#118200 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 2:44 pm Subject: Re: understanding of 4NT ptaus1 Hi Alex, > >pt: In general I agree. in practical terms, I'd just make a slightly >different emphasis - i.e. rather than saying that the path is about >realising all craving and the 4NT covering everything, which is >right when speaking in general terms - I'd rather say that in >practical terms it all comes down to understanding the presently >arising craving (for whatever object) as anicca, anatta, etc. > >============================================ > > Alex: My understanding of the teaching is that understanding has to cover ALL times, and ALL occasions. Not just this one, though it is included as well. pt: Hm, I think I understand what you are saying in general. We can safely say that no craving and ignorance will arise ever again, after they have been eradicated by arahata magga citta. Before that though, it's all conditioned, so sometimes there will be panna, often not. After arahata magga citta though, I think that panna won't be there all the time either. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But, at least there will be no more conditions for arising of ignorance and craving. At least that's how I understand the theory on this. > Alex: Mere collection of "this is anicca..." might not dispel the belief that "while this is anicca, that isn't" . Inductive reasoning and statistical observation is never fully certain. Even though one may have seen white swans, it doesn't mean that there can't be a black swan. pt: Yes I agree that intellectualising doesn't count for much. Practically, either there's panna now, or not. Wishing panna to be there or not is just more intellectualisation. > >Pt: But I wonder if we also agree that if the object of present >citta is a concept, then panna will not be able to understand the >three characteristics at the time (and thus no insight will occur), >though it might with a later citta that takes perception as object >for example? > >======================================================== > > Alex: I hope you've read my posts. My understanding is that concept = thought. Thought as nama is anicca, dukkha, anatta. > > What the thought points to can be a collection of rupas such as "computer" or "chair". These collections of rupas are also anicca, dukkha, anatta. > > Thought can also point to another thought or collection of thoughts, which are anicca-dukkha-anatta. > > We can agree to disagree regarding concepts. pt: I don't think we disagree here as much as we invest different meanings into the same terms, hence the confusion. Let me try and describe my perspective on the meanings: "Concept" is content/object of thought/thinking "Thought/thinking" are dhammas, in particular vitaka, vicara, sanna, etc. "Sabhava" is a term that stands for 3 general characteristics and individual characteristics. so saying that a dhamma like rupa has sabhava, means that the dhamma is impermanent, anatta, dukkha and has some individual characteristics that differentiate it from other dhammas (like feeling is different from perception). Panna can understand/discern sabhava (so characteristics) of certain objects of citta, and it cannot discern sabhava of other objects for whatever reason. One of the objects of which it cannot discern sabhava are concepts. So in practical terms, panna cannot see for whatever reason the 3 characteristics of "mayonnaise", but it can see the 3 characteristics of perception, thinking, craving, etc, that just accompanied the citta that just had the concept of "mayonnaise" as object. So practically, it's dhammas that matter as far as insight is concerned. Sure though, concepts have their usefulness. That's how I understand things to be in theory. Best wishes pt #118201 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 3:39 pm Subject: Re: A few issues epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E & Phil, > > Hope this is the right one that you asked for extra comments on: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Ph: Akusala kamma patha is strong enough to condition rebirth in a woeful realm, if I understand correctly, if there are several factors to make it a "full course" kamma, or something like that. > > > >R: Yeah, I haven't gotten the full rundown, but I'm developing a "theory" :-) that while mental factors/intention is the root of all kamma, as it becomes realized in speech and action it becomes heavier/more complete. So the idle thought of murder is kamma 1, the plan to murder [speech] is kamma 2, and the carrying out of murder is complete kamma patha or kamma 3, the heaviest kamma. > .... > S: As Phil said, sounds like "in the right direction"! 1) and 2) are kamma, but only 3) is completed kamma patha, liable to bring results by way of unhappy rebirth and subsequent akusala vipaka. > ... Thank you. That is what I thought I heard, but glad to have it confirmed. > > Aren't you glad I didn't write the Abhidhamma? :-))) > .... > S: Very glad to see your keen interest:-)) > ... :-) >> c/ what would happen if the monk, or someone on behalf of the monk persuaded the person to prepare that meal/kill that animal. Who gets the kamma? > .... > S: For the person who killed the animal, it is akusala kamma patha. Now, they may have been persuaded or even ordered to do so, in which case the "prompted" akusala cittas and akusala kamma patha would not be as strong as in the case when someone, for example, killed the animal in a fit of rage. > > If someone persuaded/ordered the other person to kill the animal then it would certainly be akusala kamma patha in the case of the ordering. There are many examples in the text of this, when the act is completed. In the case of persuading or encouraging, but not ordering, then akusala kamma, but probably not full akusala kamma patha, because it's not killing by that person. Thank you, that is very clear. > As for the monk, if he persuaded someone to prepare/kill the animal specially, it would be very weighty kamma indeed. Deliberately breaking the vinaya can result in rebirth in hell realms. This is why one should never support any breach of vinaya by monks, such as giving money to a monk, engaging in non-dhamma discussion and so on. > .... Wow - that is worth noting. > > >P: Moment of sincere friendliness confirmed and accumulated! CLICK. > .... > S: Glad to note it! (There was a bit of that 'schoolyard bully' creeping in a little while ago, I think) > ... > > > > Metta received and reciprocated! Rob E. out! > .... > Sarah out too... > > Have a good weekend everyone. Thanks, Sarah, you too! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - #118202 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 3:41 pm Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...Once again, you are the one making persona evaluations and not sticking to the conversation..." > > Scott: No, I was making a joke that time. This speech is so hard to keep track of. What was the conversation? Doesn't matter, I'll see you in the succeeding moment. We appear to be missing each other's jokes. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #118203 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 3:43 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Scott & Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > > R: "...That comment was a joke in response to your comment to 'settle down,' which was you not sticking to Dhamma..." > > > > Scott: Oh, that was a joke. That's funny because you missed my joke in the other post and thought it was serious. <.......>Oh well, we are men after all... > .... > Sarah: :-)) Glad to see you guys are all bonding so well now ;-) Yes, it's getting to be a little bit too much fun. :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - #118204 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 3:50 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Scott. Sheesh...I started to write "Hi Rob" above instead of "Scott." I am really getting confused - guess it shows the names "Rob" and "Scott" are just concepts. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...That comment was a joke in response to your comment to 'settle down,' which was you not sticking to Dhamma..." > > Scott: Oh, that was a joke. That's funny because you missed my joke in the other post and thought it was serious. Also, it's funny too because 'settle down' was a joke and you then took it seriously. It's like all these jokes passing in the night. I did think it was a good question, though. I like how you're like 'no, you answer it first' and that, as if the fate of the world depended on who answers first. Oh well, we are men after all... Really, the reason I wanted you to answer first was that I was more interested in your answer than mine. I didn't think I had much to say at that moment which was why my answer was terse, but I'm still interested in your view. Meanwhile, we'll need some tutorials in "understanding others' humor" or something like that. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #118205 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 3:48 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: A few issues dhammasaro Good friends all, May I ask on the following? It was stated: This is why one should never support any breach of vinaya by monks, such as giving money to a monk, Please help me. Please quote the prohibition in the Vinaya-pitaka on giving money to a monk. Sincere thanks. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck <...> >> c/ what would happen if the monk, or someone on behalf of the monk persuaded the person to prepare that meal/kill that animal. Who gets the kamma? > .... > S: For the person who killed the animal, it is akusala kamma patha. Now, they may have been persuaded or even ordered to do so, in which case the "prompted" akusala cittas and akusala kamma patha would not be as strong as in the case when someone, for example, killed the animal in a fit of rage. > > If someone persuaded/ordered the other person to kill the animal then it would certainly be akusala kamma patha in the case of the ordering. There are many examples in the text of this, when the act is completed. In the case of persuading or encouraging, but not ordering, then akusala kamma, but probably not full akusala kamma patha, because it's not killing by that person. Thank you, that is very clear. > As for the monk, if he persuaded someone to prepare/kill the animal specially, it would be very weighty kamma indeed. Deliberately breaking the vinaya can result in rebirth in hell realms. This is why one should never support any breach of vinaya by monks, such as giving money to a monk, engaging in non-dhamma discussion and so on. > .... Wow - that is worth noting. <....> #118206 From: "Christine" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 8:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A few issues christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > > Please help me. Please quote the prohibition in the Vinaya-pitaka on giving money to a monk. > > Hello chuck, Hope this helps: Vinaya Monks and Money by Ajahn Brahmavamso On Monks and Money Buddhist monks (bhikkhus) and nuns (bhikkhunis) are not allowed to accept money for themselves. Nor are they allowed to tell a trustworthy layperson to receive it on their behalf and keep it for them (e.g. keeping a personal bank account). Such practices are explicitly prohibited in the 18th rule of the section of Vinaya called Nissaggiya Pacittiya. Nor may monks or nuns buy and sell things for themselves using money. This is prohibited by the 19th rule in the Nissaggiya Pacittiya. Some people argue that these two rules refer only to gold and silver but such a view is indefensible. The Vinaya specifically states that these rules cover "whatever is used in business" [2], i.e. any medium of exchange. Other people try to get around this rule by saying that it is only a minor rule, inapplicable to monastic life today. Indeed, the Buddha once did say that the Sangha may abolish the "lesser and minor" rules. But is this rule a minor one?... 'Monks, there are these four stains because of which the sun and moon glow not, shine not, blaze not. What are these four? Rain clouds... snow clouds... smoke and dust... and an eclipse. Even so, monks, there are these four stains because of which monks and priests glow not, shine not, blaze not. What are these four? Drinking alcohol... indulging in sexual intercourse... accepting gold or money... obtaining one's requisites through a wrong mode of livelihood. These are the four stains, monks, because of which monks and priests glow not, shine not, blaze not.' [3] Obviously, the Buddha thought that the rule prohibiting the acceptance of gold or money was, indeed, a very important rule. The non-acceptance of money has always been one of the fundamental observances of those who have left the world. Money is the measure of wealth and to most people material wealth is the goal of life. In the renunciation of money by monks and nuns, they emphatically demonstrate their complete rejection of worldly pursuits. At one stroke they set themselves significantly apart from the vast majority of people and thus become a constant reminder to all that a life based on the struggle to accumulate money is not the only way to live. Through giving up money they give up much of their power to manipulate the world and to satisfy their desires. Thus, as the Buddha once said when asked whether money was permissible to the monks and nuns: 'Whoever agrees to gold or money, headman, also agrees to the five strands of sensual pleasure, and whoever agrees to the five strands of sensual pleasure, headman, you may take it for certain that this is not the way of a recluse, that this is not the way of a Buddhist monk.'[4] References [1] Book of the Discipline, volume 5, page 424. [2] Book of the Discipline, volume 2, page 102. [3] Anguttara Nikaya, volume 2, page 53. (my translation) [4] Samyutta Nikaya, volume 4, page 326. (my translation) http://www.viet.net/anson/ebud/ebsut018.htm with metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #118207 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 9:11 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: A few issues dhammasaro Good friend Chris, et al Sincere warm thanks for the information. Would you please provide the exact words from the Vinaya-pitaka as I do not have access to your references. Thank you for your continued assistances. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: cjforsyth1@... <...> Hello chuck, Hope this helps: Vinaya Monks and Money by Ajahn Brahmavamso On Monks and Money Buddhist monks (bhikkhus) and nuns (bhikkhunis) are not allowed to accept money for themselves. Nor are they allowed to tell a trustworthy layperson to receive it on their behalf and keep it for them (e.g. keeping a personal bank account). Such practices are explicitly prohibited in the 18th rule of the section of Vinaya called Nissaggiya Pacittiya. Nor may monks or nuns buy and sell things for themselves using money. This is prohibited by the 19th rule in the Nissaggiya Pacittiya. <...> #118208 From: "philip" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 9:59 pm Subject: Re: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? philofillet Hi Alex and all > How can eye experience hardness, odor, flavor? > How can ear experience color, hardness, odor, flavor? > How can nose experience color, hardness, flavor? > similarly with other sense organs. > They can't. > > Also since one process happens at a time (or so we are taught), it means that 5 sense organs cannot function simultaneously at the exact same moment. So we can't say that there is simultaneous awareness of all these characteristics through 5 sense organs and the mind (which is required to cognize cohesion). > > So "rupa" does not have fixed sabhava nature that is cognized every time Ph: Rupa is very difficult, I find. I still have a lot of questions and confusions. I think you have asked a good question here. I sometimes hear there can be different degrees of hardness for ecample, not one "hardness" that is identical, tge rupas tgat make up a rock and the rupas rgat make up a petal, sharing some sabhava of rupa aspects, but with a diffwrent degree of hardness, something like that? I don't know if that addresses your question or not, but let's see what Nina or others say. But why are you insisting ob "simuktaneous awareness" of rupa, there is rupa of visible object, rupa of taste, rupa of smell and so on, all different monents of awareness of diffetent rupas at different miments. There us no rupa that is "flower", that is made up of rupa of smell, rupa of colour, rupa of hardness, and so on. What does "simultaneuous awareness" have to do with Dhamma. It is not possible... Metta, Phil #118209 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 11:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/1/2011 8:17:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Scott, Connie, all, > A: "Can rupa ever arise without characteristic of hardness?" > > Scott: You're kidding, right? >========== It is a fair question. What hardness is felt by eye-sense (Cakkhuppasada) at the moment when seeing occurs? With best wishes, Alex ================================= The perspective expressed in Abhidhamma, I believe, is that while several rupas arise together as part of a kalapa, at most one can be object of consciousness at any time. This is typically understood in terms of rupas existing "externally" (as opposed to exclusively as object-contents of consciousness). From my phenomenalist perspective (with rupas arising only as mental content, "on the screen of mind" as it were), I could still accept this "kalapa perspective" provided I consider all but (at most) one of the rupas as arising subliminally (and not rising to the level of consciousness). With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118210 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Oct 2, 2011 11:33 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Robert E As usual your post raises a number of issues! Will break it down into smaller chunks :-)) (117788) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > > J: For those who have heard and understood the teachings, the development of all forms of kusala is to be understood as being 'in conjunction with mindfulness' (as far as possible). I think you'll find that suttas dealing with dana and sila also make reference to the development of awareness/insight. > > It's possible that awareness/insight can be developed in relation to dana and sila as well, but that does not mean that jhana does not have a specific role in developing insight when jhana is used as basis. > =============== J: When the texts talk about insight/enlightenment with jhana as basis, it's not a case of jhana being *used* as basis. It's a case of jhana citta, or one of the cetasikas that are the jhana factors, being the object of insight. This will occur (or not) by conditions rather than by selection on the part of the individual. Look at it this way. When, for example, dana or hardness or body consciousness is object of insight, we do not speak of dana, hardness or body consciousness being *used* as basis for insight. It just happens to be the object. > =============== > > J: The notion of deeper insight during periods of the suppression of the hindrances brought about by attainment of jhana is not one that is stated in the texts. > > I guess it depends on what statements you are reading. When Buddha defines the 4th jhana as "achievement of equanimity and fulfillment of satipatthana," I think he is clearly stating that jhana has this role. > =============== J: I think you mean that such a role for jhana is implied (not 'clearly stated'). To my understanding, the suppression of the hindrances occurs with the 1st jhana (or even before). So if suppression of the hindrances was the point of the teaching, it would not be necessary to go beyond the 1st jhana. > =============== > > The basis usually given for this notion is that the