as your chief, with your intellect self-protected, endowed with an awareness protected by mindfulness.' Thus they should be encouraged, exhorted, & established in restraint of the senses. [...] "'Come, friends, dwell in the wilderness. Resort to remote wilderness & forest dwellings.' Thus they should be encouraged, exhorted, & established in physical seclusion. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.114.than.html D: this text corresponds with the Maha Satipatthana , D 22, : 'There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself - ardent, alert, & mindful - putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings... mind... mental qualities in & of themselves - ardent, alert, & mindful - putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world A. Body "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? [1] "There is the case where a monk - having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building - sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." and " He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'" V: I believe the first meaning of seclusion is of not being engaged with meanings of the conventional side but with Dhamma meanings. In example, if we see a wonderful female but we only are able to see bones and meat, or nama and rupa, this is seclusion. Or when we have brilliant ideas and mind-images but just we can see its arising and falling, this is also seclusion. Although I'm not sure if this is the only seclusion meaning. Neither I'm sure the "restraint of the senses" it's the same of "seclusion". I understand the word "restraint" is close to "force to"... although my English is not good. D: Oxford Dict. :seclusion =the state of being private or of having little contact with other people .. which matches 'having gone to the wilderness' . I don't think that we can mix V: Anyway, I understand mind-seclusion is not living with conventional meanings but with Dhamma meanings, Just my view (another view). I remember some words from A.Chah in where he was alone in the forest and he was disturbed by many sex images. The restraint of the senses does not equal to live in seclusion in a direct way. It can be an important factor to facilitate that (obviously if those objects are missing the things can be easier). D: right, not in a direct way , seclusion facilitate restraint of the senses .. but doesn' t block imagination as in the case of A. Cha who still failed " to putting aside greed " or more precise sensual craving (kama tanha) V: Truth is that I don't remember about seclusion meanings inside DSG books. Perhaps somebody can help in the point without need to re-open an old discussion if this is not needed. D: I can imagine that DSG books don't refer to ' having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building ' ;-) Perhaps Nina may comment as well as in respect to the Pali translation of kaya -vupakasa and citta-vupakasa . In context of A.N. 8.2. I think the meaning is 'not attached to body and mind ' ( but not yet liberated /vimutti) .. seclusion does not really match, ' separation ' possibly the better choice with Metta Dieter #117223 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 8, 2011 10:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? philofillet Hi Howard Interesting point about all meditation beginning with gross objects and progressing to deeper, more detailed ones, do you have any references from tipitika tosupport it? I can recall the metaphor used in Vism section on breathing of a gong, the gross breath and the gong sound both moving to subtler levels. But I can't offhand recall any suttas describing satipatthana as you do. (e.g rupa only object in fourth foundation, which is a more advanced foundation etc) Thanks in advance for supporting your interesting explanation a bit more. Metta, Phil #117224 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Sep 8, 2011 9:13 am Subject: Back to the 5 Basics! bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the 5 Basic Living Rules? The Blessed Buddha once said to Anathapindika : Whoever, householder, has not overcome five terrible evils, such one is without morality, is without control and will be reborn in hell. And what are those five terrible evils? They are killing, stealing, sexual abuse, lying, and taking intoxicants. But whoever has overcome these five terrible evils, such one is pure, well controlled and will be reborn in a happy world. One who is doing these 5 things, creates both present, and future extreme misery, and will thus experience much mental pain & regret! One who abstains from these 5 things produces neither any present, nor any future misery, nor will he experience mental pain or grief. Such terrible evil is thus eliminated by him and extinguished in him... Whoever murders living beings, Speaks words that are not true, Takes what does not belong to him, Seduces wives of other men, And takes intoxicating drinks or drugs, To which ever he/she strongly clings: Anyone who does not shun these evils, Is indeed without morality, with no purity! And when his/her body once dissolves, That blind fool will fall into deepest hell... Who does never harm any being at all, Who never utters any lie, or falsehood, Who never takes what is not his or hers, Nor seduces his/her neighbour's spouse, Nor ever wishes in all his/her life To drink intoxicating drinks or drugs that causes carelessness and neglect A human who shuns these five evils, Is rightly called a virtuous human; And when his/her body once dissolves, This wise human rises heavenward. <....> Source (edited extract): Numerical Discourses of the Buddha. Anguttara Nikya AN 5:174 http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/Index.Numerical.htm Integrity Must Be Lived Out in every Praxis! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #117225 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 8, 2011 10:38 am Subject: back in Hong Kong sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Just back in Hong Kong and very happy to be reunited with my computer and internet again after two weeks in the English countryside with my family. Look forward to catching up on posts and rest today and joining in the discussions soon.... Metta Sarah ===== #117226 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Sep 8, 2011 10:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? truth_aerator Hi Phil, all, >P:Interesting point about all meditation beginning with gross objects >and progressing to deeper, more detailed ones, do you have any >references from tipitika to support it? >========================================================= Please note how satipatthana is structured. It starts with the body, then it talks about feeling, then mental states, and advanced teaching for the 4th. Similar with anapanasati as complete satipatthana. They start with the grossest and easiest thing to notice, the body, and then proceed to more and more subtle phenomena. Feeling is harder to notice than the body, mental states even harder, and 4th satipatthana the hardest. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #117227 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Sep 8, 2011 11:34 am Subject: Re: back in Hong Kong epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > Just back in Hong Kong and very happy to be reunited with my computer and internet again after two weeks in the English countryside with my family. > > Look forward to catching up on posts and rest today and joining in the discussions soon.... Welcome back! Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - #117228 From: "philip" Date: Thu Sep 8, 2011 12:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? philofillet Hi Alex Hmmm, I don't know. I personally find feeling more difficult to understand than citta and as for body, well, that is always a controversy but having just read Buddhagosa's commentary on MN10, modes of deportment for example are not to be understood as moving forward (for example) in the conventional self but as the operation of paramattha dhammas, so not so obvious. (I guess this is a moot point as far as Howard's post is concerened since he favours reading and understanding the sutta without commentarial interpretation, if I understood correctly.) As for the fourth foundation being more advanced, isn't the presence or absence of hindrances relatively clear?( I agree there is movement towards more difficult topics within the fourth.) Would like to see a sutta that says there is the kind of progression Howard wrote about. It's an attractive and reasonable explanation, but the Dhamma might at times run in a somewhat different direction from the most reasonable explanation of it, possibly. I have read Analayo's book, and it's a great resource but there is something about the way he lays his own organizational schema(?) on Satipatthana at times that made me think we should stick to the longstanding commentary, where such organizing/prioritizing is not so prevalent, if present at all. But it might be there. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Phil, all, > > >P:Interesting point about all meditation beginning with gross objects >and progressing to deeper, more detailed ones, do you have any >references from tipitika to support it? > >========================================================= > > > Please note how satipatthana is structured. It starts with the body, then it talks about feeling, then mental states, and advanced teaching for the 4th. Similar with anapanasati as complete satipatthana. > > They start with the grossest and easiest thing to notice, the body, and then proceed to more and more subtle phenomena. Feeling is harder to notice than the body, mental states even harder, and 4th satipatthana the hardest. > > IMHO. > With best wishes, > Alex > #117229 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 8, 2011 6:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: seclusion. Was: Not Who, but What? nilovg Dear Dieter and Vince, Op 7-sep-2011, om 20:06 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > D: I can imagine that DSG books don't refer to ' having gone to the > wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building ' ;-) > > Perhaps Nina may comment as well as in respect to the Pali > translation of > kaya -vupakasa and citta-vupakasa . > > In context of A.N. 8.2. I think the meaning is 'not attached to > body and > mind ' ( but not yet liberated /vimutti) .. seclusion does not > really > match, ' separation ' possibly the better choice > ---------------------- N: Yesterday I just heard texts about seclusion. Viveka is another term for it: kaaya viveka (physical seclusion) citta viveka upadhi viveka ( as to all subtrates of rebirth, this is of the arahat who has eradicated all defilements) K II, 244: Ch XVIII, (about Raahula, 1, the eye): Here Raahula asks the Buddha to give him a teaching with which he may live 'secluded, zealous, ardent and aspiring'. Then the Buddha teaches him, asking whether the eye and all the senses are abiding or fleeting. 'So seeing he is repelled by sense. Being repelled, he loses desire for it; from losing desire he is set free...' he attains arahatship. In the following suttas the same is said of other ruupas and naamas. ------- K II, 283 10 (I think quoted before by Sarah): Senior (Thera) by nama. He wanted to do everything alone. The Buddha asked him what life he recommended and the Thera spoke about his life. The Buddha said that he did not deny this, but that he would explain how dwelling alone is fulfilled in detail (transl B.B.): The Thai gives more notes of the commentary: 'all' includes: the khandhas, aayatanas, dhaatus, and the three kinds of rebirths (in sensuous planes, ruupa planes, aruupa planes). Nibbaana is the end of craving. ---- K IV, 32. Suttas on Migajaala: about a dweller alone. Who is freed from craving. The objects experienced through the different doorways are mentioned separately. Craving is the mate he has left behind. Even if he dwells amids a crowd he is a dweller alone. ----- I think that just physical secludedness without the mental is not of much benefit. ------ You wrote: the "restraint of the senses" it's the same as "seclusion". I understand the word "restraint" is close to "force to". ----- Indriya sa"mavara siila, different translations, restraint of the senses, control of the senses, guarding the senses. So long as we understand: pa`n~naa and sati are the conditions, not a self who forces. ------ Nina. #117230 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 8, 2011 6:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? nilovg Dear Phil and Alex, Op 8-sep-2011, om 4:15 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I personally find feeling more difficult to understand than citta > and as for body, well, that is always a controversy but having just > read Buddhagosa's commentary on MN10, modes of deportment for > example are not to be understood as moving forward (for example) in > the conventional self but as the operation of paramattha dhammas, > so not so obvious. ------ N: I think that nobody can select any object of awareness at all. It depends where the citta with sati goes, it may jump from splitsecond to splitsecond. ----- Nina. #117231 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 8, 2011 9:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 9/7/2011 8:03:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard Interesting point about all meditation beginning with gross objects and progressing to deeper, more detailed ones, do you have any references from tipitika tosupport it? I can recall the metaphor used in Vism section on breathing of a gong, the gross breath and the gong sound both moving to subtler levels. But I can't offhand recall any suttas describing satipatthana as you do. (e.g rupa only object in fourth foundation, which is a more advanced foundation etc) ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: The understanding of going from a grosser (and more conceptual) mode of observation to finer and more direct and detailed modes of observation seems obvious to me in the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta. Just look at the suttas. Look, in particular: Look at the gross and highly conceptual formulations at the start and at the impersonality of formulation in the 4th foundation as compared to the preceding!It is in the 4th foundation aspect of the meditation in which the same phenomena are being examined as in the 1st three, but, now, directly, with minimal imposition of thinking and concept, and with sati and paa most acute. In addition, reason alone shows that unless one is already an advanced ariyan, any meditation can only begin with mind operating in a gross, conceptual manner with hindrances still holding sway and ignorance most powerful, and the meditation only advances to finer stages gradually. Finally, as a regular meditator, this progression is a perfectly clear matter of observation. Think, for example, of walking meditation: At first there is only highly conceptual consciousness of the entire body-in-motion, with most attention to "feet in motion," and with background thinking in terms of such concepts as body, legs, feet, lifting, moving, and placing, and of "me being in charge,"i.e., of "personal self" at the helm. But, with the stilling of hindrances and the strengthening of sati and paa, and the deepening of calm, eventually nothing is present to consciousness except such impersonal phenomena as bodily sensations (i.e., rupas per se), vedana, cetana (as impersonal bodily impulse), and the constant alteration/shifting of mental and physical phenomena. ----------------------------------------------------- Thanks in advance for supporting your interesting explanation a bit more. Metta, Phil ================================= With metta, Howard Neither Here nor Yonder nor in Between /When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then ... there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress./ (From the Bahiya Sutta) #117232 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 8, 2011 10:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? nilovg Hi Howard, Op 8-sep-2011, om 13:45 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Think, for example, of walking meditation: At first > there is only highly conceptual consciousness of the entire > body-in-motion, with most attention to "feet in motion," and with > background thinking in > terms of such concepts as body, legs, feet, lifting, moving, and > placing, > and of "me being in charge,"i.e., of "personal self" at the helm. ----- N: But in that case there is no satipa.t.thaana at all. The commentary (also long ago quoted by Ken H): ----- N: The expression I am going or I shall stand... does not mean that he thinks of self doing this or that. It is an illustration in conventional terms. The details of naama and ruupa are explained here. The diffusion of the process of oscillation... etc. ------- Nina. #117233 From: Vince Date: Thu Sep 8, 2011 11:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Hi (Dieter and Nina) you wrote: > D: yes, about that I stumpled upon too > Nyanatiloka's (German) translation corresponds to Thanissaro's 'seclusion' > but adds a footnote : kaya -vupakasa and citta-vupakasa, see viveka panc > upadanakhana , i.e. 5 khanda detachment (always of 2 kinds :body and mind) . > Rhys Davies defined vupakasa by 'estrangement, alienation, separation, > seclusion - always twofold and adds DIII 283 (Dial III 260 not correctly > "serenity " SV 57, A IV 132) ' > well , serenity fits better for both ( calming body and mind , see > elow ) .... > N: Yesterday I just heard texts about seclusion. > Viveka is another term for it > [..] > Indriya sa"mavara siila, different translations, restraint of the > senses, control of the senses, > guarding the senses. > So long as we understand: pa`n~naa and sati are the conditions, not a > self who forces. thanks for clarifying the topic with Pali meanings. From all what you says, I extract that serenity acquired from guarding the senses exists because sati and the wisdom arising from considering Dhamma. So at least I understand the hearing of Dhamma or the dwelling in a solitude place are mentioned just like the better situations for that. They were taught according persons and situations; sometimes the people were addressed to go in solitude while other people to hear Dhamma. best, Vince, #117234 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 8, 2011 11:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/8/2011 8:59:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 8-sep-2011, om 13:45 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Think, for example, of walking meditation: At first > there is only highly conceptual consciousness of the entire > body-in-motion, with most attention to "feet in motion," and with > background thinking in > terms of such concepts as body, legs, feet, lifting, moving, and > placing, > and of "me being in charge,"i.e., of "personal self" at the helm. ----- N: But in that case there is no satipa.t.thaana at all. -------------------------------------------- HCW: That is right, Nina! Meditation, like most things, begins at a low point. Nina, if you meditated you would know first hand how it develops. We start where we are, not where we hope to be! But things change, Nina - they develop. An analogy: Van Cliburn didn't win the International Tchaikovsky Competition as a child before taking piano lessons. BTW, I wrote more than what you quoted above. =================================== With metta, Howard P. S. I notice that you pay no attention to such highly conceptual material, filled with thinking, as the following in the first foundation: [4] "Furthermore...just as if a sack with openings at both ends were full of various kinds of grain " wheat, rice, mung beans, kidney beans, sesame seeds, husked rice " and a man with good eyesight, pouring it out, were to reflect, 'This is wheat. This is rice. These are mung beans. These are kidney beans. These are sesame seeds. This is husked rice,' in the same way, monks, a monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine.' "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. [5] "Furthermore...just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body " however it stands, however it is disposed " in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. [6] "Furthermore, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground " one day, two days, three days dead " bloated, livid, & festering, he applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate'... "Or again, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground, picked at by crows, vultures, & hawks, by dogs, hyenas, & various other creatures... a skeleton smeared with flesh & blood, connected with tendons... a fleshless skeleton smeared with blood, connected with tendons... a skeleton without flesh or blood, connected with tendons... bones detached from their tendons, scattered in all directions " here a hand bone, there a foot bone, here a shin bone, there a thigh bone, here a hip bone, there a back bone, here a rib, there a breast bone, here a shoulder bone, there a neck bone, here a jaw bone, there a tooth, here a skull... the bones whitened, somewhat like the color of shells... piled up, more than a year old... decomposed into a powder: He applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate.' "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117235 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 2:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? truth_aerator Dear Nina, Phil, all, > ------ >N: I think that nobody can select any object of awareness at all. >It depends where the citta with sati goes, it may jump from >splitsecond to splitsecond. >====================================================== Actually one can. Right now please pay attention to the posture you are at. Please answer in what posture you are right now. No need to type it here. Then ask yourself, "what feeling is felt". Are you feeling pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral feeling? Ask yourself the state of mind that is right now and try to be aware of it. Etc. As you see, you can do that. What happens now is important. I am perfectly aware of arguments for no-control, but it is metaphysics. There are good actions and there are bad. It is better to do good ones. IMHO. With metta, Alex #117236 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 2:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? moellerdieter Hi Ken H, you wrote: ------- ( D: where is the difference to suffering is (born by) 'khanda attachment '? Abhidhammikas specify that by paramattha dhammas, don't they? ) KH: We seem to be on different wavelengths. :-) D: Ken, that doesn't surprise me ;-) K.H. : I don't know why you are saying that suffering is attachment. All conditioned dhammas (not just lobha) are dukkha. D: I say it because the Buddha proclaimed by the first Noble Truth that suffering in brief is 5 Khanda attachment. Its explanation is the Law of Dependent Orgination , which indeed describes ' (the origination) of the whole mass of suffering' , i.e. the first and second N.T. ( Abhidhamma as far as I understand is more or less an extension of this law) As we are told the break of the chain , the de -conditioning or detachment , the end of the mass of suffering (3rd N.T.) is prescribed by application of the 8fold Noble Path , the 4th N.T. K.H: ( D: what do you mean by ' so called "Buddhist practices" ? (hopefully not refering to the samadhi sequence of the Noble Path training (? ) ) ------------------ I mean all of them: all practices that are designed to bring about enlightenment.Why would anyone want to follow them? Are they not satisfied with the dhammas that are arising now? Do they want some other dhammas? Why? D: see above .. Abhidhamma is no replacment of the Noble Path. Analysis or diagnosis is not the cure . K.H.:( D: I do not know whether these fetters can ever be overcome by the intellect /dry insight alone which I assume is your way .) ------------------------- KH: No, I don't have a way. The way taught by the Buddha is followed by conditioned dhammas. Conditioned dhammas arise (or fail to arise) purely by conditions. There is no control over them. They are nobody's self. D: Ken, frankly speaking I get the impression that your way or better your view is that from an (intellectual) ivory tower .. you lose or have lost the essence of the Teaching when you don't try to keep the background in mind. with Metta Dieter #117237 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: N: Yes, because the Abhidhamma explains paramattha dhammas, and the object of pa~n~naa of the eightfold Path, or vipassanaa is paramattha dhammas. D: you may agree that in general the object of panna or samma ditthi ,the opposite of avijja /ignorance is the wisdom, the perfect penetration of the 4 Noble Truths, knowledge of paramattha dhammas ( and concepts) possible means of the training of the 8fold Noble Path, which alone lead to cessation of suffering N:( D: Sati when walking means in my understanding recognizing all senses involved , i.e. what is going on . (One may add 'seeing' the Law of > D.O. in action). ------- N: More than that. When sati arises there can be understanding or beginning to understand colour that appears as only a dhamma, no person or thing. This is difficult because it seems that we see people and things all the time. Besides, sati does not only arise when walking but in whatever posture D: about the more, books have been written. And when I write to you , it is Nina ,my mail is addressed to . We need to have both in mind , the mundane and the supramundane . The whole Teaching is aimed for the suffering being ..to stick to the reality of paramattha dhammas only is similar misleading as a scientist would apply solely the laws of particle physics to his (macro cosmical) environment. N: : The Buddha praised the Alley Walk, because the bhikkhu should not only sit all the time, that is not healthy. One may be thinking of the Dhamma while doing an alley walk, but best is being aware of whatever appears through the six doorways. D: I don't think that the Buddha praised the alley walk (thanks for the term) especially for health reason , but for (both) the benefit of contemplation while changing to the 'automatic gear' for spiritual centering /contemplation as well as the application of mindfulness, paying close attention to the muscles of the body, the placement of the feet, balance, and motion etc. with Metta Dieter #117238 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 10:29 am Subject: Re: Not Who, but What? kenhowardau Hi Dieter, ----- <. . .> >> KH: We seem to be on different wavelengths. :-) >> > D: Ken, that doesn't surprise me ;-) ----- KH: Nor me, but I would like to bring our conversation back to where we *are* on the same wavelength. I think we agree that (1) there are only dhammas (2) all conditioned dhammas are anicca and dukkha and (3) all dhammas, including nibbana, are anatta. When we consider that with right understanding we know (as the Vism says), "mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found." Are you with me? :-) So the point I am trying to make is there is no need for any practices. The fact that there is no sufferer means there is no need. ----------------------- >> K.H. : I don't know why you are saying that suffering is attachment. All conditioned dhammas (not just lobha) are dukkha. >> > D: I say it because the Buddha proclaimed by the first Noble Truth that suffering in brief is 5 Khanda attachment. ------------------------ KH: In his first sutta (Dhammacakkappavattana) he said "In brief, the five aggregates of attachment are suffering." "Of attachment" means "capable of being attached to" or "capable of being the object of attachment" it doesn't mean attachment per se. --------------------------------- > D: Its explanation is the Law of Dependent Orgination , which indeed describes '(the origination) of the whole mass of suffering' , i.e. the first and second N.T. ( Abhidhamma as far as I understand is more or less an extension of this law) As we are told the break of the chain , the de -conditioning or detachment , the end of the mass of suffering (3rd N.T.) is prescribed by application of the 8fold Noble Path , the 4th N.T. --------------------------------- KH: I realise attachment is a *link* in the *cycle* of D O. And (as the second noble truth) it is the cause of dukkha. But you seem to be saying dukkha, itself, is attachment. ---------------- <. . .> >> KH: I mean all of them: all practices that are designed to bring about enlightenment.Why would anyone want to follow them? Are they not satisfied with the dhammas that are arising now? Do they want some other dhammas? Why? >> > D: see above .. Abhidhamma is no replacment of the Noble Path. -------------------------------- KH: Which particular part of the "above" are you referring to? I think you will find both Abhidhamma and Dhamma (with a capital D) are synonyms for the Path. The term Abhidhamma is used to denote the form of language being used. When a "higher" form of language is used it's called "Abhidhamma" and when a conventional form of language is used it's just "Dhamma." ------------- > D: Analysis or diagnosis is not the cure . ------------- KH: I hope I have misunderstood you. :-) Are you saying right understanding of the presently arisen dhamma-arramana is not the cure? If it isn't, what is? --------------------- <. . .> >> KH: No, I don't have a way. The way taught by the Buddha is followed by conditioned dhammas. Conditioned dhammas arise (or fail to arise) purely by conditions. There is no control over them. They are nobody's self. >> > D: Ken, frankly speaking I get the impression that your way or better your view is that from an (intellectual) ivory tower . you lose or have lost the essence of the Teaching when you don't try to keep the background in mind. --------------------- KH Your use of lyrical language is clouding the issue. Can we get back to the main point? If there is no self (no you or I) in ultimate reality - if there are only dhammas - is there a need for you or I to do something? Or will ultimate reality roll on regardless? Ken H #117239 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 10:46 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi Ken H Trying to catch up... > KH: The subject of bodily intimation might be a digression from our present conversation. It is a rupa that 'conveys intention' not that 'moves other rupas.' > > --------- > > Ph: Wouldn't that action be some kind of result of citta rather than a metaphor of it. There are countless cittas involved in an act of giving, how could that act be a metaphor for one of them, isn't it more about processes of cause and result, paccayas etc. Still all dhammas, I agree. > --------- > > KH: No, I don't think so. Bodily-intimation is a dhamma and it is conditioned by citta, but actions are not dhammas. They are not conditioned by anything. Ph: I will look into this some more, I believe it is correct to say that physical actions are caused by citta conditioning rupas that arise and fall away to give the impression of, say, giving. Lifting the arm and moving it to place alms in a monks bowl cannot be one citta. There are many cittas causing many rupas to arise (they fall away again) in a way that causes the conventional act of moving the arm. I assume that within all those cittas there could be kusala and akusala, within a single lifting of the arm, rupa conditioned by alobha rooted cittas, rupa conditioned by lobha rooted cittas, there couldn't be all one or the other, it seems to me. Of course more likely that the lobha rooted cittas would arise after the donation. Let's say the giving is spontaneous, unprompted. I like a story Christine tells in a talk of feeling irritated that there were monks taking money in India, complaining about it to friends, but then, when passing one of those monks, unprompted generosity arose and she gave to one of the monks. The arm lifted by kusala cittas, and then perhpas as soon as the loot was in the bowl, the arm falling away with cittas already rooted in dosa or accompanied by mana etc. My point is that a single action can't be said to be the metaphor of a single citta. There is too much going on at the paramattha level in a single giving of alms, for example. Probably. Does that make any sense to you? Metta, Phil p.s Boy is it ever easy writing on a computer compared to i-phone! I should do this more often. p.p.s I'd like to thank p.t in passing. I think it was reading his posts to you about a month ago that helped to condition this new tone of discourse with you. We really supply models of right speech or wrong speech to each other here. #117240 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 10:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta from KK (March 2011) philofillet Hi Nina > > Ph: Does "whatever arises" equal "whatever appears?" Am I just > > being being obsessive about words or am I correct in thinking there > > is an important difference? > > > ------ > N: Realities arise and fall away all the time but not all of them are > known by citta, thus, not all of them appear. And even more rarely, > appear to sati, that is, are object of awareness. Ph: OK. > > Ph: Is it true to say that of the countless cittas arising, only > > some appear, and of those even fewer are object of awareness (as > > nimitta, for us?) > > > N: True. Ph: Got it. And of the dhammas that are object of awareness as nimitta, the reason there is not direct awareness of them before they are nimitta is because the process of sense door to mind door is so fast, like drops of water going through two sheets of onion paper? Even for Ariyans I imagine that there is not always direct awarness of sense door objects before mind door processes, right? They wouldn't be able to function in the world. Even the one who became arahat when he saw "teeth" or "bones" walking by, I forget which, had mind door processes to see teeth or bones rather than colour. "In the seen there will be only the seen", but in that case there must have been more than that.... > > Metta, > > Phil > > > > Metta, > > Phil > > > > Metta, > > Phil > > > -------- > N: Hi Phil, as Kh Sujin says, metta never is enough :-)) > ------ > Nina. Ph: A tiny i-phone display screw-up, but let's pretend I was radiating metta in three directions at the time! I ran out of time for the 4th. (Shouldn't joke, it is a valid samattha topic for those who can attain jhana.) Metta, Phil #117241 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:08 am Subject: Is the present moment a single citta? philofillet Hi Azita, Ken H and all > Kenh I always appreciate yr insistence on present moment being all there is. We can never hear enuff of this info if simply bec its never heard anywhere in the conventional world. I agree. But sometimes when I read "life is just one citta that rises and falls away" I wonder if that means we can never have awareness of life. Do you think we can be aware of one citta, it must be unlikely. Wouldn't it be more true to say that the present moment is composed of lots of citta processes rising and falling away to give a sense of a moment? For example, cool breeze now through the screen door, coolness on arm. (Still unpleasantly hot here.) A moment of awareness of temperature, and lobha arising soon afterwards. That is not one citta, it is many cittas, who knows how many, though it seemed to happen in a flash. So I have a little trouble with "life is just one citta arising and falling away." Well, I suppose that could be true, since there doesn't have to be awareness of it, it is the reality of how things work. But if the present moment is one citta that means there can never be awareness of the present moment, not for us. Well, our friend nimitta comes in here again, I guess... Metta, Phil #117242 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:15 am Subject: Re: To Phil. Letter to Lucas in prison philofillet Hi Lukas I'm glad you liked the letter, and I hope it will be helpful to your friend. I wrote it a little bit strategically, knowing that he would have received a much closer-to-the-heartwood deep Dhamma letter from Sarah. Balanced with something more basic, I thought it would be a good combination. I'd be happy to correspond with him if you are the middleman to translate. People do change, that is a fact, especially people as young as your friend. Our underlying anuysayas can arise up at anytime, but we shouldn't let people tell us that people don't change. It's obviously not true, espcially for those of us who have the good blessing to be sensitive to the Buddha's teaching. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > > Hi Phil, Howard, Nina, Sarah, and all > Phil, I've just translated your letter to Lucas my friend in prison. #117243 From: "philip" Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? philofillet Hi Howard Thanks for taking the time to write such a thorough explanation. I think you nicely capture how vipassana meditation would be explained today by any well-known teacher. The problem is the commentary, it's so different, it clearly says that the point is not to understand with that kind of awareness, the awareness of canines that doesn't do away with belief in self etc. (Of course the way you describe things, that would happen eventually.) And that is from the beginning, according to the commentary: "The terms sitting, standing and lying down, too, are applicable in the general sense of awareness and in the particular sense of knowledge of the true characteristic qualities. Here in this discourse the particular and not the general sense of awareness is to be taken." Seems pretty clear. On the other hand, I have in the past written that our teacher the Buddha must be a great enough teacher to communicate his ideas without needing commentary, so I can see where you are coming from. I will keep reading what you and Alex and Rob E and others say, and I might swing around again. But for now I am pretty impressed by the commmentary, for whatever reason... Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Phil - > > In a message dated 9/7/2011 8:03:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > philco777@... writes: > > Hi Howard > > Interesting point about all meditation beginning with gross objects and > progressing to deeper, more detailed ones, do you have any references from > tipitika tosupport it? #117244 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:35 pm Subject: Happy Habit! bhikkhu5 Friends: Morality is the Cause of No Regrets and thus Gladness! What are the Advantages of Morality? The Gladness of No Regrets and No Remorse! Wealth well acquired by righteous diligence! The Fine Fame of a Good Reputation! The Purity of a Clean Conscience... Assured and Natural Self-Confidence in any assembly! Neither confusion, nor any panic at the moment of death! A Happy and occasionally even Divine Destiny after death! What are the Similes of Morality? Morality is like a good foothold! Morality is like a purifying bath! Morality is like a solid cement foundation! Morality is like a key to success!Morality is like a cool breeze! Morality is like a hidden fortune! Morality is like a scent drifting even against the wind! Morality is like a staircase to heaven! Morality is like an aura of fine radiance! Morality is like an innocent and rapturous joy! Morality is like a much respected fame! Source: The Path of Purification: Visuddhimagga. Written by 'the great explainer' Ven. Buddhaghosa in 5th century AC. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100 <....> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <...> #117245 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 7:49 pm Subject: Notes on nimitta, part 2. nilovg Dear Phil, > > Ph: A bit off topic, but are wrong understanding, vipalassa and > ayoniso manasikara > synonymous? > ------ N: Wrong understanding: a wrong interpretation of reality. For example thinking that a person really exists. Personality belief, sakkaaya di.t.thi: with regard to each of the five khandhas. Vipallasa: perversities: Buddhist Dictionary:<''There are 4 perversions which may be either of perception (sa-vipallsa), of consciousness (citta v.) or of views (ditthi-v.). And which are these four? To regard what is impermanent (anicca) as permanent; what is painful (dukkha) as pleasant (or happiness-yielding); what is without a self (anatt) as a self; what is impure (ugly: asubha) as pure or beautiful'' (A. IV, 49).> Thus, these do not always include wrong view. Ayoniso manasikaara: pertains to each akusala citta. ----- > > Ph: > We need to know that reality appears all of the time> > > Ph: Even if there is no awareness of it. It appears, but because of > defilements it does not become object of awareness? > ------- N: Citta always experiences an object, but not always, rarely, with sati. ------- > > Ph: What's the difference between not being aware of mild lobha > (e.g enjoying one's posture in a chair) and not being aware of > bhavanga cittas? The lobha appears ( but no awareness) but the b.c > does not appear? > --------- > N: It depends on the type of citta. 'Not being aware' does not indicate what type of citta arises. Seeing is not aware, it is vipaakacitta. Those who have developed insight can also be aware of bhavangacitta when it appears. ------- Nina. #117246 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 7:51 pm Subject: Notes on nimitta, part 3. nilovg Dear Ann and Phil, ------ Just continuing quoting an old post: > Kh Sujin said: dhammas are arising and > > falling away very quickly and only the nimitta, the sign remains. > > There is the nimitta of rupakkhandha, saakkhandha, of all khandhas. .... Sarah: Just to add to this, at each moment now, sanna makes a sign of the 5 khandhas. This is why each khandha has its nimitta, because the khandhas arise and fall away so fast that without highly developed panna, it has to be the 'sign' that is marked, just like in the example given in the texts of the swirling fire-stick. .... Howard:> What khandha do nimittas fall under? If the sign is something that > remains, what is it? Nama or rupa, of what exact sort, and how long > does it last? > (Or do nimittas constitute a 6th khandha?) .... S: No, nimittas are the signs of the khandhas. What is left all the time after the dhamma has fallen away is the sign, like the sign of visible object or sound. But each one has fallen away already. It's a shadow of reality. A shadow isn't a khandha itself. When panna grows it knows the difference between the conditioned dhammas which rise and fall and have nimitta and the unconditioned dhamma which doesn't have any nimitta. When we appreciate that what appears now is only the nimitta of a khandha, it helps us to see that we live in the world of nimittas, a kind of dream world as has been stressed so much. It's only when there is the direct understanding of the arising and falling away of realities (khandhas), that they are directly known exactly as they are and there is then the beginning of the turning away from conditioned dhammas. Only then do we really know what is meant by 'dream' with nothing left behind of the dhamma which has fallen away. We then get closer to understanding realities are not sukkha in anyway because of their 3 characteristics (as stressed in the notes above). ... > N: There are different meanings of nimitta. It can be as said above, > the mental image of for example a kasina. When one looks at it again > and again one acquires a mental image and does not need to look at it > any longer. > Further, it can mean the outward appearance and details of things by > which we are misled. We believe that we see people and things and > cling to all the details. This is the second meaning. > Then there is a third meaning and this pertains to sankhaara nimitta, > the nimitta of conditioned dhammas, of the five khandhas, of nama and > rupa. .... S: I raised the different meanings in more recent discussions and I recall K.Sujin more recently as having stressed that though there can be said to be different meanings or aspects, all refer to nimitta, the same term. For those who've developed panna, they still live in the world of nimittas. No one can change this. Even an arahant who understands perfectly what is real still experiences nimitta of khandhas. He/she still attends to nimitta anubyanjanna and knows his name or that this is a pen or glass of water. But of course, there are not the conditions to get 'lost in thought' or swayed by kilesa in anyway. There are no anusayas with the sanna at all. Sanna still makes its sign at each moment like now, but the difference is that usually there's no panna with it for us. I remember she stressed that the difference is in the vijja or avijja arising. The arahant still pays attention - it's not a matter of getting rid of nimitta at all. The cetasikas perform their functions like before, but without kilesa. Even though he doesn't pay as much attention as worldly people do, this doesn't mean no attention. He/she still thinks a lot as well. The aim is not to stop thinking. Nimitta are still experienced because of the rapidity of the succession of rising and falling realities. So, I think it's the same meaning when we refer to sanna making a sign of the 5 khandhas as when we refer to the nimitta of the khandhas appearing now. Also, when we refer to the nimitta experienced by jhana cittas, again it's still nimitta, but a different aspect or level because of different kinds of cittas arising as I understand. .... > N<...>. > Nimitta in the second sense is an image of lasting beings and things. > Nimitta as sankhara nimitta is referring to conditioned dhammas and > it is not the same as the second sense. > I said that the nimitta remains, but not in the sense of a lasting > thing. It is just a reminder of the rapidity with which the nama or > rupa that was the object of mindfulness has fallen away. .... S: We read that panna leads out of sankhara nimitta but actually this is referring to the leading away from wrong view, leading away with detachment from clinging with wrong view. K.Sujin referred to how no door, no hole in the roof is found as long as there is no understanding. Even at the first 2 stages of insight, the panna is not strong enough to directly penetrate the paramattha dhammas as opposed to the nimittas of paramattha dhammas, because the direct knowledge of the rise and fall of dhammas hasn't been fully realized. .... > When there is mindfulness we do not have to think of a mentally > constructed reproduction as the actual present object. That thinking > takes too long. There is just a beginning to attend to > characteristics that appear. Then hardness, then visible object, then > seeing, then unpleasant feeling. .... S: Yes, true. And if there's no awareness cnow of the characteristics of dhammas appearing, such as seeing and visible object, there's no need to be concerned about nimittas! ------- Nina #117247 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 8:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 8-sep-2011, om 19:45 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > > N: Yes, because the Abhidhamma explains paramattha dhammas, and the > object of pa~n~naa of the eightfold Path, or vipassanaa is > paramattha dhammas. > > D: you may agree that in general the object of panna or samma > ditthi ,the opposite of avijja /ignorance, is the wisdom, the > perfect penetration of the 4 Noble Truths, knowledge of paramattha > dhammas ( and concepts) possible means of the training of the 8fold > Noble Path, which alone lead to cessation of suffering > ------- N: As to knowledge of paramattha dhammas ( and concepts) , not concepts such as the wheather. BUt pa~n`naa realizes the difference between paramattha dhammas and concepts. ------ > > D: Sati when walking means in my understanding recognizing all > senses involved , i.e. what is going on . (One may add 'seeing' the > Law of > D.O. in action). > ------- > D: or beginning to understand colour that no person or thing. This is difficult because it seems that we see > people and things when walking but in whatever posture > > D: about the more, books have been written. > And when I write to you , it is Nina ,my mail is addressed to . > We need to have both in mind , the mundane and the supramundane . > > The whole Teaching is aimed for the suffering being ..to stick to > the reality of paramattha dhammas only is similar misleading as a > scientist would apply solely the laws of particle physics to his > (macro cosmical) environment. > ------- N: It is not a matter of ignoring concepts of 'worldly life', we need them to lead our normal life. But when speaking of the objects of vipassanaa, these are paramattha dhammas, naama and ruupa. Wisdom can be developed so that these are known as impermanent, dukkha, anattaa. Concepts do not have these characteristics. -------- > > N: : The Buddha praised the Alley Walk, because the bhikkhu should > not only sit all the time, that is not healthy. One may be thinking > of the Dhamma while doing an alley walk, but best is being aware of > whatever appears through the six doorways. > > D: I don't think that the Buddha praised the alley walk (thanks for > the term) especially for health reason , but for (both) the benefit > of contemplation while changing to the 'automatic gear' for > spiritual centering /contemplation as well as the application of > mindfulness, paying close attention to the muscles of the body, the > placement of the feet, balance, and motion etc. > ------ N: It also helps not to become sleepy and lazy, several reasons. As to paying close attention to the muscles of the body, the placement of the feet, balance, and motion etc., these are concepts. There can be awareness of one naama or ruupa at a time. Not muscles, but for example hardness, the element of earth. ------- I quote a passage of Kh Sujin, where she also speaks about posture: ------- Nina. #117248 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 8:33 pm Subject: Re: To Phil. Letter to Lucas in prison szmicio Dear Phil, Nina and all friends, I didnt get a response to your letter. But in the last of Lucas's letters he wrote me that he was totally engaged by buddhism. And he asks about practice. He was very sad that his girlfriend want to break up with him. But he wrote me last letter: " I tell you honestly that this whole buddhism bound me up so deep. And I want to absorbe all the knowledge about it by all my heart now. You dont even know how I was sorry, when I ended to read "The Buddha teachings. This was the first time in my life, that when I was starting to feel sad, I started to read the teachings. And then all become so easier, as if it was much more clear. That day I got a news from my girlfriend. This day I read the most, and it helped me." " Best wishes Lukas >P: I'm glad you liked the letter, and I hope it will be helpful to your friend. I wrote it a little bit strategically, knowing that he would have received a much closer-to-the-heartwood deep Dhamma letter from Sarah. Balanced with something more basic, I thought it would be a good combination. > > I'd be happy to correspond with him if you are the middleman to translate. > > People do change, that is a fact, especially people as young as your friend. Our underlying anuysayas can arise up at anytime, but we shouldn't let people tell us that people don't change. It's obviously not true, espcially for those of us who have the good blessing to be sensitive to the Buddha's teaching. #117249 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 10:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Dieter) - In a message dated 9/8/2011 8:29:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Dieter, ----- <. . .> >> KH: We seem to be on different wavelengths. :-) >> > D: Ken, that doesn't surprise me ;-) ----- KH: Nor me, but I would like to bring our conversation back to where we *are* on the same wavelength. I think we agree that (1) there are only dhammas (2) all conditioned dhammas are anicca and dukkha and (3) all dhammas, including nibbana, are anatta. When we consider that with right understanding we know (as the Vism says), "mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found." Are you with me? :-) So the point I am trying to make is there is no need for any practices. The fact that there is no sufferer means there is no need. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Since there is no eater, then there is no need for you to eat, is that not so?. Since there are no people, then there is no need for you to send emails, is that not so? If there is a terribly painful, rusty nail plunged through your foot, since there is no you, no foot, and no nail, there is no need for the nail to be removed, is that not so? Did the Buddha eat? Did he avoid painful conditions? Since there is no sufferer, why did the Buddha spend 45 years teaching how to put an end to suffering? Is there suffering? Is there no need to put an end to it? If there is the need, why? Is your suffering also mine, and vice-versa, or is a distinction to be made? Will the removal of Dieter's suffering also remove yours? What does it mean, BTW, as the Buddha taught, for each person to be heir to his/her own kamma when there are no beings? What is it: Was the Buddha insane, or did he intentionally mislead, or is it possible that you do not see the whole picture? Ken, is anything you are saying here at all sensible, and does it match what the Buddha taught? ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------- >> K.H. : I don't know why you are saying that suffering is attachment. All conditioned dhammas (not just lobha) are dukkha. >> > D: I say it because the Buddha proclaimed by the first Noble Truth that suffering in brief is 5 Khanda attachment. ------------------------ KH: In his first sutta (Dhammacakkappavattana) he said "In brief, the five aggregates of attachment are suffering." "Of attachment" means "capable of being attached to" or "capable of being the object of attachment" it doesn't mean attachment per se. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: The word 'dukkha' is used as a noun and as an adjective, and the confusion of these leads to gross misunderstandings. As a noun 'dukkha' names something very specific, namely "the second dart," mental pain. It is this that the 8-fold noble path brings an end to. As an adjective, 'dukkha' means any and all of the following: unsatisfactory, unsatisfying, flawed, imperfect, unworthy, and a condition for mental pain, operative whenever any condition (or paatto) or its absence is craved or clung to. In the nominal usage, *exactly one* phenomenon is dukkha, namely mental pain itself, and nothing else. It is that which, exactly, is suffering. In the adjectival usage, however, every conditioned phenomenon, every last one, is dukkha. ------------------------------------------------- ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117250 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 9, 2011 10:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 9/8/2011 9:26:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard Thanks for taking the time to write such a thorough explanation. I think you nicely capture how vipassana meditation would be explained today by any well-known teacher. The problem is the commentary, it's so different, it clearly says that the point is not to understand with that kind of awareness, the awareness of canines that doesn't do away with belief in self etc. -------------------------------------------- HCW: I don't find that a problem. ;-) --------------------------------------------- (Of course the way you describe things, that would happen eventually.) And that is from the beginning, according to the commentary: "The terms sitting, standing and lying down, too, are applicable in the general sense of awareness and in the particular sense of knowledge of the true characteristic qualities. Here in this discourse the particular and not the general sense of awareness is to be taken." Seems pretty clear. On the other hand, I have in the past written that our teacher the Buddha must be a great enough teacher to communicate his ideas without needing commentary, so I can see where you are coming from. I will keep reading what you and Alex and Rob E and others say, and I might swing around again. But for now I am pretty impressed by the commmentary, for whatever reason... -------------------------------------------- HCW: That's just fine. To each his/her own. :-) ------------------------------------------- Metta, Phil ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117251 From: "philip" Date: Sat Sep 10, 2011 12:09 am Subject: Re: Notes on nimitta, part 3. philofillet Hi Nina and all Thank you for this post, with helpful comments by Sarah. "Living in the world of nimittas" , as though it were a kind of dream world, that surprised me somewhat, nimittas are the reality, I thought, for all intents and purposes, so compared to tge usual sea of concepts, any awareness of the close-to-reality world of nimitta seems pretty refined...but still a dream world. metta, phil #117252 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Dear Nina > > > > >> KO: Now remember when Buddha said the world, you forget to say that > >> mind objects > >> can be a concept. In the commentary of MN1, when the description > >> of earth, it > >> is by four description. There is conventional earth, objective > >> earth, - are > >> all concepts. > >--------- Dear Ken and in the satiptthana sutta commentary where is explains that the particular characteristics are meant do you belive that is referring to concepts? robert #117253 From: "philip" Date: Sat Sep 10, 2011 8:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Notes on nimitta from KK (March 2011), part 1. philofillet Hi Nina and all I foud this section of your previous letter particularily helpful: > In this Commentary the word "sa"nkhra-nimitta", the nimittas, signs > or mental images, of conditioned dhammas, is used. When we were > returning from the Bodhitree walking up the long stairways, a friend > asked Acharn Sujin about this term. Nimitta has different meanings in > different contexts. The nimitta or mental image in samatha refers to > the meditation subject of samatha. We also read in some texts that > one should not be taken in by the outward appearance of things > (nimitta) and the details. However, the term sa"nkhranimitta has a > different meaning as I shall explain further on. > Acharn Sujin emphasized that whatever we read in the texts about > nimitta should be applied to our life now. "What we read is not > theory" she often explains. Ph: Until recently, I had only known about nimitta of the meditation subject of samathha so would find it hard to know how it applies to our life now since obtaining and guarding (?) this nimitta is not likely for busy householders. > We read in the "Mahvedallasutta" (Middle Length Sayings, no 43), > about freedom of mind that is "signless", and we read that there are > two conditions for attaining this: "non-attention (amansikra) to > all "signs" and attention to the signless element". The Commentary > states that the signs, nimittas, are the objects such as visible > object, etc. and that the signless is nibbna. The signless > liberation of mind is explained in a way that clearly connects it > with the fruition of arahantship: lust, hatred and delusion are > declared to be "sign-makers" (nimittakarana), which the arahant has > totally abandoned. Ph: Guarding the sense doors is usually defined in terms of not grasping the sign or something like that. I think in Vism there is the metaphir of a crocidile grasping an object and a leech sucking on an object to get at how mind moves from sign to details. So it is always nimitta of reailties that is the object of this grasp and sucking process. Right? This next part is so helpful! > When we asked Acharn Sujin whether the impression or sign (nimitta) > of a dhamma is a concept or a reality she answered: "These are only > words. If we use the word concept there is something that is > experienced by thinking. We should not just know words, but > understand the reality that appears right now. There is not merely > one moment of experiencing visible object, but many moments arising > and falling away. When right understanding arises we do not have to > use any term." > She repeated that there is the impression of visible object right > now. She said: "It is this moment." Visible object impinges on the > eyesense and after it has fallen away, what is left is the impression > or sign, nimitta of visible object. > It seems that visible object lasts for a while, but in reality it > arises and falls away. Acharn Sujin used the simile of a torch that > is swung around. In this way, we have the impression of a whole, of a > circle of light. Ph: I love this simile. Do you know the reference? > We know that seeing arises at this moment, but we cannot pinpoint the > citta which sees, it arises and falls away very rapidly and another > moment of seeing arises. We only experience the "sign" of seeing. > The notion of nimitta can remind us that not just one moment of > seeing appears, but many moments that are arising and falling away. > Also visible object is not as solid as we would think, there are many > moments arising and falling away which leave the sign or impression > of visible object. > Visible object that was experienced by cittas of a sense-door process > has fallen away; sense-door processes and mind-door processes of > cittas alternate very rapidly. Visible object impinges again and > again and seeing arises again and again. When their characteristics > appear we cannot count the different units of rpa or the cittas that > see, they arise and fall away; the impression of what is seen and of > the seeing appears. > Acharn Sujin said: "No matter whether we call it nimitta or not, it > is appearing now. Whatever appears is the sign or nimitta of the > dhamma that arises and falls away." Ph: Very helpful! > We cling to what appears for a very short moment, but is does not > remain. It is the same with sa, there is not one moment of sa > that marks and remembers, but countless moments, arising and falling > away. > Thus, we can speak of the nimitta of each of the five khandhas: of > rpa, of feeling, of sa, of sankhrakkhandha, of consciousness. > There are nimittas of all conditioned dhammas that appear at this > moment, arising and falling away extremely rapidly. > Seeing arising at this moment sees visible object. We notice visible > object and while we notice it, we have a vivid impression of it, but > it has just fallen away. Seeing falls away but extremely shortly > after it has fallen away another moment of seeing arises that > experiences visible object. It arises again and again and in between > one notices that there is seeing, or, if there are the right > conditions a citta with sati can arise that is mindful of its > characteristic. However, mindfulness of seeing arises after seeing > has fallen away, not at the same time as seeing. > Ph: I will read and re-read this post. No need to respond , Nina except maybe the question or two that are in what I wrote, thank you so much for this. Metta, Phil > > #117254 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? kenhowardau Hi Howard and Dieter, ----- <. . .> >> KH: So the point I am trying to make is there is no need for any practices. The fact that there is no sufferer means there is no need. >> > HCW: Since there is no eater, then there is no need for you to eat, is that not so?. ----- KH: Thanks for joining in, Howard. This is the type of conversation I have been trying to have with Dieter. In your example you have said there is no eater. You haven't gone so far as to say "mere eating exists" so I wonder what you mean. Would you mind explaining your hypothesis a little more? Are you saying "mere eating exists; no eater is found"? If so, in what way does eating exist? ------------------ > HCW: Since there are no people, then there is no need for you to send emails, is that not so? If there is a terribly painful, rusty nail plunged through your foot, since there is no you, no foot, and no nail, there is no need for the nail to be removed, is that not so? Did the Buddha eat? Did he avoid painful conditions? ------------------- KH: As I said, I am happy to join in this conversation, but I need to know what you mean by "no people" "no nail" etc. -------------------------- > H: Since there is no sufferer, why did the Buddha spend 45 years teaching how to put an end to suffering? -------------------------- KH: If we are talking Dhamma it's not enough to say "no sufferer". The Vism example begins with "mere suffering exits." So we have to consider both propositions together. On that basis, my answer to your question would be that mere compassion and wisdom existed, no Buddha was found. Am I right? :-) --------------------------------- > H: Is there suffering? --------------------------------- KH: Now we're getting somewhere! :-) Yes, the Dhamma tells us right from the beginning the noble truth of suffering. -------------------- > HCW: Is there no need to put an end to it? -------------------- KH: As a conditioned dhamma, suffering ends immediately - in the same moment in which it arises. ---------------------------- > HCW: If there is the need, why? ---------------------------- KH: I think the only need is for dhammas to depend on conditions. The need for dukkha to cease comes with parinibbana - when there are no more conditions for it to arise. ------------------ > HCW: Is your suffering also mine, and vice-versa, or is a distinction to be made? ------------------ KH: Each individual dhamma has its own cause, of course. The present citta, for example, was conditioned by the citta that preceded it - and so on ad infinitum. Apart from that, I would say no distinction was to be made. -------------------------- > HCW: Will the removal of Dieter's suffering also remove yours? -------------------------- KH: I don't understand "removal" in this context. Are your referring to our respective parinibbanas? -------------------------------- > HCW: What does it mean, BTW, as the Buddha taught,for each person to be heir to his/her own kamma when there are no beings? -------------------------------- KH: I can't speak for everyone, but I can tell you what it means to me. It means that the present citta arose entirely in accordance with conditions. To some people it might mean there is justice in the world (i.e., no one receives what he doesn't deserve). Personally, I don't see it as justice or injustice: just conditioned dhammas. ------------------- > HCW: What is it: Was the Buddha insane, or did he intentionally mislead, or is it possible that you do not see the whole picture? Ken, is anything you are saying here at all sensible, and does it match what the Buddha taught? ------------------- KH: This brings me back to the conversation I have been trying to have with Dieter. If (*if*) there really are only dhammas - and no self - is there any need for us to do anything? Is there any need for a formal Buddhist practice (as distinct from just conditioned dhammas performing their functions)? So I am not wanting to get into a debate over whether it is true or not. I am just asking *if* ("if" it is true that there are only dhammas, and no self.) Ken H #117255 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:43 am Subject: Blurred means Blinded! bhikkhu5 Friends: Any Intoxication Weakens & Corrupts the Mind! Being Drunk and/or Drugged is always being Blurred and Blinded... While drunk/drugged can one know what is best for oneself? NO! While drunk/drugged can one know what is best for others? NO! While drunk/drugged can one ever be respected by others? NO! While drunk/drugged can one be truly upright & respectable? NO! While drunk/drugged can one do a really good & valuable job? NO! While drunk/drugged can one enjoy the result of a good job? NO! While drunk/drugged can one meditate well and be absorbed? NO! While drunk/drugged can one study, reflect and reason well? NO! While drunk/drugged can one remember, and recollect well? NO! While drunk/drugged can one make any progress spiritually? NO! While drunk/drugged can one make progress professionally? NO! While drunk/drugged can one make any progress personally? NO! Is there any advantage or good at all in being drunk/drugged? NO! Is being just a little drunk/drugged just little evil or a tiny good? NO! Is there any valid excuse for going completely clean and clear? NO! Will those who regurgitates this medicine ever be healed at all? NO! Is social and economic fall certain by being drunk/drugged? YES! Is the sadness of a spoiled life sure by being drunk/drugged? YES! Is bodily and mental decay severe by being drunk/drugged? YES! Is one made into an addicted zombie by being drunk/drugged? YES! Is one's behaviour often sub-human by being drunk/drugged? YES! Is the future kammic effect of inebriation insanity/stupidity? YES! Is being drunk and or drugged thus quite self-destructive? YES! Is being drunk and or drugged thus indeed quite irrational? YES! Is being drunk and drugged literally the way leading to Hell? YES! Is complete abstinence from all intoxication a VICTORY? YES! Who is the Winner? Are you and all other beings you contact! YES! :-) The 5th precept laid down by the Buddha for all was therefore: Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami. I hereby accept to refrain from drinks and drugs causing carelessness. The Blessed Buddha further explained this avoidance by: Abandoning the use of intoxicants, the disciple of the Noble Ones abstains from taking intoxicants. Doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from harm to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and from oppression. This is the fifth gift, the 5th great gift, original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, totally unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning, that is not open to any suspicion, that never will be open to any suspicion, & is recognized by every contemplative & recluse. And this is the 8th reward of merit, reward of skilfulness, nourishment of real happiness, human as divine, resulting in happiness, leading to heaven, leading to what is desirable & attractive, leading to what is pleasurable and appealing. Leading to the Welfare and to Happiness of all living Beings... Yeah Keep Clean! More on this common self-destructive behaviour: Drinking & Drugging: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Curing_Lethargy_and_Laziness.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Optimal_Observance_V.htm Source: Anguttara Nikya 8.39: Abhisanda Sutta: Rewards! http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.039.than.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Self-Zombification: Blurred means Blinded! #117256 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:03 pm Subject: Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? epsteinrob Hi Nina, Howard and All. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > Op 8-sep-2011, om 13:45 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > > Think, for example, of walking meditation: At first > > there is only highly conceptual consciousness of the entire > > body-in-motion, with most attention to "feet in motion," and with > > background thinking in > > terms of such concepts as body, legs, feet, lifting, moving, and > > placing, > > and of "me being in charge,"i.e., of "personal self" at the helm. > ----- > N: But in that case there is no satipa.t.thaana at all. Just jumping in, as this topic interests me a lot. My opinion would be that there is a mixture of concept and experiencing, even at the beginning, and that satipatthana develops gradually and becomes more refined through practice. Even at the beginning, walking meditation contains the instruction to feel the sensations of the feet stepping, etc., and it is relatively easy to start noticing somewhat direct experiences of the hardness of the foot pushing down and other such sensations, to feel the lifting of the foot or leg, and sometimes focus on specific experiences of the "walking." And the focus on the walking action and sensations, even in the more general way, also develops a degree of calm and concentration, which gradually increases as well. > The commentary (also long ago quoted by Ken H): > jackals and the like, know when they move on that they are moving. > But this instruction on the modes of deportment was not given > concerning similar awareness, because awareness of that sort > belonging to animals does not shed the belief in a living being, does > not knock out the percept of a soul, and neither becomes a subject of > meditation nor the development of the Arousing of Mindfulness. > Going. The term is applicable both to the awareness of the fact of > moving on and to the knowledge of the (true) characteristic qualities > of moving on. What is "moving on" as opposed to "going?" Obviously the monk is going to attend the experiential sensations [rupas] and perceptions and thoughts [namas] as he is going, and this will gradually develop, but it looks from the text like the Buddha is okay starting with the general sense of the activity. The commentary dismisses this level, but the Buddha explicitly mentions it. One starts by focusing on what is taking place, "going," as opposed to something else. Then the focus can gradually become more specific. If you are totally unaware of going, sitting, lying down, but are instead absorbed in thinking about other things, and not present to what is actually taking place, it's impossible to become more focused on the detailed experiences that are arising. It seems to me that this focus on "going," "sitting," "lying down," "eating," or whatever, is a starting point to focus in the correct area and then see what is happening more specifically from there. > The terms sitting, standing and lying down, too, are > applicable in the general sense of awareness and in the particular > sense of knowledge of the (true) characteristic qualities. Here (in > this discourse) the particular and not the general sense of awareness > is to be taken. Does that mean the commentary, or the original sutta? In the sutta, it may be that the general sense is intended as an appropriate starting point. Maybe not so in the commentary. > From the sort of mere awareness denoted by reference to canines and > the like, proceeds the idea of a soul, the perverted perception, with > the belief that there is a doer and an experiencer. If I understand this sentence correctly, it doesn't make any sense to me. It seems that the simple perception of action, as denoted by canines, etc., does *not* promote the idea of a soul, but instead puts the practitioner into contact with basic awareness of experience without proliferation. The dog doesn't think about where he is going, and neither does sati. Basic bare awareness without conceptual interpretation is in fact the basic attribute of mindfulness. From there, further focus and study -- without proliferation -- allows one to see more deeply into the arising of the object, but it is not by getting rid of basic raw awareness, but by employing it with understanding. Sampajanna as I understand it is built on sati, not on conceptual interpretation. Same for the later development of panna, as far as I can understand. > One who does not > uproot or remove that wrong perception owing to non-opposition to > that perception and to absence of contemplative practice cannot be > called one who develops anything like a subject of meditation. What would this contemplative practice involve? Is there any spelling-out in a further commentary of what kind of contemplation is being advocated to root out the wrong idea of a self or soul? > But the knowledge of this meditator sheds the belief in a living > being, knocks out the idea of a soul, and is both a subject of > meditation and the development of the Arousing of Mindfulness. What kind of knowledge is being referred to, and how is it developed? What is the "subject of meditation" which develops the Arousing of Mindfulness? It seems like it is referring to the "knowledge" that has just been referenced, but there is no detail on what that knowledge is about, or consists of. The knowledge that there is no self? Is that knowledge of anatta developed by the contemplative questions talked about below? > Indeed, who goes, whose going is it, on what account is this going? > These words refer to the knowledge of the (act of) going (the mode of > deportment) of the meditating bhikkhu. This and what follows appears to be a contemplative form of reasoning. It is using intellection to question the presence or existence of the self. This does not appear to me to have much to do with the practice of mindfulness - direct development of satipatthana, but is an intellectual method of elucidating the nature of anatta, similar to the contemplation of the self in Advaita Vedanta, just to give a parallel technique. In other words, it seems to me to be a method of the commentary itself, not one that is derived from the sutta. Buddha's way of coming to this realization in the practice of satipatthana is one of direct observation, not of intellectual contemplation of anatta. Once again, I see a real and obvious divide between the Buddha's method of realization, and that of the commentaries. They do not seem to have the same purpose and methods, or objects of awareness. There's nothing wrong with the contemplative method, and for those of an intellectual nature it may be a very effective, though more indirect, way of looking at the nature of dhammas, but it seems to be using the sutta as a jumping-off point for its own method of contemplation, rather than explaining or interpreting the Buddha's intent in the suttas. > In the elucidation of these questions the following is said: Who > goes? No living being or person whatsoever. Whose going is it? Not > the going of any living being or person. On account of what does the > going take place? On account of the diffusion of the process of > oscillation born of mental activity. Because of that this yogi knows > thus: If there arises the thought, "I shall go," that thought > produces the process of oscillation; I don't understand what the process of oscillation is, but I am sure that direct satipatthana has to do with realization of the self-less nature of dhammas through observation, not derivative mental contemplations. > the process of oscillation > produces expression (the bodily movement which indicates going and so > forth). The moving on of the whole body through the diffusion of the > process of oscillation is called going. The same is the method of > exposition as regards the other postures: standing and so forth. > There, too, the yogi knows thus: If there arises the thought, "I > shall stand," that thought produces the process of oscillation. I think this is a very strange formulation. It is pretty rare that someone "thinks" beforehand, "I shall stand." In fact, one simply has the impulse to stand and then stands. This idea that there is a thought that starts a process of oscillation seems like a very strange and complex reconstruction of a very basic experience. I wonder what is meant by the "thought," "I shall stand?" Does the commentary mean the "impulse" to stand, or an actual "thought?" If it is meant to denote a thought, that seems like a very intellectually-linguistically driven model of how action takes place, and a very different standpoint of that of "raw awareness" which is the basis of simple mindfulness leading to clear seeing of the moment. The > process of oscillation produces bodily expression. The raising > upright of the whole body from below owing to the diffusion of the > process of oscillation is called standing. If there arises the > thought "I shall sit," that thought produces the process of > oscillation. The process of oscillation produces bodily expression. > The bending of the lower part of the body and the raising upright of > the upper part of the body owing to the diffusion of the process of > oscillation is called sitting. If there arises the thought, "I shall > lie down," that thought produces the process of oscillation. The > process of oscillation produces bodily expression. The straightening > or the spreading of the whole body horizontally or across, owing to > the diffusion of the process of oscillation, is called lying down.> > > ----- > > N: The expression I am going or I shall stand... does not mean that > he thinks of self doing this or that. It is an illustration in > conventional terms. The details of naama and ruupa are explained > here. The diffusion of the process of oscillation... etc. I think that the simple, raw experiences associated with standing up or lying down are much more directly accessible through mindful perception than by understanding all these oscillations. I would like to know what is meant by this process. What is oscillating, caused by thought, to produce these bodily experiences? Thanks for any help you can give me to understand this... Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #117257 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Dieter) - In a message dated 9/9/2011 7:00:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard and Dieter, ----- <. . .> >> KH: So the point I am trying to make is there is no need for any practices. The fact that there is no sufferer means there is no need. >> > HCW: Since there is no eater, then there is no need for you to eat, is that not so?. ----- KH: Thanks for joining in, Howard. This is the type of conversation I have been trying to have with Dieter. In your example you have said there is no eater. You haven't gone so far as to say "mere eating exists" so I wonder what you mean. Would you mind explaining your hypothesis a little more? ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: We mean the same thing, I believe: certain mental and physical processes (i.e., sequences of interrelated groups of namas and rupas) are underway, but nothing more. Movement, sensations, tasting, etc, all interrelated, but no single thing and no central core. --------------------------------------------------- Are you saying "mere eating exists; no eater is found"? If so, in what way does eating exist? ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: See what I wrote above. --------------------------------------------------- ------------------ > HCW: Since there are no people, then there is no need for you to send emails, is that not so? If there is a terribly painful, rusty nail plunged through your foot, since there is no you, no foot, and no nail, there is no need for the nail to be removed, is that not so? Did the Buddha eat? Did he avoid painful conditions? ------------------- KH: As I said, I am happy to join in this conversation, but I need to know what you mean by "no people" "no nail" etc. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: And I repeat: "See what I wrote above." ----------------------------------------------- -------------------------- > H: Since there is no sufferer, why did the Buddha spend 45 years teaching how to put an end to suffering? -------------------------- KH: If we are talking Dhamma it's not enough to say "no sufferer". The Vism example begins with "mere suffering exits." So we have to consider both propositions together. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: I agree with both parts: There is suffering but no sufferer. ------------------------------------------------ On that basis, my answer to your question would be that mere compassion and wisdom existed, no Buddha was found. Am I right? :-) --------------------------------------------------- HCW: You are right. It is only a convention to assign the name and thought "Buddha" to a certain collection of phenomena. There is more to that collection, though, than mere compassion and wisdom. In fact, the complexity of what there is, is mind boggling. --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- > H: Is there suffering? --------------------------------- KH: Now we're getting somewhere! :-) Yes, the Dhamma tells us right from the beginning the noble truth of suffering. -------------------- > HCW: Is there no need to put an end to it? -------------------- KH: As a conditioned dhamma, suffering ends immediately " in the same moment in which it arises. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: What I mean, of course, is for suffering to no longer occur. ------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------- > HCW: If there is the need, why? ---------------------------- KH: I think the only need is for dhammas to depend on conditions. The need for dukkha to cease comes with parinibbana - when there are no more conditions for it to arise. ------------------ > HCW: Is your suffering also mine, and vice-versa, or is a distinction to be made? ------------------ KH: Each individual dhamma has its own cause, of course. The present citta, for example, was conditioned by the citta that preceded it - and so on ad infinitum. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: The cittas we associate with the name Ken Howard are not those associated with the name Howard Wasserman. ---------------------------------------------- Apart from that, I would say no distinction was to be made. -------------------------- > HCW: Will the removal of Dieter's suffering also remove yours? -------------------------- KH: I don't understand "removal" in this context. Are your referring to our respective parinibbanas? ------------------------------------------------ HCW: As I wrote above, "What I mean, of course, is for suffering to no longer occur." Also please see what I wrote in a recent post about the word 'dukkha'. ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- > HCW: What does it mean, BTW, as the Buddha taught,for each person to be heir to his/her own kamma when there are no beings? -------------------------------- KH: I can't speak for everyone, but I can tell you what it means to me. It means that the present citta arose entirely in accordance with conditions. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Nope, true but not enough, Ken. This is a matter of interrelationship of dhammas. The matter is a detailed one. Slogans don't cut it. ------------------------------------------------- To some people it might mean there is justice in the world (i.e., no one receives what he doesn't deserve). Personally, I don't see it as justice or injustice: just conditioned dhammas. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: I agree that "justice" is beside the point on this issue. ------------------------------------------------ ------------------- > HCW: What is it: Was the Buddha insane, or did he intentionally mislead, or is it possible that you do not see the whole picture? Ken, is anything you are saying here at all sensible, and does it match what the Buddha taught? ------------------- KH: This brings me back to the conversation I have been trying to have with Dieter. If (*if*) there really are only dhammas " and no self " is there any need for us to do anything? ------------------------------------------------ HCW: For the purpose of ending suffering, there is the need for very specific things to happen. There are no doers, but there IS doing. And not all "doings" are created equal! (To paraphrase the U.S. Declaration of Independence ;-) ---------------------------------------------- Is there any need for a formal Buddhist practice (as distinct from just conditioned dhammas performing their functions)? -------------------------------------------- HCW: I have no idea what "formal" Buddhist practice is. There are activities, all consisting of conditions, of course, urged by the Buddha that are supportive of eventual awakening. ------------------------------------------ So I am not wanting to get into a debate over whether it is true or not. I am just asking *if* ("if" it is true that there are only dhammas, and no self.) --------------------------------------------- HCW: There is no self and no selves, and even dhammas themselves, as separate individuals, are also matters of convention. -------------------------------------------------- Ken H ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117258 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? nilovg Hi Howard, Op 8-sep-2011, om 15:20 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > At first > > there is only highly conceptual consciousness of the entire > > body-in-motion, with most attention to "feet in motion," and with > > background thinking in > > terms of such concepts as body, legs, feet, lifting, moving, and > > placing, > > and of "me being in charge,"i.e., of "personal self" at the helm. > ----- > N: But in that case there is no satipa.t.thaana at all. > -------------------------------------------- > HCW: > That is right, Nina! Meditation, like most things, begins at a low > point. Nina, if you meditated you would know first hand how it > develops. We > start where we are, not where we hope to be! But things change, > Nina - they > develop. > ------- N: Beginning is beginning, but it has to be correct even at the level of intellectual understanding stemming from listening. Right understanding cannot develop from wrong understanding. ------ > > H: P. S. I notice that you pay no attention to such highly conceptual > material, filled with thinking, as the following in the first > foundation: > > [4] "Furthermore...just as if a sack with openings at both ends > were full > of various kinds of grain - wheat, rice, mung beans, kidney beans, > sesame > seeds, husked rice - ..... > > 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, > teeth, skin, .. > [5] "Furthermore...just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having > killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, > the monk > contemplates this very body -.. > > as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel > ground - one day, two days, three days dead... He applies it to > this very body, 'This body, too: Such is > its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate.' > "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of > itself, or > externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & > externally on > the body in & of itself. ... > ------- N: Excellent texts. We cling so much to the body, by just lobha, by wrong view or by conceit. Head hairs, nails, when we see these lying about, we may not cling. The body is foul. Then the body can be analysed in even smaller parts, minute parts, the elements. Like the element of earth, appearing as hardness or softness. In this way we are brought to the paramattha dhamma of the present moment. This is the aim of all these texts included in the mahaa- satipa.t.thaanasutta. If we do not know how much we cling, clinging can never be eradicated. If we are not aware of realities, there is an opportunity for lobha to develop all day long. This is not merely thinking. Contemplating the body in the body: kaayanupassii. Book of Analysis (Vibhanga) Ch 7, 357: If someone pays attention to the Application of Mindfulness of the body, it does not mean he is aware only of ruupas. He must be aware also of naamas, otherwise he will not know the difference between the characteristics of naama and ruupa, he will mix them up and then he will never know the true characeristics of realities. -------- > H: Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of > origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing > away with regard > to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away > with regard > to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is > maintained to > the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, > unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how > a monk remains > focused on the body in & of itself. > ------ N: Seeing origination and cessation: this is insight. This is repeated after each section. He does not cling: attains arahatship. All these texts are included since they help to understand the present reality as non-self. But let us not forget that also contemplation, awareness and understanding are non-self. These are also objects of mindfulness, right at the moment they appear. We tend to forget this, it seems to be "I" who is contemplating. ---------- Some people will turn more often to the first Application, some to the others, depending on their accumulations. But there is no rule or specific order. The Dispeller of Delusion Ch 7, explains this. It gives several reasons why there are four Applications. Then details are given. For those who have the habit of craving and are slow-witted the coarse contemplation of the body as foundation of mindfulness is the path to purity.... It is hard to tell, because we should ask ourselves whteher we do not have both the habit of craving and the habit of wrong view. Also, I do not see a progression in the development of the four Foundations, thus, a specific order. Another aspect: the four perversions, vipallasas. Only the non-returner has eradicated the perversion of the beautiful completely. Thus here it is clear that an order of development of the four foundations does not work. Then it is said: ------ Nina. #117259 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? nilovg Dear Alex, Op 8-sep-2011, om 18:23 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > N: I think that nobody can select any object of awareness at all. > >It depends where the citta with sati goes, it may jump from > >splitsecond to splitsecond. > >====================================================== > > Actually one can. Right now please pay attention to the posture you > are at. Please answer in what posture you are right now. No need to > type it here. Then ask yourself, "what feeling is felt". Are you > feeling pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral feeling? Ask yourself the > state of mind that is right now and try to be aware of it. Etc. ------- N: This is all on the level of thinking, not of awareness. In the ultimate sense there is no posture. We can think of posture, but what is appearing through the bodysense? Hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion or pressure. No way to control what appears at which moment. What feeling is felt: gone already before we can ask ourselves. Moreover, is it not an idea of feeling we have, instead of realizing its true characteristic when it appears at the present moment? When seeing, the feeling is indifferent, but soon afterwards there can be unpleasant feeling on account of an unpleasant object. Feelings change so extremely fast! No time to control. -------- > A: As you see, you can do that. What happens now is important. I am > perfectly aware of arguments for no-control, but it is metaphysics. ------ N: If one only could have more understanding of the rapidity of cittas, arising and falling away. Nobody can do anything about that. ------ > > A:There are good actions and there are bad. It is better to do good > ones. ------ N: Most people will agree. Except those who have extreme wrong view. Because of accumulated tendencies, right friendship, listening to the Dhamma, there are conditions for kusala kamma. And habits can be changed, I do not deny that. ----- Nina. #117260 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? nilovg Dear Vince, Op 8-sep-2011, om 15:21 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > From all what you says, I extract that serenity acquired from > guarding the > senses exists because sati and the wisdom arising from considering > Dhamma. ------ N: There is calm with each kusala citta. What is important about guarding the senses is that through awareness of the objects appearing one at a time through the six doors understanding is being developed. I do not think so much of the acquiring of serenity. Is understanding not the foremost? ------ > > V: So at least I understand the hearing of Dhamma or the dwelling > in a solitude > place are mentioned just like the better situations for that. ----- N: That is to be seen. Not sure. Why look for a specific situation when there is the present situation? Why always delay the development of understanding right now? ------ > V: They were taught > according persons and situations; sometimes the people were > addressed to go in > solitude while other people to hear Dhamma. ------ N: No rule, it all depends on the individual. Hearing Dhamma is essential for all, but some people have the inclination to ponder on in quiet about what they heard before. ------ Nina. #117261 From: "philip" Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:26 am Subject: Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? philofillet Hi Howard Thanks for your reply, to each his own etc. Now that I caught up with my replies and can take a moment, could I ask you about the following* > Think, for example, of walking meditation: At first > there is only highly conceptual consciousness of the entire > body-in-motion, with most attention to "feet in motion," and with background thinking in > terms of such concepts as body, legs, feet, lifting, moving, and placing, > and of "me being in charge,"i.e., of "personal self" at the helm. But, with > the stilling of hindrances and the strengthening of sati and paa, and > the deepening of calm, eventually nothing is present to consciousness except > such impersonal phenomena as bodily sensations (i.e., rupas per se), > vedana, cetana (as impersonal bodily impulse), and the constant > alteration/shifting of mental and physical phenomena. Ph: I guess what I want to ask you is, in the above where does the "strengthening of sati and panna come from?" Simply from the stilling of the hindrances? Otherwise, what is there in "thinking in terms of such concepts as body, legs, feet" etc and of "me in charge" that would condition the development of sati, panna. Do you think they are revealed when the hindrances are stilled. And how are the hindrances stilled? Just by "thinking in terms of such concepts as body, legs, feet" etc and of "me in charge?" The reason I ask is that I remember when I first clicked on Abhidhamma back in 2004 I had been going through a stage of feeling very happy about doing metta meditation etc, more peaceful, better behaviour, but I couldn't see where the leap to enlightenment could happen, just as I can't see where the link between thinking about legs etc and the stilling of hindrances and development of sila and panna happen in your process described above. When I came across abhidhamma, there was an "a-ha" moment, I sensed that in understnading dhammas at that degree there was a new cutting through that had never been possible before. Well, there wasn't that cutting through for me, but I could at least understand how could it happen. Dhammas could be enlightened, penetrated, in a way that thinking about concepts (which I had been doing before that and you seem to be pointing at above) could never do. So where does the cutting away from all that thinking to penetrating to characterstics of dhammas happen above. How can it happen, just by pressing ahead until understanding somehow arises that sees through the concepts? Isn't it better to start with correct understanding of the realities beneath the concepts (i.e the paramattha explanation of walking etc, not the awareness shated by canines?) Do you think there is a danger in starting with intenllectual understanding of paramattha dhammas obstructing arising of a truer understanding or something like that? Anyways, thanks again. I'm just curious how the leap from thinking about legs walking to the understanding of momentary dhammas can happen in the kind of meditation you describe above. And how can hidrances be stilled if there is not an understanding of them to begin with? Well, you are not saying don't have intellectual understanding, I know....just a different emphasis, a la the jubu post. Metta, Phil #117262 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: (D: Right effort by guarding the senses provides the ground for (samma) > sati and > (samma ) samadhi, but - as far as I understand , and would > appreciate to be > corrected - that does not really fit to the view of our friends > from K.S. > school. --------- N: The fourfold right effort is very important. In order to be a factor of the eightfold Path it has to accompany right understanding (sammaa di.t.thi) of the eightfold Path:Right effort (sammá-váyáma): the effort of avoiding or overcoming evil and unwholesome dhammmas, and of developing and maintaining wholesome dhammas. D: I agree . But what now is the right understanding in detail? Nyanatiloka in his definition of samma vayama refers to patthana ( B.T.W. what is the difference between both?) I copy because presuming differences in understanding padhāna: 'effort.' The 4 right efforts (samma-padhāna), forming the 6th stage of the 8-fold Path (i.e. sammā-vāyāma, s. magga) are: (1) the effort to avoid (saṃvara-padhāna), (2) to overcome (pahāna-padhāna), (3) to develop (bhāvanā-padhāna), (4) to maintain (anurakkhaṇa-padhāna), i.e. (1) the effort to avoid unwholesome (akusala) states, such as evil thoughts, etc. (2) to overcome unwholesome states, (3) to develop wholesome (kusala) states, such as the 7 elements of enlightenment (bojjhaṅga, q.v.), (4) to maintain the wholesome states. "The monk rouses his will to avoid the arising of evil, unwholesome things not yet arisen ... to overcome them ... to develop wholesome things not yet arisen ... to maintain them, and