hindrances are described in the texts as being hindrances to the development of awareness. From this it is deduced that if the hindrances were to be suppressed then insight would be free to shine. > > I think it is deduced that without the hindrances insight is free to develop. Removing the influence of the hindrances is one of the requisites for satipatthana. =============== J: Not sure what you mean when you say that removing the influence of the hindrances is one of the *requisites* for satipatthana. Surely there can be the development of satipatthana/insight without mundane jhana first being attained? Indeed, you have previously acknowledged that even enlightenment is possible without the attainment of jhana. ( may be missing something in what you say.) Jon PS Will answer your 'please explains' in a separate post. #118211 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 12:31 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? philofillet Hi Alex and all > >P:As for people, I do agree that the conventional reflection of >ageing, illness and death has a place in conditioning samvega. > >==================================================== > > Right. Ph: This topic came up in a talk I listened to. Someobe asked about contemplation on death, and AS asked "what is the result?, meaning lobha. Sarah added. if there is selection, there must be lobha. I know you don't agree with thus, and I'm not sure I do yet, but it is good to keep an open mind to tge possibility that any samattha aspect of this recollection is destroyed by lobha involved. You won't buy tyat, I think, fair enough. Then she said "what about now, working for deaty, living for death, thnking for death, all our futile activities motivated by clingng to essentially useless dhammas, all to end with death, there can be valua le recollection of tyat as we are pushed tgrough life by our defilements. > >P: Even the dumbest redneck can reflect on the impermanence of his > >================================= > > I thought about a similar issue: Why those who work in the morgue do not develop dispassion toward bodies, life, etc. why they don't become anagamis and so forth? > > They do not understand 4NT. They do not wish to be freed from lust. They want to experience lust and sleep with their wives. So they ignore what they see so as to not be disgusted. They do not train to let go of craving. They try to look at lust inducing parts of their wives and other people's. For ordinary humans it seems that they want to crave. When you tell them drawbacks of something, they may say that "oh you are pessimist. Look at that pleasant thing. Don't focus on the negative". > Ph: Well said. I always enjoy it when you write about how disgusting sex actually is, if we see through the vipalassa ( I don't except very rarely) , it's not a fashionable thing to do. I hope you will be able to ordain someday, I am rooting for you. Again, I don't belueve spending a lot of time here is moving you closer to tgat goal. To get over your sickness you have to get off the internet, in my opinion. Metta, Phil #118212 From: "connie" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 1:06 am Subject: Re: A few issues nichiconn Hi Chuck, > > Would you please provide the exact words from the Vinaya-pitaka as I do not have access to your references. > Bk of Discipline vol.III p.102: Whatever monk should take gold and silver, or should get another to take it (for him), or should consent to its being kept in deposit (for him), there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture. p.106: Whatever monk should engage in various transactions in which gold and silver is used, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture. -connie > Vinaya Monks and Money by Ajahn Brahmavamso > > On Monks and Money > > Buddhist monks (bhikkhus) and nuns (bhikkhunis) are not allowed to accept money for themselves. Nor are they allowed to tell a trustworthy layperson to receive it on their behalf and keep it for them (e.g. keeping a personal bank account). Such practices are explicitly prohibited in the 18th rule of the section of Vinaya called Nissaggiya Pacittiya. > > Nor may monks or nuns buy and sell things for themselves using money. This is prohibited by the 19th rule in the Nissaggiya Pacittiya. > <...> > #118213 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 2:25 am Subject: Mindfulness of Death. Life is a fatal disease that always ends in death. truth_aerator Hello Phil, all, >Ph: This topic came up in a talk I listened to. Someobe asked about >contemplation on death, and AS asked "what is the result?, >============================================= Result of proper or improper practice? According to VsM it can lead to developing perceptions of anicca-dukkha-anatta and it leads to Arhatship. VsM VIII,41 >meaning lobha. Sarah added. if there is selection, there must be >lobha. I know you don't agree with thus, and I'm not sure I do yet, >but it is good to keep an open mind to tge possibility that any >samattha aspect of this recollection is destroyed by lobha involved. >=========================================================== Daily life is OK, but following methods outlined in suttas and VsM is lobha and not OK? In daily life there are lots of selections. One has to choose this pair of shoes or that. This clothing or that. This meal or that, to shop here or there, etc. There is just as much selection in Daily life, if not more. One can have lobha and micchaditthi in daily life as well. One can have lobha and micchaditthi in meditation too. But if one does things right, which brings better results? Of course it is possible to make mistakes doing the right thing. But does this means that toddle should never learn to walk, because one can fall down? So the argument of "don't do it because you can make mistakes" should only be used to caution to be discerning and try to do things correctly rather than an excuse not to ever try and practice. "A bhikkhu devoted to mindfulness of death is constantly diligent. He acquires perception of disenchantment with all kinds of becoming (existence). He conquers attachment to life. He condemns evil. He avoids much storing. He has no stain of avarice about requisites. Perception of impermanence grows in him, following upon which there appear the perceptions of pain and not-self. But while beings who have not developed [mindfulness of] death fall victims to fear, horror and confusion at the time of death as though suddenly seized by wild beasts, spirits, snakes, robbers, or murderers, he dies undeluded and fearless without falling into any such state. And if he does not attain the deathless here and now, he is at least headed for a happy destiny on the breakup of the body." - VsM VIII,41 With best wishes, Alex #118214 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 2:39 am Subject: Cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? Same with other pasada & sabhava truth_aerator Hello Connie, all, >C: those are the sabhava qualities. then there are the 5 asabhavas >as i mentioned earlier. >================================= But they are not all experienced every moment. While seeing sees color, it cannot *in principle* experience hardness (body-sense object) even as not predominant, a subordinate characteristic. Ear-sense hears, it doesn't see. So awareness of color is not always present in every rupa. Similarly with all other 8 inseparable qualities. Whether hardness is predominant or not still doesn't answer the question of how can eye-sense which can *only* see experience even to a lesser degree hardness (a sabhava) that is supposed to always be with rupa. Instead of hardness we can also use other sabhava qualities (see below). >Alex: Questions: >How can eye experience hardness, odor, flavor? >How can ear experience color, hardness, odor, flavor? >How can nose experience color, hardness, flavor? >similarly with other sense organs. They can't. >======================================== The only solution is to say that different rupas have different qualities. Rupa that one is aware through eye-sense (cakkhuppasada) is different from rupa that one is aware of through ear-sense (sotappasada), and so on with other pasadas. With best wishes, Alex #118215 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 2:49 am Subject: Re: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? truth_aerator Hello Connie, all, >C: on second thought, Alex, >also the nutritive essence is known thru the mind door and i'm not >sure I don't confuse the sukhuma/subtle and asabhava rupas... still, >hardness is hardness and always, when it's experienced, will be thru >the same door way and be the same kind of experience, etc. >============ 8 inseperables are sabhava, This includes nutritive essence which is subtle rupa. Not only one eats nutrition through the mouth, but through other eyes as well. I wonder how much calories does on eats seeing this screen ... With best wishes, Alex #118216 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 3:07 am Subject: Re: understanding of 4NT truth_aerator Hello Pt, >pt: I don't think we disagree here as much as we invest different >meanings into the same terms, hence the confusion. >================== You are right. What doesn't exist at all cannot arise and fall. The word, as collection of vitaka, vicara, sanna, does have triple characteristic and it arises and falls. So yes, it is crucial to make distinction of: Concept as non-existent [something] vs Concept as a word that is made of vitaka, vicara, sanna, etc, which do have triple characteristic. With best wishes, Alex #118217 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 3:14 am Subject: Re: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? truth_aerator Hi Phil, all, >I sometimes hear there can be different degrees of hardness for >ecample, not one "hardness" that is identical, tge rupas tgat make >up a rock and the rupas rgat make up a petal, sharing some sabhava >of rupa aspects, but with a diffwrent degree of hardness, something >like that? >================ Object of body sense can experience hardness of various degrees, ranging between softness to hardness. Eye-sense cannot experience hardness even to minimal degree. Eye-sense experiences ONLY color, never softness->hardness aspect which is experienced only by body-sense. >But why are you insisting ob "simuktaneous awareness" of rupa, >============ If there was simultaneous awareness of five sense consciousness + mind, then all 8 inseparable qualities could be experience to greater or lesser degree at the same time and in one rupa. Otherwise we have a case that some rupas are experienced only as color, some as odor, some as hardness, etc. With best wishes, Alex #118218 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 3:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? truth_aerator Hello Howard, all, > ================================= >The perspective expressed in Abhidhamma, I believe, is that while > several rupas arise together as part of a kalapa, at most one can >be object of consciousness at any time. What this seems to imply there is this bearer of 8 objective (mind independent) qualities called suddhatthaka-kalapa that can contain qualities that exist but are not cognized? With best wishes, Alex #118219 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 3:30 am Subject: Re: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...I wonder how [many] calories does on[e] eat seeing this screen ..." Scott: Eye ate my sights with my hungry I's. Scott. #118220 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 4:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/2/2011 12:19:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Howard, all, > ================================= >The perspective expressed in Abhidhamma, I believe, is that while > several rupas arise together as part of a kalapa, at most one can >be object of consciousness at any time. What this seems to imply there is this bearer of 8 objective (mind independent) qualities called suddhatthaka-kalapa that can contain qualities that exist but are not cognized? ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, a small aggregate/group of rupas only one of which is object of consciousness. ----------------------------------------------- With best wishes, Alex ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118221 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 4:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 10/2/2011 11:49:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: I wonder how much calories does on eats seeing this screen ... ================================= At the moment of seeing there is not the sensing of heat nor the feeling of hardness, but that does not imply that heat and hardness are not present (in some manner, whether "externally-but-uncognized" or subliminal). With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118222 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 4:55 am Subject: Re: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? philofillet - Hi Alex > If there was simultaneous awareness of five sense consciousness + mind, then all 8 inseparable qualities could be experience to greater or lesser degree at the same time and in one rupa. > > Otherwise we have a case that some rupas are experienced only as color, some as odor, some as hardness, etc. Ph: So by this you've disproved sabhava? I don't get it at all. Each kind of sense object rupa has a different characteristic? Vism, XIV, 55, 56: "sound has tge characteristic of impinging on the ear...odour has tge characteristic of impinging on the...". I will leave it there. I don't get your point. No more to say on this topic. Metta, Phil #118223 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 5:20 am Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death. Life is a fatal disease that always ends in death. philofillet Hi Alex > One can have lobha and micchaditthi in daily life as well. Not can , will. > One can have lobha and micchaditthi in meditation too. You are confident that all the lobha driving the mind is somehow turned into kusala by dint of force, great. But that is not logical for me. On the other hand, I question A. Sujin and Sarah's (in the talk I heard) that there must always and inevitably be lobha driving meditation. I think it is conceivable tgat kusala could be the motivator for samatha practice taught in Vism, conceivable. Not for me, and that is enough to know. But good to reflect on conventional death, and good to understand intellectually that with the falling away of every citta and the arising of the next there is moment akin to cuti and patisandhi. Akin to, not identical to, I don't understand yet how it can be denied tgat cuti citta is more meangful than the falling away of a moment of seeing etc. I'm out on this topic as well, for now. It's an important one, but I'm spending too much time posting these days, as are you,Alex. Metta, Phil #118224 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 6:10 am Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death. Life is a fatal disease that always ends in death. truth_aerator Hi Phil, >P:You are confident that all the lobha driving the mind is somehow >turned into kusala by dint of force, great. But that is not logical >for me. >============================== Why does *lobha* has to drive the mind for meditation (cultivation, development, call it as you will)? Why can't it be wholesome resolution motivated by factors such as compassion toward suffering of oneself and others, wisdom on a preliminary level, and dismay at normal life (samvega), etc? There are many possible motivations other than lobha, and even if there are lobha involved somewhere, if it makes one set on the right path and then when lobha is abandoned, it isn't that bad. Lobha is present even in Anagamis. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't develop wholesome qualities further because there is lobha. I fully agree that meditation, as is study of Abhidhamma, can be wrongly motivated. But it doesn't mean that one shouldn't do it. Just do it correctly. With best wishes, Alex #118225 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 1:20 am Subject: Money; was Thread: A few issues dhammasaro Good friend Connie, et al Alas, I do not have a copy of your references on monk money handling as I politely asked earlier. I understand you may not have the capability of scanning the pages... I ask as I would share with my Burmese, Sri Lankan, and Thai monk friends here in the USA.. Sincere warm thanks for your help... peace... yours in the the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: nichicon@... Hi Chuck, > Would you please provide the exact words from the Vinaya-pitaka as I do not have access to your references. > Bk of Discipline vol.III p.102: Whatever monk should take gold and silver, or should get another to take it (for him), or should consent to its being kept in deposit (for him), there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture. p.106: Whatever monk should engage in various transactions in which gold and silver is used, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture. <.... #118226 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 7:31 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Mindfulness of Death. Life is a fatal disease that always ends in death. dhammasaro Good friends all, What ever works for you, I say... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: truth_aerator@... >P:You are confident that all the lobha driving the mind is somehow >turned into kusala by dint of force, great. But that is not logical >for me. >============================== Why does *lobha* has to drive the mind for meditation (cultivation, development, call it as you will)? Why can't it be wholesome resolution motivated by factors such as compassion toward suffering of oneself and others, wisdom on a preliminary level, and dismay at normal life (samvega), etc? There are many possible motivations other than lobha, and even if there are lobha involved somewhere, if it makes one set on the right path and then when lobha is abandoned, it isn't that bad. Lobha is present even in Anagamis. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't develop wholesome qualities further because there is lobha. I fully agree that meditation, as is study of Abhidhamma, can be wrongly motivated. But it doesn't mean that one shouldn't do it. Just do it correctly. <...... #118227 From: "connie" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 8:22 am Subject: Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues nichiconn Sorry, Chuck, try http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe13/index.htm a different translation connie > > > Bk of Discipline vol.III > > > p.102: Whatever monk should take gold and silver, or should get another to take it (for him), or should consent to its being kept in deposit (for him), there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture. > > p.106: Whatever monk should engage in various transactions in which gold and silver is used, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture. > <.... > #118228 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 9:04 am Subject: Re: Breathing body, was: Just checking . epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > -------- > N: We do not think of the whole body, just attend to what appears, > one dhamma at a time. > ----- Would it still be isolated at the prescribed location? Or would you just breath and leave it open to any rupa or nama that arises? > > R:So that would make sense of experiencing the rupa of the breath > > at the nose-tip as it is a very specific location to isolate the > > sensation. > > > ------- > N: For some people it may appear, and nobody is doing anything, it > just appears to sati. For most I think it may not appear, it is so > subtle. Or people may try to think of it, but then it is not sati > that happens to be aware of what appears naturally, without anybody > doing anything about it. Great sati and pa~n~naa are indispensable here. I understand that this is why you would say it is a very advanced object, for those that have already developed sati and panna over previous accumulations. > Say, I would try now: as soon as I think of breath it is not > awareness of breath. it is also possible to confuse breath with air. > It has to be a ruupa produced by citta. > ------- That is interesting. Does citta produce rupa, or does citta merely become aware of rupa? ... > > R: Okay, I see what is meant - I didn't understand it correctly - > > it is "knowledge of the jhana object" rather than jhana itself > > "knowing" anything. > > > ----- > N: No, also the jhaanacitta and jhaanafactors should be known as they > are, as anattaa. So the jhanacitta and jhanafactors, they would be known as namas by a succeeding citta, is that correct? ... > N: When we take breath: this is ruupa, it is neither akusala nor > kusala. The jhaanacitta, when it is true jhaana has to be kusala, and > in the case of arahats kiriyacitta. > When the object of jhaana is a concept it is neither kusala nor akusala. In the latter case, does the jhanacitta take breath as a concept? > ----- > > > > > > > -------- > > > > R: > > Is there a reading of posture that is in terms of rupas? And are > > the 'corpse' contemplations rupas that are visual object, or are > > they mental objects that are objects of nama? > > > -------- > N: There is no posture in the ultimate sense. Posture is an idea of a > whole. > Corpse: when one looks at it, it is a whole, one thinks of corpse, > and then there will be a mental image of it. > ------ Could one also attend the rupas that arise in what we call a posture, without thinking of it as posture, but just see the rupas? And could one attend the rupas of the corpse, and see that they are impermanent, etc.? -------- Thanks, Nina, I hope you have a good weekend! Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #118229 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 9:44 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Robert E > > As usual your post raises a number of issues! Will break it down into smaller chunks :-)) That sounds like a great idea to me! That way we will not get overwhelmed [especially me!] > (117788) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > > J: For those who have heard and understood the teachings, the development of all forms of kusala is to be understood as being 'in conjunction with mindfulness' (as far as possible). I think you'll find that suttas dealing with dana and sila also make reference to the development of awareness/insight. > > > > It's possible that awareness/insight can be developed in relation to dana and sila as well, but that does not mean that jhana does not have a specific role in developing insight when jhana is used as basis. > > =============== > > J: When the texts talk about insight/enlightenment with jhana as basis, it's not a case of jhana being *used* as basis. It's a case of jhana citta, or one of the cetasikas that are the jhana factors, being the object of insight. This will occur (or not) by conditions rather than by selection on the part of the individual. Well, I do not know what the scriptural support will be for this one way or the other, but my understanding is that some of these factors are more powerful basis for insight and satipatthana for others, especially jhana. It is acknowledged even by those who think that "dry insight" is the most likely approach, at least these days, that satipatthana by way of jhana has powers and benefits that dry insight attainment does not have, and that Buddha said that enlightenment by way of jhana was the supreme path to enlightenment. I wonder whether one could even attain Buddhahood without jhana? I don't know of any Buddhas that have done so, do you? It is also clear that jhana, unlike other "objects of insight," not only suppresses the defilements, but according to a number of sources including at least one sutta [quoted recently by Alex] wears down the defilements through accustoming the mind to function without them, and by prolonged wearing away through the jhanas, the defilements can even be eradicated. I don't think any other objects of insight can do that, can they? Jhana is a special state, a favorite of the Buddha's, and one that not only provides a supreme object of satipatthana, but als in itself provides great kusala benefits that are propitious for the development of satipatthana and attainment of enlightenment. I am not as clear as how dana and sila operate in this regard, but I would bet that restraint of the senses and of akusala kamma patha would likewise result in a wearing away and eventual eradication of the defilements, and thus remove obstacles to insight and satipatthana. But jhana without doubt is the most powerful developmental antidote for the defilements, for those who are capable of developing it. > Look at it this way. When, for example, dana or hardness or body consciousness is object of insight, we do not speak of dana, hardness or body consciousness being *used* as basis for insight. It just happens to be the object. I just don't think that the "buildup" and "surrounding accumulations" that allow for that moment to occur, are quite so arbitrary. Dana, sila and esp. jhana, are very *difficult* attainments, the result of *right effort* of various kinds, and when they are achieved, they have enormous kusala benefits that allow for the attainment of insight, satipatthana and enlightenment. These are aspects of the path that widen, open, and clear the brush away from the path, in a manner of speaking. > > =============== > > > J: The notion of deeper insight during periods of the suppression of the hindrances brought about by attainment of jhana is not one that is stated in the texts. Really? I think that Buddha states this constantly. In facts he talks about the attainment of the jhanas in order and how each one leads to a deeper state of refined awareness, ie, mindfulness. He talks about insight in a succeeding jhana, for instance, that the previous jhana was rough and coarse and that the mental factors in the next level jhana are more refined and aware. I don't know how you can say that the "texts" do not say that deeper insight is attained through jhana, unless you insist that Buddha is just describing this or that state that "happened" to occur before deeper insight is attained. I doubt the Buddha would bother to highlight these systematic developments of jhana as precursor to insight if that were the case. In addition, I have quoted you the sutta in which Buddha states that the fourth jhana *is* the culmination of equanimity and satipatthana. And yet you still bypass that and say he never said anything! I just don't get it. Here's another one, in plain English [from the plain Pali of course:] THE JHANA SUTTA "I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana... the second jhana... the third... the fourth... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness. I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. "'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana. [A monk] turns his mind away from ... phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' [Continues for the other jhanas and formless attainments] "Staying right there, he reaches the ending of the mental fermentations. Or, if not, then through this very dhamma-passion, this very dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five of the fetters he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world. I don't know, Jon, what do you call that, an equivocal statement, subject to much interpretation or re-interpretation? Or is it pretty clear from the Master's own mouth? And he says other things that verify this over and over and over again, but you don't want to hear them, because you're committed to a different agenda. > > I guess it depends on what statements you are reading. When Buddha defines the 4th jhana as "achievement of equanimity and fulfillment of satipatthana," I think he is clearly stating that jhana has this role. > > =============== > > J: I think you mean that such a role for jhana is implied (not 'clearly stated'). It's clearly stated above, and many times over. Do you still think it's just implied? > To my understanding, the suppression of the hindrances occurs with the 1st jhana (or even before). So if suppression of the hindrances was the point of the teaching, it would not be necessary to go beyond the 1st jhana. My understanding is that the hindrances are more deeply suppressed, worn away and eradicated with each of the jhanas, which are deeper, more concentrated and more equanimitous states. In each successive jhana, the peacefulness is much deeper and the experiential objects more refined. Piti and sukkha are seen as unnecessary disturbances from the vantage point of the jhana that is centered in equanimity. So there is an abandonment of worldly stimulus in each successive jhana, that allows for greater concentration and more refined, subtle awareness, and thus for deeper insight. You could say that one jhana's attainment is the next jhana's "defilement/disturbance" of awareness. Certainly Buddha speaks of them in that way, and in that order. The formless attainments that lead directly to nibbana/Unbinding come directly out of the four jhanas. Without them, the formless attainments are impossible. > > =============== > > > The basis usually given for this notion is that the hindrances are described in the texts as being hindrances to the development of awareness. From this it is deduced that if the hindrances were to be suppressed then insight would be free to shine. > > > > I think it is deduced that without the hindrances insight is free to develop. Removing the influence of the hindrances is one of the requisites for satipatthana. > =============== > > J: Not sure what you mean when you say that removing the influence of the hindrances is one of the *requisites* for satipatthana. Surely there can be the development of satipatthana/insight without mundane jhana first being attained? Indeed, you have previously acknowledged that even enlightenment is possible without the attainment of jhana. ( may be missing something in what you say.) I said it was possible at least in very rare cases when the former accumulations allowed the Buddha to say a word or two, or the person just had to be killed by an ox, in order to reach the final attainment. But in the suttas it is *very rare* and it is not announced as a general path to enlightenment. To say that dry insight can "go all the way" for a greater number of people seems like a guess to me. And I don't know what level of insight can be attained without jhana or something that equally suppresses the hindrances. I think that the hindrances can gradually be eradicated through pure satipatthana practice, if it is done with both development of sati and samatha. I do think there's a requisite degree of samatha necessary for any meaningful development of the enlightenment factors, and I don't know how much is the minimum. It may be deep samatha, it may be access concentration, or it may be 1st or later jhanas. My knowledge does not extend that far, but I am going by what I have heard and read so far, esp. in sutta. What I am sure about is that the Buddha promoted and extolled and urged and practiced the development of jhana as a key ingredient of the path and the development of satipatthana, and also defined it clearly *as* "Right Concentration," a key ingredient of the Noble 8FP. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118230 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:02 am Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death. Life is a fatal disease that always ends in death. philofillet Hi Alex > Why does *lobha* has to drive the mind for meditation (cultivation, development, call it as you will)? > > Why can't it be wholesome resolution motivated by factors such as > compassion toward suffering of oneself and others, wisdom on a preliminary level, and dismay at normal life (samvega), etc? It all comes down to understanding. You apparently don't like the idea of sabhava, so it makes it difficult to have confidence in this idea, but if we develop understanding of the characteristic of lobha, and its prevalance, and the characteristics of the kusala factors above, and their rarity, I think it kind of puts this subject to bed. Truthfulness about the prevalance of kilesa, that is so important. If one's truthful understanding is that the above kusala factors are prevalent, great. So nothing more to say except "just understand." Metta, Phil #118231 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:02 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., "...In facts he talks about the attainment of the jhanas in order and how each one leads to a deeper state of refined awareness, ie, mindfulness. He talks about insight in a succeeding jhana, for instance, that the previous jhana was rough and coarse and that the mental factors in the next level jhana are more refined and aware..." Scott: Neither sati nor pa~n~naa are jhaana factors. You suggest that these mental factors arise while jhaana - which has it's own clearly described and limited set of mental factors - is operative. You seem to consider 'mindfulness' or 'insight' to be some sort of higher-order thinking that occurs during jhaana. Scott. #118232 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:07 am Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death. Life is a fatal disease that always ends in death. philofillet Hi again >if we develop understanding of the characteristic of lobha, and its prevalance, and the characteristics of the kusala factors above, and their rarity, I think it kind of puts this subject to bed. Correction, all kusala factors, not just the ones you mentionned. I know karuna (without unpleasant mentall feeling, and without any self^interest, any attachment to the idea of having karuna) is much rarer than we think. I don't know if wholesome chanda is as rare, but probably is. And all wholesome factors, so many must co-arise. That is a fact we have to be honest about. Metta, Phil #118233 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:07 am Subject: Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? epsteinrob Hi Howard. Well you've focused right into the heart of the issue. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > If I may butt in, my answer to "...when a concept is entertained by a > citta, what is actually taking place?..." is "Thinking is taking place." > When recalling the smell of Channel #5 perfume, a very specific sort > of thinking is occurring. When planning a party, another very specific sort > of thinking is taking place. When imagining a flying, purple elephant, yet > another specific sort of thought process is underway. Nowhere at all as > part of these processes are there things called "concepts" occurring, i.e., > arising, changing, and ceasing. All that is happening is thinking. Thinking > is describable, of course, with regard to a variety of features, the main > one being the so-called "content," i.e., what is being "thought about". In > that regard, though, when there is "thinking about something," no "something" > and no "concept" of such a "something" are present. Only a specific sort > of thought process is underway. > The statement that concepts neither arise nor cease is, IMO, a > misleading one. The facts are: 1) Thinking arises and develops and ceases, 2) > Concept terminology is used in describing the subject-matter of thinking, and > 3) There are no actual things called "concepts" present at all - only > thinking is underway. (Hey, what a concept!!! LOL!!) Yes, "LOL" indeed! Yet you can reference the "nonexistent concept" and laugh about it. So I would say there is indeed a concept that can be reference, it's just that it's not a "thing," it's. like you say, "content." So what is content? Is it nonexistent? If I have a specific thought-process that involves a concept, one of two things is the object of that consciousness, either a verbal sentence/idea, or an image. In either case there is a mental object that is given a further elaboration or meaning. When there is "thinking" going on, there is a thought-process, ie, certain thoughts are taking place. Those thoughts occur in mental action over time. They have describable rhythm, movement, shifting content etc. So in what way does this mental material not exist? It's not physical, so it's not rupa, fair enough, but it is the object of citta when citta is entertaining mental material, so it is ridiculous in my view to say that it is "nonexistent." To me it is "mental object" or "mental material," which exists in time, disappears as fast as it appears, and is only different from physical speech [thought concept] or visual object [thought image] in that it does not exist in the rupa plane. I would call thought sentence or image an 'arupa rupa' if such a thing were terminologically possible. If I hallucinate a visual object, or if I 'hear voices' that are physically not really there, my mental functions respond as if I were experiencing physically existent material. So for citta, it is a perceivable object. Best, Robert E. - - - - - - - - - - - #118234 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:14 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > "...In facts he talks about the attainment of the jhanas in order and how each one leads to a deeper state of refined awareness, ie, mindfulness. He talks about insight in a succeeding jhana, for instance, that the previous jhana was rough and coarse and that the mental factors in the next level jhana are more refined and aware..." > > Scott: Neither sati nor pa~n~naa are jhaana factors. > > You suggest that these mental factors arise while jhaana - which has it's own clearly described and limited set of mental factors - is operative. You seem to consider 'mindfulness' or 'insight' to be some sort of higher-order thinking that occurs during jhaana. I don't pretend to know all the details and mechanics of this, so let me speak more clearly what I have heard and read is the case: 1. The awareness that does exist in jhana is a more refined focused awareness than the unfocused, unconcentrated awareness of everyday life. The object of jhana is much more subtle and takes that advanced concentration to discern it, otherwise jhana would not exist at all. It is defined by its subtle object, a subtle aspect of breath, or else nimitta, etc. 2. My understanding is that development of equanimity and suppression of the defilements facilitates satipatthana/insight. The common way this is acknowledged as taking place, even by Nina, is that citta after emerging from jhana is able to consider the jhana-citta/jhana-factors in the form of nimita with clarity, and that insight arises as a result. The only dispute is whether the jhana *causes* this to come about, or whether it is merely another object of this occurrence for a trained monk, on equal par with any other object of citta. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118235 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:33 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...The awareness that does exist in jhana..." Scott: 'Awareness' doesn't exist in jhaana. Awareness is sati. Can you show in the texts how sati is said to be one of the mental factors included amongst any of the jhaanas? R: "..."development of equanimity and suppression of the defilements facilitates satipatthana/insight..." Scott: This is your misunderstanding. Jhaana, when it's factors are in ascendance, suppresses sense sphere dhammas. Equanimity is a jhaana factor. You have yet to show how jhaana is somehow any more facilitative of satipa.t.thaana or insight than any other just fallen away dhamma. What you say below: R: "...citta after emerging from jhana is able to consider the jhana-citta/jhana-factors in the form of nimita with clarity, and that insight arises as a result." Scott: Is how it is. Nothing of the sort occurs 'in jhaana.' That is folk-lore. Scott. #118236 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:46 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...citta after emerging from jhana is able to consider the jhana-citta/jhana-factors in the form of nimita with clarity, and that insight arises as a result." Me: "Is how it is..." Not, actually, when I re-read what you wrote. That should be citta with pa~n~naa. Not with 'clarity'. The jhaana state is over. It's object replaced. Sorry for thinking you were right. Scott. #118237 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:54 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) truth_aerator Hello Scott, Robert E, all, > Scott: 'Awareness' doesn't exist in jhaana. Awareness is sati. >Can you show in the texts how sati is said to be one of the mental >factors included amongst any of the jhaanas? >======================================================== It is present in all Jhanas and at least first 3 aruppa planes. See MN111 "...Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness,[2] desire, decision, persistence, ***mindfulness***, equanimity, & attention... [alex: mindfulness is mentioned till->] Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of nothingness the perception of the dimension of nothingness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, ***mindfulness***, equanimity, & attention" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html Sati is present from 1st jhana to the base of nothingness. So much for "either develop mindfulness or concentration". As the suttas tell us again and again, it is NOT either/or. Also Anapanasati is not just samatha. It fulfills 4 satipatthana, 7 factors of Awakening and leads to Arhatship. "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html With best wishes, Alex #118238 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 11:33 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Alex, A: "MN111...Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness,[2] desire, decision, persistence, ***mindfulness***, equanimity, & attention..." Scott: The sutta is referring to the 'wisdom' of Sariputta. That is the context of the part you culled and held outside of this context. The sutta is describing the 'states' of which Sariputta has gained 'insight. ~Na.namoli/Bodhi have it: "...And the states of the first jhaana - the applied thought, the sustained thought, the rapture, the pleasure, and the unification of mind; the contact, feeling, perception, volition, and mind; the zeal, decision, energy, mindfulness, equanimity, and attention - these states were defined by him one by one as the occurred;..." "...Ye ca pa.thame jhaane dhammaa vitakko ca vicaaro ca piiti ca sukha~nca cittekaggataa ca, phasso vedanā sa~n~naa cetanaa cittaṃ chando adhimokkho vīriyaṃ sati upekkhaa manasikaaro tyaassa dhammaa anupadavavatthitaa honti..." Scott: Note the punctuation. The 'states of the first jhaana' are listed prior to the semi-colon (Ye ca pa.thame jhaane dhammaa vitakko ca vicaaro ca piiti ca sukha~nca cittekaggataa ca). Look at any list of the mental factors which occur in the first jhaana and you will see these. The other states were also known by insight. You will not find them in any list of jhaana factors. Scott. #118239 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 12:42 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) truth_aerator Hello Scott, Robert E, >Scott:The sutta is referring to the 'wisdom' of Sariputta. >...The other states were also known by insight. You will not find >them in any list of jhaana factors. >================================================ The fact is that MN111 lists sati as part of factors that are in jhanas and at least 3 arupa planes. There isn't one set of jhanas for Sariputta and another for us. While the skill can very, the states have the same basic features. Sati is Universal beautiful mental factors (sobhanasadharana), so it has to be present in Jhana state which is wholesome state according to Abhidhamma. "There is no jhana without wisdom (panna). There is no wisdom without jhana..." - Dhp 372 So not only Jhana has to include Sati as part of 19 sobhanasadharana, it includes Panna as well. It also includes up to six occasional (pakinnaka) cetasikas. MN111 doesn't list too many factors. With Best wishes, Alex #118240 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 1:16 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Alex, A: "The fact is that MN111 lists sati as part of factors that are in jhanas..." Scott: Not only do you parse out a portion of a sutta, ignoring the context, the syntax and, therefore, the meaning, but you just persist in misstating things as if none of that had been pointed out to you. With the absolutely clear evidence you show (and have always shown) of utter lack of clarity in relation to jhaana, there is very little to recommend you to me as one who can speak to the issue. Perhaps one of your jhaana-enthusiast colleagues wants to actually read the sutta you have pulled your out-of-context quote from, and see for themselves. You don't exactly help them make their case... Scott. #118241 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 1:25 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...The awareness that does exist in jhana..." > > Scott: 'Awareness' doesn't exist in jhaana. Awareness is sati. Can you show in the texts how sati is said to be one of the mental factors included amongst any of the jhaanas? > > R: "..."development of equanimity and suppression of the defilements facilitates satipatthana/insight..." > > Scott: This is your misunderstanding. Jhaana, when it's factors are in ascendance, suppresses sense sphere dhammas. Equanimity is a jhaana factor. You have yet to show how jhaana is somehow any more facilitative of satipa.t.thaana or insight than any other just fallen away dhamma. What you say below: > > R: "...citta after emerging from jhana is able to consider the jhana-citta/jhana-factors in the form of nimita with clarity, and that insight arises as a result." > > Scott: Is how it is. Nothing of the sort occurs 'in jhaana.' That is folk-lore. I said it was after emerging from jhana. This is ridiculous. I didn't get this from "folklore," I got it from the suttas. It is described in detail by the Buddha. It is difficult to talk factually with you when you deny the actual content of the suttas. If you want to argue interpretations go ahead. But when the Buddha says something, he does actually say it. As someone said here in DC, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Here's Buddha on insight and the jhanas: First from the Mahasatipatthana Sutta: DN 22 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html ... "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration. "This is called the noble truth of the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress. "In this way he remains focused internally on mental qualities in & of themselves, or externally on mental qualities in & of themselves, or both internally & externally on mental qualities in & of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to mental qualities, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to mental qualities. Or his mindfulness that 'There are mental qualities' 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 mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the four noble truths..." Notice that Buddha says "he remains mindful" within the jhanas, and then uses the jhanas as the base for realizing the fourth foundation of mindfulness. And from: AN 5.28,Samadhanga Sutta: The Factors of Concentration http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.028.than.html ... "And furthermore, with the abandoning of pleasure and stress as with the earlier disappearance of elation and distress he enters and remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity and mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. He sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness, so that there is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by pure, bright awareness. "Just as if a man were sitting wrapped from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating his body with a pure, bright awareness. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by pure, bright awareness. This is the fourth development of the five-factored noble right concentration. "And furthermore, the monk has his theme of reflection well in hand, well attended to, well-considered, well-tuned by means of discernment. "Just as if one person were to reflect on another, or a standing person were to reflect on a sitting person, or a sitting person were to reflect on a person lying down; even so, monks, the monk has his theme of reflection well in hand, well attended to, well-pondered, well-tuned by means of discernment. This is the fifth development of the five-factored noble right concentration. "When a monk has developed and pursued the five-factored noble right concentration in this way, then whichever of the six higher knowledges he turns his mind to know and realize, he can witness them for himself whenever there is an opening. ... "If he wants, then through the ending of the mental effluents, he remains in the effluent-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known and made them manifest for himself right in the here and now. He can witness this for himself whenever there is an opening." That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words." There are additional examples in which Buddha describes the coming out of the jhana to experience insight based on the jhana factors. I can quote Nina from her recent answer to me on this as well, if you like. Or look a few posts back. Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = #118242 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 1:29 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) truth_aerator Scott, >Scott: Not only do you parse out a portion of a sutta, ignoring the >context, the syntax and, therefore, the meaning, but you just >persist in misstating things as if none of that had been pointed out >to you....With the absolutely clear evidence you show (and have always shown) of >utter lack of clarity in relation to jhaana, >============================================= Sati is Universal beautiful mental factor (sobhanasadharana), so it has to be present in Jhana state which is wholesome state according to Abhidhamma. So not only Jhana has to include Sati as part of 19 sobhanasadharana, it includes Panna as well when we take Dhp 372 quote. "There is no jhana without wisdom (panna). There is no wisdom without jhana..." - Dhp 372 Sati has to be present in Jhana, it is Abhidhamma teaching with which you can disagree if you want. There are no Jhanas for Sariputta that has Sati and Jhanas for us without Sati. While the quality of sati can vary between ordinary people's attainment and Sariputta's, it is still there. With best wishes, Alex #118243 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 1:31 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...citta after emerging from jhana is able to consider the jhana-citta/jhana-factors in the form of nimita with clarity, and that insight arises as a result." > > Me: "Is how it is..." > > Not, actually, when I re-read what you wrote. That should be citta with pa~n~naa. Not with 'clarity'. The jhaana state is over. It's object replaced. Sorry for thinking you were right. Don't worry; I didn't know what you thought was right, and what was wrong. But if I say "clarity" I'm not trying to be technical. Clarity means that the citta sees the object clearly and understands it clearly. I wasn't suggesting that "clarity" is a cetasika, just talking in a normal way. As Nina said in her post back to me, citta uses the nimitta as object of insight, after emergence from the jhana. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #118244 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 1:37 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) truth_aerator Hello RobertE, >RE to Scott: This is ridiculous. I didn't get this from "folklore," >I >got it >from the suttas. It is described in detail by the >Buddha. It >is >difficult to talk factually with you when you deny >the actual >content >of the suttas. >============================================ Not only that, but what is said in Abhidhamma as well. Sati is part of (sobhanasadharana) and thus is present with every wholesome citta. Jhana is a wholesome citta and includes Sati. In addition: "There is no jhana without wisdom (panna). There is no wisdom without jhana..." - Dhp 372 It also tells us that panna has to be there as well. So much for lack of awareness in Jhana. With best wishes, Alex #118245 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 2:49 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Sati is Universal beautiful mental factor (sobhanasadharana), so it has to be present in Jhana state which is wholesome state according to Abhidhamma..." Scott: Yes, with all wholesome consciousness. Sati is not one of the jhaana-factors. Scott. #118246 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 2:52 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I said it was after emerging from jhana..." Scott: Correct. Scott. #118247 From: "azita" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 3:47 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) gazita2002 Hallo Scott, RobE --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...citta after emerging from jhana is able to consider the jhana-citta/jhana-factors in the form of nimita with clarity, and that insight arises as a result." > > Me: "Is how it is..." > > Not, actually, when I re-read what you wrote. That should be citta with pa~n~naa. Not with 'clarity'. The jhaana state is over. It's object replaced. Sorry for thinking you were right. > > Scott. Azita: have been kinda following you two and yr discussions, and this comment made me laugh out loud, to my slight embarressment in an internet cafe. Anyway, I think yr right Scott, with the former comments, it was jst the last sentence that humoured me, loudly:) Patience, courage and goodcheer azita #118248 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 6:15 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues dhammasaro Good friend connie, et al Okay, just forget about sending the exact quote I initially asked. I just wanted to know the context of the rule you initially were discussing as the two main Theravada sects in Thailand and the few monks from (I met) from Burma and Sri Lanka have money. It is the context in how they receive and use the money. Well, as I understand what the Vinaya-pitaka states. Let us drop the subject, okay? Sincere warm thanks for our conversation... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: nichicon@... Sorry, Chuck, try http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe13/index.htm a different translation connie <...> #118249 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 7:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? sarahprocter... Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >Scott: Because Nibbaana, as the unconditioned element, is a reality, and has > characteristics and thus is a paramattha dhamma. > ================================== >HL Does it have characteristics, or is it the absence of characteristics > that pertains to it? It is UNconditioned, UNchanging, NotSelf, etc. (Of > course, one could say that 'unchanging' and 'permanent' are synonyms. Yet > without other (positive) qualities, what about it is permanent?) > One question that occurs to me is what "being unconditioned" subsumes. > Is it just that it is uncaused, or is it also that it is without > conditions, i.e., without qualities? .... S: Nibbana has sabhava (its particular nature) otherwise it couldn't be realised. I quoted the following before to TG: >S:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/udana/ud8-03a.html "Thus have I heard. At one time the Lord was staying near Savatthi in the Jeta Wood at Anathapindika's monastery. On that occasion the Lord was instructing... the bhikkhus with a Dhamma talk connected with Nibbana, and those bhikkhus... were intent on listening to Dhamma. Then, on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance: There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned." From the commentary (Masefield transl): Udana comy 395 : " 'Monks, if there were not' that unconditioned element having as its own nature (S: sabhava) that which is unborn and so on, `there could not be made known', there could not be discovered, there could not be witnessed, `here', in this world, `the escape', allayment without remainder, `for that which is conditioned' reckoned as the khandha-pentad of form and so on that has as its own nature (sabhava) being born and so forth. For states associated with the ariyan path, such as right view and so on, as they proceed making nibbana their object, extirpate the defilements without remainder. In this way, there is made known in this connection the non-occurrence of, the disappearance of, the escape from, the entire dukkha belonging to the cycle..."< Metta Sarah ==== #118250 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 7:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A few issues sarahprocter... Hi Chuck, thx for adding the helpful quote from "Survey" by A.Sujin on kamma and vipaka, #117927 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > Paiifia can know the difference between the characteristic of vipiikacitta, the result of past kamma, and the characteristic of kusala citta and of akusala citta, that is, defilement. .... S: For those who may not have realised, the first word in this sentence is pa~n~naa - the diacritical marks have come out strangely. Usually, they all need to be changed when copying and pasting to be viewed correctly! ... > > Kusala citta and akusala citta of the degree of kamma performed at the present time, can condition the arising of vipiikacitta in the future. We should not only know the characteristic of vipaka which is more obvious, such as in the case of a pleasant or an unpleasant event, but also the characteristic of vipaka which is the experience through the senses of the manifold objects in daily life. > > If we understand that vipakacitta which arises is the result of kamma we performed ourselves, can we still be angry with other people or blame them for the vipaka we receive? .... S: Good reminders for us all. We can see how an understanding of conditioned dhammas will lead to more metta, more kusala of all kinds in a day. Usually we forget about the experiences through the sense doors as just being brief moments of vipaka. Metta Sarah p.s. Chuck, Ken O & all, pls remember to TRIM your posts. If you have any questions about this or need any clarity, pls ask Pt or me off-list for assistance. Otherwise, we moderate the messages and do the trimming (no problem for us), which leads to delays in your mail reaching the group. ======== ======= #118251 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 7:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues sarahprocter... Hi Chuck, I'd just like to add (with regard to my original comment), that regardless of how most monks behave to do and regardless of how little respect is shown for the Vinaya, for those of us who have confidence in the Buddha Dhamma and who appreciate the severity of the kamma for those who deliberately diesregard the rules, such as this one, surely we don't wish to play any part in helping to send them to their downfall in the hell realms? We may even have the chance to offer assistance by way of explanation in this regard. We also read in the texts that it is through the monks paying mere lip-service to the Vinaya that the Teachings are lost. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > > Good friend connie, et al > > Okay, just forget about sending the exact quote I initially asked. > > I just wanted to know the context of the rule you initially were discussing as the two main Theravada sects in Thailand and the few monks from (I met) from Burma and Sri Lanka have money. It is the context in how they receive and use the money. Well, as I understand what the Vinaya-pitaka states. ... #118252 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 7:59 pm Subject: Suggestion dhammasaro Good friends all Sincere warm thanks for the friendly suggestion. I will try to observe in the future... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck (an ole poorly bred Texican) [ FWIW, it is against my religion to be serious too, too long...] #118253 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 8:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Ph: Considering how important concepts are in our lives, how tightly we cling to them (especially people!) it seems that they should be object of thinking, anyways. In SN 35, we have mind and mind object, surely object of thinking. .... S: Yes, concepts are objects of thinking and as you say we cling to them dearly. SN35 is included in "Salayatana-vagga The Section on the Six Sense Bases (35-44)" (from ATI). In this section "mind and mind object" refer to ayatanas, paramattha dhammas only. "Mind" is mano or manayatana, i.e. all cittas. "Mind object" is dhamma or dhammayatana, i.e cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana, all of which can only ever be experienced through the mind-door. So while concepts are object of thinking and included in dhammarammana, they are not included in the ayatanas or khandhas which can be directly known by panna of satipatthana, simply because they don't exist. They are only thought about, they don't have the characteristics or sabhava. Metta Sarah ===== #118254 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 8:21 pm Subject: Re: A few issues sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Thanks for your explanation (again!) re kamma. I have to hear some things up to a dozen times before they sink in... .... S: Same for us all.... .... > > S: Glad to note it! (There was a bit of that 'schoolyard bully' creeping in a little while ago, I think) > > You know and I know he'll be back, he has been accumulated. When we do something ten times, we do it eleven. But I am confident his appearances will be shorter and less frequent. But he'll be back. Conditions! .... S: True and I know he'll be back, but as understanding develops, he'll be sent packing more and more often:-) We all have such pesky accumulations that will be given short shrift in due course, but it has to be a path of understanding and patience with such tendencies rather than just wishing them away. Nice chatting... Metta Sarah ==== #118255 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 8:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Scott, Rob E & Alex, Howard, I thought you put the following well. Scott's further comments (in a separate post) were also very clear. I think Rob E will agree, but I'm sure Alex won't! Hope everyone reads them: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > If I may butt in, my answer to "...when a concept is entertained by a > citta, what is actually taking place?..." is "Thinking is taking place." > When recalling the smell of Channel #5 perfume, a very specific sort > of thinking is occurring. When planning a party, another very specific sort > of thinking is taking place. When imagining a flying, purple elephant, yet > another specific sort of thought process is underway. Nowhere at all as > part of these processes are there things called "concepts" occurring, i.e., > arising, changing, and ceasing. All that is happening is thinking. Thinking > is describable, of course, with regard to a variety of features, the main > one being the so-called "content," i.e., what is being "thought about". In > that regard, though, when there is "thinking about something," no "something" > and no "concept" of such a "something" are present. Only a specific sort > of thought process is underway. > The statement that concepts neither arise nor cease is, IMO, a > misleading one. The facts are: 1) Thinking arises and develops and ceases, 2) > Concept terminology is used in describing the subject-matter of thinking, and > 3) There are no actual things called "concepts" present at all - only > thinking is underway. (Hey, what a concept!!! LOL!!) ... Metta Sarah ===== #118256 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 8:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > N: "True, no characteristics. I once heard Kh Sujin say that even > concepts are anatta in as far as they are non-self." > > Scott: Sabbe dhamma anatta. Yes. ... S: "Sabbe dhamma anatta" doesn't include concepts - it refers to conditioned dhammas and nibbana, the unconditioned dhamma. Concepts can also be said to be anatta (by default) in the sense they are not atta, nothing is. ... >Alex seems to think concepts are 'atta.' I think 'atta' is a concept in the same way that 'computer' is a concept. I was disagreeing with with him categorically. ... S: Yes, I agree. Atta is just another concept - self, god, being, computer..... all pa~n~natti. We could say "a self is a god is a being..." - just concepts about concepts. If we take the hardness experienced now for being a thing, a computer, then there's atta-view on top of all the thinking about concepts. Metta Sarah ==== #118257 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 8:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? philofillet HI Sarah > SN35 is included in "Salayatana-vagga EThe Section on the Six Sense Bases (35-44)" (from ATI). In this section "mind and mind object" refer to ayatanas, paramattha dhammas only. "Mind" is mano or manayatana, i.e. all cittas. "Mind object" is dhamma or dhammayatana, i.e cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana, all of which can only ever be experienced through the mind-door. > > So while concepts are object of thinking and included in dhammarammana, they are not included in the ayatanas or khandhas which can be directly known by panna of satipatthana, simply because they don't exist. They are only thought about, they don't have the characteristics or sabhava. Ph: Thanks for helping me out of my misunderstanding, well, a little bit of the way out, a long way to go. "Mind object" of SN 35 being only cetasikas, subtle rupas, and nibbana, good to know. I had never really pushed on what that meant, assumed concepts where in there. But it wouldn't make sense to have an external ayatana that couldn't be directly known by panna of satipatthana. I might ask about this more at some other time, or entirely forget that I ever read this, who knows...sigh. Metta, Phil #118258 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 8:51 pm Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi Sarah (and Lukas below) > S: True and I know he'll be back, but as understanding develops, he'll be sent packing more and more often:-) We all have such pesky accumulations that will be given short shrift in due course, but it has to be a path of understanding and patience with such tendencies rather than just wishing them away. Yes, I have a lot of confidence about the development of understanding these days, very gradually. And how it is the only way beyond our harmful accumulations. As A Sujin says to a woman who is asking about drinking alcohol, even if we manage by exercise of self to stop drinking in this lifetime, what about the next one? Only the sotapanna is free from bad behaviour, and only understanding will lead us in that direction, clinging to ideas of self, ideas of being a better person, they might seem to be helping in the short run, but even as we are getting rid of some bad habits from this lifetime, we are deepening our bonds to all the lifetimes to come, with their bad habits arising in ways we can't even imagine now. We have to get out. We have to take the first steps towards getting out. Small steps, with moments of detachment being absolutely necessary. I used to complain about "detachment from the beginning", maybe it would be better to say "moments of detachment from the beginning." Having said that, I still sometimes think if we are habitually breaking a precept, exercising of self might be necessary to put a stop to it. Habitual bad behaviour might be different from moments of bad behaviour, which can be appreciated with more detachment. Habitual bad behaviour has to be stopped. So obviously my thinking/understanding is not clear on this, naturally enough. Metta, Phil Metta, Phil #118259 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 8:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Decisive continguity condition ( was Fear of unhappy rebirth as condition) philofillet Hi Nina > N:It is a strong condition. The last bhavanga-citta before a process > begins, conditions the following citta, in this case a process citta, > by contiguity-condition, they do not have to be of the same type like > in the case of repetition-condition, asevana paccaya. As to decisive > support-condition, this emphasizes powerful inducement of the > conditioning force. It also pertains to each citta that conditions > the following citta without there being an interval. > Because of my break, see you after the coming week, > > Nina. Ph: Thank you Nina, I hope you are having a pleasant break with lots of kusala vipaka enjoyed with wise attention! Metta, Phil #118260 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 8:52 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, et al Please no argument intended... I just do not agree on your "lip service" of "most" monks "not" observing the Vinaya-pitaka. If I may, I would rather let some Tipitaka expert further discuss. Just relating as I was taught and my experiences... As an ole ancient cantagorustic [sp] Texican, I have been most fortunate in being a temporary monk; first ordained at Wat Thai Washington DC (USA) [disrobed on my mother's deleterious condition towards her death]; secondly, sponsored by the Thai Kasertsart University at the Royal Wat Bowonniwet Vihara in Bangkok. And, later with my son at Wat Mongoltepmuni near Philadelphia, PA (USA). He for a week and returned to military service. I went to Thailand to participate in the cremation funeral services for my wife's deceased sister in Chachoengsao Province. I later disrobed at Wat Pak Nam as it is the senior wat to Wat Mongkoltepmuni. Please understand I relate this as an explanation of my teachings of the Vinaya-pitaka. I may well have studied incorrectly. [bummer] In my minority experiences; both monks and lay persons have not studied all aspects of the Vinaya-pitaka. It is rather extensive. In a way, one needs to be a lawyer to fully observe all many rules. I know, i could not!!! Hence, I frequently confessed my minor transgression(s) to a senior monk!!! [real bummers] Sincere warm thanks for your comments and suggestions. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: sarahprocterabbott@... >I'd just like to add (with regard to my original comment), that regardless of how most monks behave to do and regardless of how little respect is shown for the Vinaya, for those of us who have confidence in the Buddha Dhamma and who appreciate the severity of the kamma for those who deliberately diesregard the rules, such as this one, surely we don't wish to play any part in helping to send them to their downfall in the hell realms? >We may even have the chance to offer assistance by way of explanation in this regard. We also read in the texts that it is through the monks paying mere lip-service to the Vinaya that the Teachings are lost. #118261 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 9:05 pm Subject: Re: Sati or facile speculations? philofillet Hi Sarah and all > > For example, this that you quoted from Mike N, who writes very good posts like this, I will always remember cribbage with Rose. > > > > > >I noticed, while watching the images on TV and on my > > > computer screen, that interspersed between the moments > > > of dosa and patigha and moments of karunaa for those > > > suffering pain and fear, were moments of lobha--for > > > the beautiful photography of the blue sky and the > > > billowing clouds of flame and smoke; for the awareness > > > of my relative personal safety; for the unfolding of > > > the story; and even moments of none-of-the-above when > > > hearing a sound or touching something tangible was > > > predominant for a moment--in those moments, no dosa or > > > patigha or karunaa at all with regards to these events > > > (or rather my concepts of them)--just liking or > > > disliking or indifference to those sense-impingements. > > > > Ph: I write this with complete respect for Mike N, and I could easily imagine myself writing this sort of thing, but why do we think there is awareness of such fleeting dhammas in daily life rather than just facile speculation about what what kind of dhammas were likely to be arising, based on the conceptual context? > .... > S: I don't think Mike (in this example) or others in similar posts are suggesting that there is necessarily awareness of "such fleeting dhammas". I don't begin to speculate or be concerned about whether there really was/is awareness of fleeting dhammas when others write or whether it is (wise) reflection "based on the conceptual context". Again, only panna will know. If it is "facile speculation" rather than wise reflection when we write, those too are dhammas that can be known when they arise. Again, just dhammas, not Mike's wise/unwise reflection or anyone else's. Ph: Hmmm. I'm not sure about this yet. Speculating that this or that dhamma was involved when there wasn't actually sati with that dhamma as object when it arose (but maybe there was) could condition the habit of attachment for sati, trying to have sati in order to get that pleasure of knowing that one is living one's life in line with the Dhamma. Of course that is encouraging too, knowing that. BUt I think this sort of habit of thinking could *possibly* interfere with satipatthana. A.S says don't think about satipatthana, when we write like this we think about satipatthana. It could be akin to meditators talking about their experiences, which of course will have them experience hunting when meditating. I guess I haven't really made this clear over the last few years, or others don't share my concerns. Never mind. I like these kind of posts, and writing them, so I will, I'm sure. Metta, Phil #118262 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 9:09 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S:Alex & Rob E, the ideas about 'two mouths...superfluous chin..." >and so on, are just imagined notions. They don't exist. > >======================== > > As imaginations they do exist as imaginations. .... S: The thinking is exists, the 'two mouths...' are just imagined, just thought about only. ... > > The idea of "two mouths" is based on seeing mouths and then putting them together in imagination. Kinda like taking an image of horse and man and creating a fictional idea of centaur. The original parts where actually seen, and then fantasy was abstractly based on them. ... S:All that was seen was visible object. Because of thinking, sanna, vitakka and other factors, thre is the fictionally created idea of horse, mouth or centaur. Visible object is real, thinking is real, sanna is real. Horse, mouth and centaur are just imagined. See Howard' "chanel no 5" post again. ... > > The concept, or imagination, as thought does exist as thought. This as every thought comes and goes. It is anicca-dukkha-anatta. ... S: It is the thinking which is anicca, dukkha and anatta. It is the thinking that comes and goes. Thinking thinks about different concepts, ideas, that's all. It's really important to understand this distinction. Now, awareness can be aware of thinking, the reality of thinking. It can be known directly as a dhamma. Horse or mouth can only be thought about. They can never be directly known. They can never be objects of satipatthana leading to the Path. Metta Sarah ====== #118263 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 9:20 pm Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S: What is experienced through the eye-door? (Alex: color) > >What is experienced through the ear-door? (Alex: sound) > >Is actor visible object? Is actor sound? (Alex: no to both) > >==================================== S: So far, so good. Remember, you had said that actor was experienced through 6 doorways. Now, you agree that only colour/visible object is experienced through the eye-door and that this is not actor etc. In other words, 'actor' can only be experienced through one doorway - that of mind, as a concept or idea. It doesn't exist. ... > > In order for seeing to appear there needs to be such conditions: Eye sensitivity , visible object, light and attention. CMA pg 151 > > Is seeing = Eye sensitivity? No. > Is seeing = visible (ruparammana) object ? No. > Is seeing = light ? No. > Is seeing = attention (manasikara)? No. .... S: All correct so far. ... > > So does this mean that seeing doesn't exist since it cannot be > found in any parts of this seeing process? ... S:No, it means just what it says above: In order for seeing to appear there needs to be such conditions: Eye sensitivity , visible object, light and attention. CMA pg 151 (I would just say, "in order for seeing to arise....") ... > > Is the function of seeing (eye-consciousness) being mental (nama) reducible to sum of matter (rupa)? ... S: No, makes no sense ... Is mentality (nama) just a lot of matter (rupa)? ... S: Again, more nonsense. ... >Seeing is an emergent phenomena that has different qualities that are not found in its components. ... S: The conditions for seeing to see (i.e visible object, eye-sense etc) are not "components" of seeing. Nowhere do the texts suggest this. ... > > Same with the person. It is emergent phenomena like eye-consciousness is to its underlying conditions. ... S: Sorry, more nonsense. ... > > "A burden indeed are the five aggregates, and the carrier of the burden is the person." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html .... S: We've had lots of discussion on this sutta before. See "Burden" in U.P. where the commentaries clarify exactly what is meant. Feel very free to quote them again:) Nice chatting, Alex. Sorry, lost a more detailed reply to you and now have to rush, so this is a bit abrupt. Metta Sarah ===== #118264 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues sarahprocter... Dear Chuck, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > Please no argument intended... I just do not agree on your "lip service" of "most" monks "not" observing the Vinaya-pitaka. ... S: A misunderstanding. I wrote: "We also read in the texts that it is through the monks paying mere lip-service to the Vinaya that the Teachings are lost.". In other words, we read that in the decline of the sasana, eventually a day will come when the only indication of a monk will be a small scrap of cloth. I'm not suggesting it is "mere lip-service" by most monks today. There will, however, be less and less regard for the Vinaya as the Teachings decline. We can see this is already occurring. ... >If I may, I would rather let some Tipitaka expert further discuss. > > Just relating as I was taught and my experiences... > > As an ole ancient cantagorustic [sp] Texican, I have been most fortunate in being a temporary monk; first ordained at Wat Thai Washington DC (USA) [disrobed on my mother's deleterious condition towards her death]; secondly, sponsored by the Thai Kasertsart University at the Royal Wat Bowonniwet Vihara in Bangkok. And, later with my son at Wat Mongoltepmuni near Philadelphia, PA (USA). > > He for a week and returned to military service. I went to Thailand to participate in the cremation funeral services for my wife's deceased sister in Chachoengsao Province. I later disrobed at Wat Pak Nam as it is the senior wat to Wat Mongkoltepmuni. > > Please understand I relate this as an explanation of my teachings of the Vinaya-pitaka. I may well have studied incorrectly. [bummer] > > In my minority experiences; both monks and lay persons have not studied all aspects of the Vinaya-pitaka. It is rather extensive. In a way, one needs to be a lawyer to fully observe all many rules. I know, i could not!!! Hence, I frequently confessed my minor transgression(s) to a senior monk!!! [real bummers] .... S: As you suggest, most monks and certainly most lay people have not extensively studied the Vinaya. For monks, the Patimokkha is recited montly, however, so basic rules, such as not handling money, must be clearly understood. Lay people who associate with monks also need to understand these rules. > > Sincere warm thanks for your comments and suggestions. >.... S: Likewise and I'm glad to read about your experiences again. Thanks for sharing your reflections, too, Chuck. Metta Sarah ====== #118265 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:41 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Rob E (117788) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > However, as I read the suttas that are most often quoted on this topic (Satipatthana S, Anapanasati S), the person being described is one who is already highly developed in both samatha (jhana attainer already perhaps) and insight (close to enlightenment), > > What leads you to think that? And if so, what leads you to think that they developed jhana/vipassana by some other means beside this same sort of method that Buddha is describing? > =============== J: Well to begin with, most suttas were addressed to listeners who were ready for enlightenment, and so were persons of highly developed insight (even if that was not apparent before they heard the teachings in that lifetime). Secondly, there are often some clues in the wording of the sutta. In the case of the section in the Satipatthana Sutta on mindfulness of breathing, these are found in the introductory words: "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place, sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps his body erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, the breath which is in front of him. "Mindful, he breathes in, and mindful, he breathes out. ..." Only a person of highly developed panna could arouse mindfulness in the object of meditation, and maintain mindfulness continuously. Of course, references in the sutta to mindfulness are to mindfulness proper and not to a 'practice' of mixed kusala and akusala. Jon #118266 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:38 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, Sincere warm thanks for not taking offense on my poor blunt Texican writing... [bummer] A request on what you wrote: S: A misunderstanding. I wrote: "We also read in the texts that it is through the monks paying mere lip-service to the Vinaya that the Teachings are lost.". In other words, we read that in the decline of the sasana, eventually a day will come when the only indication of a monk will be a small scrap of cloth. I'm not suggesting it is "mere lip-service" by most monks today. There will, however, be less and less regard for the Vinaya as the Teachings decline. We can see this is already occurring. ... Would you kindly supply the credible source of the above? Sincere warm thanks. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck Post script: In my minority experiences as a temporary monk; the vast majority of monks I met throughout Thailand and USA are very observant in observing the Vinaya-pitaka. There are much more than the mere 227 rules which are recited... Post post script: Sincerely, I truly resent the apparent smear of the vast majority of Theravadan monks!!! [just my minority Texican viewpoint having been there.. done it!!!] To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: sarahprocterabbott@... <...> > Please no argument intended... I just do not agree on your "lip service" of "most" monks "not" observing the Vinaya-pitaka. ... S: A misunderstanding. I wrote: "We also read in the texts that it is through the monks paying mere lip-service to the Vinaya that the Teachings are lost.". In other words, we read that in the decline of the sasana, eventually a day will come when the only indication of a monk will be a small scrap of cloth. I'm not suggesting it is "mere lip-service" by most monks today. There will, however, be less and less regard for the Vinaya as the Teachings decline. We can see this is already occurring. <...> #118267 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, S: "'Sabbe dhamma anatta' doesn't include concepts - it refers to conditioned dhammas and nibbana, the unconditioned dhamma. Concepts can also be said to be anatta (by default) in the sense they are not atta, nothing is..." Scott: Phew. Glad you said it. Someone put a blindfold on me and turned be around and around and around. Not for real, just like metaphorically - conceptually. Scott. #118268 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 10:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/3/2011 4:42:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: >Scott: Because Nibbaana, as the unconditioned element, is a reality, and has > characteristics and thus is a paramattha dhamma. > ================================== >HL Does it have characteristics, or is it the absence of characteristics > that pertains to it? It is UNconditioned, UNchanging, NotSelf, etc. (Of > course, one could say that 'unchanging' and 'permanent' are synonyms. Yet > without other (positive) qualities, what about it is permanent?) > One question that occurs to me is what "being unconditioned" subsumes. > Is it just that it is uncaused, or is it also that it is without > conditions, i.e., without qualities? .... S: Nibbana has sabhava (its particular nature) otherwise it couldn't be realised. I quoted the following before to TG: >S:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/udana/ud8-03a.html "Thus have I heard. At one time the Lord was staying near Savatthi in the Jeta Wood at Anathapindika's monastery. On that occasion the Lord was instructing... the bhikkhus with a Dhamma talk connected with Nibbana, and those bhikkhus... were intent on listening to Dhamma. Then, on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance: There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned." -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Again, as I opined, these are absences/denials of conditions. ------------------------------------------------- From the commentary (Masefield transl): Udana comy 395 : " 'Monks, if there were not' that unconditioned element having as its own nature (S: sabhava) that which is unborn and so on, `there could not be made known', there could not be discovered, there could not be witnessed, `here', in this world, `the escape', allayment without remainder, `for that which is conditioned' reckoned as the khandha-pentad of form and so on that has as its own nature (sabhava) being born and so forth. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: The commentary introduces 'sabhava', but not the Buddha's teaching. One may notice the absence of a quality by noting that the quality is not there. But the absence is not itself a quality or thing. How often has the Buddha said that something-or-other "is not found". That something-or-other "not being found" is not a property af anything; all that is being stated is that there IS NO such something-or-other! Speaking of an absence of a quality does not mean that the absence is itself an existent thing or quality; it merely asserts that there is no such quality present. For me, making absences of qualities into qualities is a pointless reification that I do NOT see the Buddha engaging in. That is my perspective. I suspect there is no point in debating it, for it would just be a yes-no-yes-no- ... sort of conversation. One addendum: There are some cases when a quality is missing exactly when (or only when) another (different) quality is present, in which case the absence of the first and the presence of the second are conventionally identified. This is useful speech, but confused ontology. ---------------------------------------------------- For states associated with the ariyan path, such as right view and so on, as they proceed making nibbana their object, extirpate the defilements without remainder. In this way, there is made known in this connection the non-occurrence of, the disappearance of, the escape from, the entire dukkha belonging to the cycle..."< Metta Sarah ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118269 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 11:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues sarahprocter... Dear Chuck, (Connie, Christine & all) ________________________________ C:> Sincere warm thanks for not taking offense on my poor blunt Texican writing... [bummer] .... S: Not at all... C:>A request on what you wrote: S: A misunderstanding. I wrote: "We also read in the texts that it is through the monks paying mere lip-service to the Vinaya that the Teachings are lost.". In other words, we read that in the decline of the sasana, eventually a day will come when the only indication of a monk will be a small scrap of cloth. I'm not suggesting it is "mere lip-service" by most monks today. There will, however, be less and less regard for the Vinaya as the Teachings decline. We can see this is already occurring. ... C: >Would you kindly supply the credible source of the above? .... S: I don't have any texts with me in Hong Kong. If I come across any refs later, I'll share them. Others like Connie or Christine may have ideas in the meantime. There is a reference I've seen to how eventually bhikkhus are recognised just by a small piece of yellow cloth. I can't think right now where I read it - in a commentary on the decline of the Sasana. There is the "Peg" sutta in AN that is often quoted on the decline of the Dhamma Vinaya. People will just enjoy the poetry without any understanding of the meaning. As an example of the "less regard for the Vinaya", you already wrote: >C: "just wanted to know the context of the rule you initially were discussing as the two main Theravada sects in Thailand and the few monks from (I met) from Burma and Sri Lanka have money. It is the context in how they receive and use the money. Well, as I understand what the Vinaya-pitaka states." >C: Post script: In my minority experiences as a temporary monk; the vast majority of monks I met throughout Thailand and USA are very observant in observing the Vinaya-pitaka. There are much more than the mere 227 rules which are recited... ... S: Ok, but see your comment above. ... C:> Post post script: Sincerely, I truly resent the apparent smear of the vast majority of Theravadan monks!!! [just my minority Texican viewpoint having been there.. done it!!!] .... S: sorry, no idea what smear you are referring to. I think the only comment about "the vast majority ofmonks" was your one above. Metta Sarah ====== #118270 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 11:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? upasaka_howard Hi again, Sarah (and all) - In a message dated 10/3/2011 7:56:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: The commentary introduces 'sabhava', but not the Buddha's teaching. One may notice the absence of a quality by noting that the quality is not there. But the absence is not itself a quality or thing. How often has the Buddha said that something-or-other "is not found". That something-or-other "not being found" is not a property af anything; all that is being stated is that there IS NO such something-or-other! Speaking of an absence of a quality does not mean that the absence is itself an existent thing or quality; it merely asserts that there is no such quality present. For me, making absences of qualities into qualities is a pointless reification that I do NOT see the Buddha engaging in. That is my perspective. I suspect there is no point in debating it, for it would just be a yes-no-yes-no- ... sort of conversation. One addendum: There are some cases when a quality is missing exactly when (or only when) another (different) quality is present, in which case the absence of the first and the presence of the second are conventionally identified. This is useful speech, but confused ontology. =============================== A drop more: When someone is not happy, s/he might be sad or worried or angry or neutral. To not be happy is merely to lack the quality of being happy. OTOH, standard English identifies 'unhappy' with 'sad', zeroing-in on one of several qualities that might be present when happiness is not present. (So, in my addendum above, where I wrote "exactly when (or only when)" I should append to that " (or sometimes when)". With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118271 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 11:16 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, et al As you quote, in part I wrote: S: As you suggest, most monks and certainly most lay people have not extensively studied the Vinaya. For monks, the Patimokkha is recited montly, however, so basic rules, such as not handling money, must be clearly understood. Lay people who associate with monks also need to understand these rules. 1. Would you be so kind to share with us your understanding of how a monk is to handle money. 2. Provide the text to support your understanding. 3. Please do not provide a simple website, okay? 4. What is the most important practice for Theravadan monks, in your opinion? Again, please I am not being argumentative... many consider me a Buddhist lawyer... clearly, I am not!!! just a mere diligent student... Now, back to everyday stuff... Most Buddhist followers do not know all the rules a lay person should follow in interacting with a monk... and, the Thai monks do not want the lay person to "lose face" hence, they say nothing about the usual minor infraction... So, question (5) five: How do you suggest, you and I, as lay persons learn all the rules in relating with monks according to the ancient rules of the Vinaya-pitaka? Again, I am not being argumentative... just trying to learn as an ole grujmpy Texican... [verily beeg Texican grins] peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck rest deleted....................... #118272 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Mon Oct 3, 2011 11:27 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues dhammasaro Good friends all, As far as I am concerned, this particular message thread is closed as no credible references can be provided as requested. Let us move on in peace... Let us chant/meditate/pray for the Sangha... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck From: dhammasaro@... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 08:16:44 -0400 Good friend Sarah, et al As you quote, in part I wrote: S: As you suggest, most monks and certainly most lay people have not extensively studied the Vinaya. For monks, the Patimokkha is recited montly, however, so basic rules, such as not handling money, must be clearly understood. Lay people who associate with monks also need to understand these rules. 1. Would you be so kind to share with us your understanding of how a monk is to handle money. 2. Provide the text to support your understanding. 3. Please do not provide a simple website, okay? 4. What is the most important practice for Theravadan monks, in your opinion? <....> #118273 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 2:57 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Azita, Azita: "have been kinda following you two and yr discussions, and this comment made me laugh out loud, to my slight embarressment in an internet cafe. Anyway, I think yr right Scott, with the former comments, it was jst the last sentence that humoured me, loudly:)" Scott: I do that stuff without any other stimulation than concepts. You can always find another internet cafe. Scott. #118274 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 4:06 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view moellerdieter Hi Sarah (and Alex), you wrote: " We've had lots of discussion on this sutta before. See "Burden" in U.P. where the commentaries clarify exactly what is meant. " I think that Bhikkhu Thanissaro's comment to the sutta ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html ) provides a good review of this lasting controversy. I copy for convenience , see below.. Indeed both sides are right : of course there is a person from the mundane point of view (finally the Buddha stated that he taught for this suffering individual) and it is as well correct to speak from the supramundane point of view of conditioned dhammas, like described by D.O. , in which the khandas are 'embedded'. The wrong starts if either side rejects the point of the other ..and that seems to be the case with the lots of discussion you mentioned. with Metta Dieter "This discourse parallels the teaching on the four noble truths, but with a twist. The "burden" is defined in the same terms as the first noble truth, the truth of suffering & stress. The taking on of the burden is defined in the same terms as the second noble truth, the origination of stress; and the casting off of the burden, in the same terms as the third noble truth, the cessation of stress. The fourth factor, however - the carrier of the burden - has no parallel in the four noble truths, and has proven to be one of the most controversial terms in the history of Buddhist philosophy. When defining this factor as the person (or individual, puggala), the Buddha drops the abstract form of the other factors, and uses the ordinary, everyday language of narrative: the person with such-and-such a name. And how would this person translate into more abstract factors? He doesn't say. After his passing away, however, Buddhist scholastics attempted to provide an answer for him, and divided into two major camps over the issue. One camp refused to rank the concept of person as a truth on the ultimate level. This group inspired what eventually became the classic Theravada position on this issue: that the "person" was simply a conventional designation for the five aggregates. However, the other camp - who developed into the Pudgalavadin (Personalist) school - said that the person was neither a ultimate truth nor a mere conventional designation, neither identical with nor totally separate from the five aggregates. This special meaning of person, they said, was required to account for three things: the cohesion of a person's identity in this lifetime (one person's memories, for instance, cannot become another person's memories); the unitary nature of rebirth (one person cannot be reborn in several places at once); and the fact that, with the cessation of the khandhas at the death of an arahant, he/she is said to attain the Further Shore. However, after that moment, they said, nothing further could be said about the person, for that was as far as the concept's descriptive powers could go. As might be imagined, the first group accused the second group of denying the concept of anatta, or not-self; whereas the second group accused the first of being unable to account for the truths that they said their concept of person explained. Both groups, however, found that their positions entangled them in philosophical difficulties that have never been successfully resolved. Perhaps the most useful lesson to draw from the history of this controversy is the one that accords with the Buddha's statements in MN 72, where he refuses to get involved in questions of whether a person has a live essence separate from or identical to his/her body, or of whether after death there is something of an arahant that exists or not. In other words, the questions aren't worth asking. Nothing is accomplished by assuming or denying an ultimate reality behind what we think of as a person. Instead, the strategy of the practice is to comprehend the burden that we each are carrying and to throw it off. As SN 22.36 points out, when one stops trying to define oneself in any way, one