not to let them disappear, but to bring them to growth, to maturity and to the full perfection of development. And he makes effort, stirs up his energy, exerts his mind and strives" (A. IV, 13). (1) "What now, o monks, is the effort to avoid? Perceiving a form, or a sound, or an odour, or a taste, or a bodily or mental impression, the monk neither adheres to the whole nor to its parts. And he strives to ward off that through which evil and unwholesome things might arise, such as greed and sorrow, if he remained with unguarded senses; and he watches over his senses, restrains his senses. This is called the effort to avoid. (2) "What now is the effort to overcome? The monk does not retain any thought of sensual lust, or any other evil, unwholesome states that may have arisen; he abandons them, dispels them, destroys them, causes them to disappear. This is called the effort to overcome. (3) "What now is the effort to develop? The monk develops the factors of enlightenment, bent on solitude, on detachment, on extinction, and ending in deliverance, namely: mindfulness (sati), investigation of the law (dhamma-vicaya), energy (viriya), rapture (p"ti), tranquillity (passaddhi), concentraton (samādhi), equanimity (upekkhā). This is called the effort to develop. (4) "What now is the effort to maintain? The monk keeps firmly in his mind a favourable object of concentration, such as the mental image of a skeleton, a corpse infested by worms, a corpse blueblack in colour, a festering corpse, a corpse riddled with holes, a corpse swollen up. This is called the effort to maintain" (A. IV, 14). unquote N: Viriya is a cetasika and it performs its own function by conditions. D: not clear what you mean by ' own functions' ? As far as I understand , Viriya is the energy of sankhara khanda , the potential vigour of the mental formation group (conditioned by avijja -sankhara-vinnana ). There are 6 classes of volitional states (cetanā): with regard to visual objects, to sounds, to odours, to tastes, to bodily impressions and to mind objects....) , agreed ? N: It is kusala when it accompanies kusala citta with sati and pa~n~naa. D: yes, wholesome when the state of consciousness/mind involves mindfulness with wisdom (?) N: When understanding of a naama and ruupa arises there is already right effort and no need to think: 'I shall try to guard the senses' so that akusala citta does not arise. D: in respect to (4) the effort to maintain : the favorable object here to be mindful of rising and ceasing mental and bodily phenomena .. here the will/thinking is adressed to maintain N: Most of the time there is forgetfulness of developing understanding of the present moment. We think of stories, people, situations. D: yes, the nature of the monkey mind .. the thinking of stories , people, situations however can be wholesome too when it is wisely done.. N: When the objective is not daana, siila or mental development the citta that thinks is akusala. D: I think it is better to define that by quality of kusala / akusala kamma N: Conceit arises so often. I just heard on a Thai recording that conceit can arise also on account of the unpleasant worldly conditions: I am old, I walk slowly, not as fast as others. There is some idea of 'poor me', finding oneself important. Here we are, thinking of stories again. D: yes, the comparison of better , even or worse is the main trouble of mana N: Whereas, when there can be awareness of sound, hardness, seeing or any other dhamma we are not involved in 'stories' for that short moment. In this way we can learn the difference between the moments of forgetfulness and the moments of sati, even if it is just beginning and arises very rarely. D: I suppose you concentrate on sensual experience , but do not mention what should be avoided (1) , and , e.g. how do you treat the effort to develop (see 3) or maintain a favorable object such the mental image of a corpse ( (i.e. having one of the 4 frameworks of sati patthana in mind ) . Do you include that in ' awareness of sound, hardness, seeing or any other dhamma ' ? I miss the emphases on 'the monk rises his will ' ( this very crucial of mental formations , the nurtue of viriya in the senseskilful effort. Reading comments from some of our friends this seems to be impossible.. with Metta Dieter #117263 From: Vince Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Hi Nina you wrote: > N: There is calm with each kusala citta. What is important about > guarding the senses is that through awareness of the objects > appearing one at a time through the six doors understanding is being > developed. I do not think so much of the acquiring of serenity. Is > understanding not the foremost? yes, I agree very much. It is panna what unveils the reality for any person. The problem of needing some effort is not when we believe it but when we don't believe it. When we don't believe then we feel the need to do something. However, I don't think it is wrong in all situations. > N: That is to be seen. Not sure. Why look for a specific situation > when there is the present situation? Why always delay the development > of understanding right now? I remember the episode of Buddha with Kisa Gotami. Her children was death and she don't believe it, and she was looking everywhere for a medicine. Buddha told to her to ask for some mustard seeds from a house without deaths until she was exhausted, and then she was able to understand. > N: No rule, it all depends on the individual. Hearing Dhamma is > essential for all, but some people have the inclination to ponder on > in quiet about what they heard before. yes, I agree. I believe the hard thing is to realize that there is not error when we experience problems. There is not any error when we cannot catch the present moment because it is the self who is trying to do that. I understand in the citta schema, the experience of Reality is like a film for the -self, and citta and its object becomes just like one photogram, impossible to catch. Problem is in the "I" which is logically unable to unveil the mess because he is the same projected film. It is the self what experience the speed and the many objects. If there is not self try trying to do, there is not something to catch, and there is not the time, and this whole problem is missing. I understand "Citta and its object" also means "there is knowledge" instead "I know". Understanding of conditionality works to disentangle the film, and this is in fact an operation of detachment by means the understanding. Then, asking for a practice it would imply the involving of a -self to make something with "my object" of practice, and it seems to work against the development of the same schema. Therefore, the opposition sounds very logical. When I remember all that then I agree about not need to practice. When I forget it because dhukka is strong and the present moment is missed, then I need to make something, to make some effort. I think it is because attachment, which is able to block what we already know. Any effort is not understanding but sometimes it can works to recover the calm, as in the example of Kisa Gotami. When she was exhausted then she was ready to understand. The effort was meaningless although finally it was useful. So I have a mixed feeling about the utility of a common practice. best, Vince. #117264 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: seclusion. Was: Not Who, but What? moellerdieter Dear Nina and Vince, you wrote: ( D: 'Perhaps Nina may comment as well as in respect to the Pali translation of > kaya -vupakasa and citta-vupakasa . > In context of A.N. 8.2. I think the meaning is 'not attached to > body and > mind ' ( but not yet liberated /vimutti) .. seclusion does not > really > match, ' separation ' possibly the better choice) N: Yesterday I just heard texts about seclusion. Viveka is another term for it: D: I think , both Vince and I are confused about the translation ' seclusion ', which in today's meaning obviously refers to a place/locality only . N: kaaya viveka (physical seclusion) citta viveka upadhi viveka ( as to all subtrates of rebirth, this is of the arahat who has eradicated all defilements) D: assuming hat viveka can be synonym with vupakasa and both may express place and state (?) K II, 244: Ch XVIII, (about Raahula, 1, the eye): Here Raahula asks the Buddha to give him a teaching with which he may live 'secluded, zealous, ardent and aspiring'. Then the Buddha teaches him, asking whether the eye and all the senses are abiding or fleeting. 'So seeing he is repelled by sense. Being repelled, he loses desire for it; from losing desire he is set free...' he attains arahatship. In the following suttas the same is said of other ruupas and naamas. ------- K II, 283 10 (I think quoted before by Sarah): Senior (Thera) by nama. He wanted to do everything alone. The Buddha asked him what life he recommended and the Thera spoke about his life. The Buddha said that he did not deny this, but that he would explain how dwelling alone is fulfilled in detail (transl B.B.): The Thai gives more notes of the commentary: 'all' includes: the khandhas, aayatanas, dhaatus, and the three kinds of rebirths (in sensuous planes, ruupa planes, aruupa planes). Nibbaana is the end of craving. K IV, 32. Suttas on Migajaala: about a dweller alone. Who is freed from craving. The objects experienced through the different doorways are mentioned separately. Craving is the mate he has left behind. Even if he dwells amids a crowd he is a dweller alone. D: ' Even if he dwells amids a crowd he is a dweller alone ' , here is no difference of both place and state. Another term than seclusion should be found ... N: I think that just physical secludedness without the mental is not of much benefit. D:quotion about Rahula refers to physical secludedness (he may live 'secluded, zealous, ardent and aspiring') , it is a traning for the mental one , isn't it? (Vince provided the example of Ajahn Cha ) Pls compare with the standard of the Maha Satipatthana [1] "There is the case where a monk - having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building - sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." and " He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'" N: you wrote ( V: Neither I'm sure the "restraint of the senses" it's the same of "seclusion". I understand the word "restraint" is close to "force to"... although my English is not good) Indriya sa"mavara siila, different translations, restraint of the senses, control of the senses, guarding the senses. So long as we understand: pa`n~naa and sati are the conditions, not a self who forces. D: all concerning Right Effort in detail , the efforts of avoiding, overcome, develop , maintain (see previous mail) not a self .. nevertheless a will of an individual (" The monk rouses his will .." ) , which takes care by his /her reaction . I.e. not fatalistically bound on condition which appears at contact (passa). with Metta Dieter . #117265 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 9/10/2011 10:26:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard Thanks for your reply, to each his own etc. Now that I caught up with my replies and can take a moment, could I ask you about the following* > Think, for example, of walking meditation: At first > there is only highly conceptual consciousness of the entire > body-in-motion, with most attention to "feet in motion," and with background thinking in > terms of such concepts as body, legs, feet, lifting, moving, and placing, > and of "me being in charge,"i.e., of "personal self" at the helm. But, with > the stilling of hindrances and the strengthening of sati and pañña, and > the deepening of calm, eventually nothing is present to consciousness except > such impersonal phenomena as bodily sensations (i.e., rupas per se), > vedana, cetana (as impersonal bodily impulse), and the constant > alteration/shifting of mental and physical phenomena. Ph: I guess what I want to ask you is, in the above where does the "strengthening of sati and panna come from?" Simply from the stilling of the hindrances? Otherwise, what is there in "thinking in terms of such concepts as body, legs, feet" etc and of "me in charge" that would condition the development of sati, panna. --------------------------------------------- HCW: The sati and pañña develop despite the initial ignorance. Were that not so, no progress would be possible, for mired in ignorance is where we begin. What most fundamentally conditions the development of sati and pañña, I believe, is the initial, intentional paying of attention to a purposely delimited range of (wholesome) inputs. This starts the meditation process with a degree of "concentration" in the sense of restricting to some extent the initial domain of attention. That leads to a further strengthening of attention and deepening of concentration, which in turn foster calm, pleasant bodily sensation, and joy, and these, in feedback fashion, further develop and lead to an ever increasing strengthening of attention and focus, upwards and onwards in spiral fashion, and to a gradual development of mindfulness and resultant insight. In AN X, 1 you will find the following conditionality: Virtuous ways of conduct --> Non-remorse --> Gladness --> Joy --> Serenity --> Happiness --> Concentration of the mind --> Knowledge and vision of things as they really are --> Revulsion and dispassion --> Knowledge and vision of liberation (And other suttas indicate multiple feedbacks with this chain of conditionality.) --------------------------------------------------- Do you think they are revealed when the hindrances are stilled. And how are the hindrances stilled? Just by "thinking in terms of such concepts as body, legs, feet" etc and of "me in charge?" -------------------------------------------------- HCW: No, not at all. In fact, one needs to go beyond this. Meditation proper begins when thinking diminishes and the hindrances are suppressed. (Incidentally, the thinking I referred to isn't discursive thought, but just initially unavoidable background conceptuality which eventually diminishes.) The main basis for the abeyance of the hindrances is the calm (and even joy) due to prior and regular observance of sila and, during the meditation, to unification of mind. ------------------------------------------------------ The reason I ask is that I remember when I first clicked on Abhidhamma back in 2004 I had been going through a stage of feeling very happy about doing metta meditation etc, more peaceful, better behaviour, but I couldn't see where the leap to enlightenment could happen, just as I can't see where the link between thinking about legs etc and the stilling of hindrances and development of sila and panna happen in your process described above. When I came across abhidhamma, there was an "a-ha" moment, I sensed that in understnading dhammas at that degree there was a new cutting through that had never been possible before. Well, there wasn't that cutting through for me, but I could at least understand how could it happen. Dhammas could be enlightened, penetrated, in a way that thinking about concepts (which I had been doing before that and you seem to be pointing at above) could never do. ------------------------------------------------------ HCW: Proper thinking and right understanding can point one in the right direction. ---------------------------------------------------- So where does the cutting away from all that thinking to penetrating to characterstics of dhammas happen above. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: The important characteristics are the tilakkhana. And they must result from direct observation, nit just theory. ------------------------------------------------ How can it happen, just by pressing ahead until understanding somehow arises that sees through the concepts? ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Not in my understanding. the mind must first be made into a fit instrument: wieldy, malleable, etc. ------------------------------------------------ Isn't it better to start with correct understanding of the realities beneath the concepts (i.e the paramattha explanation of walking etc, not the awareness shated by canines?) ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Correct intellectual understanding is better than incorrect, but it will not do the trick ------------------------------------------------ Do you think there is a danger in starting with intenllectual understanding of paramattha dhammas obstructing arising of a truer understanding or something like that? ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Only if 1) one remains satisfied to remain with that, or 2) one mistakes intellectual understanding for direct knowing of reality. ------------------------------------------------- Anyways, thanks again. I'm just curious how the leap from thinking about legs walking to the understanding of momentary dhammas can happen in the kind of meditation you describe above. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: It is not a matter of improving the intellectual stance, but of going beyond concept and transforming the mind, making it a fit instrument for investigation. ------------------------------------------------- And how can hidrances be stilled if there is not an understanding of them to begin with? ------------------------------------------------ HCW: When wisdom arises and applied to the 4th foundation, these will be directly seen for what they are. But first they must be weakened! This reminds me of the man pierced by an arrow: 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. The hindrances are dangerous arrows! ------------------------------------------------------------- Well, you are not saying don't have intellectual understanding, I know....just a different emphasis, a la the jubu post. Metta, Phil ================================== With metta, Howard Hindrances /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains " going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it " and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #117266 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:23 am Subject: Binara Poya Day! bhikkhu5 Friends: How to be a Real Buddhist through Observance? Binara Poya day is the full-moon of September. This holy day celebrates the inauguration of the Bhikkhuni Sangha by the ordination on this very day of Queen Mahpajpat, the Buddha's foster-mother & her retinue. For life details on this excellent woman, who awakened as Arahat Theri: See: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/maha/mahapajapati_gotami.htm More on Binara Poya and the initiation of the Bhikkhuni Order: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Binara_Poya_Bhikkhuni.htm On such Full-Moon Uposatha Poya Observance days: Any Lay Buddhist simply joins the Three Refuges and undertakes the Five Precepts like this: Newly bathed, shaved, white-clothed, with clean bare feet, one kneels at a shrine with a Buddha-statue, and bows first three times, so that feet, hands, elbows, knees & head touch the floor. Then, with joined palms at the heart, one recites these memorized lines in a loud, calm & steady voice: As long as this life lasts: I hereby take refuge in the Buddha. I hereby take refuge in the Dhamma. I hereby take refuge in the Sangha. I hereby seek shelter in the Buddha for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Dhamma for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Sangha for the 2nd time. I hereby request protection from the Buddha for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Dhamma for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Sangha for the 3rd time. I will hereby respect these Three Jewels the rest of my life! I accepts to respect & undertake these 5 training rules: I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs. As long as this life lasts, I am thus protected by these 5 precepts... Then, one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's own eyes & children!, since they protect you & all other beings much better than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world! So is the start towards Nibbna: The Deathless Element! This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Ease, to Happiness, initiated by Morality , developed further by Dhamma-Study and fulfilled by training of Meditation ... Today indeed is Pooya or Uposatha or observance day, where any lay Buddhist normally keeps even the Eight Precepts from sunrise until the next dawn... If any wish an official recognition by the Bhikkhu-Sangha, they may simply forward the lines starting with "I hereby ..." signed with name, date, town & country to me or join here . A public list of this new quite rapidly growing new global Saddhamma-Sangha is set up here ! <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #117267 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:24 am Subject: Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? epsteinrob Hi Howard, and Phil. Jumping in for a few comments - hope you don't mind if I intersperse comments to some of what each of you said. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > The main basis for the abeyance of the hindrances is the calm (and even joy) > due to prior and regular observance of sila and, during the meditation, to > unification of mind. > ------------------------------------------------------ Rob: Could you clarify, Howard, what your sense of the observance of sila includes, and your sense of 'unification of mind?' ... Phil: > So where does the cutting away from all that thinking to penetrating to > characterstics of dhammas happen above. > ------------------------------------------------- Rob: I don't think that the gross observation of walking, etc., is actually thinking. It is just not refined noticing, and becomes more refined with practice. I think it's a mistake to think there is an unbridgeable gulf between such gross observation and its more refined 'succeedent' state of observation. Is it possible that instead of looking at 'nimitta-level' mindfulness as "conceptual," that we could see that there are any number of diverse moments taking place, including ones of genuine sati, vitakka, leading to vicara and towards sampajanna, all seemingly lost in the shuffle when they haven't yet accumulated enough to be noticeable, and that through continued return to observation, more of those will develop to refine the seeing? > HCW: > The important characteristics are the tilakkhana. And they must result > from direct observation, not just theory. > ------------------------------------------------ Rob: Could you say a word about how that direct observation is practiced, develops and grows stronger? ... Phil: > Isn't it better to start with correct understanding of the realities > beneath the concepts (i.e the paramattha explanation of walking etc, not the > awareness shated by canines?) Rob: Starting from correct understanding is good, and that is the right way to begin, but if one continues to navigate in the world of "understanding of that which has not been seen" there is a limit to how far that understanding can go towards the experiential knowledge of dhammas. It's like investigating a menu to understand what the food is and what to order. Once that is relatively clear, doesn't one have to sample the food to understand what the menu is talking about? You can go back to the menu, go back to the explanation, for clarity at any time, but you also have to go off the menu and stop thinking and reading and taste the food for what it tastes like, feels like and how it hits the stomach. K. Sujin seems to emphasize this too, but there's some sort of snag in applying this "real tasting" of the object to meditation. Why is that? > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Correct intellectual understanding is better than incorrect, but it > will not do the trick > ------------------------------------------------ Rob: ie, understanding the menu is good, but it will never = tasting the food. Phil: > Do you think there is a danger in starting with intellectual > understanding of paramattha dhammas obstructing arising of a truer understanding or > something like that? > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Only if 1) one remains satisfied to remain with that, or 2) one > mistakes intellectual understanding for direct knowing of reality. > ------------------------------------------------- Rob: That is well put. ... Phil: > And how can hindrances be stilled if there is not an understanding of them > to begin with? I would say that hindrances are directly experienced as obstacles. The understanding identifies them, but how would such understanding ever still them? Yes, it's good to understand what the obstacles are, but how could that possibly be enough? That is like an alcoholic reading a book about how bad drinking is. Is that going to stop the craving? > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > When wisdom arises and applied to the 4th foundation, these will be > directly seen for what they are. But first they must be weakened! Rob: How do we weaken the hindrances so they can be "worked with" and "directly understood" at some point? > This reminds me of the man pierced by an arrow: > 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded > me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' Rob: To what extent is the whole enterprise of intellectual study akin to the story of the man pierced by the arrow? Is detailed intellectual understanding the cure, or part of the delay in treatment? > ------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: > Well, you are not saying don't have intellectual understanding, I > know....just a different emphasis, a la the jubu post. Rob: I don't think anyone is saying "don't have intellectual understanding," but I do think it is important not to think that intellectual understanding is itself the path, and that it can substitute for the "enterprise of seeing," and the "development of direct seeing." You have spoken about whether 'beginning conceptually-based meditation' can ever create a bridge to direct seeing. But where is the bridge from intellectual knowledge of Dhamma to direct seeing, if it is not applied to the moment, away from books, and finally away from even helpful concepts? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = #117268 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:19 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna ptaus1 Hi Phil, > Ph: p.p.s I'd like to thank p.t in passing. I think it was reading his posts to you about a month ago that helped to condition this new tone of discourse with you. We really supply models of right speech or wrong speech to each other here. pt: My thanks to you as well - your recent posts to KenH encourage being more constructive. In fact, I'm just in the process of tackling one of RobE's long posts, and it really does help. Best wishes, pt #117269 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:23 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > pt: My thanks to you as well - your recent posts to KenH encourage being more constructive. In fact, I'm just in the process of tackling one of RobE's long posts, and it really does help. I'll be looking forward to that, pt. And I'll try to be nice too! :-) Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - #117270 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Howard > > Thanks for taking the time to write such a thorough explanation. I think you nicely capture how vipassana meditation would be explained today by any well-known teacher. The problem is the commentary, it's so different, it clearly says that the point is not to understand with that kind of awareness, the awareness of canines that doesn't do away with belief in self etc. I think this pronouncement from the commentary is in direct contradiction to the Buddha's clearly stated description of mindfulness. It is taking what is an intuitive, direct apprehension of "what is" and turning it into an intellectualized formulation that is based on thought, supporting the dry insight model and rejecting the direct insight model. I think it is turning the Dhamma on its head to declare simple, clear, direct seeing - the basis on which direct understanding is based in contact with *real dhammas,* not intellectual ideas - into something that is described as base, undiscerning and of the animals. Here is the Buddha himself on this subject, and I am afraid that it really does show the bias and agenda in the commentary: "Herein, monks, a monk, having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree or to an empty place, sits down with his legs crossed, keeps his body erect and his mindfulness alert. "Ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out. Breathing in a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a long breath"; breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a long breath"; breathing in a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a short breath"; breathing out a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a short breath." ... "Just as a skillful turner or turner's apprentice, making a long turn, knows, "I am making a long turn," or making a short turn, knows, "I am making a short turn," just so the monk, breathing in a long breath, knows, "I am breathing in a long breath"; breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a long breath"; breathing in a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a short breath"; breathing out a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a short breath." Whatever else may be built on this simple mindfulness of the breathing, body or other foundations of mindfulness, there is no doubt that Buddha gives this simple mindfulness as the starting point of satipatthana. There is no way that I can imagine that this description of *simple awareness of exactly what is happening* is not what the Buddha is promoting here as the practice. This is exactly the simple awareness of what is happening that the commentary derides as "that of canines" and other animals. This is in direct contradiction to the Buddha. Buddha further makes this clear in other suttas when he says there should be "in the seen only the seen," etc. There is no other way to interpret this pure awareness of *what is,* and the commentary ignores this clear meaning and Buddha's clear intent in order to draw its incorrect interpretation. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #117271 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Phil. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Howard > > > > Thanks for taking the time to write such a thorough explanation. I think you nicely capture how vipassana meditation would be explained today by any well-known teacher. The problem is the commentary, it's so different, it clearly says that the point is not to understand with that kind of awareness, the awareness of canines that doesn't do away with belief in self etc. > > I think this pronouncement from the commentary is in direct contradiction to the Buddha's clearly stated description of mindfulness. It is taking what is an intuitive, direct apprehension of "what is" and turning it into an intellectualized formulation that is based on thought, supporting the dry insight model and rejecting the direct insight model. I think it is turning the Dhamma on its head to declare simple, clear, direct seeing - the basis on which direct understanding is based in contact with *real dhammas,* not intellectual ideas - into something that is described as base, undiscerning and of the animals. > > Here is the Buddha himself on this subject, and I am afraid that it really does show the bias and agenda in the commentary: > > "Herein, monks, a monk, having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree or to an empty place, sits down with his legs crossed, keeps his body erect and his mindfulness alert. > > "Ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out. Breathing in a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a long breath"; breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a long breath"; breathing in a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a short breath"; breathing out a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a short breath." > > ... > > "Just as a skillful turner or turner's apprentice, making a long turn, knows, "I am making a long turn," or making a short turn, knows, "I am making a short turn," just so the monk, breathing in a long breath, knows, "I am breathing in a long breath"; breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a long breath"; breathing in a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a short breath"; breathing out a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a short breath." > > Whatever else may be built on this simple mindfulness of the breathing, body or other foundations of mindfulness, there is no doubt that Buddha gives this simple mindfulness as the starting point of satipatthana. There is no way that I can imagine that this description of *simple awareness of exactly what is happening* is not what the Buddha is promoting here as the practice. This is exactly the simple awareness of what is happening that the commentary derides as "that of canines" and other animals. This is in direct contradiction to the Buddha. > > Buddha further makes this clear in other suttas when he says there should be "in the seen only the seen," etc. There is no other way to interpret this pure awareness of *what is,* and the commentary ignores this clear meaning and Buddha's clear intent in order to draw its incorrect interpretation. > > Best, > Robert E. > > = = = = = = = = I would just like to add that it is the thorough inspection of arising realities, plain and simple, that leads to the conclusion that there is no self to be found in any arising experience, whether rupa or nama. The commentary contends that simple direct awareness does not suffice to understand the reality of anatta, and does not challenge self-view. I think it's clear that while other factors may arise to allow for further investigation of the nature of dhammas, that this basic contention is incorrect. Direct seeing without prejudicial interpretations - simple mindfulness without proliferations - is what leads to the understanding of anatta. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #117272 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Phil) - In a message dated 9/10/2011 8:24:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard, and Phil. Jumping in for a few comments - hope you don't mind if I intersperse comments to some of what each of you said. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > The main basis for the abeyance of the hindrances is the calm (and even joy) > due to prior and regular observance of sila and, during the meditation, to > unification of mind. > ------------------------------------------------------ Rob: Could you clarify, Howard, what your sense of the observance of sila includes, and your sense of 'unification of mind?' ------------------------------------------------- HCW: By sila I mean the usual: Living properly without doing harm and, if possible doing good. Doing no harm avoids upset and promotes peace, and doing good can even promote joy. By unification of mind, I mean a mind that is stable, and not jumping all over the place. I don't mean full, pinpoint absorption in a single phenomenon. ------------------------------------------------- ... Phil: > So where does the cutting away from all that thinking to penetrating to > characterstics of dhammas happen above. > ------------------------------------------------- Rob: I don't think that the gross observation of walking, etc., is actually thinking. It is just not refined noticing, and becomes more refined with practice. I think it's a mistake to think there is an unbridgeable gulf between such gross observation and its more refined 'succeedent' state of observation. Is it possible that instead of looking at 'nimitta-level' mindfulness as "conceptual," that we could see that there are any number of diverse moments taking place, including ones of genuine sati, vitakka, leading to vicara and towards sampajanna, all seemingly lost in the shuffle when they haven't yet accumulated enough to be noticeable, and that through continued return to observation, more of those will develop to refine the seeing? -------------------------------------------- HCW: Sure. The state of mind (in terms of cetasikas) changes quickly. ------------------------------------------ > HCW: > The important characteristics are the tilakkhana. And they must result > from direct observation, not just theory. > ------------------------------------------------ Rob: Could you say a word about how that direct observation is practiced, develops and grows stronger? ---------------------------------------------- HCW: No, not really any more than I've already said. An initially (reasonably) calm mind that somewhat restricts its domain of attention, and also adds energetic effort to paying attention to what arises within that restricted domain tends to become calmer, clearer, and suffused with pleasant feeling and even joy, and the increased calm, clarity, peaceful joy, and precision of attention leads to suppression of the hindrances, lessening of conceptuality, and more and more directness of observation. ------------------------------------------------ ... Phil: > Isn't it better to start with correct understanding of the realities > beneath the concepts (i.e the paramattha explanation of walking etc, not the > awareness shated by canines?) Rob: Starting from correct understanding is good, and that is the right way to begin, but if one continues to navigate in the world of "understanding of that which has not been seen" there is a limit to how far that understanding can go towards the experiential knowledge of dhammas. It's like investigating a menu to understand what the food is and what to order. Once that is relatively clear, doesn't one have to sample the food to understand what the menu is talking about? You can go back to the menu, go back to the explanation, for clarity at any time, but you also have to go off the menu and stop thinking and reading and taste the food for what it tastes like, feels like and how it hits the stomach. K. Sujin seems to emphasize this too, but there's some sort of snag in applying this "real tasting" of the object to meditation. Why is that? > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Correct intellectual understanding is better than incorrect, but it > will not do the trick > ------------------------------------------------ Rob: ie, understanding the menu is good, but it will never = tasting the food. Phil: > Do you think there is a danger in starting with intellectual > understanding of paramattha dhammas obstructing arising of a truer understanding or > something like that? > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Only if 1) one remains satisfied to remain with that, or 2) one > mistakes intellectual understanding for direct knowing of reality. > ------------------------------------------------- Rob: That is well put. ... Phil: > And how can hindrances be stilled if there is not an understanding of them > to begin with? I would say that hindrances are directly experienced as obstacles. The understanding identifies them, but how would such understanding ever still them? Yes, it's good to understand what the obstacles are, but how could that possibly be enough? That is like an alcoholic reading a book about how bad drinking is. Is that going to stop the craving? > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > When wisdom arises and applied to the 4th foundation, these will be > directly seen for what they are. But first they must be weakened! Rob: How do we weaken the hindrances so they can be "worked with" and "directly understood" at some point? ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: Discussed above. The hindrances are weakened as one approaches access concentration, weakened even more as one enters access concentration, and strongly suppressed in the jhanas. ---------------------------------------------------- > This reminds me of the man pierced by an arrow: > 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded > me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' Rob: To what extent is the whole enterprise of intellectual study akin to the story of the man pierced by the arrow? Is detailed intellectual understanding the cure, or part of the delay in treatment? -------------------------------------------------- HCW: It is a matter of degree. It is essential to know enough about the arrow to know how to (safely)remove it, but more than that is at best of no use and at worse a deadly delaying game. ------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------------------- Phil: > Well, you are not saying don't have intellectual understanding, I > know....just a different emphasis, a la the jubu post. Rob: I don't think anyone is saying "don't have intellectual understanding," but I do think it is important not to think that intellectual understanding is itself the path, and that it can substitute for the "enterprise of seeing," and the "development of direct seeing." You have spoken about whether 'beginning conceptually-based meditation' can ever create a bridge to direct seeing. But where is the bridge from intellectual knowledge of Dhamma to direct seeing, if it is not applied to the moment, away from books, and finally away from even helpful concepts? Best, Robert E. =================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117273 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:44 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) ptaus1 Hi RobE, > RE: Well, maybe you experience that, and I know that is also the popular view in the dsg community. Somehow we will keep promoting lobha and thinking it's panna. This again seems to me to be a false argument, and not related to whether meditation *really* helps develop kusala or not. pt: Hm, to me, whether we're talking about meditation or some other activity, what really happens is just kusala or akusala cittas, no other possibility (vipaka and kiriya don't seem to make a difference when it comes to development of a/kusala). So, if we're talking about meditation, then to consider if there are kusala or akusala cittas happening there seems relevant. Further, if it's akusala (like lobha mistaken for panna), that'd be equivalent to an arising of a hindrance in meditation lingo, so I'd think that'd be a useful thing to watch for even for an adamant believer in meditation, and so, relevant to the question whether meditation develops a/kusala. I mean, you have to know about what's kusala and whats akusala in order to be able to conclude whether one or the other is developed. > RE: It only relates to whether we are somehow doing something with the meditation to make it akusala by thinking it's doing something that it's not. It's a circular argument based on a presupposition that I think is incorrect - that the fact that we are sure to generate akusala moments means that any activity that has a positive intention will mistakenly think it is kusala when it is akusala. pt: I think it might help to rephrase the problem like this - imo, as long as one believes in existence of activities and their results, he's outside the domain of insight (which is the only thing that's exclusive to buddhism imo). Once an activity is "seen through" - as in, conditioned kusala and akusala cittas and mental factors arising and falling - then one enters the domain of insight. These are of course momentary entering and leaving of the domain of insight, and have nothing to do with what's the activity at the time, imo. > RE: But what if the activity really does promote kusala moments? pt: According to how I rephrased it above in terms of activities and insight, I think it's impossible, at least as long as insight is concerned. As kusala without panna - that's possible, and I think that'd be the basis of all other religions, but not possible for kusala with panna as explained in Buddhism imo. > RE: and what if we do recognize and acknowledge that akusala will arise? pt: I think acknowledging beforehand or afterwards is merely thoughts, so it doesn't really equal to insight right now, which to me equals to what buddhism is about. > RE: Why does the result have to be self-deception? pt: Well, absence of insight right now is in basic terms self-deception - arising of citta accompanied with ignorance, rather than with understanding. > RE: Why can't we just follow the path, do the work, and gradually develop understanding? I think that's how it works, insight having nothing to do with activities, etc. pt: Well, there's that fundamental problem that we believe we are following the path, but in truth we are not. I think usually we follow some sort of religion/mindset we were brought up with, mixed in with some buddhist ideas on the intellectual level that we try to rationalise to fit our current "practice". The "practice" being equated to activities, no real insight occurring. Imo. > RE: Sure, it's possible to have someone who is trying to *make* kusala happen and thereby creating more and more negative states while trying to force positive results. But I would consider that a very ignorant beginner. After a while we realize that *we* are not going to get anywhere and that it's the process that does the work. If you do certain things, eventually you get a positive result. pt: Hm, I'm skeptical about the last sentence when it comes to insight, and hence about the realisation you describe before it, especially considering imo the lack of correlation between activities and insight. > RE: Of course if you believe that all kusala comes from past kusala and we don't experience anything positive in this life that doesn't come from past life accumulations, then you have to believe on principle that no good can come from current activities. And that is a philosophical, rather than a practical, problem. pt: Your conclusion is a bit extreme and basically goes a bit too far into speculation. One - past kusala reference has to do primarily with encouraging understanding anatta and conditionality imo. Second, considering "past" in terms of past lives is too speculative. "Past" can be a previous citta, like with javana cittas arising with panna, where 7 follow in succession, or it can relate to some other citta in the past, or even past life. Who cares. Either way, as long as Dhamma discussions lead to more speculation, not much use. Three - yes, activities are not a particularly useful direction of considering the present reality, imo, as hopefully explained above. > RE: Well, we adhere to different interpretations of the path, and so we are likely to come to different conclusions. I'm not a great meditator. I only do it when I feel like it, so I'm not really following a forced regimen. But when I do meditate I do it with the point of view that it's a positive thing to do, to stop running around with the various proliferations that normally follow one upon the other, and have a chance to unwind and observe what is brewing in perception and thought processes. And I find by just breathing and allowing this awareness to develop however it does on that particular occasion, that the clouds seem to lift to a certain extent, the sense of pressure and automatic rapid-fire thinking and feeling slows down and opens up, and awareness seems to get sharper and more discerning. > > Now I guess that can be a total illusion, and I am really experiencing something completely different, but I doubt it. I think it's an overall kusala outcome and that it's heading in the right direction. After many years of finding that when I do this life is more clear and awareness is more open, calm and clear, it seems pretty obvious to me that this is the reason that Buddha promoted this kind of meditation, and that when done with openness and not clinging to result, it leads forward on the path and causes greater development. When negative thoughts and feelings arise in this kind of atmosphere, they are observed and maybe seen with more awareness. Anyway, that's an idea of what I think is happening. pt: I think I know very well what you're talking about. The sharpness, calm, clarity and contentment that occur throughout the day and seem to last for extended periods at a time, sometimes 2 seconds, sometimes 2 minutes, sometimes more. And the mind is stilled, you can see the thoughts forming, you can see the senses jumping to this or that object. Negative emotions and thoughts are easily spotted and seem to stop in their tracks. Etc, all very crisp. And it all seems to happen when there's a steady meditation practice happening. Having experienced this, my conclusion is that all this has nothing to do with Buddhism. I think it's primarily a consequence of balanced energy channels, which tends to happen on its own when you sit quietly for a while, or do chi gong, or whatever else similar. At best, these are moments of samatha, at worst, wrong concentration, wrong practice, and wrong path. Either way, nothing to do with Buddhism, i.e. insight. Further, even if these were moments of true samatha, I disagree with Howard that they will eventually lead to more mindfulness and understanding of the 8-fold path kind. This is because insight and samatha are entirely different animals, and sati as a cetasika for example, though called the same in both cases, would be entirely different in the two cases. Maybe ask Jon about this - he mentioned it briefly in one of his recent posts, I meant to ask him for more clarification, but had no time. > > pt: I think this is not exactly so. According to this group, as I understand them, the problem is not what you call "meditation" because that's just another descriptor for an activity, which doesn't really have much to do with cittas and other dhammas. The issue is not either whether the effort is intentional and purposeful, because all cittas have intention. The problem is simply whether there's panna or not at any given moment, including those moments that would fall within what you call "meditation". If there's no panna for most of the time, then what is there instead? So we are warned that there might be lobha mistaken for panna, that there might be ignorance mistaken for calm, etc. And then a further problem that if one takes akusala for kusala, that's in fact a moment of wrong view, etc. > > RE: Well it's good to be aware that we can fall into traps and that awareness encounters all kinds of objects, but that shouldn't be turned into an indictment of meditation as a part of the path. I don't necessarily hear you doing that, although I do see you saying that it isn't really part of the path one way or the other, but I have heard that many times here. pt: What I'm realising more and more, and will further try to put across, is that assumption of something being an activity (such as taking meditation as an activity) has nothing to do with insight. Not in the sense that the two are opposed, but in the sense that the two are entirely unrelated, i.e. in different domains, and so one has no effect on the other. So, it's basically speculation that leads nowhere useful in terms of developing insight. > RE: I think all the warnings are fine in their own right. The problem that I see is that no activities, no intentional practice, is seen to have any participation in the path one way or the other, because everything is seen to come from a different source - past accumulations and present vipaka that also comes from the past. pt: I hope I explained the futility of both directions of speculation regarding the activities and the past. > RE: So there's really nothing to do in this lifetime. I just don't agree with that at all. I don't believe that's what the Buddha taught, and so I think it's a wrong view of the path in it's own right. pt: "So there's really nothing to do in this lifetime" - imo that's just another one of those dead end speculations without any practical use, or anything to do with what people on dsg are saying. > RE: But meditators believe that by sitting and paying attention, more moments of sati will arise and that the practice will eventually lead to more panna and vipassana. pt: I find this sort of believing in my case is usually spurred by lobha, rather than chanda. > RE: And the past-life camp would say that it all comes from many past lives' worth of accumulations and that no purposeful activity is going to add any value to that. It's a very big divide because of these added beliefs - and they are beliefs, not facts. pt: Hopefully it's clear why I'd tend to call this a strawman - e.g. as explained above, both your assumption of "past" and "activity" are not quite right imo. > RE: I have had those types of experiences myself, but not when I was meditating. I experienced it most strongly in relation to a particular teacher, who lets say was not very kusala, and had some of that kind of power. Some teachers can cause energy phenomena to take place in other people, and that can be very dangerous. I'd be happy to discuss more of this with you off list if you would like to know what I went through and how it eventually got resolved - to some extent, and after some years. Not sure if it's topical for this group. pt: Yes, you can email me, wouldn't mind hearing about it. > RE: It would seem to me that if you are aware of the presence of the hindrances then a certain degree of sati is rising to experience them in that conscious way. As has often been said here in general, an akusala moment is just as good an object of awareness as a kusala moment. So I think that would apply to meditation moments as well. As long as you are able to be aware of what they are, I would see this as potentially a kusala moment of meditation, even if the content of the arising dhamma is akusala. pt: Sure, except that my conclusion is that these rare kusala (if they are even kusala) moments arise in spite of meditation as an activity, rather than thanks to meditation. Best wishes pt #117274 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? kenhowardau Hi Howard, My objective was to reach agreement on a simple point. But that was too much to ask. :-) I wonder, if I had said "an unoccupied vehicle is falling off a bridge" would you have agreed there was no need to rescue any occupants? I hope you would have. But when we say there is suffering but no sufferer, you and the other meditators refuse to agree there is no need for action. Who are we going to rescue? ----------------------- <. . .> > HCW: We mean the same thing, I believe: certain mental and physical processes (i.e., sequences of interrelated groups of namas and rupas) are underway, but nothing more. --------------------- KH: I don't know why you say "we mean the same thing" when we disagree on just about everything. I have never agreed with your "sequences of interrelated groups" theory. Sequences are mere concepts and therefore have no basis in absolute reality. They are just atta by another name. When the Vism says there is suffering it is not talking about a sequence of interrelated groups. It is talking about momentarily existing, conditioned dhammas. ----------------------- > HCW: Movement, sensations, tasting, etc, all interrelated, but no single thing and no central core. ----------------------- KH: And surely you know by now that I strongly disagree with your "no single thing" theory. The Vism says suffering *exists*. It does not say suffering "exists but doesn't really exist" or that it exists but lacks "own being" or that it exists without existing "in and of itself." ------------------------------- <. . .> >>> H: Is there no need to put an end to it? >>> >> KH: As a conditioned dhamma, suffering ends immediately - in the same moment in which it arises. >> > HCW: What I mean, of course, is for suffering to no longer occur. -------------------------------- KH: The key to the final extinction of suffering is to have right understanding of dukkha. But that will never occur while there is wrong view of a self that is suffering (and of a corresponding need to take action). ------------------ > HCW: Is your suffering also mine, and vice-versa, or is a distinction to be made? ------------------ KH: No distinction is necessary. To say any particular dhamma is mine is no further from the truth than to say it is yours. And no closer either. Dhammas don't belong to anyone. -------------------------------------------- > HCW: The cittas we associate with the name Ken Howard are not those associated with the name Howard Wasserman. --------------------------------------------- KH: To understand dhammas means to understand there is no Ken H, and no Howard. ----------------------- <. . .> >> KH: This brings me back to the conversation I have been trying to have with Dieter. If (*if*) there really are only dhammas - and no self - is there any need for us to do anything? >> > HCW: For the purpose of ending suffering, there is the need for very specific things to happen. There are no doers, but there IS doing. And not all "doings" are created equal! (To paraphrase the U.S. Declaration of Independence ;-) ------------------------ KH: See below. ------------------------------------------ >> KH: Is there any need for a formal Buddhist practice (as distinct from just conditioned dhammas performing their functions)? >> > HCW: I have no idea what "formal" Buddhist practice is. ----------------------------------------- KH: It means belief in activities over which there is some control (as distinct from just conditioned dhammas performing their functions). ------------------------------ > HCW: There are activities, all consisting of conditions, of course, urged by the Buddha that are supportive of eventual awakening. ------------------------------ KH: There are just the presently arisen dhammas. --------------- > HCW: There is no self and no selves, and even dhammas themselves, as separate individuals, are also matters of convention. -------------- KH: Perhaps we should change the Vism quote to: "No suffering exists, and no sufferer is found." :-) But then what? Ken H #117275 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? nilovg Hi Howard and Phil, I find your correspondance interesting. Op 10-sep-2011, om 21:56 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > HCW: > Correct intellectual understanding is better than incorrect, but it > will not do the trick > ------------------------------------------------ > > Do you think there is a danger in starting with intenllectual > understanding of paramattha dhammas obstructing arising of a truer > understanding or > something like that? > ----------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Only if 1) one remains satisfied to remain with that, or 2) one > mistakes intellectual understanding for direct knowing of reality. > ------------------------------------------------- > N: I agree with Howard, it is indeed dangerous to take intellectual > understanding for direct understanding and this may happen. It may > be a great temptation. But unlike Howard, I hink that intellectual understanding, pariyatti. is the first step. Pa~n~naa will do its own task. There are also other important conditions: the development of all the perfections, none excepted, together with satipa.t.thaana. Thus, the listening is not just passive listening, which is something Howard was concerned of. Pa~n~naa sees the danger of akusala. We are reminded when realizing how much akusala there is when thinking of siuations, persons, stories. There can be a sense of urgency to begin at least to 'study' the present reality. This reminds me of a discussion between Howard and Chuck (reverend Chuck?) about practice. I wish to include all kinds of kusala in practice, not just contemplating. The application of the dhamma in all aspects of daily life, including in our dealings with others. ------- > > Ph: And how can hidrances be stilled if there is not an > understanding of them > to begin with? > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > When wisdom arises and applied to the 4th foundation, these will be > directly seen for what they are. But first they must be weakened! This > reminds me of the man pierced by an arrow... ------- N: Yes, only right understanding, but not just stemming from the fourth application of mindfulness. Stemming from awareness of any dhamma that presents itself. We do not have to think of the four Applications. Hindrances weakened: yes, if there is no gradual elimination they cannot be eradicated. But this happens when developing the perfections. One does not think of any gain for oneself, but the aim is: less defilements. We have to think of a very, very gradual process. ------ Nina. #117276 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:37 pm Subject: the commentaries, to Rob E. nilovg Dear Rob E, I shall take some time over your Email to me. Very good remarks and observations as usually! I notice that you do not have much confidence in the commentaries. Reading more of these may induce confidence. Take Ven. Bodhi's notes to his sutta translations, though he does not always agree. You have these? His co. translations are not complete, just some short quotes. I have many in Thai. What strikes me is that the co. often stresses that the suttas deal with being in the cycle and freed from the cycle: va.t.ta and viva.t.ta. Isn't this true? I do not see that Buddhaghosa has 'his own agenda', promoting mostly dry insight. He adds explanations in detail about calm and stresses that calm may refer to the highest degree: accompanying the fruition- consciousness of the arahat. Having eradicated all defilements is the highest calm. What also strikes me that he points to insight, to vipassanaa pa~n~naa, page after page. This is also dealt with in the suttas, but he elaborates on this point, and is it not true that we may overlook this? All this is not Buddhaghosa's own idea, but he just edited the ancient material he found in Sri Lanka and translated this into Paali. I wonder whether you read much commentary? When one reads just a few lines it does not give the whole picture. Usually lack of info builds mistrust, but I do not know whether this is so your case. I also heard from someone else that he found that the commentaries put layer upon layer of meanings and are removed from the clear language of the sutta. In such a case, I feel, there is again lack of understanding of what the commentary meant. One has to get used to the language of the commentary and the more one reads the more one appreciates it. I find that it really helps me to have more understanding of the contents of the Tipi.taka. ------- Nina. #117277 From: "philip" Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:30 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? philofillet Hi Howard and all (p.s to Rob E) > Ph: I guess what I want to ask you is, in the above where does the > "strengthening of sati and panna come from?" Simply from the stilling of the > hindrances? Otherwise, what is there in "thinking in terms of such concepts as > body, legs, feet" etc and of "me in charge" that would condition the > development of sati, panna. > --------------------------------------------- > HCW: > The sati and pañña develop despite the initial ignorance. Were that > not so, no progress would be possible, for mired in ignorance is where we > begin. > What most fundamentally conditions the development of sati and pañña, > I believe, is the initial, intentional paying of attention to a purposely > delimited range of (wholesome) inputs. This starts the meditation process > with a degree of "concentration" in the sense of restricting to some extent > the initial domain of attention. That leads to a further strengthening of > attention and deepening of concentration, which in turn foster calm, > pleasant bodily sensation, and joy, and these, in feedback fashion, further > develop and lead to an ever increasing strengthening of attention and focus, > upwards and onwards in spiral fashion, and to a gradual development of > mindfulness and resultant insight. Ph: As usual, what you write is logical, makes sense. I have agreed fuly with what you write above in the past, and may again in the future. But, again, the conditioning of a deepening of concentration by the "concentration" (your quotation marks) doesn't click with me. On the other hand, I certainly do see the value of the kind of paying attention to conventional actions, as a kind of sila protector, perhaps akin to apammada, heedfulness. As I wrote recently, when I bike to the station there is a very intentional (it started that way, it has become the natural way now) paying what I would call friendly and caring attention to other drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, trying not to have an accident. But for me at least there is not the confidence that this kind of paying attention to conventional actions is a condition for deepening of concentration and satipatthana. > In AN X, 1 you will find the following conditionality: > > Virtuous ways of conduct > --> > Non-remorse > --> > Gladness > --> > Joy > --> > Serenity > --> > Happiness > --> > Concentration of the mind > --> > Knowledge and vision of things as they really are > --> > Revulsion and dispassion > --> > Knowledge and vision of liberation > > (And other suttas indicate multiple feedbacks with this chain of > conditionality.) Ph: Or similar ones. My favourite is the one with sila > freedom from remorse > concenration > seeing things in their true nature, or something like that. My recent victory in the field of very gross akusala seems to have contributed to better conditions for reflecting on and discussing dhamma, perhaps a coincidence. > Do you think they are revealed when the hindrances are stilled. And how > are the hindrances stilled? Just by "thinking in terms of such concepts as > body, legs, feet" etc and of "me in charge?" > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > No, not at all. In fact, one needs to go beyond this. Meditation > proper begins when thinking diminishes and the hindrances are suppressed. > (Incidentally, the thinking I referred to isn't discursive thought, but just > initially unavoidable background conceptuality which eventually diminishes.) Ph: "Background concepuality which eventually diminishes." I think that is well said. > The main basis for the abeyance of the hindrances is the calm (and even joy) > due to prior and regular observance of sila and, during the meditation, to > unification of mind. Ph: I am not one who experiences unificaiton of mind in meditation (I am amazed that people think meditation is about insisting on control, for me meditation is mostly a reminder of how chaotic the mind is, and that's fine.) But I certainly believe in the benefits of sila, and that they bring joy and better conditions for non-grasping, non-hungering, non-looking-for-solace reflection on Dhamma and dhammas. > And how can hidrances be stilled if there is not an understanding of them > to begin with? > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > When wisdom arises and applied to the 4th foundation, these will be > directly seen for what they are. But first they must be weakened! This > reminds me of the man pierced by an arrow: > > 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded > me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker. Ph: No, Howard, I don't think the poisoned arrow simile applies here, that refers to things that were not taught by the BUddha and distract away from the Dhamma. The right intellectual understanding I'm talking about refers thoroughly with "the All" taught by the Buddha, the eye/visible object/seeing and so on. And of course when I say intellectual understanding you will know after all these years at DSG (recently I came across your post, and Rob Es, from 2001! Happy 10th!!!) that I am talking about the gradual development of awareness of the characteristics of dhammas in daily life, not just (though it is part of it) reading about them. Thanks again. Probably you will have said as much as you want to explain the meditation, I can see where you are coming from, certainly. But still doubts about how "concentration" conditions right concentration and other kusala factors. You have explained very clearly, though, thanks. I suspect when rereading your post in a couple of days, I will find something to press an inquiry, right now I am in the lazy "let's get out of this discussion" mode, why is it that there are not conditions for me to press and press and press on discussion topics? Hmmm, might be a kind of blessing in disguise or a just plain blessing! Metta, Phil p.s RobE, thanks for your comments, I really can't branch of this conversation with Howard, this is a kind of training for me in Dhamma discussion, I don't want to get overwhelmed with too many posting duties. We will have a good discussion thread someday, I'm sure! #117278 From: "philip" Date: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:42 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi pt > pt: My thanks to you as well - your recent posts to KenH encourage being more constructive. In fact, I'm just in the process of tackling one of RobE's long posts, and it really does help. At some point perhaps you (or anyone!) could pop by that post I wrote to Ken H about how to explain an action such as giving alms in paramattha terms. I would like to discuss with you a topic such as that, how do conventional actions happen? Metta, Phil #117279 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:03 am Subject: Correct? philofillet es Hi all "At a moment of seeing there is contact between visible object and the consciousness that sees." Is the above correct? Isn't it more accurate to say there is contact between eye sense and object and seeing consciousness arises as a result? metta, phil #117280 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 9/11/2011 4:41:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, My objective was to reach agreement on a simple point. But that was too much to ask. :-) I wonder, if I had said "an unoccupied vehicle is falling off a bridge" would you have agreed there was no need to rescue any occupants? ------------------------------------------------- HCW: The analogy is poor. There may still be a reason for taking action with regard to the vehicle, but it clearly has nothing to do with nonexistent occupants. Dropping metaphors for the moment: There is good reason for putting an end to (i.e., preventing future arising of) suffering. The Buddha has said that all he has taught is suffering and the end of suffering. --------------------------------------------- I hope you would have. But when we say there is suffering but no sufferer, you and the other meditators refuse to agree there is no need for action. Who are we going to rescue? ----------------------------------------------- HCW: I said nothing of rescue. You speak of it, not I. And if I had, it would have been abbreviated speech. Ken, you have no right to insert something of your own, attribute it to someone else, and then run with that silly ball! ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------- <. . .> > HCW: We mean the same thing, I believe: certain mental and physical processes (i.e., sequences of interrelated groups of namas and rupas) are underway, but nothing more. --------------------- KH: I don't know why you say "we mean the same thing" when we disagree on just about everything. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, then, it seems I overestimated you! ;-) -------------------------------------------- I have never agreed with your "sequences of interrelated groups" theory. Sequences are mere concepts and therefore have no basis in absolute reality. They are just atta by another name. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Talk about relationship any way you want, but recognize that it is of essential importance. Oh, and BTW, if you don't like anything that is a matter of concept, sequences in particular, then do not ever speak of processes (as discussed in Abhidhamma) and do not ever speak of dependent origination and conditionality. ------------------------------------------------ When the Vism says there is suffering it is not talking about a sequence of interrelated groups. It is talking about momentarily existing, conditioned dhammas. ----------------------- > HCW: Movement, sensations, tasting, etc, all interrelated, but no single thing and no central core. ----------------------- KH: And surely you know by now that I strongly disagree with your "no single thing" theory. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Your loss. ----------------------------------------------- The Vism says suffering *exists*. It does not say suffering "exists but doesn't really exist" or that it exists but lacks "own being" or that it exists without existing "in and of itself." ------------------------------- <. . .> >>> H: Is there no need to put an end to it? >>> >> KH: As a conditioned dhamma, suffering ends immediately - in the same moment in which it arises. >> > HCW: What I mean, of course, is for suffering to no longer occur. -------------------------------- KH: The key to the final extinction of suffering is to have right understanding of dukkha. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: You are a slave to thinking, an "intellect freak" ;-) Understanding dukkha requires introspection, not just thinking. ----------------------------------------------- But that will never occur while there is wrong view of a self that is suffering (and of a corresponding need to take action). ----------------------------------------------- HCW: I do not believe in a self that is suffering or doing anything else, and I tire of your straw men. --------------------------------------------- ------------------ > HCW: Is your suffering also mine, and vice-versa, or is a distinction to be made? ------------------ KH: No distinction is necessary. --------------------------------------------- HCW: Not necessary except for the purpose of seeing things as they are. I suppose, though, that it is pleasant to avoid uncomfortable facts. --------------------------------------------- To say any particular dhamma is mine is no further from the truth than to say it is yours. And no closer either. Dhammas don't belong to anyone. --------------------------------------------- HCW: The Buddha spoke of ownership of kamma. That is based in the distinguishing of mental streams. When there was an attempt on the Buddha's life, it wasn't an attempted suicide! Not distinguishing one stream of interrelated dhammas from others is, if actually happening, a sure sign of insanity. Fortunately, you DO make such distinctions, though you seem to dread facing up to it. ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- > HCW: The cittas we associate with the name Ken Howard are not those associated with the name Howard Wasserman. --------------------------------------------- KH: To understand dhammas means to understand there is no Ken H, and no Howard. -------------------------------------------- HCW: Your reply doesn't address what I wrote. It is just one more case of side-stepping, eel-wriggling avoidance. ------------------------------------------- ----------------------- <. . .> >> KH: This brings me back to the conversation I have been trying to have with Dieter. If (*if*) there really are only dhammas - and no self - is there any need for us to do anything? >> > HCW: For the purpose of ending suffering, there is the need for very specific things to happen. There are no doers, but there IS doing. And not all "doings" are created equal! (To paraphrase the U.S. Declaration of Independence ;-) ------------------------ KH: See below. ------------------------------------------ >> KH: Is there any need for a formal Buddhist practice (as distinct from just conditioned dhammas performing their functions)? >> > HCW: I have no idea what "formal" Buddhist practice is. ----------------------------------------- KH: It means belief in activities over which there is some control (as distinct from just conditioned dhammas performing their functions). ---------------------------------------------- HCW: I do not know what you mean by "control". Current rupas and namas, including thinking, planning, imagining, wishing, and willing, and summoning up ohysical and mental energy serve to condition the occurrence and non-occurrence of future events. Whether one call that "control" or not, it is not imagined. And there is no director involved in this. ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ > HCW: There are activities, all consisting of conditions, of course, urged by the Buddha that are supportive of eventual awakening. ------------------------------ KH: There are just the presently arisen dhammas. --------------- > HCW: There is no self and no selves, and even dhammas themselves, as separate individuals, are also matters of convention. -------------- KH: Perhaps we should change the Vism quote to: "No suffering exists, and no sufferer is found." :-) -------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Suffering does occur, and i don't say otherwise. What I deny as regards suffering, as I do with regard to all allegedly separate phenomena, is that their alleged separateness is a matter of convention and not reality. A macroscopic analogy: In a river are found many "things". Among these are whirlpools. They exist, but viewing them and speaking of them as separate entities should be recognized as merely speech and thought convention. They are not in fact separate entities.And truly imputing separate and real existence to such "things" is deluded. -------------------------------------------------------- But then what? ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: Huh? -------------------------------------------------- Ken H ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117281 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Correct? moellerdieter Hi Phil , ''...Whatever, o brother, there exists of feeling, of perception and of mental formations, these things are associated, not dissociated, and it is impossible to separate one from the other and show their difference. For whatever one feels, one perceives; and whatever one perceives, of this one is conscious" (M. 43). with Metta Dieter ----- Original Message ----- From: philip To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 5:03 PM Subject: [dsg] Correct? es Hi all "At a moment of seeing there is contact between visible object and the consciousness that sees." Is the above correct? Isn't it more accurate to say there is contact between eye sense and object and seeing consciousness arises as a result? metta, phil #117282 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? moellerdieter Hi Howard, just jumping in.. you wrote: 'HCW: I do not know what you mean by "control". Current rupas and namas, including thinking, planning, imagining, wishing, and willing, and summoning up ohysical and mental energy serve to condition the occurrence and non-occurrence of future events. Whether one call that "control" or not, it is not imagined. And there is no director involved in this.' not sure, one may consider that the urge of (the threefold ) tanha provides direction , the producer being 'outside' (avijja-sankhara) . with Metta Dieter #117283 From: Ken O Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara ashkenn2k Dear Robert I should ask are you saying breathing is not a concept or body parts are only nama and rupa. Or you could tell me that the whole commentary only indicates nama and rupa, there is no conceptual in the whole commentary as used in samantha bhavana. Ken O From: rjkjp1 >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Friday, 9 September 2011 11:22 PM >Subject: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara > > > > > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: >> >> Dear Nina >> >> > >> >> KO: Now remember when Buddha said the world, you forget to say that >> >> mind objects >> >> can be a concept. In the commentary of MN1, when the description >> >> of earth, it >> >> is by four description. There is conventional earth, objective >> >> earth, - are >> >> all concepts. >> >--------- >Dear Ken >and in the satiptthana sutta commentary where is explains that the particular characteristics are meant do you belive that is referring to concepts? >robert > > > > > #117284 From: Ken O Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara ashkenn2k Dear Nina >------- >N: On this forum there are different people with different >accumulations, and they interprete texts differently. Using parts of >the texts to confirm one's own interpretation would be insincere. I >think we should not doubt people's sincerity here. Everyone tries to >understand the texts as best as he is able to. Discussing also helps >us to consider the texts more ourselves. The purpose is not arguing >and trying to convince others. >-------- KO: I am concern with the interpretation of text that is not in accordance with the commentaries. With due respect to your teacher AS, but there are a few terms of her interpretation does not conform with the commentaries or texts. If we wish to promote the confidence of the text, then we should follow what was written and not what each one of us interpretated. Ken O #117285 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 9/11/2011 12:06:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, just jumping in.. you wrote: 'HCW: I do not know what you mean by "control". Current rupas and namas, including thinking, planning, imagining, wishing, and willing, and summoning up ohysical and mental energy serve to condition the occurrence and non-occurrence of future events. Whether one call that "control" or not, it is not imagined. And there is no director involved in this.' not sure, one may consider that the urge of (the threefold ) tanha provides direction , the producer being 'outside' (avijja-sankhara) . ---------------------------------------------- HCW: All instances of tanha are among the conditioning dhammas I refer to above, and they are very important ones. And certainly what is craved provides "direction," but there is still no director, no agent-controller, no "one at the helm". Tanha is just a mental phenomenon - fleeting, conditioned, and empty of self. ---------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117286 From: Ken O Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? ashkenn2k Dear Nina if we are talking after using jhanas as a basis of insight, it means one have reached the purfication of view level. At that points onward, it is direct experiential knowing of nama and rupa and no longer a conventional reality of nama and rupa, no longer conceptual from here onwards. Before the jhanas as a basis of insight, are we saying it is just nama and rupa even for body parts meditation in the commentaries, or the commentaries said otherwise Ken O ---------- N: When following the commentary, there is first a description of a monk who attains jhaana with mindfulness of breathing. Then we read: N: Thus, here is a person who has accumulated skill for jhaana and develops it naturally. I know that you will agree that in the context of mahaasatipa.t.thaana, jhaana is not the goal, but that the whole sutta aims at insight. When emerging from jhaana he is aware of naama and ruupa that appear: jhaanacitta, jhaanafactors, ruupas; the primary ones and the derived ones. All of these are anattaa. Thus he develops insight and this is insight based on jhaana. The Buddha took account of different kinds of people, those who could attain jhaana and those who did not. I do not see a progression from understanding ruupas as non-self in the first Application towards the Fourth one. Objects of mindfulness are classified according to the four Applications and such classification is useful so that differentr aspects can be seen. I do not see any progression, but I think that it depends on sati what object it takes. One moment there is awareness of ruupa, another moment of feeling or of citta, no selection. To me it is advanced to transcend doubts, to see the D.O. This is insight that has been developed. The Commentary (what is in italics is the subcommentary) continues: Atthi kayoti va panassa sati paccupatthita hoti = "Or, indeed, his mindfulness is established, with the thought: 'The body exists.'" Mindfulness is established for the yogi through careful scrutiny. He thinks: There is the body, but there is no being, no person, no woman, no man, no soul, nothing pertaining to a soul, no "I," nothing that is mine, no one, and nothing belonging to anyone [kayoti ca attli, na satto, na puggalo, na itthi, na puriso, na atta, na attaniyam naham, na mama, na koci, na kassaciti evam assa sati paccupatthita hoti]. Yavadeva = "To the extent necessary." It denotes purpose. This is said: The mindfulness established is not for another purpose. What is the purpose for which it is established? Nanamattaya patissatimattaya = "For just knowledge and remembrance." [N: remembrance is a translation of sati]. That is just for the sake of a wider and wider, or further and further measure of knowledge and of mindfulness [aparaparam uttaruttari ñanapamanatthaya ceva satipamanattha-yaca]. For the increase of mindfulness and clear comprehension is the meaning. For the purpose of reaching the knowledge of body-contemplation to the highest extent [kayanupassana ñanam param pamanam papanatthaya] is the meaning of: To the extent necessary for just knowledge [yavadeva ñanamattaya]. Anissito ca viharati = "And he lives independent." He lives emancipated from dependence on craving and wrong views. With these words is stated the direct opposition of this meditation to the laying hold on craving and wrong views. Na ca kiñci loke upadiyati = "And clings to naught in the world." In regard to no visible shape... or consciousness, does he think: this is my soul; or this belongs to my soul.> ------ N: I would think that this is really advanced. He could attain arahatship. ------ Nina. > > #117287 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: ( D: 'not sure, one may consider that the urge of (the threefold ) tanha provides direction , the producer being 'outside' (avijja-sankhara) . ---------------------------------------------- HCW: All instances of tanha are among the conditioning dhammas I refer to above, and they are very important ones. And certainly what is craved provides "direction," but there is still no director, no agent-controller, no "one at the helm". D: we agree on " providing "direction'' , so let's say a director without helm ;-) H: Tanha is just a mental phenomenon - fleeting, conditioned, and empty of self. D: not just a mental phenomenon . The Law of Dependent Orgination " describes the orgination of the whole mass of suffering which is tanha , the second Noble Truth . And as such D.O. includes in each link the delusion of self (conditioned by avijja -sankhara). That no self can be found , i.e. empty of self, is the nature of the delusion, which disappears by abolition of ignorance , doesn't it? with Metta Dieter #117288 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:55 am Subject: Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > By sila I mean the usual: Living properly without doing harm and, if > possible doing good. I think that's a very good, pragmatic definition. Even an ordinary person can try to avoid doing harm and try to do good, and we can make progress at that, even though we fail many times. > Doing no harm avoids upset and promotes peace, and > doing good can even promote joy. That is also a good statement of the principles by which peace and joy can develop through the way we live our ordinary lives. > By unification of mind, I mean a mind that is stable, and not jumping > all over the place. That is also an excellent, pragmatic definition - the best kind if you want to see real development. > I don't mean full, pinpoint absorption in a single > phenomenon. That might be too hard, and too specific a goal, but can develop at the right time for the right purpose out of what you speak about above. Isn't it also true that sila as you define it and that basic stability of awareness combine together to create more peace and joy, and this allows more unification of mind? They seem to work together very nicely. > > ------------------------------------------------ > > Rob: > Could you say a word about how that direct observation is practiced, > develops and grows stronger? > ---------------------------------------------- > HCW: > No, not really any more than I've already said. This is funny, because right after saying this, that you can't say much more, you really made a very helpful statement about it! An initially > (reasonably) calm mind that somewhat restricts its domain of attention, and also > adds energetic effort to paying attention to what arises within that > restricted domain tends to become calmer, clearer, and suffused with pleasant > feeling and even joy, and the increased calm, clarity, peaceful joy, and > precision of attention leads to suppression of the hindrances, lessening of > conceptuality, and more and more directness of observation. > ------------------------------------------------ Well, Howard, I think that is one of your best statements to date, and an excellent definition of the elements that go into bhavana in its broader meaning. ------------------------------------------------ > Rob: > How do we weaken the hindrances so they can be "worked with" and "directly > understood" at some point? > ----------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Discussed above. The hindrances are weakened as one approaches access > concentration, weakened even more as one enters access concentration, and > strongly suppressed in the jhanas. > ---------------------------------------------------- Can you say a little more about this? I understand that the hindrances are weakened and then suppressed as one approaches and enters the jhanas, but is there a "beginner's" level in practicing mindfulness with which a lesser degree of samatha than access concentration can soften the hindrances enough to allow sati to begin to develop properly? And do you feel that only the development of samatha/jhana really weakens the hindrances? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #117289 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:02 am Subject: Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > I shall take some time over your Email to me. Very good remarks and > observations as usually! > > I notice that you do not have much confidence in the commentaries. > Reading more of these may induce confidence. Take Ven. Bodhi's notes > to his sutta translations, though he does not always agree. You have > these? His co. translations are not complete, just some short quotes. > I have many in Thai. What strikes me is that the co. often stresses > that the suttas deal with being in the cycle and freed from the > cycle: va.t.ta and viva.t.ta. Isn't this true? > I do not see that Buddhaghosa has 'his own agenda', promoting mostly > dry insight. He adds explanations in detail about calm and stresses > that calm may refer to the highest degree: accompanying the fruition- > consciousness of the arahat. Having eradicated all defilements is the > highest calm. What also strikes me that he points to insight, to > vipassanaa pa~n~naa, page after page. This is also dealt with in the > suttas, but he elaborates on this point, and is it not true that we > may overlook this? > All this is not Buddhaghosa's own idea, but he just edited the > ancient material he found in Sri Lanka and translated this into Paali. > I wonder whether you read much commentary? When one reads just a few > lines it does not give the whole picture. Usually lack of info builds > mistrust, but I do not know whether this is so your case. I also > heard from someone else that he found that the commentaries put layer > upon layer of meanings and are removed from the clear language of the > sutta. In such a case, I feel, there is again lack of understanding > of what the commentary meant. > One has to get used to the language of the commentary and the more > one reads the more one appreciates it. I find that it really helps me > to have more understanding of the contents of the Tipi.taka. > ------- I like a lot of what I read of Buddhaghosa, and I find commentary passages that are very worthwile to read, so I am not lacking in interest or appreciation of the commentaries in general. It is also true that I have not read enough of the commentaries to get the whole picture, that is for sure. However, when I read certain things that seem to really take away from what the Buddha said, I frankly get upset. When Buddha says very clearly that we should cultivate direct awareness of what exists, such as "in the seen only the seen," and then the commentary says that this kind of direct, simple awareness is like that of "canines" and is not what the Buddha meant, I feel the basic building block of mindfulness is being undermined, and that is very difficult to accept. I can't find another way to justify it. If there is a greater context that somehow winds up supporting the Buddha's "method" then I will be very happy. I am only going by what I actually read and what it says. It seems to me that I have to look at the meanings and not just the writer. Even if the writer is the most respected scholar who I otherwise very much respect, if he seems to undercut the Buddha I have to use my mind and the logic of what is being stated to see what is really true, as best as I can tell. But I will enjoy your further comments whenever you are able to reply. I will look forward to that! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #117290 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 9/11/2011 1:29:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote: ( D: 'not sure, one may consider that the urge of (the threefold ) tanha provides direction , the producer being 'outside' (avijja-sankhara) . ---------------------------------------------- HCW: All instances of tanha are among the conditioning dhammas I refer to above, and they are very important ones. And certainly what is craved provides "direction," but there is still no director, no agent-controller, no "one at the helm". D: we agree on " providing "direction'' , so let's say a director without helm ;-) ------------------------------------------------- HCW: I'm not prepared to say that. ;-) No helm, and no director - just impersonal, fleeting, conditioned phenomena. ----------------------------------------------- H: Tanha is just a mental phenomenon - fleeting, conditioned, and empty of self. D: not just a mental phenomenon . The Law of Dependent Orgination " describes the orgination of the whole mass of suffering which is tanha , the second Noble Truth . ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, it is of crucial importance - the primary condition for suffering. But nonetheless a mere impersonal, fleeting, conditioned mental phenomenon. Were it more, liberation would be impossible. -------------------------------------------- And as such D.O. includes in each link the delusion of self (conditioned by avijja -sankhara). ------------------------------------------ HCW: Yes, it does. I agree with that. --------------------------------------- That no self can be found , i.e. empty of self, is the nature of the delusion, which disappears by abolition of ignorance , doesn't it? -------------------------------------- HCW: Yes. -------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117291 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/11/2011 1:55:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > By sila I mean the usual: Living properly without doing harm and, if > possible doing good. I think that's a very good, pragmatic definition. Even an ordinary person can try to avoid doing harm and try to do good, and we can make progress at that, even though we fail many times. > Doing no harm avoids upset and promotes peace, and > doing good can even promote joy. That is also a good statement of the principles by which peace and joy can develop through the way we live our ordinary lives. > By unification of mind, I mean a mind that is stable, and not jumping > all over the place. That is also an excellent, pragmatic definition - the best kind if you want to see real development. > I don't mean full, pinpoint absorption in a single > phenomenon. That might be too hard, and too specific a goal, but can develop at the right time for the right purpose out of what you speak about above. Isn't it also true that sila as you define it and that basic stability of awareness combine together to create more peace and joy, and this allows more unification of mind? They seem to work together very nicely. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, indeed! -------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------ > > Rob: > Could you say a word about how that direct observation is practiced, > develops and grows stronger? > ---------------------------------------------- > HCW: > No, not really any more than I've already said. This is funny, because right after saying this, that you can't say much more, you really made a very helpful statement about it! ---------------------------------------------- HCW: ;-) I'm just expanding upon what I said previously. ----------------------------------------------- An initially > (reasonably) calm mind that somewhat restricts its domain of attention, and also > adds energetic effort to paying attention to what arises within that > restricted domain tends to become calmer, clearer, and suffused with pleasant > feeling and even joy, and the increased calm, clarity, peaceful joy, and > precision of attention leads to suppression of the hindrances, lessening of > conceptuality, and more and more directness of observation. > ------------------------------------------------ Well, Howard, I think that is one of your best statements to date, and an excellent definition of the elements that go into bhavana in its broader meaning. ------------------------------------------------ > Rob: > How do we weaken the hindrances so they can be "worked with" and "directly > understood" at some point? > ----------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Discussed above. The hindrances are weakened as one approaches access > concentration, weakened even more as one enters access concentration, and > strongly suppressed in the jhanas. > ---------------------------------------------------- Can you say a little more about this? I understand that the hindrances are weakened and then suppressed as one approaches and enters the jhanas, but is there a "beginner's" level in practicing mindfulness with which a lesser degree of samatha than access concentration can soften the hindrances enough to allow sati to begin to develop properly? ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, this happens. Development is usually gradual and unremarkable until, after a while, one takes a look and sees that "Oh, my! Some auspicious transformation has actually occurred." BTW, I probably should not have brought in access concentration and the jhanas at this point. ------------------------------------------------- And do you feel that only the development of samatha/jhana really weakens the hindrances? ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Oh, absolutely!! ----------------------------------------------- Best, Robert E. ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117292 From: A T Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:29 am Subject: Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. truth_aerator Hi RobE, all, >RE: However, when I read certain things that seem to really take >away from >what the Buddha said, I frankly get upset. When Buddha >says very clearly >that we should cultivate direct awareness of what >exists, such as "in the >seen only the seen," and then the commentary >says that this kind of >direct, simple awareness is like that of >"canines" and is not what the >Buddha meant, I feel the basic >building block of mindfulness is being >undermined, and that is very difficult to accept. I can't find another way >to justify it. >================================================================= You are absolutely right. I think it is very cruel to think that Buddha couldn't express His Dhamma in clear enough way, and in optimal amount for progress. IMHO, The Buddha was the best Dhamma Teacher who not only knew all the required information for Awakening, but who also knew HOW and how much to teach. I think it is heretical to insist that later monks could explain Dhamma better than the Buddha. The Buddha himself said that suttas & vinaya is the guide (AN 4.180 and DN16) not the words of a monk or group of monks. If Buddha's Dhamma is perfect in letter and meaning, then it cannot ever be improved, nothing to say by those far less qualified than the originator of it. Even during Buddha's time there were bad monks like Devadatta, Sāti, Ariṭṭha and Subhadda who serious wrong views and misunderstood Buddha's message. "Subhadda, who had renounced only in his old age, was seated in the assembly.[64] And he addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Enough, friends! Do not grieve, do not lament! We are well rid of that great ascetic. Too long, friends, have we been oppressed by his saying: 'This is fitting for you; that is not fitting for you.' Now we shall be able to do as we wish, and what we do not wish, that we shall not do." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html#fnt-64 So living even in those ancient times is no guarantee that the monk understood Buddha's teaching well. Even during the Buddha's time there was a (or more than one) schism. See MN48 for example. Not every monk agreed with every other monks, sometimes very heated quarreling could occur. How do we know from which monks we received the commentaries? In every schism there are two sides of the story, and none of them could be right since Awakened monks would never take sides in dispute (Snp 4.11-12) . As we know there were 18 or more pre-Mahayana schools. Most of them were destroyed in India by Muslim invaders. One surviving school survived because some monks escaped to Sri Lanka. What are the chances that only the school that has 100% true information has survived and only the mistaken schools have perished? With best wishes, Alex #117293 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:32 am Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > > > Hi RobE, > > > RE: Well, maybe you experience that, and I know that is also the popular view in the dsg community. Somehow we will keep promoting lobha and thinking it's panna. This again seems to me to be a false argument, and not related to whether meditation *really* helps develop kusala or not. > > pt: Hm, to me, whether we're talking about meditation or some other activity, what really happens is just kusala or akusala cittas, no other possibility (vipaka and kiriya don't seem to make a difference when it comes to development of a/kusala). So, if we're talking about meditation, then to consider if there are kusala or akusala cittas happening there seems relevant. Basically, in common non-technical terms, kusala and akusala is good and bad. So you are dividing experiential objects into those that are positive/good and negative/bad. That is a very gross division, doesn't really explain a whole lot. Obviously, that which is good/wholesome is good for development of the path, that which is bad takes you in the wrong direction. The concepts of goodness and badness are tied into the concepts of delusion vs. panna. So it is said that if you have more positive wholesome dhammas arising, their accumulation will lead to insight, correct knowledge, detachment. And with akusala the opposite, becoming further mired in delusion. It's really a simple, universal formula in that general way. Then all the various kusala and akusala dhammas are spelled out according to the Abhidhamma system and the dhamma theory that explains the universe in terms of various kinds of objects and mental factors. When you say that "knowing whether something that you experience is wholesome or not," to translate your language into common terms, is the key to development of wise understanding/panna, you've got a very general and very black-and-white formula. In fact, all of the dhamma theory's terms are very black-and-white and definitive. I for one am not convinced that dhammas arise and are taken in/responded to in such clear definitive terms. I do think it's convenient to talk about them that way, but don't think it's accurate to real experience. Because of this I think that to some extent we talk at cross-purposes, so I point this out. As I say, I think meditation is a developmental process. It's not a matter of "identifying kusala" as if kusala was an essence of goodness that existed as a thing and had a particular identity when it is recognized. "Kusala" is a generalization. It's an umbrella for a bunch of other types of specific dhammas that arise at different moments. Even "panna" is a generalization. Wise knowing, insight and other moments don't all look exactly alike. They arise in different contexts and have different feelings and mental factors associated with them. So this is then broken down too and all possible mental factors are ostensibly listed and sorted out to say 'this kind of panna' arises with 'this group of mental factors.' Again, I'm not sure how this maps to the experience of real moments, but it helps to describe them. It makes a big difference if you think, as I do, that this systematic description is a description, or whether you think it describes an exact depiction of micro-realities, like the periodic table of the elements in science which dependably can tell you which molecule has how many electrons. Abhidhamma commentarial breakdowns try to give this same level of objective certainty to how reality is constructed, but I'm not sure it maps to the structure of real moments all that neatly. Can we really say that a given experience is "all kusala" or "all akusala" or that this is the decisive factor as to whether sati will arise genuinely or not? I just don't see things in those black-and-white terms. I see some good and some bad arising at various times in the mind, in various combinations, and yes, it is helpful to break down what may be the elements of those experiences, but I see the development taking place through continued practice and development of the skills of discernment and the discipline of 'looking and seeing.' I don't see the arising of diverse dhammas as random, I don't see them as neatly divided between kusala and akusala, I don't see them neatly divided between little moments of panna and little moments of delusion. I think the mind and the mental moments that arise come in patterns, with of course interruptions, have some continuity and sense to them, and lead like complex sets of falling dominoes to different dependently arisen patterns, not just single, isolated moments outside of any discernible patterns. This is a big difference - I think activities that are practiced give rise to skills. And that skills themselves are not inherently kusala or akusala but are skillful. Of course a skill at discernment is ultimately "good," but a "good skill" can develop even under bad conditions, given some basic understanding and a correct way of practicing. There was a time when I didn't know how to use my lip muscles correctly to play a clear note on the clarinet. But once I learned that and had some training in how to work on those notes, I can now pick up the clarinet by myself and I know what muscles to strengthen and what kind of breath support to employ to gradually improve my tone and dynamics. And I think it's that way with sati and concentration, among other factors. I don't think you can practice "panna." Panna is a result of other factors, but I do think you can practice the development of mindfulness and that this in itself is "overall kusala." This idea that activities are totally unrelated to the arising of kusala states, and that practice does no good, well, I just think it's wrong. And I don't at all see that this is what the Buddha taught. He taught us to practice and develop these factors and in fact encouraged and said that we could and should. Maybe you are right and I just don't get it, but I don't see the logic to it. It just seems like the tenet of a philosophy that is adhered to, and the opposite of what the Buddha taught to let one's fate go to the winds and not actively strive to develop the acuity of the mind. > Further, if it's akusala (like lobha mistaken for panna), that'd be equivalent to an arising of a hindrance in meditation lingo, so I'd think that'd be a useful thing to watch for even for an adamant believer in meditation, and so, relevant to the question whether meditation develops a/kusala. I mean, you have to know about what's kusala and whats akusala in order to be able to conclude whether one or the other is developed. Well when you talk about being watchful for unskillful and unhelpful states and actions [internal or external,] absolutely, I would agree that it is more than useful to watch for those and see them for what they are as they arise. And in fact that is the work of meditation in any case, to become focused on what is, and to see it as it is, as it is occurring. But I don't think there's a magical good state or a magical bad state that makes this happen or not happen. I think it's a clunky, gradual process, like learning to play an instrument and what is most noticed is that the early notes are unskillful and the later notes are smarter and more skillful and thus more effective and pleasing. The radical non-doing [very much like zen!] practiced around here by not-practicing does leave us in a position of not being able to effect our development at all. I think that's a false conclusion drawn from anatta, that because there's no discrete self, that our kandhas can't rally to the cause of development. I think the opposite is the case. I will come back to say more later, now that I've probably got you rolling your eyes with another long monologue, but I'll leave you with the Buddha's instructions for beginning satipatthana. I wonder if this is what you attempted to do when you did your many hours of meditation in the past? Or were you practicing in a different way? They seem like clear instructions to me....And he doesn't say "This is one way to develop the path factors if you happen to be a jhana practitioner." No, he says, this is the ONLY way to develop enlightenment, through satipatthana, as described below: "And how does a monk live contemplating the body in the body? Herein, monks, a monk, having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree or to an empty place, sits down with his legs crossed, keeps his body erect and his mindfulness alert. ... Breathing in a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a long breath"; breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a long breath"; breathing in a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a short breath"; breathing out a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a short breath." "Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe in," thus he trains himself. "Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe out," thus he trains himself. "Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe in," thus he trains himself. "Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe out," thus he trains himself. Just as a skillful turner or turner's apprentice, making a long turn, knows, "I am making a long turn," or making a short turn, knows, "I am making a short turn," just so the monk, breathing in a long breath, knows, "I am breathing in a long breath"; breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a long breath"; breathing in a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a short breath"; breathing out a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a short breath." "Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe in," thus he trains himself. "Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe out," thus he trains himself. "Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe in," thus he trains himself. "Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe out," thus he trains himself." etc. These are not the words of the commentary, these are not the words of the Abhidhamma, these are not the words of a new-age Vipassana teacher [shout-out to Ken H.]; these are the words of the Buddha, and his teaching is clear. He is saying that this form of meditation should be practiced as described, and that it leads to the discernment of dhammas that develops satipatthana and enlightenment. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #117294 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Rob: > > Could you say a word about how that direct observation is practiced, > > develops and grows stronger? > > ---------------------------------------------- > > HCW: > > No, not really any more than I've already said. > > This is funny, because right after saying this, that you can't say much > more, you really made a very helpful statement about it! > ---------------------------------------------- > HCW: > ;-) I'm just expanding upon what I said previously. > ----------------------------------------------- Well, that's only to say that you are creating your own commentary on your original statement. I can't wait to read the sub-commentary! :-) Those can be very illuminating! :-))) ----------------------------------------------- HCW: > ...Development is usually gradual and unremarkable > until, after a while, one takes a look and sees that "Oh, my! Some auspicious > transformation has actually occurred." BTW, I probably should not have > brought in access concentration and the jhanas at this point. > ------------------------------------------------- Why not? If that is the point, why not make it? I can handle it. ;-) > And do you feel that only the development of samatha/jhana really weakens > the hindrances? > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > Oh, absolutely!! > ----------------------------------------------- Now, THAT you maybe shouldn't have said. But the cat's out of the bag now! ;-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #117295 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > ... after all these years at DSG (recently I came across your post, and Rob Es, from 2001! Happy 10th!!!) ... Hey, thanks for mentioning that! And we're all still here. Hm...I wonder if we even have a choice whether to have these discussions... I guess not... :-) > p.s RobE, thanks for your comments, I really can't branch of this conversation with Howard, this is a kind of training for me in Dhamma discussion, I don't want to get overwhelmed with too many posting duties. We will have a good discussion thread someday, I'm sure! No problem, Phil. I'll enjoy having had my say unopposed, and bask in the certain knowledge that I am right! ;-) Until someone else decides to burst my bubble... Be well, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #117296 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? upasaka_howard Hi again, Robert - In a message dated 9/11/2011 3:43:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: > And do you feel that only the development of samatha/jhana really weakens > the hindrances? > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > Oh, absolutely!! > ----------------------------------------------- Now, THAT you maybe shouldn't have said. But the cat's out of the bag now! ;-) =============================== Actually, I missed your word 'only' ! Here's what I think: Increased mental unification, calm, and mindfulness weaken the hindrances, with the weakening very strong when entry to jhana is close, but only in the jhanas is active functioning of the hindrances fully suppressed. And when it is fully suppressed, that, to my mind, is the stage of "meditation proper." With metta, Howard Hindrances /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains " going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it " and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #117297 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? philofillet Hi Rob E > > Hey, thanks for mentioning that! And we're all still here. Hm...I wonder if we even have a choice whether to have these discussions... I guess not... :-) Ph: No choice, previous visits condition those to come, the finger clicks SUBMIT moved by cittas that are accumulating day by day, month by month, decade by decade. In your case there is probably an accumulation of a lot of adosa acumulated as well that prevents dosa from conditioning a more or less permanent departure. Or lobha. Think how much more meditation tgere could be if it weren't for our attachment to DSG and (I assume) other aspects of media consumption. In lifetimes to come there might not be DSG, or if there is, hungry ghosts or canines may be moderating it instead of Sarah and Jon, which would not be good. Metta, Phil Metta, Phil #117298 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Correct? philofillet Thanks Dieter. I also found this from Honeyball. "Seeing consciousness arises dependent on eye and form,and the meeting of the three is contact." I withdraw the question. :) metta, phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Phil , > > > ''...Whatever, o brother, there exists of feeling, of perception and of mental formations, these things are associated, not dissociated, and it is impossible to separate one from the other and show their difference. For whatever one feels, one perceives; and whatever one perceives, of this one is conscious" (M. 43). > > with Metta Dieter > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: philip > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 5:03 PM > Subject: [dsg] Correct? > > > > es > Hi all > > "At a moment of seeing there is contact between visible object and the consciousness that sees." > > Is the above correct? Isn't it more accurate to say there is contact between eye sense and object and seeing consciousness arises as a result? > > metta, > phil > > > > > > > #117299 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:34 am Subject: Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, A T wrote: > So living even in those ancient times is no guarantee that the monk understood Buddha's teaching well. Even during the Buddha's time there was a (or more than one) schism. See MN48 for example. Not every monk agreed with every other monks, sometimes very heated quarreling could occur. How do we know from which monks we received the commentaries? In every schism there are two sides of the story, and none of them could be right since Awakened monks would never take sides in dispute (Snp 4.11-12) . I think the reason for trusting the commentaries are twofold: 1. Some trust the commentaries because they are said to have been written by the Theras, the elders of the tradition. I think these leaders of the Sangha are considered to have been arahants, or to have been very wise stream-enterers at the very least. 2. Others may trust the commentaries because they have studied them closely and in depth and truly feel that they are the complement of the Buddha's teachings, explaining them in greater detail and making sense of the whole system, as the Abhidhamma is also said to do by adherents in a similar way. Though we may disagree with the harmony of the commentaries with the sutta pitaka, we have to at least pay attention to the connections that are seen by avid students of the commentaries and suttas. My own feeling is that the commentaries should be approached with an open mind and respect, but I do not give them the same final authority that I give to the teachings that come directly from the suttas, and when I see a clear contradiction I have to go with the suttas and defend what I think is the Buddha's teaching. While I personally see an attempt in a number of commentaries to replace the Buddha's very direct methodology with a more intellectual and academic approach to understanding, my opinion is not based on a thorough investigation of the commentaries, so I have to take what I read on a case-by-case basis, with the Buddha however as my ONLY final authority. I just don't know if others who interpret the teachings, especially when they seem really far out, are fully enlightened or not, and I can only go by the wisdom that I see expressed in their writings, or whatever else I see. > As we know there were 18 or more pre-Mahayana schools. Most of them were destroyed in India by Muslim invaders. One surviving school survived because some monks escaped to Sri Lanka. What are the chances that only the school that has 100% true information has survived and only the mistaken schools have perished? Well, those who have a mystical view of the evolution of the Sangha may think that it was ordained by kamma and the conditions put in place by the Buddha's appearance for the Theravadin tradition to become the main strain of Buddhism, leaving aside the Mahayana tradition. Others may question the final authority of the Theravadin tradition and they have a right to do so. I think it takes a lot of study and cross-comparison to have an intelligent opinion about this, outside of the absolute authority of the teachings as they appear in the suttas. Thank Dhamma that the suttas remain available to us relatively intact! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = #117300 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:14 am Subject: Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. truth_aerator Hi RobertE, all, >RE:I think the reason for trusting the commentaries are twofold: > >1. Some trust the commentaries because they are said to have been >written by the Theras, the elders of the tradition. I think these >leaders of the Sangha are considered to have been arahants, or to >have been very wise stream-enterers at the very least. >============================================ How do we know that those monks were Arahants? As I understand it, multiple traditions claimed that their commentaries and/or Abhidharma came from Arahants. So when multiple traditions ascribe their teachings to Buddha or Buddha's chief disciples, whom do we trust and why? Only the Buddha could judge attainments of other people. Not only that, the Buddha did say that His teaching is to be compared with suttas & Vinaya. >2. Others may trust the commentaries because they have studied them >closely and in depth and truly feel that they are the complement of >the Buddha's teachings, explaining them in greater detail and making >sense of the whole system, as the Abhidhamma is also said to do by >adherents in a similar way. >======================================================= It may appear to disrespect the commentators (no disrespect is intended) but it follows what the Buddha Himself has said about his teaching. The Buddha himself said that suttas & vinaya is the guide (AN 4.180 and DN16) not the words of a monk or group of monks. If Buddha's Dhamma is perfect in letter and meaning, then it cannot ever be improved, nothing to say by those far less qualified than the originator of it. There can be a very learned elder with Wrong Views who has a large following. AN 5.88 . When Buddha was alive He could reject and correct the commentary of such and such a monk. But with the Buddha gone, He can not do this anymore which is why he may have told us in (AN 4.180 and DN16) to rely on sutta & vinaya. With best wishes, Alex #117301 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:25 am Subject: Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi RobertE, all, > > > >RE:I think the reason for trusting the commentaries are twofold: > > > >1. Some trust the commentaries because they are said to have been >written by the Theras, the elders of the tradition. I think these >leaders of the Sangha are considered to have been arahants, or to >have been very wise stream-enterers at the very least. > >============================================ > > > How do we know that those monks were Arahants? As I understand it, multiple traditions claimed that their commentaries and/or Abhidharma came from Arahants. So when multiple traditions ascribe their teachings to Buddha or Buddha's chief disciples, whom do we trust and why? Well, I agree with you. I don't consider the commentaries to have the certainty of the Buddha's words, and so I accord them respect but have to reserve the right to object when they contradict the suttas, especially directly. Others do not feel that way and consider the commentaries to be integral to the teachings. They see the suttas as malleable to the meaning of the commentaries, which to me is putting the commentaries first and the suttas second. I guess they trust the wisdom of the commentaries and consider the suttas a kind of shorthand, to be filled in in full detail by the Abhidhamma and commentaries. In some ways that may be true, but in my mind it is only when they shed light on the suttas without changing the meaning of what was said. > Only the Buddha could judge attainments of other people. Well that's a good point. And so it is worth asking who gave the stamp of authorization to the commentators to interpret the meaning of the suttas. I mean there's nothing wrong with a detailed and intelligent investigation of the suttas. These are very important. The question is whether they are on the same level as the suttas, and they are not and cannot be. > Not only that, the Buddha did say that His teaching is to be compared with suttas & Vinaya. > > > >2. Others may trust the commentaries because they have studied them >closely and in depth and truly feel that they are the complement of >the Buddha's teachings, explaining them in greater detail and making >sense of the whole system, as the Abhidhamma is also said to do by >adherents in a similar way. > >======================================================= > > > It may appear to disrespect the commentators (no disrespect is intended) but it follows what the Buddha Himself has said about his teaching. > > The Buddha himself said that suttas & vinaya is the guide (AN 4.180 and DN16) not the words of a monk or group of monks. If Buddha's Dhamma is perfect in letter and meaning, then it cannot ever be improved, nothing to say by those far less qualified than the originator of it. > > There can be a very learned elder with Wrong Views who has a large following. AN 5.88 . When Buddha was alive He could reject and correct the commentary of such and such a monk. But with the Buddha gone, He can not do this anymore which is why he may have told us in (AN 4.180 and DN16) to rely on sutta & vinaya. Certainly if we do not go back to the suttas and vinaya and make them the touchstone for any other views, that is a mistake. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #117302 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:32 am Subject: Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. truth_aerator Hi RobertE, >RE: Well, I agree with you. I don't consider the commentaries to have >the certainty of the Buddha's words, and so I accord them respect but >have to reserve the right to object when they contradict the suttas, >especially directly. Others do not feel that way and consider the >commentaries to be integral to the teachings. They see the suttas as >malleable to the meaning of the commentaries, which to me is putting >the commentaries first and the suttas second. I guess they trust the >wisdom of the commentaries and consider the suttas a kind of >shorthand, to be filled in in full detail by the Abhidhamma and >commentaries. In some ways that may be true, but in my mind it is >only when they shed light on the suttas without changing the meaning >of what was said. >======================================== You are right. But here is the difficult part. Which commentators to trust? There were many. While different schools had similar suttas, they had very different Abhidhamma pitakas, and different commentaries. For example Vimuttimagga (1st century) was more ancient work than Visudhimagga (5th Century), and was claimed to be written by Arahant Upatissa in Sri Lanka (the basis for Theravada) as well. On some things it differs greatly. Whom do we trust? Regarding newer and better explained teaching: The Theravada story is that Buddha taught Abhidhamma in heaven to the devas because he had to teach entire pitaka in one go and it would take whole 3 (or 4) month. He was using his Astral body to teach while he went in his physical body for Alms and to communicate the summary of it briefly to Saripputta (who is credited as author of multiple Abhidhammas). There is a story that Nagarjuna travelled to the Dragon Kingdom to discover newer and better explanation of what the Buddha has intended. These two stories share too many similarities and unfortunately it seems to be almost a matter of faith which story one believes. With best wishes, Alex #117303 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:54 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Phil. Okay, here I am butting in again, but I thought it would be a good chance to "speak for Ken H." I hope he appreciates it! :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi pt > > > pt: My thanks to you as well - your recent posts to KenH encourage being more constructive. In fact, I'm just in the process of tackling one of RobE's long posts, and it really does help. > > At some point perhaps you (or anyone!) could pop by that post I wrote to Ken H about how to explain an action such as giving alms in paramattha terms. I would like to discuss with you a topic such as that, how do conventional actions happen? Short answer: they don't. [speaking for Ken H., of course.] Conventional actions are like hallucinations, mental fabrications. In fact only single paramatha dhammas arise, one at a time. The types of cittas and mental factors that arise in the moment represent the "real" kusala aspect of those conventional actions, such as a moment of metta, etc. There are no conventional actions, period. If such concepts arise with kusala, it is because of the accompanying cittas and cetasikas around and between those thought-moments of "doing good" that have kusala. Let's see if Ken H. agrees with me. Signing back out, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #117304 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara nilovg Dear Ken O, Op 11-sep-2011, om 18:55 heeft Ken O het volgende geschreven: > KO: I am concern with the interpretation of text that is not in > accordance with the commentaries. With due respect to your teacher > AS, but there are a few terms of her interpretation does not > conform with the commentaries or texts. If we wish to promote the > confidence of the text, then we should follow what was written and > not what each one of us interpretated. ------ N: I see your point. The problem is that a text is interpreted differently by different people. It is not easy to solve this problem. BUt if you like you could indicate which terms you find controversial. Best to make short mails, one by one. Nina. #117305 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > In lifetimes to come there might not be DSG, or if there is, hungry ghosts or canines may be moderating it instead of Sarah and Jon, which would not be good. :-) In any lifetime, I'm sure that Jon and Sarah won't let that happen! I love that idea, it's a great image - though a little scary... Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #117306 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? nilovg Hi Howard and Rob E, Op 11-sep-2011, om 20:20 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > And do you feel that only the development of samatha/jhana really > weakens > the hindrances? > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > Oh, absolutely!! ------ N: But when emerging from jhaana, back are the hindrances! Only vipassanaa pa~n~naa can lead to their eradication. There should be awareness over and over again of clinging to sense objects, of aversion, of all akusala. Seeing them as only dhammas, not self, just conditioned realities. Nina. #117307 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 11-sep-2011, om 21:29 heeft A T het volgende geschreven: > RE: However, when I read certain things that seem to really take > >away from >what the Buddha said, I frankly get upset. When Buddha > >says very clearly >that we should cultivate direct awareness of > what >exists, such as "in the >seen only the seen," and then the > commentary >says that this kind of >direct, simple awareness is > like that of >"canines" and is not what the >Buddha meant, I feel > the basic >building block of mindfulness is being >undermined, and > that is very difficult to accept. I can't find another way >to > justify it. ------ N: You misunderstood the commentary here. Be aware of seeing when it appears so that (eventually) it will be understood as non-self. This is Tipi.taka and commentary. No contradiction. The co meant: knowing that we are walking or sitting is not the essence of sati, everybody knows that, even animals. But what they do not know: awareness of each naama and ruupa as it appears one at a time, to see it as only elements. ------- Nina. #117308 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:46 am Subject: The 4 Infinite States! bhikkhu5 Friends: Development of Infinite All-Embracing Kindness! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus and Friends: There are these four infinite mental states: The Bhikkhu pervades all beings with all-embracing friendliness... The Bhikkhu encompass all creatures with universal & endless pity... The Bhikkhu permeates all individuals with infinite and mutual joy... The Bhikkhu suffuses all living mortals with unlimited equanimity... First in one direction, then in the 2nd, then the 3rd, & finally the 4th , above, below, all around, in every location, unifying himself with all beings, he pervades the entire universe with a kind and all-embracing friendliness, with an all-encircling compassion & pity, with an all-enveloping mutual and altruistic joy, and with an all-encompassing imperturbable equanimity, fully utilizing a refined mind, made great, vast, profound, infinite, immeasurable, released from all hate, anger, irritation, opposition and stubbornness... Source: DN 33 Because of hate, overwhelmed and obsessed by hate, one lives while doing evil deeds, speaking wrong words, and thinking bad thoughts... Thus one neither really understands one's own welfare, nor the welfare of others, nor the welfare of both... If, however, this hate is overcome and subdued, then one lives while doing good deeds, speaking kind words, and thinking advantageous thoughts... Therefore one really knows, what is one's own welfare, for the welfare of others, & for the welfare of both one self & others... Source: AN 3:55 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <...> #117309 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? part 1. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 10-sep-2011, om 5:03 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > Howard: > Think, for example, of walking meditation: At first > > > there is only highly conceptual consciousness of the entire > > > body-in-motion, with most attention to "feet in motion," and with > > > background thinking in > > > terms of such concepts as body, legs, feet, lifting, moving, and > > > placing, > > > and of "me being in charge,"i.e., of "personal self" at the helm. > > ----- > > N: But in that case there is no satipa.t.thaana at all. > ------ > > R: My opinion would be that there is a mixture of concept and > experiencing, even at the beginning, and that satipatthana develops > gradually and becomes more refined through practice. > > Even at the beginning, walking meditation contains the instruction > to feel the sensations of the feet stepping, etc., and it is > relatively easy to start noticing somewhat direct experiences of > the hardness of the foot... > ----- N: This seems to be a selection of objects of awareness. Awareness is not noticing, that is thinking, or do you mean something else by noticing? ------- > > R: And the focus on the walking action and sensations, even in the > more general way, also develops a degree of calm and concentration, > which gradually increases as well. > ------- N: Some people (I do not know about you) take concentration and calm for sati. Concentration and calm may fool a person, they may not be what they seem to be. If right understanding of naama and ruupa is absent, it would be better not to pay attention to that type of calm and concentration, I would think. ------- > R: > > The commentary .... > > Going. The term is applicable both to the awareness of the fact of > > moving on and to the knowledge of the (true) characteristic > qualities > > of moving on. > > What is "moving on" as opposed to "going?" Obviously the monk is > going to attend the experiential sensations [rupas] and perceptions > and thoughts [namas] as he is going, and this will gradually > develop, but it looks from the text like the Buddha is okay > starting with the general sense of the activity. The commentary > dismisses this level, but the Buddha explicitly mentions it. One > starts by focusing on what is taking place, "going," as opposed to > something else. Then the focus can gradually become more specific. > ------- N: Here you have a point. I think that it means that the monk knows that he is going, and we all know that, don't we? And also that he attends to the paramattha dhammas that appear one at a time, such as hardness or oscillation. (coming back to this term) ------- > > R: It seems to me that this focus on "going," "sitting," "lying > down," "eating," or whatever, is a starting point to focus in the > correct area and then see what is happening more specifically from > there. > ----- N: One knows when eating, walking, that one is doing so, but I would not think so much about it, or think of it as a starting point. Or think: this is conceptual. It seems to me that there is so much thinking, it makes the whole matter so complicated. -------- > R: > > The terms sitting, standing and lying down, too, are > > applicable in the general sense of awareness and in the particular > > sense of knowledge of the (true) characteristic qualities. Here (in > > this discourse) the particular and not the general sense of > awareness > > is to be taken. > > Does that mean the commentary, or the original sutta? In the sutta, > it may be that the general sense is intended as an appropriate > starting point. Maybe not so in the commentary. > ------ N: The co. says: in this discourse. Anybody, also outside Buddhism, knows: I am walking, etc. Nothing special. But there is a misunderstanding that people take 'knowing what is going on' for sati and pa~n~naa of vipassanaa. That is all. The objects of vipassanaa are specific, and this is in the suttas, where the Buddha explains so often about seeing, visible object, etc. being impermanent, anattaa. All realities of daily life. Seeing is daily life, hearing is daily life. ------- > R: > > From the sort of mere awareness denoted by reference to canines and > > the like, proceeds the idea of a soul, the perverted perception, > with > > the belief that there is a doer and an experiencer. > > If I understand this sentence correctly, it doesn't make any sense > to me. It seems that the simple perception of action, as denoted by > canines, etc., does *not* promote the idea of a soul, but instead > puts the practitioner into contact with basic awareness of > experience without proliferation. > ------- N: Basic, raw awareness is not sati of satipa.t.thaana. It does not help one to get rid of the idea of 'I walk'. What is this 'I'? Only naama and ruupa. 'I' is not a reality, it cannot be directly experienced through one of the six doors. --------- > > R: > One who does not > > uproot or remove that wrong perception owing to non-opposition to > > that perception and to absence of contemplative practice cannot be > > called one who develops anything like a subject of meditation. > > What would this contemplative practice involve? Is there any > spelling-out in a further commentary of what kind of contemplation > is being advocated to root out the wrong idea of a self or soul? > ------- N: The practice of satipa.t.thaana. it has been explained in many places: no man, no woman, only naama and ruupa. -------- > Nina. > > #117310 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:02 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------------ > RE: These are not the words of the commentary, these are not the words of the Abhidhamma, these are not the words of a new-age Vipassana teacher [shout-out to Ken H.]; these are the words of the Buddha, and his teaching is clear. He is saying that this form of meditation should be practiced as described, and that it leads to the discernment of dhammas that develops satipatthana and enlightenment. -------------- KH: Thanks for the shout, Rob, it is high time I had a rant against the new-age. In these rants I like to refer to a book entitled SHAM, which is an acronym of Self Help Actualization Movement. The sub-title is How the Self-help Industry made America Helpless. I wish you would read it because I respectfully regard you and Howard - along with millions of other people around the world - as the helpless victims referred to, and I think it would help you. To illustrate my point I would like to get back to the sutta quote you have just given: ----------- > RE: They seem like clear instructions to me....And he doesn't say "This is one way to develop the path factors if you happen to be a jhana practitioner." No, he says, this is the ONLY way to develop enlightenment, through satipatthana, as described below: "And how does a monk live contemplating the body in the body? Herein, monks, a monk, having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree or to an empty place, sits down with his legs crossed, keeps his body erect and his mindfulness alert. ... Breathing in a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a long breath"; breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a long breath"; breathing in a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a short breath"; breathing out a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a short breath." "Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe in," thus he trains himself. "Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe out," thus he trains himself. "Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe in," thus he trains himself. "Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe out," thus he trains himself. Just as a skillful turner or turner's apprentice, making a long turn, knows, "I am making a long turn," or making a short turn, knows, "I am making a short turn," just so the monk, breathing in a long breath, knows, "I am breathing in a long breath"; breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a long breath"; breathing in a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a short breath"; breathing out a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a short breath." "Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe in," thus he trains himself. "Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe out," thus he trains himself. "Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe in," thus he trains himself. "Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe out," thus he trains himself." etc. -------------- KH: This sutta quote and its commentary have been discussed in great detail at DSG over the years. If I remember correctly, it hinges on the word translated as "knows." E.g., where it says "he knows, "I am breathing out a long breath"" Apparently that word doesn't mean "knows" in the ordinary (general) sense it means it in a particular sense - as in "knows how it is in truth and reality." So when the monk is breathing in a long breath he knows there is just one fleeting nama or rupa being experienced at one of the six doors and he know it is anicca dukkha and anatta. So the sutta is not talking about knowing in the way that ordinary people - and even dogs and jackals - know. If a person hadn't been told that how would he interpret this sutta quote? At best he would wonder what on earth it had to do with satipatthana. At worst he would think ordinary knowing *was* satipatthana. In that worst-case scenario he would be in exactly the same position as the poor helpless victims of the self-help industry. They pay good money to be told to follow ridiculous practices very similar to being aware "I am breathing in long" and "I am walking." It is absolute garbage and it does nobody any good. (Except, of course, it makes a lot of money for the self-help gurus.) Not only does it do no good, it does serious harm. Serious mental illness can result from that sort of thing. People become more and more helpless as they buy one stupid self-help book after another, and practice one meaningless self-help ritual after another. Please be warned: nothing good will come from practising "I am breathing in a short breath" or any similar malarkey. Only harm will come from it. Ken H #117311 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:21 pm Subject: Samatha and Vipassana, part 2. nilovg Dear Rob E, (continuation). > > > But the knowledge of this meditator sheds the belief in a living > > being, knocks out the idea of a soul, and is both a subject of > > meditation and the development of the Arousing of Mindfulness. > > What kind of knowledge is being referred to, and how is it > developed? What is the "subject of meditation" which develops the > Arousing of Mindfulness? It seems like it is referring to the > "knowledge" that has just been referenced, but there is no detail > on what that knowledge is about, or consists of. The knowledge that > there is no self? ------- N: Right. The only way is the development of satipa.t.thaana. That is the right knowledge or right understanding, vipassanaa pa~n~naa. All the suttas point to this. Subject of meditation, or kamma.tthaana: refers to vipassanaa. We read about the Buddha's daily routine that monks came to him asking for meditation subjects. The Buddha considered what would be most suitable for the monk who asked. For instance he pointed to the aayatanas, this refers to the meeting of visible object, eyesense and seeing. Or the khandhas: a specific way of classifying naama and ruupa. There are many aspects to naama and ruupa. For some: elements dhaatus is very helpful. All these classifications you can find in the suttas. ------ > R: > Is that knowledge of anatta developed by the contemplative > questions talked about below? > > > Indeed, who goes, whose going is it, on what account is this going? > > These words refer to the knowledge of the (act of) going (the > mode of > > deportment) of the meditating bhikkhu. > > This and what follows appears to be a contemplative form of > reasoning. It is using intellection to question the presence or > existence of the self. ------ N: Questioning helps people to consider the truth for themselves. We find in the Abhidhamma sections on questioning. Who goes? Not a person. Are we convinced about this? Maybe not yet. Pa~n~naa has to be developed more. I would say: good to realize this. ------- > This does not appear to me to have much to do with the practice of > mindfulness - direct development of satipatthana, but is an > intellectual method of elucidating the nature of anatta, similar to > the contemplation of the self in Advaita Vedanta, just to give a > parallel technique. ------ N: Effective, it induces a sense of urgency when realizing one's ignorance. When listening to audio you will notice that Kh Sujin often asks people questions to make them realize the truth for themselves. ------ > > R: In other words, it seems to me to be a method of the commentary > itself, not one that is derived from the sutta. Buddha's way of > coming to this realization in the practice of satipatthana is one > of direct observation, not of intellectual contemplation of anatta. ------ N: The Buddha asked very often: is seeing permanent or impermanent? In the Suttas we see that he asked questions to help people to realize the truth. As to intellectual contemplation of anatta, yes, this is correct. -------- > > R: Once again, I see a real and obvious divide between the Buddha's > method of realization, and that of the commentaries. They do not > seem to have the same purpose and methods, or objects of awareness. ------ N: Same, same all over, but I cannot help you further. You could read B.B.'s translation and co. notes. I feel that suttas are often compact and the Co. sthrows more light on them by giving more details. Also the ancient commentarial material was rehearsed at the councils. Ask Han more details. (How are you, Han?) But best is it to check by understanding more the present moment. Is the co. helpful as to this? One should find out for oneself. ------- > > R: There's nothing wrong with the contemplative method, and for > those of an intellectual nature it may be a very effective, though > more indirect, way of looking at the nature of dhammas, but it > seems to be using the sutta as a jumping-off point for its own > method of contemplation, rather than explaining or interpreting the > Buddha's intent in the suttas. ------ N: Contemplation: as I wrote to Howard: Contemplating the body in the body: kaayanupassii. Book of Analysis (Vibhanga) Ch 7, 357: ------- > >R: In the elucidation of these questions the following is said: Who > > goes? No living being or person whatsoever. Whose going is it? Not > > the going of any living being or person. On account of what does the > > going take place? On account of the diffusion of the process of > > oscillation born of mental activity. Because of that this yogi knows > > thus: If there arises the thought, "I shall go," that thought > > produces the process of oscillation; > > I don't understand what the process of oscillation is, but I am > sure that direct satipatthana has to do with realization of the > self-less nature of dhammas through observation, not derivative > mental contemplations. > > > the process of oscillation > > produces expression (the bodily movement which indicates going > and so > > forth). The moving on of the whole body through the diffusion of the > > process of oscillation is called going. The same is the method of > > exposition as regards the other postures: standing and so forth. > > There, too, the yogi knows thus: If there arises the thought, "I > > shall stand," that thought produces the process of oscillation. > > I think this is a very strange formulation. It is pretty rare that > someone "thinks" beforehand, "I shall stand." In fact, one simply > has the impulse to stand and then stands. This idea that there is a > thought that starts a process of oscillation seems like a very > strange and complex reconstruction of a very basic experience. I > wonder what is meant by the "thought," "I shall stand?" Does the > commentary mean the "impulse" to stand, or an actual "thought?" -------- N: Process of oscillation, this refers to the great elements, to the ruupas involved. One of these is the element of wind or motion which plays its part when moving about. Citta motivates what we call going. That is all. Do not think too much behind all this. It is simple, indicating naama and ruupa that fulfill their functions when we wrongly believe 'I am going'. There is no question of thinking first, no time! It is not discursive thinking. It refers to cittas performing their functions. In Pali the word is used placed at the end of a phrase, and this is often translated by or , but it does not necessarily mean thinking a whole story. It can refer to a quick motivation by citta. ------ > > R:If it is meant to denote a thought, that seems like a very > intellectually-linguistically driven model of how action takes > place, and a very different standpoint of that of "raw awareness" > which is the basis of simple mindfulness leading to clear seeing of > the moment. ----- N: See above. It is not as