is free from all limitations - and that settles all questions. #118275 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 4:34 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view scottduncan2 Dieter, D: "I think that Bhikkhu Thanissaro's comment to the sutta provides a good review of this lasting controversy...Indeed both sides are right..." Scott: The Indecisivida school. Scott. #118276 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 8:04 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > > However, as I read the suttas that are most often quoted on this topic (Satipatthana S, Anapanasati S), the person being described is one who is already highly developed in both samatha (jhana attainer already perhaps) and insight (close to enlightenment), > > > > What leads you to think that? And if so, what leads you to think that they developed jhana/vipassana by some other means beside this same sort of method that Buddha is describing? > > =============== > > J: Well to begin with, most suttas were addressed to listeners who were ready for enlightenment, and so were persons of highly developed insight (even if that was not apparent before they heard the teachings in that lifetime). Is there scriptural support for this understanding that I can read? > Secondly, there are often some clues in the wording of the sutta. In the case of the section in the Satipatthana Sutta on mindfulness of breathing, these are found in the introductory words: > > "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place, sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps his body erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, the breath which is in front of him. From the versions I have seen [6 or 7+] this is an unusual translation. Because the meaning of this sentence is of pivotal importance, I think it would be a good idea to look at a few translations and also seem what commentaries have said about it. Thai monks and Visudhimagga followers have disagreed on interpretations of key aspects of the text, including the meaning of this key sentence, and so it is far from settled. Luckily, wikipedia has several of the translations in a footnote. Here are several versions of the sentence you have translated above: In the preparatory instructions, does the word "parimukham" mean: around the mouth (as favored by Goenka, 1998, p. 28), in the chest area (as supported by a use of the word in the Vinaya), in the forefront of one's mind (as favored at times by Thanissaro) or simply "sets up mindfulness before him" (per Bodhi in Wallace & Bodhi, 2006, p. 5) or "to the fore" (Thanissaro, 2006d) or "mindfulness alive" (Piyadassi, 1999) ? As you can see by this brief survey which includes some of the most diligent, prominent translators of Pali, there is a broad range of interpretation. Now, B. Bodhi, who has a healthy appreciation of the Abhidhamma, but is also fairly objective and moderate in his translations, tends not to skew his terms one way or the other, but consider them carefully and judicially, with an understanding of how terms were used at the time of the Buddha, of which he is one of the leading authorities. He says that the statement means: "sets up mindfulness before him," which is a bit vague but includes the possibility of both making mindfulness "prominent" and perhaps also placing it in the object of awareness, as you state. But I think this translation makes it clear that there is not anything as definitive as the translation you are using - unless you can demonstrate from the Pali that B. Bodhi is incorrect and is being too general. One of the translations I have seen, which I thought was reasonable, based on all the above, was "puts mindfulness to the fore." This, and all the above translations, except for those that are specifically physically-based [and which contradict each other, eg, "mouth," "chest," and in the Vism., "nose-tip"] suggest that one is focusing ahead and establishing the intention to be mindful. That's how I understand the commonality of these translations, and in the context of the meditative endeavor itself. Whether it is fixed on the tip of the nose, on the sensation of breath across the nostrils, on the sensation of the air running across the inner mouth on the way to the nose [as no one would presume mouth-breathing to any meditators of the time,] on the chest, or on the abdomen/the viscera [as represented by some interpretations of the "breath-body" and popularized by Mahasi,] it is clear that one is focusing the mind to the practice of mindfulness. I don't disagree that the practitioners being addressed may have been familiar with the practice, and not beginners -- not sure if there is direct evidence for this one way or the other as to how skilled they were other than your interpretation of this sentence that we are discussing -- but I also don't believe that they could have possibly achieved the results of satipatthana being discussed in the sutta; otherwise, why give the instruction? There may have been some degree of accumulation or practice of mindfulness and/or samatha that would allow them to enter into the practice, but that is not a given. If the interpretation that several of these translators have given, as to "putting mindfulness to the fore" or "putting mindfulness in front of him" are correct, as favored by B. Bodhi, no mean translator, it can and seems to have the simple meaning of focusing the attention on mindfulness and with mindfulness in order to engage the practice of mindfulness, which is about to be instructed, as it seems to me, from scratch. That would make sense, as the sutta gives very terse, but very step-by-step instructions for the practice, starting from the very beginning of anapanasati in order to serve the practice of satipatthana. It is even more stepwise and orderly in the anpanasati sutta. When he says "Mindful, he breathes in, and mindful, he breathes out," that does not discuss the degree of mindfulness involved. He could be starting with a basic focus of awareness of breathing, and develop greater mindfulness from there through practice, which is the way that I see it, and which is most practical and obvious from the standpoint of someone who actually practices. It's the way it is. Anyone who sits down to meditate, first takes a breath, relaxes and bit and begins to settle down and allow the mind to settle down. Then one focuses on the task at hand - to concentrate on the breath and "be mindful" of the in and out breath as it occurs. Any meditator finds that the attention doesn't immediately fix on the breath, wanders, is shaky or cloudy, and becomes more settled, focused and clear as the body and mind calm down and the mind becomes more focused. The sutta seems to understand this pragmatic dimension of practice - real practice - and allows for the settling in and focusing that takes place before one begins in earnest. So, one "sits down"/settles down. One "puts mindfulness to the fore/in front of one/upon the object of meditation," if you like. And then one begins to follow the breathe with attention fixed on the breath: "Mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathe out." In other words, with the degree of mindfulness one has, one follows the breath and engages the practice. Why is my "practice" model plausible? Because the Buddha says at the end of both suttas that continued practice will have specific results, as one develops more skill and eventually masters the practice. It all makes sense if you look at it as real instruction to real monks who are engaged in a real practice over time. I understand that you have a philosophical commitment to sati being a pure 100% cetasika that is either there or not there, but that is not justified or discussed by the text. That is an interpretation based on a predisposed view. I see mindfulness as a quality that is increased over time through practice, and that is the sense in which these suttas are written. > "Mindful, he breathes in, and mindful, he breathes out. ..." > > Only a person of highly developed panna could arouse mindfulness in the object of meditation, and maintain mindfulness continuously. I don't presume that this is what is beingdemanded by a sutta that is calling people to practice and describing the practice regimen, as the sutta does. It describes what to *do,* not what has already been accomplished. If mindfulness were already able to be maintained in the object of awareness *continuously,* as you assert, there would be *no need* for this sutta to ever have been given. The ability to maintain mindfulness and develop that capacity in each of the four "foundations" or applications, is what the sutta is there *to teach.* So your interpretation would pre-empt the purpose of the sutta and make it unnecessary and meaningless. > Of course, references in the sutta to mindfulness are to mindfulness proper and not to a 'practice' of mixed kusala and akusala. I disagree that this set of black-and-white distinctions are inherent in the sutta, or are in any way referenced by this sutta. That is a presumption on your part. I believe that this is a guide to *developing* satipatthana, not a description of how it already arises. Again, that would pre-empt the sutta, and nullify it. In fact, someone who could maintain mindfulness in the breathing or in the four foundations continuously would in all likelihood be already enlightened, and not have to practice satipatthana at all. If you want to look at my idea of this in at least pseudo-Abhidhamma terms -- which is probably all I'm capable of -- you could say that through right intention/right volition and right practice, the arising of moments of sati and the development of satipatthana is given conditions to arise and accumulate. That would allow for the "pure moments" of sati to arise and develop satipatthana, but it would also allow for the arising and recognition of akusala moments, which are going to arise in any case until one is enlightened. There is no such thing as "continuous sati" for someone who is not yet enlightened. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #118277 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 8:33 am Subject: What is Disadvantageous? bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the 12 Detrimental Kinds of Consciousness? Rooted in Greed (Lobha ): 1: Unprompted consciousness joined with joy and false view. Example: Greedy & careless one spontaneously enjoys sense pleasure. 2: Prompted consciousness joined with joy and false view. Ex: Greedy & careless one urged by others enjoys sense pleasure. 3: Unprompted consciousness with joy, but not with false view. Ex: Greedy, yet not careless, one spontaneously enjoys sense pleasure. 4: Prompted consciousness joined with joy, but not with false view. Ex: Greedy, though not careless, one incited enjoys sense pleasure. 5: Unprompted consciousness with equanimity and false view. Ex: Greedy & careless one spontaneously and indifferent takes pleasure. 6: Prompted consciousness joined with equanimity & false view. Ex: Greedy & careless one, urged on, still indifferent takes pleasure. 7: Unprompted consciousness with equanimity, but not with false view. Ex: Greedy, yet not careless, one spontaneously & bored takes pleasure. 8: Prompted consciousness with equanimity, but not with false view. Ex: Greedy, yet not careless, one urged on takes pleasure indifferently. The common false view is here: There is no danger in sense pleasure! Addicted to sensing beings have been drawn back into birth & death billions of times & thus killed by this sense pleasure billions of times! Therefore is this clinging to sense pleasure as detrimental as it comes... Rooted in Hate (Dosa ): 9: Unprompted consciousness joined with sorrow and aversion. Example: Angry and frustrated one spontaneously harms or kills. 10: Prompted consciousness joined with sorrow and aversion. Example: Angry and frustrated one, urged on by others, harms or kills. Rooted in Ignorance (Moha ): 11: Consciousness joined with indifference, doubt and uncertainty. Example: Confused one cannot make up one's mind, nor take any decision. 12: Consciousness joined with indifference, and restless agitation. Example: Confused one remains distracted, scattered & mentally unsettled. These are the 12 kinds of Disadvantageous & detrimental Consciousness of the Sensuous Sphere (lower worlds). The delayed effect of all these is Pain! There are in total 89 kinds of Consciousness. They are all mapped here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/table1.htm Blissful is the overcoming of all sense-desires! Blissful is being without passions in this world! Blissful is being harmless towards all sentient beings... Udana II, 1 <...> Source: The Path of Purification XIV 81ff: Visuddhimagga by Ariya Buddhaghosa from the 5th century AC. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100 The Visuddhimagga is Online free here: http://what-buddha-said.net/library/zips/vism.zip http://what-buddha-said.net/library/pdfs/PathofPurification2011.pdf Ignorance is not knowing & not understanding the 4 Noble Truths! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #118278 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 11:10 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view philofillet Hi Dieter > > I think that Bhikkhu Thanissaro's comment to the sutta ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html ) > provides a good review of this lasting controversy. I copy for convenience , see below.. Ph: " A good review?" You must know Th. Bh's agenda, "The Buddha never said there us no self" , posting a tract by him is not going to impress anyone who values understanding anatta, you should know that. An example of how unreliable T.B is: Th Bh: When defining this factor as the person (or individual, puggala), the Buddha drops the abstract form of the other factors, and uses the ordinary, everyday language of narrative: the person with such-and-such a name. And how would this person translate into more abstract factors? He doesn't say. Ph: Nonsense. Why would someone who translated hundreds of suttas, many about the khandas and ayatanas, write this? He is out to support his agenda, Dieter. So I would try to find a "good review" elsewhere. Metta, Phil #118279 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 12:03 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > Secondly, there are often some clues in the wording of the sutta. In the case of the section in the Satipatthana Sutta on mindfulness of breathing, these are found in the introductory words: > > "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place, sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps his body erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, the breath which is in front of him. Here is yet another worthy translation of this same proposition, from another sutta, by yet another translator, I.B. Horner, from the Dhantibhumi Sutta, MN 125, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.125.horn.html#fnt-4 , this time in the context of getting rid of the five hindrances to prepare for satipatthana: "...Returning from alms-gathering, after the meal, he sits down cross-legged, holding the back erect, having made mindfulness rise up in front of him..." These formulations in different suttas show a specialized, and yet potentially decipherable form of speech that uses this interesting image of putting mindfulness in front of one, having it rise up before one, or setting it to the fore [front] etc. It seems to me to include placing the attention on the object in front of the body, as your translation suggests, in order to attend the object with mindfulness. But it has the specialized sense of 'setting mindfulness up,' of preparing to...meditate. And the sense of putting mindfulness in front of you may have some other spatial sense of the 'space in front of you' being the area of the perceptual field in which mindfulness is focused. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118280 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 12:46 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob E > These formulations in different suttas show a specialized, and yet potentially decipherable form of speech that uses this interesting image of putting mindfulness in front of one, having it rise up before one, or setting it to the fore [front] etc. It seems to me to include placing the attention on the object in front of the body, as your translation suggests, in order to attend the object with mindfulness. But it has the specialized sense of 'setting mindfulness up,' of preparing to...meditate. And the sense of putting mindfulness in front of you may have some other spatial sense of the 'space in front of you' being the area of the perceptual field in which mindfulness is focused. Ph: I would like to repeat Scott's invitation to tell us in detail about your meditation. It seems to me you are always just writing about ideas about meditation, and I don't know why. Well, I guess it is because you read ideas rejecting meditation, and you (perhaps rightfully) feel obliged to defend it. But is meditation a reality for you? Do you actually meditate every day? I know Alex can't because of his health. In my opinion, unless one has a formal meditation practice, it is a bit odd to advocate the benefits of a formal meditation practice. How is yours, care to share just what goes on, what are the realities of meditation for you? Metta, Phil #118281 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 1:58 pm Subject: some questions on practice: Re: Kusala etc; Re: noting "others" (?) philofillet Hi all Here is a really excellent post: wrote: > > Good question Bruce. > --- bruce wrote: > > robert wrote in reply to erik: > > > > > If one > > > doesn't know how to study the present moment yet this may > > seem > > > hard to do . But it can be done. > > > > it does indeed seem hard. how *does* one study the present > > moment? > _________________________ > > I don't think it is some technique that one learns like TM. > My feeling is that gradually from learning about the Dhamma > there is more understanding that there is only insignificant, > evanescent namas and rupas. Then there is a very gradual > investigation into this matter. > > > > > > > > > Mostly my meditation practice involves the investigation of > > the > > > dhammas at the six doors. > > > > and how does one investigate the dhammas at the six doors? > > > > how is any attempt at this investigation different from > > attempting to > > notice what is manifesting at the six doors? in other words, > > how is > > the practice you describe, robert, different from the > > "even-a-child-can-do" practice joyce describes? > ________________________________________________ > I think I mentioned on an earlier that satipatthana is the sole > province of the Buddhas. It must be profound as it leads out of > this beginingless round of birth and death. > > In fact, I know that often when doing this 'investigation of the > dhammas at the 6 doors' that it is not actually satipatthana. > More often than not there is simply the experience of feeling or > hardness or colour or sound but without panna or sati. It is > understanding that distinguishes the difference (between with > and without), and this understanding is supported by listening > and considering. > I think the goal is not so much to have many moments of > awareness but to develop insight into what is seen. There is a > difference. > In the Mahasatipatthana sutta the Buddha says > "Gacchanto va gacchamiti pajanati = "When he is going (a > bhikkhu) understands: 'I am going.'" > It perhaps sounds easy enough? Just keep attention focussed on > the body? > The commentary explains > > "In this matter of going, readily do dogs, 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." > > So the awareness in satipatthana is something that is directly > opposed to the illusion of self that has been present for all > these aeons. > The commentary says > "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 ." > > Much of what