complicated as you think. The commentary is not as complicated as you believe, but background of Abhidhamma knowledge is helpful to get the whole picture. And above all: not intellectualization, but check this moment now. There is hardness impinging, is that so complicated? Heat, cold, all impinging now Let us study them. This is in Vinaya, Sutta, Abhidhamma and commentary. ------- Nina. #117312 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: seclusion. Was: Not Who, but What? nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 10-sep-2011, om 19:31 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > > > ( D: 'Perhaps Nina may comment as well as in respect to the Pali > translation of > kaya -vupakasa and citta-vupakasa . > N: Vuupasama: calm, cessation. > > > D: I think , both Vince and I are confused about the translation ' > seclusion ', which in today's meaning obviously refers to a place/ > locality only . > > N: kaaya viveka (physical seclusion) citta viveka > upadhi viveka ( as to all subtrates of rebirth, this is of the > arahat who has eradicated all defilements) > > D: assuming hat viveka can be synonym with vupakasa > and both may express place and state (?) > ------- N: vuupasama seems to me more: mental seclusion, away from defilements. That is true calm. > ------- > K IV, 32. Suttas on Migajaala: about a dweller alone. Who is freed > from craving. The objects experienced through the different doorways > are mentioned separately. Craving is the mate he has left behind. > Even if he dwells amids a crowd he is a dweller alone. > > D: ' Even if he dwells amids a crowd he is a dweller alone ' , here > is no difference of both place and state. > Another term than seclusion should be found ... > ------- N: The true sense of being removed from defilements. This is what really matters. ------- > > N: I think that just physical secludedness without the mental is > not of much benefit. > > D:quotion about Rahula refers to physical secludedness (he may live > 'secluded, zealous, ardent and aspiring') , it is a traning for the > mental one , isn't it? > ------- N: It depends on the individual inclination. Saariputta had taught him awareness of breathing, and he was sitting in seclusion. Saariputta did not know that the Buddha had taught him about ruupas and all the khandhas. The Buddha taught him about all naama and ruupa and after that he would speak about mindfulness of breathing. Co to the Raahulovadasutta: ------- > > D: (Vince provided the example of Ajahn Cha ) > Pls compare with the standard of the Maha Satipatthana > [1] "There is the case where a monk - having gone to the > wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building - sits > down folding his legs > crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the > fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; > mindful he breathes > out." and " He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily > fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily > fabrication.'" > ------- N: This is all according to the accumulations of different people. -------- > > > N: Indriya sa"mavara siila, different translations, restraint of > the senses, control of the senses, guarding the senses. > So long as we understand: pa`n~naa and sati are the conditions, not > a self who forces. > > D: all concerning Right Effort in detail , the efforts of avoiding, > overcome, develop , maintain (see previous mail) > ------ N: Right effort of the eightfold Path accompanies right understanding. ------ > > D: not a self .. nevertheless a will of an individual (" The monk > rouses his will .." ) , which takes care by his /her reaction . > I.e. not fatalistically bound on condition which appears at contact > (passa). > ------ > N: Will: cetanaa, this is a cetasika and as such a conditioned reality. No fatalism here. There is no fatalism in the teachings. ----- Nina. #117313 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What? nilovg Dear Vince, >> Understanding of conditionality works to disentangle the film, and >> this is in >> fact an operation of detachment by means the understanding. Then, >> asking for >> a practice it would imply the involving of a -self to make >> something with >> "my object" of practice, and it seems to work against the >> development of the same >> schema. Therefore, the opposition sounds very logical. ------ N: Right, understanding leads to detachment. Detachmen is the goal, but one may forget and attachment slips in all the time, even without noticing this. For example when one thinks, 'my practice'. There may be agreat deal of clinging. ------- >> >> V: When I remember all that then I agree about not need to >> practice. When I forget >> it because dhukka is strong and the present moment is missed, then >> I need to make >> something, to make some effort. I think it is because attachment, >> which is able >> to block what we already know. ------- N: Yes, it blocks, in is contraproductive. When pa~n~naa realizes this it can be corrected. ------ >> V: Any effort is not understanding but sometimes it can works to >> recover the >> calm, as in the example of Kisa Gotami. When she was exhausted >> then she was ready >> to understand. The effort was meaningless although finally it was >> useful. >> So I have a mixed feeling about the utility of a common practice. ------ N: Right effort is good, but it has to go along with understanding, then it is not 'my effort' which is wrong. ----- Nina. #117314 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:11 pm Subject: Taiga, my young friend, and how it "all sucks"! sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Rob E, thx for all your good wishes. Did you get to Florida? Howard, glad you remained safe and that you proved that the 'non-electricity-secluded-life' doesn't mean a greater sati!! As it happens, I have a niece that's working somewhere at a seaside resort on the East coast towards Washington, I think, and it seems she and most the resort were evacuated. Last I heard, they were all camping in a large gymnasium somewhere Japanese-style. Probably a test of the opposite - lots of electricity and no seclusion at all! Nina, you'll be glad to hear that in addition to family, I saw various friends who came down to visit me at my mother's cottage in the countryside. Most of the time we could go for lovely country walks and sit in her beautiful English garden in full bloom and with lots of fruit trees. Alan Weller came down one afternoon. Amongst lots of other topics, we discussed the point about ditthi not arising in the case of animals and small children or when we don't think about realities. People always find this difficult, it seems. We also discussed a little about samatha and jhana attainement. K.Sujin had said something which had had an impact on him. She had asked him if he wished to see. A simple question. Of course we'd like to see all the visible objects, all the colours we take for the beautiful garden, the plums, the figs, the apples, our family and so on. There is attachment to seeing throughout the day. Do we really not wish to see, to really be detached from sense objects now? What else, please tell Lodewijk too that my mother is really well. There were a lot of people around most of the time as so many family members came down for my nephew's wedding. I was trying to make it as easy as possible for her and also to fit into her way of living, which includes, btw Howard, max. one light-bulb on in the cottage at a time and only when it's dark! There's still no broadband in her village and she has no 'gadgets' at all. Simple living, surrounded by lots of woods/forests which Alex will be glad to hear I spent lots of time in!! Also she and I had almost daily swims in the cold English Channel, walking on the pebbly beach - very zen-like. I've already used all my accumulated flight miles to book her a ticket to Australia for February! Back in Hong Kong, Nina, you'll be interested to hear that on the very warm and sandy beach here yesterday, I had a long dhamma discussion with a child, Taiga. Taiga is half-Japanese, half-Australian and about 9 or 10 years old. He was having a major sulk and not speaking to his family. "Life sucks" he told me. To his surprise, I agreed with him that homework "sucks", working "sucks", getting old and dying "sucks". Being born to have lots of "sucks" then dying. I talked about the Buddha's teaching on Suffering and how even the fun things like eating ice-cream and seeing beautiful sights "sucks", because nothing we taste, eat, see or hear lasts. We like it and then it falls away, it dies too. Dying each moment, more "sucks" and at the end of this life, such as for his grandpa who recently died, more "sucky" life goes on. Only one escape, one way out - becoming very wise now and being so good that none of these sucky things bothered one any more. Taiga and his brother are also mean to insects, so including his younger brother now, we also talked about different kinds of rebirth in different planes and the results of being kind/mean to insects, to others on the beach and treating one's family well. Phil, you'd have liked the chat about heavenly and hell realms. A carrot? The conversation was repeated by Taiga in part to his father, a friend of ours, who looked most bemused by it all, but at least his son was no longer sulking, probably because he'd just forgotten for the moment he was in a bad mood with everyone. Also, I had offered to join him and his brother for some tree-climbing!! Enjoying catching up with all the posts and discussions. Thank you all for the lively discussions.... Metta Sarah ====== #117315 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:41 pm Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > I appreciate the effort to reply while on the run. Enjoy England! That sounds like a change of pace. > > I'm afraid pt may have joined the group at dsg that is driven to distraction by my long-winded posts. :-) .... S: I'm sure it's part of the strategy to beat us all into submission and agreement:-) Yes, a big change of pace from Hong Kong and I got used to the green tea with lemon first thing in the morning when I'd go downstairs in the dark and sip it whilst listening to the radio news and before clearing a space amongst her antique furniture to do some yoga before anyone else made an appearance. Then I'd go for a long walk with one brother or other before a family breakfast - a lovely routine. ... > >S: 2.Brains and bodies - cannot be seen, heard, tasted or touched - only thought about! Only seven rupas experienced through the 5 sense doors. > >R: The question is whether the understandings of the "conglomerated rupas" formed by sanna, etc., while not directly experienced, have any degree of accuracy as to how the rupas "line up" and what they represent. .... S: More helpful to just understand the thinking as it is, just thinking about various concepts, no matter whether they are well or ill-founded concepts. I'll have to return to the rest of your post later when I'm not so befuddled.....:-) Metta Sarah ======= #117316 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:00 pm Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, OK, for now, I'm going to just "cherry-pick" the first point in each post for reply. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > >S: 1. There is no table!!! > >R: Got it - no table. The problem is that there are still a couple of ways to interpret that, so I've been looking for a more precise idea of what *does* exist. I know the individual rupas arise, that's great. It now looks like there is 'no table or anything like it' period, and that is pretty radical if that is the case. ... S: Yes, the Buddha's teachings are "pretty radical". If they weren't radical, they wouldn't have needed a Buddha to point them out. What exists are just experiences through the senses and thinking about them at this very moment. "No table or anything like it" as you say. If there is no thinking now about 'table', where is it? As we read "life exists in a moment", just this moment. One world at a time. And all the dreams I have about recently picking cherries, plums, apples, blackberries and figs are just dreams - the dream-world we live in most of the day. Actually, wherever we are (and that idea of place is just another concept too), there are just moments of seeing visible object, hearing sound, smelling odour, tasting flavour, touching tangible object and thinking about these experiences - usually in complete ignorance. ... >R:However, it begs the question of why these patterns of rupas arise in good order that so easily are assembled into these very sensible false objects, such as tables, bodies - complete with hearts and digestive tracts, etc. - and varieties of fruit that all bear certain similarities and differences, etc. Is there a good explanation for what these orderly sets of 'non-object' rupas are doing arising in such sensible and convenient order? .... S: Conditions for particular rupas to arise, further conditions for particular rupas to be experienced. We can go into a lot of detail about the conditions for the arising of particular rupas and particular groups of rupas and why, according to kamma and other conditions, particular rupas are experienced at this very moment. However, it is the direct experiencing of dhammas as dhammas, of rupas as rupas at this very moment that matters. Only the direct understanding of what appears now will lead to the eradication of the idea of a whole, a thing, a being or other entity. Metta Sarah p.s I so appreciate (hmmm , so attached to) my macbook air after the break, even though there are just rupas being experienced!! Another fantasy.... ====== #117317 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:07 pm Subject: Re: On the train and at the beef bowl place sarahprocter... Hi Phil, (& Rob E), Great discussions & qus... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > No, that was the world conjured by my accumulations, the guy next to me might have "seen" an angry looking "man", we all live in different worlds conjured by the operation of dhammas, fascinating! .... S: Exactly so.... again, as you've been referring to: from the Honeyball Sutta (MN18): "What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates." Keep sharing your reflections. Metta Sarah ==== #117318 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:11 pm Subject: Re: The Implications of Foulness of the Body sarahprocter... Hi Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > S: The Buddha's Teachings help us to get closer and closer to understanding the nature of dhammas and eventually the ti-lakkhana of dhammas. If we insist on the Teachings just being about a conventional understanding of old age, sickness and death as opposed to the momentary aging, sickness and death of dhammas, we might as well study any other kind of conventionally wise teaching. > > L: That's why we consider and understand sickness, old age, death with the whole paticcasamupadda. .... S: That was a good comment. Would you like to elaborate? Yes, even now, the attachment to seeing, the ignorance about what is seen, all leads to the continuation of life, the continuation of old age, sickness and death. I told Alan Weller a little more about you, so when you next visit England, he hopes to meet you. Metta Sarah ====== #117319 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:22 pm Subject: Conventional actions, such as putting alms in a bhikkhu's bowl. philofillet Hi Rob E and all > Short answer: they don't. [speaking for Ken H., of course.] > > Conventional actions are like hallucinations, mental fabrications. In fact only single paramatha dhammas arise, one at a time. The types of cittas and mental factors that arise in the moment represent the "real" kusala aspect of those conventional actions, such as a moment of metta, etc. There are no conventional actions, period. If such concepts arise with kusala, it is because of the accompanying cittas and cetasikas around and between those thought-moments of "doing good" that have kusala. > Ph: Somehow that doesn't seem conistent with the thinking of someone who thinks there is value in observing conventional actions as objects of satipatthana. If you are going to believe that "he knows he is walking forward" means walking forward in the conventional sense, it means you believe that there are conventional actions, I think. I don't know how you can write what you wrote above, and still reject Buddhagosa's commentary to MN10, the canine part. As for me, I think eventually I will come to understand I am wrong, but for now I still believe there are conventional actions, but that they happen through the operation of rupas motivated by cittas. There is killing. Killing cannot occur in a single citta, it has to be done by countless citta processes conditoining rupa in a way that results in an action that we call killing. Or so it seems to me. Or an action that is putting food in a bhikkhu's bow. Let me add her what I wrote in another post. If anyone was thinking about responding to that post, please respond here instead. I wrote: I believe it is correct to say that physical actions are caused by citta conditioning rupas that arise and fall away to give the impression of, say, giving. Lifting the arm and moving it to place alms in a monks bowl cannot be one citta. There are many cittas causing many rupas to arise (they fall away again) in a way that causes the conventional act of moving the arm. I assume that within all those cittas there could be kusala and akusala, within a single lifting of the arm, rupa conditioned by alobha rooted cittas, rupa conditioned by lobha rooted cittas, there couldn't be all one or the other, it seems to me. Of course more likely that the lobha rooted cittas would arise after the donation. Let's say the giving is spontaneous, unprompted. I like a story Christine tells in a talk of feeling irritated that there were monks taking money in India, complaining about it to friends, but then, when passing one of those monks, unprompted generosity arose and she gave to one of the monks. The arm lifted by kusala cittas, and then perhpas as soon as the loot was in the bowl, the arm falling away with cittas already rooted in dosa or accompanied by mana etc. My point is that a single action can't be said to be the metaphor of a single citta. There is too much going on at the paramattha level in a single giving of alms, for example. Probably. Does that make any sense to you all? I'm very happy to have this nascent understanding led in a new direction, but obviously it will take take, it is a difficult topic. Metta, Phil p.s sarah and jon, where would I find posts related to this topic in the U.P section? I scanned the rupa related topics, but couldn't see anything. I want to read more about the way it appears that rupas conditioned by cittas perform conventional actions.... #117320 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:31 pm Subject: Re: Indian 2004, Lumbini Day One (Audio talks) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, back to your great comments and discussion from the audio: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: >P: 2) What is the difference between dreaming when we are asleep, and the way we experience people and thinks, lost in the sea of concepts. This is the sort of thing I love hearing from A.S, I feel that rather than saying "there is only the presently arisen nama and rupa" as if we actually had awareness of it, it is more useful to better understand how we customarily go through life, and that is lost in the sea of concepts, under the roof of lobha, behind the black curtain of moha, etc, very effective metaphors for how faint our understanding is. .... S: And yet the only way there will ever be the realisation that it is mostly dreaming now, lost in the sea of concepts, under the roof of lobha etc, is by understanding "there is only the presently arisen nama and rupa". I mean, it is because there is not an understanding of dhammas now that we are lost in that sea. Without even a pariyatti level of understanding of dhammas, it's impossible to know what is meant by the "sea of concepts", surely? Btw, I've read about the fire-stick analogy which you like in the Atthasalini, the commentary to the first book of the Abhidhamma. I've quoted it before, but don't have the text here and can't find my message with the quote now. Metta Sarah ===== #117321 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introductions - Khalil Bodhi sarahprocter... Hi Mike, > In a message dated 8/27/2011 6:35:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > mdrickicki@... writes: > My name is Mike but I go by the name Khalil Bodhi on several fora (it > happens to be my son's name). I have been a practicing Buddhist mainly in the > Theravada for about 6 years and have been primarily concerned with the > cultivation of the brahma viharas. I was hoping to elicit some advice on > effective techniques for cultivating metta and karuna so any comments would be > appreciated. Thank you for this group and be well. Sukhitaa hontu! ... S: Thx from me too for introducing yourself and raising a good question. I was interested to see all the different responses. Now, we're communicating with friends, maybe having chats in between with family members or on the telephone, maybe noticing insects in the room. The only way metta and karuna will develop now is through understanding more about their qualities and the value of developing all kinds of wholesome states. Do we understand the benefit of being friendly and helpful to each other now? Do we understand the value of putting others' needs before our own? It is through understanding that any kinds of kusala, wholesome states, develop. Where are you from, Mike? Welcome here! Metta Sarah ===== #117322 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Taiga, my young friend, and how it "all sucks"! nilovg Dear Sarah, welcome back. I had hoped you would report your Dhamma discussions in England. Good you saw Alan Weller. I told him that I read aloud all my writings to Lodewijk and then add corrections. He wants to see them all, some work ahead! Op 12-sep-2011, om 10:11 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > > We also discussed a little about samatha and jhana attainement. > K.Sujin had said something which had had an impact on him. She had > asked him if he wished to see. A simple question. Of course we'd > like to see all the visible objects, all the colours we take for > the beautiful garden, the plums, the figs, the apples, our family > and so on. There is attachment to seeing throughout the day. Do we > really not wish to see, to really be detached from sense objects now? ------ N: A good way to check whether one is really ready to develop jhaana in all sincerity. Does one really want to depart from sense objects? Or does one just have an idealized vision about wanting to develop jhaana? ------ > > S: What else, please tell Lodewijk too that my mother is really > well. ... I've already used all my accumulated flight miles to book > her a ticket to Australia for February! ------ N: That is very good, I appreciate your thoughts. ------- > S: I had a long dhamma discussion with a child, Taiga. Taiga is > half-Japanese, half-Australian and about 9 or 10 years old. > Dying each moment, more "sucks" and at the end of this life, such > as for his grandpa who recently died, more "sucky" life goes on. > Only one escape, one way out - becoming very wise now and being so > good that none of these sucky things bothered one any more. ------ N Good discussion with such a young child. You placed yourself very well into his world of thinking. ------ Nina. #117323 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introductions - Khalil Bodhi nilovg Dear Sarah and Mike, Op 12-sep-2011, om 11:38 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > Do we understand the benefit of being friendly and helpful to each > other now? Do we understand the value of putting others' needs > before our own? ------ N: Most important reminder. Some people just think of meditating on metta but forget the persons who are next to us now. I liked Sarah's report fo adjusting to the lifestyle of her mother to make things easy for her. So concerned about others wellfare. Nina. #117324 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:52 pm Subject: Who is better off? philofillet Hi all I was listening to a talk I hadn't heard before in which Sarah reported some of my questions to Acharn Sujin. I guess I hadn't heard it because by the time it was put up, I was in my fully blown anti-Sujinist ranting phase and didn't listen. And if I had heard the following last year, I would have spewed bile all over the place. The question arose from a discussion based on my question about how can panna develop until there is sila. Now I don't struggle with that, I understand that the idea of sila coming first was incorrect. But there are limits. Rob K asked this: "Who is better off, the person who does a lot of kusala, but doesn't have understanding or the person who does a lot of akusala but has understanding." Acharn Sujin's was, what leads to the end of the path? or words to that effect, the person who does a lot of akusala but has understanding is better off. But I still cannot fully accept the notion that a person who does a lot of akusala but "has understanding" is better off than a person who does a lot of kusala without panna. In the first place, if a person has enough understanding that it is valuable to that degree, how could he continue to do "a lot of akusala?" If he *is* doing a lot of aksuala, it indicates that the "understanding" is not that valuable, I think. If we do a lot of akusala, the probability of a rebirth in a woeful realm is increased. In a woeful realm, there is not opportunity for understanding to develop. I can't believe that understanding that was gained in the human realm, for example, will somehow be carried along through the countless lifetimes that will be required to re-emerge from the woeful realms. And this is the imagergy that is used by the Buddha, we all know about the blind sea turtle and the yoke floating on the great seas.... Metta, Phil #117325 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:57 pm Subject: Re: One who wishes for Deva realm rebirth sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Very behind with reading, so not sure if anyone found the text. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Can anyone help me find the text that says that one who wishes for Deva realm rebirth should wish for all creatures to be free from affliction etc? .... S: Meanwhile, must be from the Metta sutta commentary or similar. How about a combination from the Vism of: "52. .....May all those in states of loss in the eastern direction ... {etc.] ... be free from enmity, affliction, and anxiety, and live happily' (Ps.ii,131)." and "37.... 'Bhikkhus, when the mind-deliverance of lovingkindness is cultivated, developed, much practised, made the vehicle, made the foundation, established, consolidated, and properly undertaken, eleven blessings can be expected. What are the eleven? a man sleeps in comfort, wakes in comfort, and dreams no evil dreams, he is dear to human beings, he is dear to non-human beings, deities guard him, fire and poison and weapons do not affect him, his mind is easily concentrated, the expression of his face is serene, he dies unconfused, if he penetrates no higher he will be reborn in the Brahmaa-world' (A.v,342). If you do not stop this thought, you will be denied these advantages.'." Metta Sarah ====== #117326 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:04 pm Subject: Re: Indian 2004, Lumbini Day One (Audio talks) philofillet Hi Sarah, Thanks, welcome back. >Without even a pariyatti level of understanding of dhammas, it's impossible to know what is meant by the "sea of concepts", surely? Right! So very grateful to have gained access to an understanding of dhammas. I do feel these days as I often hear you say in talks that a lot of burdens are dropped. I'm feeling less sensitive about clinging to comfort involved, that can be understood as well, all that lobha. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > #117327 From: "philip" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:07 pm Subject: Re: One who wishes for Deva realm rebirth philofillet Hi Sarah > Very behind with reading, so not sure if anyone found the text. Thanks for the references, but not the one from my notebook, which was explicitly stated in first person, something like "And what is the mental beahviour of he who aspires to rebirth in a heavenly realm? 'Oh may I be born amoung the shining gods'" or something like that. As Christine suggested, it might have been a Mahayana teaching that found its way into my notebook, because I also asked at Dhammawheel where there are lots of people who know their suttas, and nobody came up with it. Not important, it's certainly not my aspiration.... Metta, Phil #117328 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:46 pm Subject: Re: On the train and at the beef bowl place sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & Phil, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > By the way, with Nina and Sarah away, I am missing my Dhamma Mommies terribly. Waaa! Waaaa! > > Don't worry, your "Dhamma brothers and sisters" will be happy to fill you with misinformation while the Moms are away. ;-) > > Let's talk about the intentional development of bhavana by counting breaths and using new age relaxation techniques! ;-) ... S: :-)) LOL! I know, while the cats are away..... and like any cry-baby, Phil appreciates his Dhamma Mommies most when they go away:-)) Good to read all the good humour and friendly banter! Metta Sarah ==== #117329 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/12/2011 2:02:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard and Rob E, Op 11-sep-2011, om 20:20 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > And do you feel that only the development of samatha/jhana really > weakens > the hindrances? > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > Oh, absolutely!! ------ N: But when emerging from jhaana, back are the hindrances! Only vipassanaa pa~n~naa can lead to their eradication. There should be awareness over and over again of clinging to sense objects, of aversion, of all akusala. Seeing them as only dhammas, not self, just conditioned realities. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Again, as I wrote to Robert recently, I had missed his word 'only'. My belief is that regular cultivation of samatha strongly weakens the hindrances, and samatha can be cultivated without jhana by the regular development of sila and proper contemplation. I also note that the hindrances are especially weakened by cultivation of the 4 foundations of mindfulness (see the Nivarana Sutta, AN 9.64). Of course, along with satipatthana cultivation, jhana is developed, and jhana temporarily suppresses the nivarana, abandoning them fully, though only for the while. Regardind the hindrances being back in force upon emerging from the jhanas, yes, that is so. Two things though: 1) The frequent "entry" to jhana has a somewhat lasting effect on moderating the severity of the hindrances at ordinary times, and, more importantly, 2) The full suppression of the hindrances during jhana solidifies the jhana, "locking in" the state and enabling it's full benefit. For non-arahants, and especially for worldlings, being "in" jhana and the circumstance of full suppression of hindrances co-occur and are virtually synonymous. For worldlings, the hindrances are at least somewhat active exactly whenever the state of mind is not jhanic. For arahants, though, the hindrances are never active, for they, along with all defilements, have been permanently removed by the root. I suspect this is so even at earlier ariyan stages. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nina. ================================= With metta, Howard Hindrances /Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains " going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it " and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a seeker has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, i.e., sensual desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & anxiety, and sceptical doubt, when s/he is without strength and too weak in discernment to understand what is for one's own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, then to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible/ (From the Avarana Sutta) #117330 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? truth_aerator Hi Howard, Robert E, all, My understanding that frequent suppression of the hindrances, be it through jhana or not, weakens the hindrances little by little. The more often and harder the hindrances are weakened, the less they are able to come back. Eventually they will weaken so much that it will be possible for them to be totally removed. The object of meditation may be many things, a color disc, breathing, observing the four postures (one can't just sit for 24/7), etc is simply a help to retrain the mind in a new wholesome direction (let go off craving and other hindrances). The less hindrances there are, the more likely one that is equipped with right theoretic views to see things as they are. I believe that there are good actions and bad actions. Cultivating the good actions strengthens good actions, while following bad actions strengthens bad actions. Eventually doing good actions will accumulate and become spontaneous, just like a 2nd nature. So before reaching the stage of "no practice", practice is required. The reason why non-Buddhist fail is imho due to the fact that they don't train to let go off all clinging unlike good Buddhists. The cling to the idea of a Self and use the practice to get there. Buddhists may use the similar tools but for the purpose of letting go of all craving. ============================================================== 238. Make an island unto yourself! Strive hard and become wise! Rid of impurities and cleansed of stain, you shall not come again to birth and decay. 239. One by one, little by little, moment by moment, a wise man should remove his own impurities, as a smith removes his dross from silver. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.18.budd.html With best wishes, Alex #117331 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. ashkenn2k Dear Alex You are absolutely right. I think it is very cruel to think that Buddha couldn't express His Dhamma in clear enough way, and in optimal amount for progress. IMHO, The Buddha was the best Dhamma Teacher who not only knew all the required information for Awakening, but who also knew HOW and how much to teach. I think it is heretical to insist that later monks could explain Dhamma better than the Buddha. KO: If one do not understand the commentaries, then one should not comment because the commentaries are written in by the disciples of Buddha to explain his teaching at that time. They are all Arahants without defilement. They may not have the omniscient wisdom of Buddha but that do not mean, they do not understand the teachings of Buddha and what Buddha saying. Why did commentaries language is so different from the first sutta, to me it is very simple because Buddhaghosa used the language of his time to translate from Sinhales. The language would have changed form through the years and through geographical and cultural influences. So there would be a lot of differences. If you do not understand the meaning of what is explain in the commentaries, then please ask me because I will give what is written and not what is interpreted by me. Ken O > >Hi RobE, all, > >>RE: However, when I read certain things that seem to really take >away from >what the Buddha said, I frankly get upset. When Buddha >says very clearly >that we should cultivate direct awareness of what >exists, such as "in the >seen only the seen," and then the commentary >says that this kind of >direct, simple awareness is like that of >"canines" and is not what the >Buddha meant, I feel the basic >building block of mindfulness is being >undermined, and that is very difficult to accept. I can't find another way >to justify it. >>================================================================= > >You are absolutely right. I think it is very cruel to think that Buddha couldn't express His Dhamma in clear enough way, and in optimal amount for progress. IMHO, The Buddha was the best Dhamma Teacher who not only knew all the required information for Awakening, but who also knew HOW and how much to teach. I think it is heretical to insist that later monks could explain Dhamma better than the Buddha. The Buddha himself said that suttas & vinaya is the guide (AN 4.180 and DN16) not the words of a monk or group of monks. If Buddha's Dhamma is perfect in letter and meaning, then it cannot ever be improved, nothing to say by those far less qualified than the originator of it. > >Even during Buddha's time there were bad monks like Devadatta, Sāti, Ariṭṭha and Subhadda who serious wrong views and misunderstood Buddha's message. > >"Subhadda, who had renounced only in his old age, was seated in the assembly.[64] And he addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Enough, friends! Do not grieve, do not lament! We are well rid of that great ascetic. Too long, friends, have we been oppressed by his saying: 'This is fitting for you; that is not fitting for you.' Now we shall be able to do as we wish, and what we do not wish, that we shall not do." >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html#fnt-64 > >So living even in those ancient times is no guarantee that the monk understood Buddha's teaching well. Even during the Buddha's time there was a (or more than one) schism. See MN48 for example. Not every monk agreed with every other monks, sometimes very heated quarreling could occur. How do we know from which monks we received the commentaries? In every schism there are two sides of the story, and none of them could be right since Awakened monks would never take sides in dispute (Snp 4.11-12) . > >As we know there were 18 or more pre-Mahayana schools. Most of them were destroyed in India by Muslim invaders. One surviving school survived because some monks escaped to Sri Lanka. What are the chances that only the school that has 100% true information has survived and only the mistaken schools have perished? > >With best wishes, > >Alex #117332 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara ashkenn2k Dear Nina Let base on our talk on from the texts. If you think I am wrong, quote the three baskets and not from interpretations. lets talk about attanuditthi. I find it disturbing when the interpretation of attanuditthi is more than sakkayditthi. This is not in accordance to the text positions which put both of them as the same meaning. Ken O >________________________________ >From: Nina van Gorkom >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Monday, 12 September 2011 1:48 PM >Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara > > > >Dear Ken O, >Op 11-sep-2011, om 18:55 heeft Ken O het volgende geschreven: > >> KO: I am concern with the interpretation of text that is not in >> accordance with the commentaries. With due respect to your teacher >> AS, but there are a few terms of her interpretation does not >> conform with the commentaries or texts. If we wish to promote the >> confidence of the text, then we should follow what was written and >> not what each one of us interpretated. >------ >N: I see your point. The problem is that a text is interpreted >differently by different people. It is not easy to solve this >problem. BUt if you like you could indicate which terms you find >controversial. Best to make short mails, one by one. >Nina. > > > > > > > #117333 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? ashkenn2k Dear Howard Only panna can eradicate latency. Jhanas only suppress hindrances, they do not weaken it. When one emerge from jhanas, it must become a basis of insight, if not, one just fallen into hindrances again. Ken O >________________________________ > > > >Hi Howard and Rob E, >Op 11-sep-2011, om 20:20 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > >> And do you feel that only the development of samatha/jhana really >> weakens >> the hindrances? >> ------------------------------------------------ >> HCW: >> Oh, absolutely!! >------ >N: But when emerging from jhaana, back are the hindrances! Only >vipassanaa pa~n~naa can lead to their eradication. There should be >awareness over and over again of clinging to sense objects, of >aversion, of all akusala. Seeing them as only dhammas, not self, just >conditioned realities. > >Nina. > > > > > #117334 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. truth_aerator Hello KenO, Robert E, As I understand it, the Buddha did not give permission for any commentary after his death. And ever such a great Chief Disciple as Ven. Sariputta could make teaching mistakes that could cost person progress (MN97). And there is (could be commenterial) story about how Ven. Sariputta gave a subject of meditation for a young monk which didn't work. Buddha came and gave that young monk an opposite type of meditation and it quickly worked... Also, there were many commentators and some where claimed to be Arahants. Sometimes the same monk is said to be the source for the commentary for this or that school. How can we choose which commentators to trust and which ones not? With best wishes, Alex #117335 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. ashkenn2k Dear Rob K Why did the commentaries explain in terms of elements for the deportment of bodily movements, the simple reason is to eradicate the notion of a self. What moves, is it a self that move or the elements that move. Only through this understanding that it is only elements that move and not a self, then the eradication of a self notion could be slower weaken. If one keep thinking, this is the left foot and then right foot, it is very likely that one clings to an idea that there is self that move this body unless there is clear comprehension of resort of the meditation subject when one moves. Simply if your subject of meditation is body parts, then when one move, the subject of meditation must still be body parts and not the movement. If we change to our attention to movement, then there is no clear comprehension of resort of meditation subject, then this would not help you at all in development of meditation. So either one use the clear comprehension of resort or clear comprehension of non delusion which is thinking in terms of elements when body moves. Ken O >________________________________ >From: Nina van Gorkom >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Monday, 12 September 2011 2:08 PM >Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. > > > >Dear Rob E, >Op 11-sep-2011, om 21:29 heeft A T het volgende geschreven: > >> RE: However, when I read certain things that seem to really take >> >away from >what the Buddha said, I frankly get upset. When Buddha >> >says very clearly >that we should cultivate direct awareness of >> what >exists, such as "in the >seen only the seen," and then the >> commentary >says that this kind of >direct, simple awareness is >> like that of >"canines" and is not what the >Buddha meant, I feel >> the basic >building block of mindfulness is being >undermined, and >> that is very difficult to accept. I can't find another way >to >> justify it. >------ >N: You misunderstood the commentary here. Be aware of seeing when it >appears so that (eventually) it will be understood as non-self. This >is Tipi.taka and commentary. No contradiction. >The co meant: knowing that we are walking or sitting is not the >essence of sati, everybody knows that, even animals. But what they do >not know: awareness of each naama and ruupa as it appears one at a >time, to see it as only elements. > >------- >Nina. > > > > > > > #117336 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? truth_aerator Dear KenO, all, >====================================================== >KO: Only panna can eradicate latency. Jhanas only suppress >hindrances, they do not weaken it. When one emerge from jhanas, it >must become a basis of insight, if not, one just fallen into >hindrances again. >====================================================== But I don't think that anyone here rejects the use of insight after Jhana, and I certainly have never advocated jhana as samatha only. And in the Suttas jhanas are part of the path that includes Right View. It may be relevant for non-Buddhist ascetics to have Right View, but not for good Buddhists who have it. With best wishes, Alex #117337 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. ashkenn2k Dear Alex To me whether the commentaries are done during Buddha time and after Buddha pass away does not matter. In my opinion, the commentaries in the Theravada traditions are made by Arahants and there is no more changes to the commentary. Even Buddhaghosa did not dare to change the wordings of the commentary unless it is very necessary as the language may not fit. He also do not dare to add any new commentary unless it is really necessary to clarify a points but he will state that it is his personal opinion. If you think commentary is wrong in what way, then ask me in which passage. Let the content judge itself and not make generalise statements if one does not know the content well. Let me repeat, I will give you what is written and not what is interpreted, only in this way, the commentary will remain intact and preserve in its original form. Ken O >________________________________ >From: truth_aerator >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2011 2:40 AM >Subject: [dsg] Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. > > > >Hello KenO, Robert E, > >As I understand it, the Buddha did not give permission for any commentary after his death. And ever such a great Chief Disciple as Ven. Sariputta could make teaching mistakes that could cost person progress (MN97). And there is (could be commenterial) story about how Ven. Sariputta gave a subject of meditation for a young monk which >didn't work. Buddha came and gave that young monk an opposite type of meditation and it quickly worked... > >Also, there were many commentators and some where claimed to be Arahants. Sometimes the same monk is said to be the source for the commentary for this or that school. How can we choose which commentators to trust and which ones not? > >With best wishes, > >Alex > > > > > #117338 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:02 am Subject: Re: The Implications of Foulness of the Body szmicio Dear Sarah, > S: That was a good comment. Would you like to elaborate? L: I am tired, I am addicted to opiates, though I dont take it. I am in a bad shape. And no one want to help me. I want to cry sometimes. > Yes, even now, the attachment to seeing, the ignorance about what is seen, all leads to the continuation of life, the continuation of old age, sickness and death. L: And how to stop drink alcohol? Sorry Guys for that, I dont care for Dhamma now. Lukas #117339 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:04 am Subject: To Sarah. Private message. szmicio Dear Sarah, I am really in a bad shape. Please could you call me. I dont have anyone to talk to. I have a new mobile phone numer: +48533616151 Thanks Lukas #117340 From: Ken O Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? ashkenn2k Dear Alex Jhanas are part of the sutta and Abhidhamma and commentaries. there is development of jhanas using meditation subject which could be a conceptual object and this is written clearly in Abhidhamma texts and commentaries. To say it is only nama and rupa, then it is not in accordance to these text and bring injustice to them. Jhanas as a basis of insight is not what is claim the development of kusala, Even other religion could teach everyone what is kusala. Even other ascetics could teach attainment of jhanas but they could not teach it as a basis of insight, only Buddha can, this is known as adhicitta Ken O >________________________________ >From: truth_aerator >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2011 2:46 AM >Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? > > > >Dear KenO, all, > >>====================================================== >>KO: Only panna can eradicate latency. Jhanas only suppress >hindrances, they do not weaken it. When one emerge from jhanas, it >must become a basis of insight, if not, one just fallen into >hindrances again. >>====================================================== > >But I don't think that anyone here rejects the use of insight after Jhana, and I certainly have never advocated jhana as samatha only. And in the Suttas jhanas are part of the path that includes Right View. > >It may be relevant for non-Buddhist ascetics to have Right View, but not for good Buddhists who have it. > >With best wishes, > >Alex > > > > > #117341 From: "philip" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:27 am Subject: Re: The Implications of Foulness of the Body philofillet Hi Lukas It is 4 a.m. I am awake because as if in a nightmare several big cockroaches suddenly appeared in the room where my wife sleeps and I took care of it by killing them. There are lots of cockroaches in Japan, but this was very strange and scary. One reason we have cockroaches is that when I see one I don't kill it. If I catch it I put it outside, but often they escape before I can catch them. But this time I killed them using a spray. She has a big job interview, and I can't stand cockroaches in her bedroom. Outside I can hear many kinds of autumn cicada insects singing. The night is full of insects, crawlking flying, like in holes and in dark spaces behind walls. We are human but sometimes we live as though we were insects, crawling in dark spaces in our minds, sucking on earth elements, feeding on cravings and gross desires. I am addicted to pornography. My i-phone search engine is full of words like X and Y and Z, and my mind is full of such images. Although I say I value human birth, I pollute the precious clarity of mind with such stupid things. I am addicted to alcohol and marijuana too. I can't get alcohol in Japan, and I don't drink anymore (the feeling from meditation/yoga is much better) but I am still addicted, technically. We have been carrying our addictions for so many lifetimes. We (Lukas and Phil) have stronger addictions, uglier addictions, than people like Sarah and Nina, for example, but they have addictions too. Everyone here is addicted to sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches and mental objectes. All of us. It seems like our addictions are much worse than theirs but we are all in the same boat. But we are so lucky that the Buddha is now steering the boat, well, not exactly, but you know what I mean. His teaching is putting strong influence on the direction of the boat. You say that you don't care about Dhamma now, but that is not possible, you have accumulated caring about Dhamma, and that interest will shine again soon. I am not so worried about you (as long as you don't kill yourself with drugs or alcohol) because I know that interest in Dhamma is still shining somewhere in your mind and it will be back soon. We are so lucky to be sensitive to the great teaching of the brightest, most peaceful, most free mind to ever live. The insects crawling in my house and filling the night are not so lucky. Let us not join them in the darkness much longer. And I know we won't. I wish for the happiness of all those insects. May they somehow hear the teaching of the Buddha. Not so easy for them. Easy for us! I had to kill cockroaches tonight. To live in my body, this body full of foulness and greed and pain and death, so many lives are killed. The mountain of dead bodies of all the living creatures that have died to sustain this one body of one man, even when I was a vegetarian, all the insects dying in all those vegetable fields. All that birth, ageing, illness and death. What a lot of misery. There is only one way out. The Dhamma. Hang in there my friend. Mettta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > > S: That was a good comment. Would you like to elaborate? > > L: I am tired, I am addicted to opiates, though I dont take it. I am in a bad shape. And no one want to help me. I want to cry sometimes. > > > Yes, even now, the attachment to seeing, the ignorance about what is seen, all leads to the continuation of life, the continuation of old age, sickness and death. > > L: And how to stop drink alcohol? > > Sorry Guys for that, I dont care for Dhamma now. > > Lukas > #117342 From: "philip" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:37 am Subject: Re: The Implications of Foulness of the Body philofillet Hi again > I am addicted to alcohol and marijuana too. I can't get alcohol in Japan, and I don't drink anymore (the feeling from meditation/yoga is much better) but I am still addicted, technically. I meant to say I can't get marijuana in Japan. Well, I could, but the penalty is so strict, I would have to leave if I got caught. But when I catch a cold I take powerful opiate medecine, get very stoned, it is my way to still enjoy drugs. Sigh....meditation is better than alcohol for me, but it can't beat opiates, yet...I recommend you keep doing some kind of meditation or yoga, something to create a pleasant mental feeling that can compete with drugs and alcohol. Don't worry if it is wrong view. You can call it yoga. That's what I do, it is not Dhamma. But it trains the mind to get away from the need for alcohol and drugs. Honestly, a buzz of pleasure from alcohol can't compete with the glowing mind I get from "meditation" or yoga or whatever it is when I feel the so-called "breath energy" (I think it is like ki or chi or prajna of yoga) spread through my entire body. I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu is completely wrong about a lot of Dhamma points and has created his own incorrect interpretation of Dhamma, but the meditation technique he teaches is very effective, I think. You can hear talks about it here, but be very careful when you listen to him talk about anything other than the "meditation" technique he teaches. It is not the Buddha's teaching, but it is very effective as a kind of breath yoga. http://www.dhammatalks.org/mp3_index.html Metta, Phil Metta, Phil #117343 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? truth_aerator Dear KenO, all, >KO: Even other religion could teach everyone what is kusala. Even >other ascetics could teach attainment of jhanas but they could not >teach it as a basis of insight, only Buddha can, this is known as >adhicitta >===================================================== You are right. Jhanas could have been taught by other ascetics, but it just wasn't properly used. A person who is well versed in Dhamma can use jhana in an appropriate way that will work. It is not the fault of a screwdriver if someone uses it to knife someone. The fault is with the proper or improper usage. With best wishes, Alex #117344 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:23 am Subject: Re: Notes on nimitta, part 3. epsteinrob Hi Nina and Sarah. A lot of fascinating information and discussion in this post. I would just like to ask a question about one part of it, below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > S: We read that panna leads out of sankhara nimitta but actually this is > referring to the leading away from wrong view, leading away with > detachment from clinging with wrong view. K.Sujin referred to how no > door, > no hole in the roof is found as long as there is no understanding. > Even at > the first 2 stages of insight, the panna is not strong enough to > directly > penetrate the paramattha dhammas as opposed to the nimittas of > paramattha > dhammas, because the direct knowledge of the rise and fall of dhammas > hasn't been fully realized. > .... I wonder how it is that "the realization of direct knowledge of the rise and fall of dhammas" takes place. I can understand developing the understanding of what takes place, but when we talk about the incredible speed of the rising and falling away of dhammas with their characteristics, how is it that citta gets to a point in which it is capable of apprending these dhammas "live" instead of relying on the information from the left-over nimitta? Does enlightened citta develop the supernatural ability to apprehend dhammas at a much greater speed than before, or is it the level of comprehension of characteristics that somehow allows the rise and fall to be directly perceived "as they take place" in a way that deluded citta cannot? The underlying model that I am poking around at here is one in which there is not really an objective speed of the arising and falling away, but more like a comparative speed between an uncomprehending citta that is "mired in delusion" and so more likely to be distracted by concepts, clingings, etc. and not see what is happening when it happens, but only on the rebound, versus a relatively enlightened citta at the third stage of insight and beyond which is free from many levels of delusion and so is "available" to see the dhamma at the time at which it takes place, and without it being masked by other overlying concepts. I am taking this idea both from the fact that third-stage insight citta *can* apprehend the dhammas rise and fall directly and is no longer seeing nimitta but actual dhammas, and from some descriptions that seem to suggest that this is caused by the overlay of delusory structures in the mind, rather than a mere matter of relative speed: - The Abhidhammatha Sangaha which uses the metaphor of dhammas being seen in a kind of murky darkness where the distorted shapes and forms of dhammas are seen rather than the well-illuminated "things themselves, which suggests that the nimittas are not just a product of a kind of after-image, but also a kind of distortion caused by the delusory way in which unenlightened citta through stage 2 insight would see and understand the arising dhammas; - The sutta in which Buddha says that "mind is luminous," but becomes covered over with "incoming defilements," and that when the defilements are cleared away, the luminous nature of the mind is revealed. If one were to look at this sutta in the light of nimitta and the three stages of insight, you could see the deluded citta through stage 2 as in the process of clearing off these layers of defilements which distort its vision and finally coming to a "luminous" or "radiant" view of dhammas when the major layers of defilements have been removed from the cittas and leaves them to see clearly. > > When there is mindfulness we do not have to think of a mentally > > constructed reproduction as the actual present object. That thinking > > takes too long. There is just a beginning to attend to > > characteristics that appear. Then hardness, then visible object, then > > seeing, then unpleasant feeling. > .... I would just reiterate that it would be good to understand whether developing the ability to see the stages of action in the rupas and namas that are attendant upon the apprehension of a dhamma is a matter of increased understanding and panna's ability to see and understand the actions taking place, or a kind of freedom of the citta as it becomes less encumbered by delusions and clingings and therefore more clear in its apprehension, and perhaps also "faster" in its ability to apprehend the momentary stages of arising, falling away and characteristics of dhammas, or of both. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #117345 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:33 am Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > I'm afraid pt may have joined the group at dsg that is driven to distraction by my long-winded posts. :-) > .... > S: I'm sure it's part of the strategy to beat us all into submission and agreement:-) Most definitely, but I have little hope that it will work... :-( > Yes, a big change of pace from Hong Kong and I got used to the green tea with lemon first thing in the morning when I'd go downstairs in the dark and sip it whilst listening to the radio news and before clearing a space amongst her antique furniture to do some yoga before anyone else made an appearance. Then I'd go for a long walk with one brother or other before a family breakfast - a lovely routine. Sounds somewhat familiar - I like the idea of clearing the furniture away to do yoga, the efforts we go to; reminds me of how many times I've crunched my little yoga mat and blankets into a little space between the couch and the closet, or jumped up into handstand against a door, praying that no one would pull the door open and send me flying feet-first backwards, but it's all in good fun. I brought my yoga mat and strap with me on our little beach vacations this past month while running to beaches and away from hurricanes. Even when I don't have time to do much yoga, I take them along... ... > I'll have to return to the rest of your post later when I'm not so befuddled.....:-) More green tea! :-) Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #117346 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:46 am Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: Yes, the Buddha's teachings are "pretty radical". If they weren't radical, they wouldn't have needed a Buddha to point them out. What exists are just experiences through the senses and thinking about them at this very moment. "No table or anything like it" as you say. If there is no thinking now about 'table', where is it? Wow, what fun. So there's really not much of anything there. Good to know as my cittas go floating through empty space, clinging like mad... > As we read "life exists in a moment", just this moment. One world at a time. And all the dreams I have about recently picking cherries, plums, apples, blackberries and figs are just dreams - the dream-world we live in most of the day. Excuse me...? I'd like to have that dream! I'd better work on my kamma so I can pick some fresh plums and blackberries in my next time around [if by chance I suffer the pain of rebirth a few more times...] > Actually, wherever we are (and that idea of place is just another concept too), there are just moments of seeing visible object, hearing sound, smelling odour, tasting flavour, touching tangible object and thinking about these experiences - usually in complete ignorance. Yes, very good. Well, it makes deeper sense of the expression: "Wherever you are - there you are!" Don't know where I heard that, but I guess "whatever citta is experiencing at the moment - that's it!" > ... > >R:However, it begs the question of why these patterns of rupas arise in good order that so easily are assembled into these very sensible false objects, such as tables, bodies - complete with hearts and digestive tracts, etc. - and varieties of fruit that all bear certain similarities and differences, etc. Is there a good explanation for what these orderly sets of 'non-object' rupas are doing arising in such sensible and convenient order? > .... > S: Conditions for particular rupas to arise, further conditions for particular rupas to be experienced. We can go into a lot of detail about the conditions for the arising of particular rupas and particular groups of rupas and why, according to kamma and other conditions, particular rupas are experienced at this very moment. However, it is the direct experiencing of dhammas as dhammas, of rupas as rupas at this very moment that matters. Only the direct understanding of what appears now will lead to the eradication of the idea of a whole, a thing, a being or other entity. That must be true - however, I wonder what would be experienced if one experienced "just the rupas which arise in a group" without forming a concept. If one experienced "hardness" followed by "smoothness" followed by "shiny semi-translucent reflected light" instead of the surface of a polished table, would one see these rupas as being connected in some way in the sequence, or would they just be separated into "one unrelated rupa after another?" > p.s I so appreciate (hmmm , so attached to) my macbook air after the break, even though there are just rupas being experienced!! Another fantasy.... Well if we have to live with a certain amount of fantasy, they may as well be lighter and sleeker ones don't you think? That leads to another question :-) : I think positive vipaka is supposed to be a sign of higher cultivation of kusala than negative vipaka. In that case how does this relate to clinging to pleasant experience/aversion to unpleasant experience and positive/negative vedana? If you are able to experience macbook air and fresh blackberries, or in my case the higher quality sencha, all which I guess represent 'pleasant vipaka' and probably give rise to positive vedana [?] does that necessarily show where kusala cittas have been developed, and is that a good thing, or is it all just more grist for the mill? Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #117347 From: SARAH CONNELL Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. dhammasanna Hello Alex and Robert E. I am in agreement with both of you that the commentaries may be and are of great usefulness but must not be given the same weight of acceptance as the Suttana or Vinaya. I had come that conclusion a number of years ago but my conclusion was confirmed by one of my meditation teachers, a monk in the Theravada forest tradition, of decided experience both in learning and teaching of the dhamma and of meditation practice who advised that same caution regarding the commentaries. For the most part I follow the Thai Forest tradition although most monks that I know in that tradition seem to give the commentaries the same weight as the Suttas. May you be well and happy and always smiling, Sarah Jane ________________________________ From: truth_aerator To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, September 12, 2011 1:40:20 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. Hello KenO, Robert E, As I understand it, the Buddha did not give permission for any commentary after his death. And ever such a great Chief Disciple as Ven. Sariputta could make teaching mistakes that could cost person progress (MN97). And there is (could be commenterial) story about how Ven. Sariputta gave a subject of meditation for a young monk which didn't work. Buddha came and gave that young monk an opposite type of meditation and it quickly worked... Also, there were many commentators and some where claimed to be Arahants. Sometimes the same monk is said to be the source for the commentary for this or that school. How can we choose which commentators to trust and which ones not? With best wishes, Alex #117348 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:31 am Subject: Four Fine Formless Fruits! bhikkhu5 Friends: Formless is the Fruit of the 4 Infinite States: The Blessed Buddha once pointed out some fine future fruits: I: The release of mind by universal friendliness developed, linked with the 7 links to Enlightenment, has the beautiful liberation as culmination! II: The release of mind by compassionate pity developed, all joined with the 7 links to Enlightenment, has the infinitude of space, as culmination! This is the 1st formless absorption. III: The release of mind by altruistic & mutual joy developed, all linked with the 7 links to Enlightenment, has the infinitude of consciousness, as ultimate culmination... This is the 2nd formless absorption. IV: The release of mind by imperturbable equanimity developed, combined with the 7 links to Enlightenment, has the sphere of nothingness, as the absolute culmination... This is the 3rd formless absorption. <....> From Delight in Diversity to Unification in Oneness... Source: The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikya. Book V 115-21 Section 46: On The Enlightenment Factors. Linked with Friendliness: 54. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #117349 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:08 am Subject: Re: Conventional actions, such as putting alms in a bhikkhu's bowl. epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E and all > > > Short answer: they don't. [speaking for Ken H., of course.] > > > > Conventional actions are like hallucinations, mental fabrications. In fact only single paramatha dhammas arise, one at a time. The types of cittas and mental factors that arise in the moment represent the "real" kusala aspect of those conventional actions, such as a moment of metta, etc. There are no conventional actions, period. If such concepts arise with kusala, it is because of the accompanying cittas and cetasikas around and between those thought-moments of "doing good" that have kusala. > > > > > > > Ph: Somehow that doesn't seem conistent with the thinking of someone who thinks there is value in observing conventional actions as objects of satipatthana. If you are going to believe that "he knows he is walking forward" means walking forward in the conventional sense, it means you believe that there are conventional actions, I think. I don't know how you can write what you wrote above, and still reject Buddhagosa's commentary to MN10, the canine part. Sorry for the confusion, Phil. I don't personally believe what I wrote above - I was predicting what Ken H. would say, which I usually disagree with, and explaining what I think will be his point of view - more radical than mine. I *do* believe in the efficacy of kusala conventional actions, including, of course, meditation and other aspects of practice and lifestyle. But Ken H. does not. He has stated explicitly very recently that "it is not necessary to do anything," period, because there are "only momentary dhammas," and stated that suffering does not have to be ended because "suffering ends itself by ending a moment after it arises," to paraphrase. This is indeed a very radical viewpoint. > As for me, I think eventually I will come to understand I am wrong, but for now I still believe there are conventional actions, but that they happen through the operation of rupas motivated by cittas. I agree with this very sensible view. I think it is correct, or Buddha would not have taught us how to develop kusala and greater understanding through conventional actions, meditations that involve concepts, such as metta meditation, and other forms of meditation that are "formal activities," such as anapanasati. > There is killing. Killing cannot occur in a single citta, it has to be done by countless citta processes conditioning rupa in a way that results in an action that we call killing. Or so it seems to me. Or an action that is putting food in a bhikkhu's bow. Yes, I agree that there are patterns of namas and rupas that equal a larger conventional activity, such as killing, and I think the whole existence of "kamma patha" in Buddha's teaching pretty much proves that this is the case. To create "kamma patha" the worst form of kamma, the *act* has to be completed, and this takes place in the conventional world of bodies and actions. If you complete the action, the cetana must be of a level to push the desire to do x or y beyond the point of thought into the reality of manifesting it as an action. It is that completion of the action that makes it "kamma patha," a kammic tendency that has been *completed.* The kammic difference between wanting to murder someone and carrying it out is vast. > Let me add here what I wrote in another post. If anyone was thinking about responding to that post, please respond here instead. > > I wrote: I believe it is correct to say that > physical actions are caused by citta conditioning rupas that arise and fall away > to give the impression of, say, giving. Lifting the arm and moving it to place > alms in a monks bowl cannot be one citta. There are many cittas causing many > rupas to arise (they fall away again) in a way that causes the conventional act > of moving the arm. I assume that within all those cittas there could be kusala > and akusala, within a single lifting of the arm, rupa conditioned by alobha > rooted cittas, rupa conditioned by lobha rooted cittas, there couldn't be all > one or the other, it seems to me. Of course more likely that the lobha rooted > cittas would arise after the donation. Let's say the giving is spontaneous, > unprompted. I like a story Christine tells in a talk of feeling irritated that > there were monks taking money in India, complaining about it to friends, but > then, when passing one of those monks, unprompted generosity arose and she gave > to one of the monks. The arm lifted by kusala cittas, and then pehaps as soon > as the loot was in the bowl, the arm falling away with cittas already rooted in > dosa or accompanied by mana etc. > > My point is that a single action can't be said to be the metaphor of a single > citta. There is too much going on at the paramattha level in a single giving of > alms, for example. Probably. > > Does that make any sense to you all? I'm very happy to have this nascent understanding led in a new direction, but obviously it will take talk, it is a difficult topic. I think your explanation is very good and the story you relate is a great example. I think that the concept of "kamma patha" explains a lot of what you are talking about, though it included mental, verbal and physical actions, I think it explains how the physical actions form a complete course of action. One can talk and intend up a storm about certain physical actions, and this does have kammic consequences, but when the kusala cittas with strong kusala cetana cause the rupas of the arm to deliver the alms to the hand of the begger, that is physical kamma patha, completion of the positive action that was intended by the kusala cittas and mental factors. So I think what you are talking about provides a really sensible bridge between dhamma theory and the reason why conventional actions both kusala and akusala matter and have their consequences. They are the realization of intention and volition. And I think Buddha must have had this in mind when he talks about kamma patha, when kusala and akusala intention are realized in action, and that this is the strongest realization of the mental factors in play. Here is something on kamma patha, including mental, verbal and physical actions, from the "what the buddha said" website. It includes links to the suttas in which this is discussed in detail: ------------------------------- kamma-patha 'course of action', is a name for the group of 10 kinds of either disadvantageous or advantageous actions, viz. I. The tenfold disadvantageous courses of action (akusala-kamma-patha): 3 bodily actions: killing, stealing, unlawful sexual intercourse; 4 verbal actions: lying, slandering, rude speech, foolish babble; 3 mental actions: covetousness, ill-will, evil views. disadvantageous mental courses of action comprise only extreme forms of defiled thought: the greedy wish to appropriate others' property, the hateful thought of harming others, and pernicious views. Milder forms of mental defilement are also disadvantageous, but do not constitute 'courses of action'. II. The tenfold advantageous course of action (kusala-kamma-patha): 3 bodily actions: avoidance of killing, stealing, unlawful sexual intercourse; 4 verbal actions: avoidance of lying, slandering, rude speech, foolish babble; i.e. true, conciliatory, mild, and wise speech; 3 mental actions: unselfishness, good-will, right views. Both lists occur repeatedly, e.g. in A.X.28, 176; M.9; they are explained in detail in M.114, and in Com. to M.9 (R. Und., p. 14), Atthasālini Tr. I, 126ff. -------------------------------------- Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #117350 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the commentaries, to Rob E. epsteinrob Hi Sarah Jane. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, SARAH CONNELL wrote: > > Hello Alex and Robert E. > I am in agreement with both of you that the commentaries may be and are of great > usefulness but must not be given the same weight of acceptance as the Suttana or > Vinaya. I had come that conclusion a number of years ago but my conclusion was > confirmed by one of my meditation teachers, a monk in the Theravada forest > tradition, of decided experience both in learning and teaching of the dhamma and > of meditation practice who advised that same caution regarding the commentaries. > For the most part I follow the Thai Forest tradition although most monks that I > know in that tradition seem to give the commentaries the same weight as the > Suttas. Thank you for your knowledgeable view on this subject. If your teacher or any others that you know of have written on the proper place of the commentaries in studying the Dhamma, I would be happy to do some more reading in this area. I have a very positive feeling about the teachers of the Thai Forest tradition - I think they have understood Dhamma very well but also are some of the strongest practitioners in putting the Dhamma into practice through meditation and keeping the deep practice of the tradition alive and well. > May you be well and happy and always smiling, Thank you for your positive sign-off! That leaves one with a very nice feeling! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #117351 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:41 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Robert E (117143) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > So right concentration of the Eightfold Path is the (momentary) unification of mind that is (momentary) right associated with view. > > [RE:] How do you reconcile the above with the following from the sutta pitaka: > > "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk...enters & remains in the first jhana...enters & remains in the second jhana...enters & remains in the third jhana...enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness... This is called right concentration." > - SN 45.8 > > Note that Buddha defines right concentration *as* the 4 jhanas, and also defines the 4th jhana as the purity -- the culmination -- of both equanimity AND mindfulness. > > =============== J: First, that description of Right Concentration, like the description of right effort and the other path factors, has to be read in the context of the factors of the NEP being momentary co-arising path factors. We have discussed this aspect recently. The path factors (Pali: anga) are factors *of* the path itself, rather than things that are to *precede* the path. Secondly, what is being described is a monk who is developing both jhana and insight. The Buddha did not (speaking generally) teach the development of kusala in isolation from the development of the path. So this may account for the reference to mindfulness. Jon #117352 From: "philip" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:03 am Subject: Re: Conventional actions, such as putting alms in a bhikkhu's bowl. philofillet Hi Rob E Oh, now I got it. That was a really confusing thing to do, but you made up for it with an excellent post. Now I'm waiting to hear what Ken, Nina, Sarah, Jon, Azita, Rob K, Ann or Sukin think of my explanation of conventional action. Metta, Phil #117353 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:04 pm Subject: Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Howard, Robert E, all, > > > My understanding that frequent suppression of the hindrances, be it through jhana or not, weakens the hindrances little by little. The more often and harder the hindrances are weakened, the less they are able to come back. Eventually they will weaken so much that it will be possible for them to be totally removed. That is a very interesting idea - I haven't heard that before said that directly, but it makes sense, and if it is correct it would make a different kind of sense out of the role of jhana to not only suppress the hindrances, but to weaken them substantially at the same time. Do you happen to have any quotes or links for any discussion of this understanding of the weakening of the hindrances, whether through jhana or other means? > The object of meditation may be many things, a color disc, breathing, observing the four postures (one can't just sit for 24/7), etc is simply a help to retrain the mind in a new wholesome direction (let go off craving and other hindrances). The less hindrances there are, the more likely one that is equipped with right theoretic views to see things as they are. Sounds good. > I believe that there are good actions and bad actions. > Cultivating the good actions strengthens good actions, while following bad actions strengthens bad actions. Eventually doing good actions will accumulate and become spontaneous, just like a 2nd nature. So before reaching the stage of "no practice", practice is required. Agreed. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #117354 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:15 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > [RE:] How do you reconcile the above with the following from the sutta pitaka: > > > > "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk...enters & remains in the first jhana...enters & remains in the second jhana...enters & remains in the third jhana...enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness... This is called right concentration." > > - SN 45.8 > > > > Note that Buddha defines right concentration *as* the 4 jhanas, and also defines the 4th jhana as the purity -- the culmination -- of both equanimity AND mindfulness. > > > =============== > > J: First, that description of Right Concentration, like the description of right effort and the other path factors, has to be read in the context of the factors of the NEP being momentary co-arising path factors. We have discussed this aspect recently. The path factors (Pali: anga) are factors *of* the path itself, rather than things that are to *precede* the path. > > Secondly, what is being described is a monk who is developing both jhana and insight. The Buddha did not (speaking generally) teach the development of kusala in isolation from the development of the path. So this may account for the reference to mindfulness. I don't think that we have to assign a different context to what the Buddha says that is beyond or different from what the Buddha says. Rather than seeing his direct statements of fact in the context of a philosophy that is not in the text, I would see his direct statements -- what he actually said -- as the foundation for any other views. If the Buddha says "What is Right Concentration" and then answers it as the four jhanas, that's that. That is right concentration. Whatever breakdowns one may do to make this more specific through understanding the dhammas that are involved is fine, but not as a replacement for his own definition which is stated clearly and directly. What you are basically advocating is taking the Buddha's words as having a meaning that is malleable to the teachings of the commentaries. It should be the other way around if you really want to assign a context to the "teachings as a whole." The Buddha's statement on the occurrence of mindfulness in relation to the 4th jhana does not have any ambiguity at all as stated here. There is no reason to make up a different story about what it means. I repeat the Buddha's own words: "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk...enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness..." Are you telling me that when the Buddha directly defines the fourth jhana as "purity of equanimity and mindfulness" that you think there is room to say that this is not the case? It seems that you are dismissing what the Buddha clearly says here in favor of a very different preferred interpretation. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #117355 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:17 pm Subject: Re: Conventional actions, such as putting alms in a bhikkhu's bowl. epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > Oh, now I got it. That was a really confusing thing to do, but you made up for it with an excellent post. Now I'm waiting to hear what Ken, Nina, Sarah, Jon, Azita, Rob K, Ann or Sukin think of my explanation of conventional action. Hey, I am sorry about that. I thought it was clear that I was speaking of Ken H.'s philosophy when I said "this is a good opportunity to speak for Ken H." I didn't mean to suggest that I agreed with him. Yes, I will be very interested to hear what the others have to say about your explanation. Best, Robert E. = = = = = #117356 From: "philip" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:26 pm Subject: Re: Conventional actions, such as putting alms in a bhikkhu's bowl. philofillet Hi Rob E >I didn't mean to suggest that I agreed with him. Well, I suppose predicting someone's response is a kind of wrong view, because it assumes our views are permanent, fixed in stone. We know that can't be, dhammas are fluid, understanding is actually changing moment by moment...even the most seemingly fixed in stone accumulated understanding! Ken could suddenly disappear on a 40 day Goenka retreat for all we know... Metta, Phil #117357 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:30 pm Subject: Re: Conventional actions, such as putting alms in a bhikkhu's bowl. epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > >I didn't mean to suggest that I agreed with him. > > Well, I suppose predicting someone's response is a kind of wrong view, because it assumes our views are permanent, fixed in stone. We know that can't be, dhammas are fluid, understanding is actually changing moment by moment...even the most seemingly fixed in stone accumulated understanding! > > Ken could suddenly disappear on a 40 day Goenka retreat for all we know... :-) Even if it didn't reflect his views at all, it would still be good for him - would show flexibility to take all dhammas as equal objects of understanding. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #117358 From: "philip" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:40 pm Subject: Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? philofillet Hi Alex, Rob E and all > > I believe that there are good actions and bad actions. > > Cultivating the good actions strengthens good actions, while following bad actions strengthens bad actions. Eventually doing good actions will accumulate and become spontaneous, just like a 2nd nature. So before reaching the stage of "no practice", practice is required. Ph: I think this is well put. But what if the "good" actions are dine with cittas rooted in lobha, with attachment, therefore not kusala technically? Does accumulation still happen in a beneficial way (i.e related to developing the path?). Until recently I would have said yes, it doesn't matter if a deed is done rooted in lobha, the important thing is that the deed be done. Now I am not so sure. How do you feel? (I'm assuming tgat you agree there is lobha galore.) I'm not saying don't do the lobha-rooted deeds, obviously. I'm just saying we have to question what role they play in the development/accumulation of kusala. metta, phil #117359 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:48 pm Subject: Re: Samatha and Vipassanaa, was: Not Who, but What? epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Alex, Rob E and all > > > > I believe that there are good actions and bad actions. > > > Cultivating the good actions strengthens good actions, while following bad actions strengthens bad actions. Eventually doing good actions will accumulate and become spontaneous, just like a 2nd nature. So before reaching the stage of "no practice", practice is required. > > Ph: I think this is well put. But what if the "good" actions are dine with cittas rooted in lobha, with attachment, therefore not kusala technically? Does accumulation still happen in a beneficial way (i.e related to developing the path?). Until recently I would have said yes, it doesn't matter if a deed is done rooted in lobha, the important thing is that the deed be done. Now I am not so sure. How do you feel? (I'm assuming tgat you agree there is lobha galore.) I'm not saying don't do the lobha-rooted deeds, obviously. I'm just saying we have to question what role they play in the development/accumulation of kusala. I think there is a solution to the important problem you raise. Action is important, but being mindful of mental and emotional states, as well as the way actions are carried out, is, I think, the key to making it "Buddhist" action. The monks as I recall were instructed to go into the towns and beg for alms and do their other "social" activities, but to keep a certain percentage of their awareness always on their "meditation subjects." So they would not let their attention lapse into just doing the activity, but would guard the senses, be mindful of the quality of their actions and speech, and be mindfully aware of the moment-to-moment reality of what was occurring while they did conventional activities. If we have the intention to be aware while doing kusala activities, then we can check that the mental state is wholesome as well. If the mental state is not wholesome, we can be aware of this and see into the nature of the akusala cittas. I think in this way there will be a connection between our inner spiritual development and taking care that we are doing wholesome outer actions. Ultimately enlightenment comes from the highest kusala mental states and mental factors, but along the way we can develop kusala by being watchful of the quality of both inner and outer actions and states. The list of kusala mental, verbal and physical actions in the breakdown of "kamma patha" that I gave the link for earlier should give a good basic breakdown for what to look for on all three levels. Recently, I think you and a few others talked about improving the type of speech that we address each other with in our posts. I thought that was a very good example of looking carefully at what is kusala and akusala, and making a shift in both inner intention [mental volitional factors for speech] and outer action [the way the speech is expressed.] That kind of discerning awareness of both inner and outer kusala, I think, leads to greater kusala and greater understanding of what is kusala. The expression of that intention in the posts had an effect on me - I was kind of shocked into thinking, "Oh, maybe it's time to speak in a less rough and argumentative way." Who knows if I'll do it or not, but it had some effect and I'm sure will have more effect as it arises at moments in my mind. That shows that your "kamma patha" expressing your kusala intention through "right speech" is a condition for kusala arising in others around you who hear you speak, and that demonstrates why having "good friends" and a sangha body is so important in developing the path. That is right action as well as right speech. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #117360 From: "azita" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:03 pm Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts gazita2002 hallo RobE and Sarah, this is one of our rites and rituals perhaps:) yoga and yoga mats, I'm talking about. Was very happy to read this from yoga enthusiasts. I was beginning to feel a little odd when travelling that I have to see the room first, not necessarily for cleanliness - tho that helps of course - but for space to do my yoga. AND there's the yoga mat, which has to come travelling too. Have even made a lovely yoga bag out of colorful Thai sarong. I often move furniture around to make space and tend to lock the door Rob, when do hand stands against it!!! Sometimes wish I had the enthusiasm for dhamma that I have for yoga - sigh! me again. Me wanting it to be different to what it is - jst accumulations for certain things. The attachment to me is deeply rooted. But that can be known for what it is - lobha. There is certainly plenty of opportunity for lobha to be known, cos its arises often enuff, Patience, courage and good cheer, azita S> > Yes, a big change of pace from Hong Kong and I got used to the green tea with lemon first thing in the morning when I'd go downstairs in the dark and sip it whilst listening to the radio news and before clearing a space amongst her antique furniture to do some yoga before anyone else made an appearance. Then I'd go for a long walk with one brother or other before a family breakfast - a lovely routine. > R> Sounds somewhat familiar - I like the idea of clearing the furniture away to do yoga, the efforts we go to; reminds me of how many times I've crunched my little yoga mat and blankets into a little space between the couch and the closet, or jumped up into handstand against a door, praying that no one would pull the door open and send me flying feet-first backwards, but it's all in good fun. > > I brought my yoga mat and strap with me on our little beach vacations this past month while running to beaches and away from hurricanes. Even when I don't have time to do much yoga, I take them along... > #117361 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Implications of Foulness of the Body nilovg Dear Lukas, keep courage. You can see how anatta ups and downs are. You can learn from this. Know that whatever you feel is not you or yours, just conditioned naamas. That will help to take this less personal. There will be more distance towards your experiences. I remember how enthousiastic you were about the Vibhanga, Book of Analysis. Maybe there will be conditions to take it up again. Keep good cheer, Nina. Op 12-sep-2011, om 21:02 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > L: And how to stop drink alcohol? > > Sorry Guys for that, I dont care for Dhamma now. #117362 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:44 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Robert E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > [RE:] I don't think that we have to assign a different context to what the Buddha says that is beyond or different from what the Buddha says. Rather than seeing his direct statements of fact in the context of a philosophy that is not in the text, I would see his direct statements -- what he actually said -- as the foundation for any other views. > > If the Buddha says "What is Right Concentration" and then answers it as the four jhanas, that's that. That is right concentration. Whatever breakdowns one may do to make this more specific through understanding the dhammas that are involved is fine, but not as a replacement for his own definition which is stated clearly and directly. > =============== J: Well it's not quite as straightforward as it might seem. For a start, we know that enlightenment is possible without even the first jhana having been attained (you have acknowledged this, but see it as an exceptional case). Secondly, if read literally, it would mean that a person who has attained jhana without hearing the teachings has developed one of the path factors (and the same would apply as regards 'compliance' with any of the other 7 path factors). That does not seem right. Thirdly, we known that the development of jhana alone does not bring mindfulness of the kind described in the Satipatthana Sutta. So taking a purely literal meaning of the words is not an option. An interpretation is needed. > =============== > [RE:] What you are basically advocating is taking the Buddha's words as having a meaning that is malleable to the teachings of the commentaries. It should be the other way around if you really want to assign a context to the "teachings as a whole." > =============== J: What I'm 'advocating' is a study of the commentarial position, because it contains the only interpretation of the teachings that accounts, with consistency, for everything in the Tipitaka. > =============== > [RE:] The Buddha's statement on the occurrence of mindfulness in relation to the 4th jhana does not have any ambiguity at all as stated here. There is no reason to make up a different story about what it means. > > I repeat the Buddha's own words: > "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk...enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness..." > > Are you telling me that when the Buddha directly defines the fourth jhana as "purity of equanimity and mindfulness" that you think there is room to say that this is not the case? It seems that you are dismissing what the Buddha clearly says here in favor of a very different preferred interpretation. > =============== J: I'm saying that if 'mindfulness' here is a reference to the mindfulness of the Satipatthana Sutta, then what is being described is the attainment of the 4th jhana by a monk who is also developing insight, and not the attainment of the 4th jhana alone. Jon #117363 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara nilovg Dear Ken O and Han, Han, I hope you are in good health! Op 12-sep-2011, om 20:18 heeft Ken O het volgende geschreven: > lets talk about attanuditthi. I find it disturbing when the > interpretation of attanuditthi is more than sakkayditthi. This is > not in accordance to the text positions which put both of them as > the same meaning. ------ N: I remember discussions about this subject with Han who quoted texts where it seems that they are identical. I remember that Sarah explained more about this, and I cannot answer your question. Maybe Sarah can later on, Nina. #117364 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Implications of Foulness of the Body nilovg Dear Phil, Op 12-sep-2011, om 21:27 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I wish for the happiness of all those insects. May they somehow > hear the teaching of the Buddha. Not so easy for them. Easy for us! > > I had to kill cockroaches tonight. ------- N: So long as we are not sotaapanna we may be in a situation to kill, one never knows. But pa~n~naa can see more and more the ugliness of akusala and the benefit of kusala. You wish for the happiness of all insects, so, let this wish be sincere. Nina. #117365 From: "philip" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Implications of Foulness of the Body philofillet Hi Nina (and Lukas) > ------- > N: So long as we are not sotaapanna we may be in a situation to kill, > one never knows. But pa~n~naa can see more and more the ugliness of > akusala and the benefit of kusala. You wish for the happiness of all > insects, so, let this wish be sincere. Ph: The mental states that surged up as I wrote to Lukas were interesting. Almost always I suspect the Dhamma is a way to improve the state of the khandas, rooted in lobha, a very refined self help program. But last night there was a very rare feeling of samvega of wanting out of samsara...I've hardly ever had that feeling... Metta, Phil #117366 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:02 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna ptaus1 Hi Phil, > Ph: I will look into this some more, I believe it is correct to say that physical actions are caused by citta conditioning rupas that arise and fall away to give the impression of, say, giving. Lifting the arm and moving it to place alms in a monks bowl cannot be one citta. There are many cittas causing many rupas to arise (they fall away again) in a way that causes the conventional act of moving the arm. I assume that within all those cittas there could be kusala and akusala, within a single lifting of the arm, rupa conditioned by alobha rooted cittas, rupa conditioned by lobha rooted cittas, there couldn't be all one or the other, it seems to me. Of course more likely that the lobha rooted cittas would arise after the donation. Let's say the giving is spontaneous, unprompted. I like a story Christine tells in a talk of feeling irritated that there were monks taking money in India, complaining about it to friends, but then, when passing one of those monks, unprompted generosity arose and she gave to one of the monks. The arm lifted by kusala cittas, and then perhpas as soon as the loot was in the bowl, the arm falling away with cittas already rooted in dosa or accompanied by mana etc. > > Ph: My point is that a single action can't be said to be the metaphor of a single citta. There is too much going on at the paramattha level in a single giving of alms, for example. Probably. pt: I think this is all fine, if considered as theory. One trap I keep falling in is trying to explain away the world (including the actions and activities) with abhidhamma in the same way that science tries to do it with maths and physics, etc. In other words, intellectualise a bit too much. Sure, intellectualising in dhamma terms might point towards insight at some stage unlike physics, but it's still intellectualising, not insight. I think this is a problem you have been aware of for quite some time now. Since I have the same problem of overintellectulising things, I find that considering single citta with single object helps with encouraging the understanding of anatta and conditionality a little better than when considering complex actions with complex motivations and objects. In other words, consider the descriptions of insight in practice - there seems to be one object of citta at the time (a dhamma of a khanda) and its anatta, anicca or dukkha characteristic is realised at the time. So it seems quite irrelevant what the actual action/activity or even a particular stage of that action was happening at the time when insight arose into the nature of a khanda that became the object of citta at the time. Hence why I tend to find KenH's reminders about a single citta a lot more helpful than considering complex actions with constantly changing roots, objects, etc. Not that things don't happen that way, but that'd be a statement in retrospect at best, and just speculation at worst. Though yes, I find it helphul when pointed out that right after the moment of generosity, there'd be a moment of pride, etc, all within the same conventional action - these are good reminders that can encourage seeing these a/kusala moments for real within a single conventional action, i.e. stop being oblivious of these things due to beliving that a single action is all good/bad. But if insight actually arises at any of this points, it'd be concerned with just one fleeting khanda at the time, regardless of whether its kusala or akusala, regardless of the action, activity, time and place, etc. Hence, rather than thinkimg in terms.of actions that will have a moment of adosa, and then a moment of mana, and then a moment of lobha, etc, I find it more helpful to hear what exactly is the characteristic of adosa, of mana, etc, as this helps recognise each one when it arises in the midst of whatever action. In other words, (believeing in the ocurrence of) the action/activity cannot put the veil over dhammas anymore. Anyway, I'm afraid I can't really say anything on this topic that you don't already know. Best wishes pt #117368 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. nilovg Dear Ken O and Han, Again, some thoughts. Op 12-sep-2011, om 20:18 heeft Ken O het volgende geschreven: > lets talk about attanuditthi. I find it disturbing when the > interpretation of attanuditthi is more than sakkayditthi. This is > not in accordance to the text positions which put both of them as > the same meaning. ------ N: I remember that atta-nu-di.t.thi is wider than sakkaaya-di.t.thi that refers specifically to the five khandhas of a 'person', personality belief. Atta-nu-di.t.thi refers also to things outside. You want texts, I know. I have seen atta-nu-di.t.thi in a commentary but can't remember where. ------ Nina. #117369 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional actions, such as putting alms in a bhikkhu's bowl. nilovg Dear Phil, Op 12-sep-2011, om 11:22 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > My point is that a single action can't be said to be the metaphor > of a single > citta. There is too much going on at the paramattha level in a > single giving of > alms, for example. Probably. > > Does that make any sense to you all? I'm very happy to have this > nascent understanding led in a new direction, but obviously it will > take take, it is a difficult topic. ------ N: There are countless processes of cittas going on while giving something to someone else. Some are kusala cittas, some akusala cittas. We cannot catch them, or should not try to do so. It just depends on sati which object it takes. It is useful to know about the many different types of akusala cittas, for example the different ways of conceit. Otherwise we may take for kusala what is akusala. ------ Nina. #117370 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:45 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi pt. (p.s to Rob E) You expressed the value of understanding the one citta really clearly, thanks. That post will be going into my pwrsonal UPs for sure. I will still try to figure out what conventional actions are, though. It seems understanding only works for me in terms of processes and proliferation. I'm a Honeyball guy rather than an A Single Excellent Night guy. But thank you. Yes, my tendency to see abhidhamma as mechanistic, providing an explanation of the world, a la scien No way beyond that yet, but better than not seeing it at all and I think the orientation towards a single risen citta will come as a natural development of understanding in a gradual, adze handle-ish way rather than by agreeing it is best in an internet discussion. Monents of awareness of arisen dhammmas will wear away at the intellectualuzation...but very gradually. And for now the intellectualization is a good topiic for rhinking, the topic of thinking matters, I think...as well as the wareness of the reality that is the nama of thinking. metta phil p.s Rob E, very interested in your post on ludala action, was going to write tonight, but nodding off now...thanks, back to you later... #117371 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:36 am Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts epsteinrob Hi Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "azita" wrote: > > hallo RobE and Sarah, > > this is one of our rites and rituals perhaps:) yoga and yoga mats, I'm talking about. Yes, despite the fear of obscuring namas and rupas, the joy of the yoga mat as companion persists. It is a...wholesome attachment...? I guess that doesn't quite work... > Was very happy to read this from yoga enthusiasts. I was beginning to feel a little odd when traveling that I have to see the room first, not necessarily for cleanliness - tho that helps of course - but for space to do my yoga. AND there's the yoga mat, which has to come travelling too. Have even made a lovely yoga bag out of colorful Thai sarong. Sounds very nice! > I often move furniture around to make space and tend to lock the door Rob, when do hand stands against it!!! Hm...that would be too intelligent for me. Why didn't I think of that? :-/ > Sometimes wish I had the enthusiasm for dhamma that I have for yoga - sigh! me again. Me wanting it to be different to what it is - jst accumulations for certain things. The attachment to me is deeply rooted. > But that can be known for what it is - lobha. > There is certainly plenty of opportunity for lobha to be known, cos its arises often enuff, :-) You can say that again! Another round of lobha for everyone! Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #117372 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:44 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Are you telling me that when the Buddha directly defines the fourth jhana as "purity of equanimity and mindfulness" that you think there is room to say that this is not the case? It seems that you are dismissing what the Buddha clearly says here in favor of a very different preferred interpretation. > > =============== > > J: I'm saying that if 'mindfulness' here is a reference to the mindfulness of the Satipatthana Sutta, then what is being described is the attainment of the 4th jhana by a monk who is also developing insight, and not the attainment of the 4th jhana alone. I think this is a very intriguing conversation, and I will say more later when I have time, but I wanted to sort of agree with you on this comment above, in a way: I do think that what Buddha is talking about here is the development of mindfulness along with jhana, and that the two are developed together in the Buddhist method. I think this supports the idea that the Buddha's jhanas are not "the old fashioned" Hindu jhanas, and that they are meant to be developed in conjunction with mindfulness from the beginning. If that is the case, that either in tandem or by systematic alteration, deeper stages of insight are reached through suppression of the defilements followed by mindful investigation of the characteristics of the subtle dhammas attendant upon the jhanas, and that by the reaching of the 4th jhana the deep suppression of defilements, achievement of equanimity and fulfillment of satipatthana have been reached together, leading to a most extraordinary state of satipatthana within deep equanimity and unity of mind. This state would be the perfect launching point for the purified cittas, rich in panna, that would then go through the final path factors and realize nibbana. If the above is the case, then the words of the Buddha can be taken quite literally and the details can be filled in according to that order of the practice. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = #117373 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:50 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > p.s Rob E, very interested in your post on kusala action, was going to write tonight, but nodding off now...thanks, back to you later... Great, Phil. Hope you had or have a good sleep, and I will look forward to your comments later! I think we're into a good topic, if we can get it straight! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #117374 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:24 am Subject: Abhidhamma in practice: mindfulness of vipaka to prevent kamma philofillet Hi all I am reading something called Abhidhamma in Practice I found at ATI. I immediately found points that feel different from the way I have learned Abhidhamma from Nina's books and SPD, and in discussion here. I will use my newfound i-phone cut and paste abilities to post passages that feel different and make some comments: "To be aware of the momentariness of this vipaaka citta is of great practical importance. If one does not recognize the disappearance of this citta - and this can be done only by the practice of mindfulness - then subsequent cognitive processes having the same object as the vipaaka citta (which has already passed) can occur in the mind-door, bringing defilements into play. If the vipaaka citta had an unpleasant object, aversion can arise; and if the vipaaka citta had a pleasant object, attachment can arise. To make spiritual progress one should try to avoid the arising of those causative cittas associated with either aversion or attachment, which are both unwholesome mental factors building up further unwholesome kamma. Mindfulness of the instant perishing of the vipaaka citta after it has arisen is of immense practical value. Only one citta can exist at a time. Thus the citta with mindfulness, occurring through the mind-door, taking the perished vipaaka citta as its object, will prevent the arising of causative unwholesome cittas that lead to future suffering." I have to assume the author practices in the Mahasi tradition or some other popular modern tradition that benefits from promoting a belief in fast results. To say that one should try to prevent the arising of akusala cittas that "can" arise (rather than almoat invariably will) demonstrates wrong view about the power of meditation practice, in my opinion. What he describes is how the Ariyan mind processes cittas, it is not helpful at all to encourage worldlings to be like that, in my opinion. Of course it is possible that mindfulness of vipaka will arise and that as a result of that there will be a drying out of kamma, if it were not possible there would be no hope. But to promote it as a technique to be developed is wrong. metta, phil #117375 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:42 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma in practice: mindfulness of vipaka to prevent kamma philofillet Hi again I guess it's uncharitable to seem to be bashing the book rather than celebrating that there us at least something related to Abhidhamma at Access to Insight. I am looking for differences, not faults. And by the way, have to thank ATI for their i-phone app. I was able to download their entire website for free and can browse it independent of internet access. Amazing. Metta, Phil #117376 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional actions, such as putting alms in a bhikkhu's bowl. philofillet Hi Nina Thanks for your response. > N: There are countless processes of cittas going on while giving > something to someone else. So how can we say that life is just one citta that arises and falls away? Why don't we say life is also made up of actions such as giving, but actions are made up of conditioned dhammas that arise and fall, with no self at control. I think it is incorrect to say the Buddha didn't teach about understanding conventional actions and valuing some conventional actions above others. What do you think, Nina? Metta, Phil #117377 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:03 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna kenhowardau Hi Pt and Phil, ---- <. . .> > pt: I think this is all fine, if considered as theory. One trap I keep falling in is trying to explain away the world (including the actions and activities) with abhidhamma in the same way that science tries to do it with maths and physics, etc. In other words, intellectualise a bit too much. Sure, intellectualising in dhamma terms might point towards insight at some stage unlike physics, but it's still intellectualising, not insight. I think this is a problem you have been aware of for quite some time now. ---- KH: When you say "intellectualising" in this context, do you mean something other than "considering"? That could be where I am going wrong. :-) ------------- > Pt: Since I have the same problem of overintellectulising things, I find that considering single citta with single object helps with encouraging the understanding of anatta and conditionality a little better than when considering complex actions with complex motivations and objects. In other words, consider the descriptions of insight in practice - there seems to be one object of citta at the time (a dhamma of a khanda) and its anatta, anicca or dukkha characteristic is realised at the time. So it seems quite irrelevant what the actual action/activity or even a particular stage of that action was happening at the time when insight arose into the nature of a khanda that became the object of citta at the time. aware of for quite some time now. ------------- KH: Suppose someone were to ask: "If there are no sentient beings, why did the Buddha tell us to be kind and considerate towards sentient beings?" As far as I know, that exact question is not found anywhere in the texts. I could attempt an answer, but I wonder if, in doing so, I would be over-intellectualising rather than considering . What do you think? Ken H #117378 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:34 am Subject: Can actions rooted in lobha condition kusala? philofillet Hi Rob E Thanks again for your e-mail. Let me clip it down to a manageable chunk. If we're going to be able to dicsuss it can't be the kind of marathon posts you and pt and others exchange, I just don't have the patience (technically speaking, it's virya) for that! (As for harsh speech, you are invariably cheerful, at least when posting, so don't worry about that. We know who we are, the harsh speakers...) > If we have the intention to be aware while doing kusala activities, then we can check that the mental state is wholesome as well. If the mental state is not wholesome, we can be aware of this and see into the nature of the akusala cittas. I think in this way there will be a connection between our inner spiritual development and taking care that we are doing wholesome outer actions. Questions. 1) In your experience, does an intention to be aware lead to actually being aware? (Or are you talking only about intending to be aware during certain kusala activities?) I remember for years I intended to be fully aware during the day. I have given up, except for specific dangerous situations, such as cycling. Did I give up too soon? 2) "If the mental state is not wholesome, we can be aware of this and see into the nature of akusala cittas." Do you include very common, hugely common forms of unwholesome (technically speaking) such as lobha that arises almost invariably in the wake of sense door objects, or are you talking about more nefarious forms of unwholesomeness? 3) If I recall correctly Alex's post said that good actions accumulate and develop more good actions. Again, if we agree that there is lobha galore, can an action rooted in lobha condition more truly kusala actions? I guess I am back to where I was before. Unless I'm mistaken, you didn't mention lobha once in your response, so maybe we should establish if we agree that there is lobha galore. I've retitled the thread to reflect the focus I'd like to keep, for awhile at least. If there were areas in your previous response that address this but were clipped by my inadvertently, please repost them. To help me out, please try to keep your response as condensed as possible. Thanks! Metta, Phil #117379 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. hantun1 Dear Nina and Ken O, I had strongly opposed the idea that atta-nu-di.t.thi is wider than sakkaaya-di.t.thi when I first visited the discussions at the Ajahn Sujin Foundation. Later on, I found Ledi Sayadaw's treatise on Attaa and Anattaa in Part Three of Sammaadi.t.thi Diipanii as follows. http://www.dhammaweb.net/html/view.php?id=4 Quote: [Atta and Anatta. Atta means 'self, ego, personality, soul-essence'; anatta means 'non-ego, not-self, absence of soul-essence'. The word anatta is used to convey the following three interpretations: 1.asarakatthena-anatta--on account of being without essence or substance it is called anatta. 2.asamikatthena-anatta--on account of not having any owner or overlord it is called anatta. 3.avasavattanatthena-anatta-on account of its not yielding to another's will it is called anatta. Asarakatthena-anatta: the five constituent groups of existence delusively taken as atta. Of the three interpretations as shown in the text, I shall first expound the phrase 'asarakatthena-anatta'. Atta in the ordinary sense means essence or substance. Those beings who are not able to discern the momentary arisings and dissolutions of the physical and mental phenomena of the five constituent groups of existence and thus are not able to realise the characteristic of anicca (impermanence) maintain: 'The corporeality-group is the essence and therefore atta of beings; the sensation-group is the essence and therefore atta of beings; the perception-group is the essence and therefore atta of beings', the formation-group is the essence and therefore atta of beings; and the consciousness-group is the essence and therefore atta of beings.' This kind of view is known as soul-belief. Example of a bowl. I shall explain the above with an example. There are such things as wooden bowl, earthen bowl, brass bowl, silver bowl and gold bowl. A bowl made of wood has wood as its substance and is called a wooden bowl; a bowl made of earth has earth as its substance and is called an earthen bowl; a bowl made of iron has iron as its substance and is called an iron bowl; a bowl made of silver has silver as its substance and is called a silver bowl, and a bowl made of gold has gold as its substance and is called a gold bowl. Here, the world 'bowl' is merely the name by which is indicated a certain pictorial idea (santhana-pannatti), and this conventional term of 'bowl' possesses no essence or substance as an ultimate thing. Only the conventional terms of 'wood', 'earth', 'gold', etc., possess essence or substance (at least for this purpose). By simply hearing the sound 'bowl' one is able to understand the pictorial idea of a bowl and not its essence or substance. Only when one hears the conventional terms of 'wood', 'gold', etc., is one able to know the essence or substance of that bowl. A question may be asked: 'Why is "wood", "earth" or "gold" the essence or substance of the bowl?' I shall explain it clearly. In calling a thing 'wooden', 'wood' is the essence or substance of the pictorial idea of the bowl, and is therefore its atta. Without the substance of wood, the conventional term of 'bowl' cannot exist. Only a piece of wood that is made in the form of a bowl is called a wooden bowl. This wooden bowl will last as long as the wood is durable, and it will be valuable according to the class of wood. If it is a bowl made of teak wood, it will he valuable according to the price of teak. If it be made of aloes wood, it will be valuable according to the price of that wood. If it be made of sandalwood, it will be valuable according to the value of sandalwood. As regards the utility, too, a teak bowl will be used where it is fit to be used, and so too a bowl made of aloes wood or sandalwood. As regards the worthiness, too, the teak bowl and the sandalwood bowl will be worthy according to their standards. Thus when we say 'the wooden bowl', the wood is the essence or substance of the bowl. The same principle follows in the cases of earthen bowl, gold bowl, etc. Analogy. Similarly a being is composed of the corporeality group and has this group as his essence or substance. What has this group as its essence or substance is called a being. A being is composed of the sensation-group and has this group as his essence or substance. What has this group as its essence or substance is called a being. A being is composed of the perception-group and has this group as his essence or substance. What has this group as its essence or substance is called a being. A being is composed of the mental-formation-group and has this group as his essence or substance. What has this group as its essence or substance is called a being. A being is composed of the consciousness-group and has this group as his essence or substance. What has this group as its essence or substance is called a being. In brief, every being is composed of the five constituent groups of existence and has them as his essence or substance. In this analogy, a bowl resembles a being and the substance of a bowl resembles the five constituent groups of existence which form the essence or substance of a being.] End Quote. Han: Further down in the Diipanii, there is another passage: Quote: [When the piece of wood which we conventionally call 'bowl' is affected by cold or warm wind, or struck by a stick, or pierced by a spear, or thrown upward and downward, the physical phenomena contained in that wood will change, yielding place to newer ones, and having arisen will also disappear then and there. Some of the phenomena decay, some dissolve and some arise again by conditions, some increase, some decrease and some remain normal. When they have realised in this manner they clearly understand that there is no wood apart from these physical elements. Now, when the wood itself does not exist in the ultimate sense, how can the wood possess the essence or substance of the bowl? How can momentarily arising-and- passing-away corporeal groups become the essence or substance of the wood? Thus they penetrate to the truth. Here, the conventional term of 'bowl' resembles the conventional term of 'being'. The corporeal groups contained in the wood resemble the five constituent groups of existence. This is the analogy. (As regards the mentality-group, it has no form. When an object contacts any part of the body, then consciousness arises and disappears immediately. The bhavangasota ('the stream of subconsciousness') incessantly arises and vanishes in the heart. The stream of subconsciousness can be broken only when a new object comes into contact with it.)] End Quote. Han: Thus, by calling the bowl a bowl is attaa-di.t.thi in the sense explained above. Thus, atta-nu-di.t.thi is wider than Sakaaya-di.t.thi. But if you think the above treatise is not relevant to the statement that "atta-nu-di.t.thi is wider than sakkaaya-di.t.thi", then I have nothing more to say. with metta and respect, Han --- On Tue, 9/13/11, Nina van Gorkom wrote: From: Nina van Gorkom Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 9:29 PM Dear Ken O and Han, Again, some thoughts. Op 12-sep-2011, om 20:18 heeft Ken O het volgende geschreven: > lets talk about attanuditthi. I find it disturbing when the > interpretation of attanuditthi is more than sakkayditthi. This is > not in accordance to the text positions which put both of them as > the same meaning. ------ N: I remember that atta-nu-di.t.thi is wider than sakkaaya-di.t.thi that refers specifically to the five khandhas of a 'person', personality belief. Atta-nu-di.t.thi refers also to things outside. You want texts, I know. I have seen atta-nu-di.t.thi in a commentary but can't remember where. ------ Nina. #117380 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:32 pm Subject: Ditthi at the sense door? philofillet Today I think I heard that ditthi can appear at the sense door, there is "my" rupa. Seems to me that could only be through the mind door... Metta Phil #117381 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:44 am Subject: The Unsurpassable Radiance! bhikkhu5 Friends: Mental Release by Friendliness Outshines All! The Blessed Buddha often emphasized: Bhikkhus, whatever kinds of worldly merit there are, all are not worth one sixteenth part of the release of mind by universal friendliness; in shining, glowing and beaming radiance, such release of mind by universal friendliness far excels & surpasses them all... Itivuttaka 27 See this good being is happy! How fine! How excellent! Let there be Happiness! Let there indeed be Freedom! Let there indeed be Peace! Let there be Bliss.... Let there be Understanding of this good principle. Buddhaghosa May all beings be joyous and safe! Let every creature's mind rejoice! Let every single living being's mind be exceedingly jubilant! One should maintain an infinite friendliness for every single living being, in gentle sympathy for this entire universe, unlimited, endless and vast! This is the Divine Dwelling while actually here, they say. Buddha Gotama The Bhikkhu pervades all beings with all-embracing friendliness ... The Bhikkhu encompass all beings with universal & endless pity ... The Bhikkhu permeates all beings with infinite & mutual joy ... The Bhikkhu suffuses all beings with unlimited equanimity ... Digha Nikya 33 May all creatures, all breathing things, all beings one and all, without exception, experience good fortune only. May they not fall into any harm. Anguttara Nikya II, 72 Thus he who both day and night takes delight in harmlessness sharing love with all that live, finds enmity with none. Samyutta Nikya I 208 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <...> #117382 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:52 pm Subject: Re: Ditthi at the sense door? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Today I think I heard that ditthi can appear at the sense door, there is "my" rupa. Seems to me that could only be through the mind door... ... S: Can be sense door or mind door, just as panna can be at either. Gives an indication at just how quickly panna or ditthi can dart in. How could there ever be any 'selection' or action to make either arise? When there's awareness of ditthi or panna, it doesn't matter in the slightest which doorway they arose. The characteristic is the same. Metta Sarah ===== #117383 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:55 pm Subject: Re: To Sarah. Private message. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > I am really in a bad shape. Please could you call me. I dont have anyone to talk to. I have a new mobile phone numer: +48533616151 ..... S: I'll try to call you in about an hour after I've written a few posts to give you a chance to wake up. Perhaps you can prepare any qus and write a summary to share on DSG afterwards. Speak soon.... Metta Sarah ====== #117384 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara sarahprocter... Dear Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > KO: Now remember when Buddha said the world, you forget to say that mind objects > can be a concept. .... S: Are you referring to the following sutta in SN 1V, "The World"? "Then a certain monk came to see the Exalted One.... Seated at one side that monk said to the Exalted One: 'The world! The world! is the saying, lord. How far, lord, does this saying go?' " 'It crumbles away, monks. Therefore it is called the world' [Note 14]. What crumbles away? The eye... objects... eye-consciousness... eye-contact... that pleasant or unpleasant or neutral feeling that arises owing to eye-contact... tongue... body... mind... It crumbles away, monks. Therefore it is called the world'." Doesn't this refer to impermanent dhammas, reminding us that there is no 'whole', no computer, no body, no thing as we're used to thinking? This sutta is found in Sa.laayatanavagga. These suttas are about the ayatanas. The ayatanas are realities, paramattha dhammas, not concepts, surely? ... >KO:In the commentary of MN1, when the description of earth, it > is by four description. There is conventional earth, objective earth, - are > all concepts. And it is due to the conceit, ditthi and craving that causes the > perversion of preception, the object itself is not the cause of the perversion > though they could have object conditioning effect. .... S: when there is right understanding there is just hardness, pathavi dhatu. " 'For what reason does the worldling conceive earth/ Why does he conceive and delight in earth?' the answer is: 'Because it has not been fully understood by him,' i.e. because he has not fully understood the base, therefore (he does so)." (comy to Mulapariyaya Sutta, Bodhi transl, p39f) And again from the comy to Muulapariyaaya Sutta: "For whatsoever instance among these four kinds of earth, the worldling perceives as earth, he perceives (with the notion) "it is earth"; he perecives as a segment of earth (pathaviibhaagena): he percieves through a perversion of perception, rising upon the conventional expression (S i.e concept) and thinking "it is earth" (loka vohaara'm gahetvaasa~n~naa vipallaasenasa~njaanaati). Or, without releasing such a segment of earth, he perceives it as a being (satta) or as belonging to a being. Why does he perceive it in this way? This should not be asked, for the worldling is like a madman. he seizes upon anything he can in whatever way he can. Or else, the reason is that he has no regard for the ariyans, etc; or, as the Exalted One will say later on, "because it has not been fully understood by him". Again, Sub Cy "The purport is: all dhammas beginning with earth (pathavi) which function as the bases for conceiving (ma~n~nanaavatthu)." In other words, there is only pathavii dhatu (earth element) experienced through the body-sense, only elements which are ever directly known through insight, but there is (wrong) conceiving about all kinds of earth and concept. Only the direct understanding of the realities lead to the ariyan knowledge. Metta Sarah ===== #117385 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in practice: mindfulness of vipaka to prevent kamma nilovg Dear Phil, Op 14-sep-2011, om 2:24 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > To say that one should try to prevent the arising of akusala cittas > that "can" arise (rather than almoat invariably will) demonstrates > wrong view about the power of meditation practice, in my opinion. > What he describes is how the Ariyan mind processes cittas, it is > not helpful at > all to encourage worldlings to be like that, in my opinion. ------ N: As to being aware of vipaakacitta, yes, seeing is vipaaka and it can be object of awareness. No selection. Akusala citta arises and also that should be known, otherwise it can never be eradicated. This is also the case for ariyans who are not arahat, they also have akusala cittas. ------ Nina. #117386 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara sarahprocter... Dear Ken O, It's not just a matter of whether or not the commentaries or sub-commentaries are read, it's a matter of the understanding of the meaning of what is said: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: >KO: One should see commentary to Satipatthana as the authentic and authority of > what Buddha said. These few passages are also echoed in the Dispeller of > Delusion under the topic Classification of the four foundations of Mindfullness. > > < and small members of the body, or of a man, or of a woman, apart from such > things like the hair of the head and the hair of the body. > > There can be nothing apart from the qualities of primary and derived > materiality, in a body. .... S: In other words, as some of us understand the commentaries, there are in fact only primary and derived rupas which are taken for the body, for a man, for a woman, for hair and so on. Through the body-sense, only hardness/softness (pathavi dhatu), temperature (tejo dhatu) and motion (vayo dhatu) are ever experienced. It is the understanding of the truth about what is directly experienced - mere elements - which is the understanding indicated throughout the sutta. The purpose is to lead to detachment from the idea of 'things' and 'people'. As Nina has suggested, we just read and share what we've learnt with our friends here according to our understanding with goodwill. Metta Sarah ====== #117387 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. nilovg Dear Han, I am so glad and relieved to hear from you. That means you are in good shape. Thank you for your interesting quotes from Ledi Sayadaw. He explains by way of similes, and this is also done in the Tipi.taka and in the commentaries even more so. The end is clearer than the beginning, because at first one wonders: substance? But then he clarifies. Thank you very much, Nina. Op 14-sep-2011, om 4:30 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Han: Thus, by calling the bowl a bowl is attaa-di.t.thi in the > sense explained above. Thus, atta-nu-di.t.thi is wider than Sakaaya- > di.t.thi. > > But if you think the above treatise is not relevant to the > statement that "atta-nu-di.t.thi is wider than sakkaaya-di.t.thi", > then I have nothing more to say. #117388 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:51 pm Subject: Direct Textual Evidence (Re: [dsg] Re: wisdom and doing) sarahprocter... Dear Rob E & Pt, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > pt: Hm, well, maybe I'm wrong then, maybe you'd care to doublecheck with others. That's why it might be good to frame it in strict abhidhamma terminology for starters, as it is very precise, and then later on we can try and translate it into everyday language. So, my understanding is that: > > > > 1. pariyatti is the arising of panna with those cittas that have concepts as object, so not just intellectual knowledge (so concepts as objects of citta without panna). that's how i understand Nina and Sarah to often say that abhidhamma is not in the books, for example. .... S: I'd just stress that these are concepts about present realities - in other words, pariyatti has to point to the truth about the present dhammas which are experiencing and being experienced now. .... > > > > 2. patipatti is the arising of panna with those cittas that have dhammas as objects, so there's the seeing of the characterstics of a dhamma. > > > > 3. pativeda, i'm not sure, i think this refers to supramudane moments (so nibbana as object of citta), or possibly to moments of inisght of vipassana nana strength, so still a dhamma as object of citta and panna, but with one of the nanas. I forgot what exactly is the deal there. ... S: Yes, also referring to insight, vipassana nanas, as I understand. ... > > > > Perhaps someone can point out if I'm mistaken somewhere there. > > I think that's a pretty clear rundown and I'll bet it's probably correct. Let's wait and see what some others may say on this technically, and then at least the definitions of pariyatti and patipatti may be resolved. That's a pretty good shot at it I think! Thanks for the discussion so far. .... S: Yes, a very good "shot" and a very good discussion between you both. Many thanks. Metta Sarah ====== #117389 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:09 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: Hi Phil & Ken H, > > Ph: Ken, you have countless times been pointed toward the stock sutta passage that is used several or many times in the suttanta, for example, when the Buddha met a leper on the road he taught a gradual teaching on various topics...I just did a quick google search, here is the key passage, didn't check the quality of the translation: > <. . .> > -------------- > > KH: You are right, and I should apologise for my obstinacy. Even A. Sujin concedes that the Buddha occasionally taught a conventional path for people who were not ready to hear the true path. And yet it is A Sujin who I relentlessly quote as saying, "The Buddha taught satipatthana, and every word of his teaching should be understood in terms of satipatthana." ..... S: There are only ever dhammas existing and this is what the Buddha is always pointing to. He uses different kinds of language and different kinds of discourse, including the gradual discourses, according to the audience that is being addressed. It depends on the accumulations for understanding of those listeners and of us today, as to whether there is any enlightenment, lesser insight into realities, a general appeciation of the value of other kinds of kusala, just more ignorance or even extreme wrong view. .... > > But I remain obstinate. Undoubtedly the Buddha did occasionally teach something other than satipatthana, but, even so, you and I are to understand that fact in terms of satipatthana. (I think that is what A Sujin meant.) .... S: I think that whatever was taught, whatever was not taught, whatever we hear about or read about now, whether in Dhamma texts, novels or newspapers, in fact there are only dhammas, only realities arising and falling away. As you, Ken H, wrote before to Rob E: "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." ... > We have to understand the present moment. And every moment throughout history has been exactly like this present one - just a few fleeting conditioned dhammas performing their functions. ... S: Yes, nicely put. And as we read in the sutta in AN, whether a Buddha appears or not, there are just these same conditioned dhammas arising and falling away. Not sure if I've helped or hindered the discussion, but in any case I appreciate your friendly exchanges:-) Metta Sarah ===== #117390 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional actions, such as putting alms in a bhikkhu's bowl. nilovg Dear Phil, Op 14-sep-2011, om 2:53 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > So how can we say that life is just one citta that arises and falls > away? Why don't we say life is also made up of actions such as > giving, but actions are made up of conditioned dhammas that arise > and fall, with no self at control. ------- N: When seeing life is seeing, when hearing, life is hearing. Only one object is experienced at a time, and then citta falls away. THis is death in the ultimate sense. Death in the conventional sense is just death as the end of a lifespan. Death in the ultimate sense is the falling away of dhamma. Final death is the death of an arahat, he does not have to be reborn. Think of the often quoted passage of the Visuddhimagga: What we call death is not really different from what happens at any moment of consciousness. Each moment a citta falls away there is death of citta. Each citta which arises falls away completely but it conditions the next citta. The last citta of this life, the dying- consciousness (cuti-citta), is succeeded by the first citta of the next life, the rebirth-consciousness (paisandhi-citta). There is no self at any moment of our life and thus there is no self or soul which travels from this life to the next life. ------- > > Ph: I think it is incorrect to say the Buddha didn't teach about > understanding conventional actions and valuing some conventional > actions above others. What do you think, Nina? ----- N: He spoke about conventional actions, because his teaching was in conventional sense and also in the ultimate sense. It depended on the listeners. Quote from my Abhidhamma Series (this is Abh for beginners, on Zolag): from the Commentary to M.N.5, No Blemishes: -------------- In the Suttanta we find the teaching in conventional way, but also the teaching by way of ultimate realities. When the Buddha spoke in the suttas about situations and people, he pointed to the truth of impermanence, dukkha and anattaa. He knew the dispositions of different beings and which kind of teaching was most suitable for them. The teaching of the Abhidhamma is mainly by way of ultimate realities, paramattha dhammas. In order to have understanding of the Abhidhamma it is essential to know the difference between ultimate realities, paramattha dhammas and concepts, pa~n~natti, such as a person or a tree. > -------- Nina. #117391 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna nilovg Dear Ken H, Op 14-sep-2011, om 3:03 heeft Ken H het volgende geschreven: > KH: Suppose someone were to ask: "If there are no sentient beings, > why did the Buddha tell us to be kind and considerate towards > sentient beings?" > > As far as I know, that exact question is not found anywhere in the > texts. I could attempt an answer, but I wonder if, in doing so, I > would be over-intellectualising rather than considering . What do > you think? ----- N: If there would be no further explanation, people may take it wrongly, thinking: it does not matter whether we are kind or not. (Something similar as driving into a tree!) It is the citta with mettaa that matters. We are used to think in conventional way, namely of the effect on someone else when we are kind. Of his reactions, etc. quite a story. This will hinder mettaa. It does not matter whether the other person responds favorably or not. Mettaa citta is kusala citta that is beneficial. It can and should be cultivated. Kh Sujin had a good way of demonstrating this. I said in Sri Lanka that such and such a person does not like us. She said: it does not matter, we like her. Similar advices she gave us when we had problems concerning my late father who was inclined to critize us. All this is very practical, not over-intellectualizing. Nina. #117392 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:27 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Dear Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > KH: Some time ago, DSG was discussing the panna that arose with jhana, and we agreed that this type of panna knew the difference between kusala and akusala. A question that then arose was, "If the object of jhana-citta is a kasina (a concept), and concepts are neither kusala nor akusala, in what way could panna know that object?" > > The answer, if I remember correctly, was that panna did not know that object. The panna associated with jhana did not arise in the actual jhana citta. It arose in a separate citta which took consciousness (or a concept of consciousness?) as its object. .... S: Different cittas. At he moment that jhana citta arises (or prior moments) with, for example a kasina (concept) as object, panna must arise with that citta, wisely experiencing that object. Other kusala cetasikas also arise with it. At that instant, only the nimitta, the sign of the conept is the object, but immediately afterwards, the moments of reviewing consciousness (with panna) know what kind of citta it was, what kind of mental factors arose and so on. So, different cittas arising with panna experiencing different objects. Similarly, when nibbana is experienced by lokuttara cittas accompanied by panna and other sobhana cetasikas, these are followed by reviewing consciousness cittas which know what kind of cittas arose, what defilements were eradicated and so on. All accompanied by panna. So, different kinds and levels of panna with different objects. Is that any clearer? Metta Sarah ====== #117393 From: Lukas Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm Subject: Sarah's call szmicio Dear friends, First of all thanks to Phil for very fast support to me when I was sad. Sarah called me. That was so nice to hear her and her support. She encourage me to help others, then no unpleasant feeling. She said also that we should not take it all too personally. Those are all conditioned dhammas. And it's all gone now. Her call reminded me of Acharn saying: 'We study ourselfes, not cetasikas.' Thank you Sarah. Best wishes Lukas P.s I think my only chance to help others, is to help my best friend in prison. I wrote to him recently that I am with him and I will try to eat less and smoke less as he do in prison. But my ignorance is so deeply rooted that I cant smoke less. #117394 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. hantun1 Dear Nina, I am okay, but I am using my eyes sparingly, because I have Age-Related Macula Degeneration both eyes; the beginning of cloudiness of the posterior wall of the lens capsule, as a late complication of the cataract surgery both eyes; and the suspected glaucoma both eyes which was cleared but will have to check regularly. With all these, my visual acuity is decreasing gradually, and so I cannot strain my eyes too much. Besides, I am presenting in serial the entire book of The Essence of Buddha Abhidhamma by Dr Mehm Tin Mon, and the Dhammapada verses with the Pali text, alternate English translations, and their background stories, at the JTN Discussion Group, which was put on my lap when Htoo left suddenly. I have reached almost to the end of my presentations. I hope you and Lodewijk are doing well. Both of you are always in my mind. with metta and respect, Han --- On Wed, 9/14/11, Nina van Gorkom wrote: Dear Han, I am so glad and relieved to hear from you. That means you are in good shape. Thank you for your interesting quotes from Ledi Sayadaw. He explains by way of similes, and this is also done in the Tipi.taka and in the commentaries even more so. The end is clearer than the beginning, because at first one wonders: substance? But then he clarifies. Thank you very much, Nina. #117395 From: "philip" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:00 pm Subject: Re: Sarah's call philofillet Hi Lukas I'm glad you had a nice talk with Sarah. > I think my only chance to help others, is to help my best friend in prison. I wrote to him recently that I am with him and I will try to eat less and smoke less as he do in prison. I'm sure he will benefit from that but I'm sure there are countless opprtunities to help others. For example, when there is wise response to people's behaviour that would usually irritate us abd we don't show aversion tgat is a kind of dana called offering others freedom from fear, or something like that. I heard Acharn Sujin talk about it. In paramattha terms it means not conditioning the citta with unpleasant mental feeling in the other. So many opportunities to respond wisely to people and offer them protectiom from harm... Metta, Phil p.s Thank you for several respinses, Sarah and Nina and others, back on Saturday. #117396 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sarah's call sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- On Wed, 14/9/11, Lukas wrote: >Sarah called me. That was so nice to hear her and her support. She encourage me to help others, then no unpleasant feeling. She said also that we should not take it all too personally. Those are all conditioned dhammas. And it's all gone now. Her call reminded me of Acharn saying: 'We study ourselfes, not cetasikas.' .... S: Nice chatting briefly.... Yes, we usually find ourselves, the "story of ME" very important and forget there are just conditioned dhammas now. We have so many concerns, so many stories about "Bad Me", "Addicted Me", "What will happen to ME", "Lonely ME" - ups and downs, just experiences through the senses and lots of lobha, dosa and moha. All the dhammas of yesterday, all the dramas of earlier today - all completely gone, just the present reality NOW, to be known. Yes, let's not take the dhammas arising and falling away so seriously! Opportunities for metta, for kindness, all day long, like now as we write to and read what our friends say, like when we pass people in the street, like when others behave badly too. You mentioned you may be starting a job in an international school in Gdansk soon. Let us know how it goes! Many opportunities for helping and showing kindness to your students and setting a good example without alcohol and drug addictions:-)) Best wishes and Metta Sarah ===== #117397 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:08 pm Subject: Re: Sarah's call szmicio Hi Phil, > I'm sure he will benefit from that but I'm sure there are countless opprtunities to help others. For example, when there is wise response to people's behaviour that would usually irritate us abd we don't show aversion tgat is a kind of dana called offering others freedom from fear, or something like that. L: Yes I think this is abhaya dana. Giving people a refuge from fear. Am I right? Best wishes Lukas #117398 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in practice: mindfulness of vipaka to prevent kamma upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 9/13/2011 8:24:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes with regard to preventing the arising of akusala cittas: I have to assume the author practices in the Mahasi tradition or some other popular modern tradition that benefits from promoting a belief in fast results. To say that one should try to prevent the arising of akusala cittas that "can" arise (rather than almoat invariably will) demonstrates wrong view about the power of meditation practice, in my opinion. What he describes is how the Ariyan mind processes cittas, it is not helpful at all to encourage worldlings to be like that, in my opinion. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Practice begins when one is quite the amateur. Otherwise one will never become more than an amateur. One begins by energetically exercising intent. You might note the following teaching of the Buddha describing a practice for monks, and not specifically ariyans, Phil, and please note in particular, the first of the following four: Right Effort "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." " _SN 45.8_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html) ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #117399 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: atta-nu-di.t.thi, was: samatha. nilovg Dear Han, Op 14-sep-2011, om 11:40 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I am presenting in serial the entire book of The Essence of Buddha > Abhidhamma by Dr Mehm Tin Mon, and the Dhammapada verses with the > Pali text, alternate English translations, and their background > stories, at the JTN Discussion Group, which was put on my lap when > Htoo left suddenly. I have reached almost to the end of my > presentations. ------ N: I greatly admire you and appreciate what you are doing. All you quoted from Dr Mehm Tin Mon was always very good. It is useful if you can give us some quotes now and then. I mean, when it is no extra work, since you have to spare your eyes. But maybe you could download and copy passages from the book you have to present anyway. Yes, Htoo, our good friend. No news? Thank you for your good wishes also to Lodewijk. He has too many medicines now and struggles with bronchitis. I try to look after him, mostly with healthy foods. I do get worried though, and I know this is dosa. Hoping to hear from you again, when you have finished your presentations, best wishes for your health, Nina.