Joyce says is certainly correct. There has to be > direct scrutiny of dhammas. But we should be careful not to > oversimplify on this matter. > > > I know some will read this and feel discouraged. they will > surely think "well what exactly is it I'm supposed to do". > As I said it is difficult but not impossible BUT it is something > we have to learn about for ourself. > Dhamma is deep: > The majhima nikaya ii 72 > "you ought to be at a loss > vaccha, you ought to be bewildered. For vaccha this > Dhamma is deep, difficult to see, difficult to > understand, peaceful, excellent, beyond dialectic, > subtle, intelligible to the wise; but it's hard for > you who are under another view, another allegiance, > another objective, of a different observance, and > under a different teacher" > We should be very grateful to be able to learn the Dhamma and be > grateful to those wise monks who preserved it so carefully for > these millenia. I think we shouldn't neglect the deep teachings > that were taught just as much for us as for those at the time of > the Buddha. > > The "Kindred Sayings"(III, > Khandha vagga, Middle Fifty, Ch V, par. 99, The Leash) > Just as, monks, a dog tied up by a leash to a strong stake > or pillar, keeps running > round and revolving round and round that stake or pillar, > even so, monks, the > untaught many folk... regard body as self, regard feeling, > perception, activities, > consciousness as self... they run and revolve round and > round from body to body, > from feeling to feeling, from perception to perception, > from activities to activities, > from consciousness to consciousness...they are not released > therefrom, they are not > released from rebirth, from old age and decay, from sorrow > and grief, from woe, > lamentation and despair... they are not released from > dukkha, I declare... " > > It then says that the ariyan disciple who does not take any > dhamma for self is released from dukkha. > You see often when "I" investigate the 6 doors there is just > that: "I". Sati is taken for self or I think "I" made awareness > happen. But cetana (volition, intention) and awareness are part > of sankharakkhandha, they are "not-self because > uncontrollable" Visuddhimagga xiv224. > This doesn't mean fatalism or that nothing can be done but it > should remind us that the right conditions are needed for the > right results. > > I repeat it is to our great advantage to learn more about the > Dhamma. The Atthasalini, (triplets p451)defines "ignorant > average man" as: > "owing to the absense of access to the Scriptures, and of the > higher attainment of the path and fruition. > For to whoever owing to the absense of learning by > heart and deduction therefrom regarding the > khandas(aggregates) elements(dhatus) > sense-organs(ayatanas) the causal mode, the > applications of mindfulness etc there is NO attainment > of that learning which represses opinionativeness, nor > any access, owing to the non-attainment of what should > be attained by conduct. Such a person, from the > absense of such access and such attainment should be > known as ignorant". > > So surely, as Joyce said, investigate whatever appears now. But > I think don't neglect the teachings given to us by the Buddha; > they are the support for samma ditthi. > robert > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > #118282 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 7:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues sarahprocter... Dear Chuck, ________________________________ >> S: As you suggest, most monks and certainly most lay people have not extensively studied the Vinaya. For monks, the Patimokkha is recited montly, however, so basic rules, such as not handling money, must be clearly understood. Lay people who associate with monks also need to understand these rules. C>1. Would you be so kind to share with us your understanding of how a monk is to handle money. .... S: Simply, a monk doesn't handle money. If he does handle money, he isn't a Buddhist monk in the true sense. Furthermore, he cannot even hint at needing requisites unless invited to do so. Lay people purchase his requisites according to what is appropriate in the Patimokkha. .... >2. Provide the text to support your understanding. >3. Please do not provide a simple website, okay? .... S: From the Patimokkha: "18. Should any bhikkhu take gold and silver, or have it taken, or consent to its being deposited (near him), it is to be forfeited and confessed." You can read all the Patimokkha rules in one of the many translations of the Patimokkha available on-line or in hard copy. The PTS has a nice translation of the Patimokkha which is a good gift for a bhikkhu when he ordains or for a lay follower in close contact with bhikkhus. It has the Pali too. The quote above I just took quickly from Thanissaro's translation of the Patimokkha on-line. .... >4. What is the most important practice for Theravadan monks, in your opinion? .... S: For anyone, what is most important is the last line you quoted from Survey by Sujin: "By being aware of the characteristics of realities, just as they naturally appear in daily life, the wrong view can be eradicated which takes realities for a being, a person or self." In addition, the Theravadan monk has a duty to follow all the Patimokkha rules as perfectly as possible and to teach the Dhamma. If one cannot live the live of a bhikkhu perfectly, then one can develop satipatthana as a lay person. Much better to be a good lay person than a poor monk. What do you think the most important practice for Theravadan monks is? Metta Sarah ====== Again, please I am not being argumentative... many consider me a Buddhist lawyer... clearly, I am not!!! just a mere diligent student... Now, back to everyday stuff... Most Buddhist followers do not know all the rules a lay person should follow in interacting with a monk... and, the Thai monks do not want the lay person to "lose face" hence, they say nothing about the usual minor infraction... So, question (5) five: How do you suggest, you and I, as lay persons learn all the rules in relating with monks according to the ancient rules of the Vinaya-pitaka? Again, I am not being argumentative... just trying to learn as an ole grujmpy Texican... [verily beeg Texican grins] peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck rest deleted....................... #118283 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 8:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: samatha. was: Khandhas and samsara sarahprocter... Hi Ken O, ________________________________ From: Ken O >as I said, sutta is both ways, samantha and vipassana, serenity and insight, never solely one vipassana or just nama and rupa >Not just sutta, abhidhamma and commentaries, it always the same both are mentioned, samantha and vipassana .... S: Sorry, but I can't see what your reply has got to do with our discussion. Pls see my comments below again. Metta Sarah >S: The discussion was referring to "The World" as in the crumbling worlds of conditioned dhammas as included in the ayatanas. Impermanence and crumbling worlds and 'world's end' refer to the khandhas, conditioned dhammas, not concepts as you suggested below. > >Yes, of course cittas arising in the mind-door, accompanied by contact, usually have concepts as object. No one has ever suggested otherwise. However, these concepts are not the 'worlds' referred to in the ayatanas, to be directly realised. > >In other words, we need to consider translations and meanings of suttas carefully, otherwise we may come to the same conclusion you suggest that it is a world of concepts that the Buddha suggested are crumbling away, to be realised and make up the ayatanas. <....> ===== #118284 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 8:28 pm Subject: Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts sarahprocter... Hi Rob E & all, #117579 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: >>S:....Clinging is also a reality. Understanding dhammas as dhammas as distinct from concepts is the only way that ignorance and clinging will eventually be worn away and eradicated. > R:> I appreciate your point, which does clarify it to a good extent, but the sequence of understanding here doesn't quite make sense to me. What is the order in which such clingings would be eradicated by insight? Let's say I see that I am anxious that my new rug will be destroyed and I have the insight to see that the moment of clinging to the rug is responsible for this. Let's say I then [by whatever means] reduce the clinging to the rug and I am less anxious. .... S: This is a common understanding - everyone knows that clinging to the rug makes them feel anxious about damage to it. In the Buddha's Teachings, we learn that there are only conditioned dhammas - no rug, no me, no my and so on. Just visible object, seeing, thinking, clinging, no thing or person involved. Understanding dhammas as anatta is the only way that clinging will ever be overcome. Otherwise it's just more of 'my clinging', 'my reduction of clinging', 'me as not being so attached to my rug' etc, i.e the usual! ... > > Are you saying that I cannot release the clinging to the rug until I see that I am not really clinging to the rug, but really clinging to dhammas, and that until I see the clinging to the dhammas I will not understand why my attachment remains? .... S: If there were no seeing of visible object, no clinging to 'signs and details', would there be any clinging to the rug? The first kind of clinging, the first fetter which has to be eradicated, is the clinging to the idea of self. This is the grossest kind of clinging - i.e. clinging with wrong view. .... > > I know that the Abhidhamma teaches that we really only cling to dhammas, .... S: ...and to concepts about those dhammas ... >so what is the status of the clinging to conventional objects? It is still clinging and still causes suffering. .... S: Yes, there can be clinging to 'conventional objects' with or without wrong view, with or without conceit. All day long, on account of what is experienced through the senses as well as the mind-door. ... >When I am able to see that I am really clinging to dhammas the clinging to the dhammas can then be released through detachment, but what about the clinging to conventional objects? Does that get released beforehand, at the same time? How are they related? .... S: Lobha is lobha. If there is any attempt to cling less to dhammas or conventional objects, this is more lobha. Better to just understand the lobha that is conditioned now than to make rules about 'what first'. It always comes back to the understanding. When we appreciate that only visible object is seen, only sound is heard, we begin to appreciate how absurd the clinging is to ideas about these. I called my mother yesterday (prompted by Howard's "chanel no 5" post - chanel no 5 is her favourite perfume! She told me my aunt's husband had just died. He had worked hard, accumulated a lot of wealth, they'd lived in a beautiful house with a huge garden. In the end it's all left behind - just alone with visible objects, sounds and thinking on one's death bed, just like now. At the same time, my mother told me about another aunt with early alzheimers. Her children are trying to move her into a home but she doesn't want to leave her old antiques and porcelain. Dukkha - parting with the beloved all day long. Occasionally there can be a moment of sanity when there is understanding of seeing or visible object or clinging as just passing dhammas. ... > > We go through our lives worrying about ourselves, our loved ones, what's going to happen to our job, our house, whether the car will crash - all sufferings caused by involvement with conventional objects, not directly experienced as attachments to dhammas. So how is that alleviated and how does that relate to attachment to dhammas and the realization thereof? .... S: Yes, as you say, we go through life lost in a dream world of concepts. The realities are hidden by the curtain of ignorance and the roof of lobha which the Buddha pointed out. The suffering is caused by not understanding the Truths, by ignorance of and attachment to the 5 khandhas and ideas about them. The attachment is only 'alleviated' and eradicated by the Noble Path, beginning with the understanding of dhammas now as anatta. Otherwise, it'll always be 'me', 'my loved ones', 'my rug', 'our house' and so on without any understanding of the Truths. .. > I hope you see what I am driving at since it is somewhat confusing. .... S: Whether or not I'm seeing what you're driving at, I find it helpful to reflect further. I'll look forward to your further elaborations. Metta Sarah ====== #118285 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 8:35 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Pt & all, I thought the following was a very astute comment: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > I think one of the reasons that abhidhamma goes into so much detail when it comes to direct experiences of insight is so that the majority of the possible experiences would be covered in terms of anatta and conditionality - in that way, whatever experience one comes across in the millenia to come, it would still be clearly pointed out that it's all anatta and conditioned, thus helping to avoid subtle lobha, mana, etc, associated with meditative achievements. ... S: As you say, whatever arises, now, in the past, in the future - all anatta and conditioned. It also reminds me that when the outline or Mattika of the Katthavatthu was laid out, it was because the Buddha knew exactly what issues would arise later. Metta Sarah ===== #118286 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 8:47 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S: Do you take the following comment of the Buddha's literally? > >... Reading this on its own, would you follow the Buddha's example >and kill the student who doesn't get the Dhamma training? > >================= > > You make good point. However, > > The Buddha *in this sutta* has explain what He has meant. In suttas when He talks using similes or Parables, He does state it as such and used pali words such as Seyyathapi, "just as". In the Kesi sutta there is clear explanation of His metaphor explained by the Buddha (whom I believe to be the Best Teacher) Himself. > > The difference between our cases is that > -You allow for interpretations made by other monks even regarding more strait forward suttas. ... S: As did the Buddha, I believe. ... > > -These monks may not have lived during Buddha's time or may not have gotten approval from the Buddha, so the Buddha was not there to reject incorrect interpretations of his words. .... S: The Ancient Councils or arahats were there just for that purpose however. ... > There were bad monks during time of the Buddha such as: Devadatta, Arittha, Sati, Subhadda (from DN16). How do we know that some commentators, even well intentioned ones, not making honest mistakes? .... S: The views of Devadatta and so on did not pass the stringent tests of the Councils and the hardships that were endured in order to safeguard against any mistakes. ... > > Without Buddha being alive, He cannot correct them. So He is defenseless in that sense. Ancient commentators are not omniscient for the sake of being ancient. Devadatta, Arittha, Sati and Subhadda would be called Ancient commentators. But this didn't make them right. ... S: No. The Maha Theras at Anuraddhapura fully tested Buddhaghosa's commentaries. In the end, Alex, it comes down to what is understood and what can be tested and proven at this very moment. Right now, as we both agree, only visible object is seen. There can be direct understanding now of visible object. There is no car which is seen at all. What is thought about is only a concept. The path is about insight into realities now. Anything else is just putting off a release from samsara. ... > Achievement even of Arahatship is no guarantee that one can answer many hard Dhamma questions. Remember the case of Ven. Assaji? He was an Arahant and was asked by Ven. Sariputta to teach him Dhamma could only teach very little. So even if an Arahant living in Buddha's time could know very little theory, nothing to say about less capable people. .... S: For an arahat, no lobha, dosa, moha. No doubt about realities now. That's all that matters. Metta Sarah ===== #118287 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 8:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > S: Just looking at the Pali: > >=============== > > It contains kara.niiya.m which translates: > "ought to be done, (nt.), duty; obligation.". > > > The sutta also talks about "...chando, vayamo, ussaho, ussolhi, appaiivani..." > > vayama = exertion; striving. > ussaha = endeavour; effort. > ussolhi = exertion. > appaiivani= a zealous person. > > So translation of "exertion" is correct. And when taken in the context of the sutta it is clear that intention was to properly strive hard. Unfortunately Awakening is not going to simply drop on one's lap one day. Hard work is unfortunately required.... .... S: In the context of this sutta or any other sutta or non-sutta, viriya, vayama that 'ought to be done' is right effort arising with right understanding which knows dhammas as conditioned and anatta. Whenever there is an idea of Self making an intention to strive hard, it indicates not only that there is no understanding, but worse, there is wrong view arising. Awakening doesn't "simply drop on one's lap", there is no "one's lap" for a start. Awakening is developed understanding. The 'hard work' is the development of that understanding at this very moment of dhammas. Appreciating that such understanding, such effort is conditioned and anatta is hard, very hard. The Buddha never said it was simple. Hard work, but no one to do it! Metta Sarah ===== #118288 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 9:02 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > But when the Buddha says on a number of occasions, without any metaphors, but sometimes with clear analogies, that we should "strive with all our might," with "unceasing devotion," or anything like that, such statements are not mysterious. They'd not abstract. They are the normal kinds of admonitions that a coach would give to an athlete. Is that really confusing? .... S: Only confusing if such striving is assumed to be done by a Self or if there's the idea that right striving can be made to arise by will. ... > >S: In the very first two suttas taught by the Buddha, the Four Noble Truths, the Middle Way, the explanation of the khandhas as being anatta and not in anyone's control are elaborated on by the Buddha. Effort, viriya is included in sankhara khandha - a conditioned dhamma that can never be made to arise by one's will. > > > > All the teachings have to be understood in this light. > >R: I think that is an intriguing explanation, and I would like to see how it is applied without taking away from the Buddha's specific statements on right effort. If he says "strive with all your might," "practice diligently with continuous effort like your hair is on fire," etc., how are those statements to be interpreted in the light of what you have said about viriya? .... S: Simply, as explained in the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta (the first sutta) the Middle Way taught by the Buddha is the Eightfold Path, the development of right understanding.....right effort....and so on. As explained in the Anattalakkhana Sutta (the second sutta), all these dhammas are anatta, the conditioned dhammas are the 5 khandhas, not subject to anyone's will at all for even a moment. If they were, we'd all use Self to strive now and be enlightened immediately. "Strive with all your might" can only be samma vayama of the path if it arises with samma ditthi of the path and clearly understood as anatta. .... >Are you saying that he did not mean to encourage his followers to take action, to work towards understanding and enlightenment, when he made those very clear statements? ... S: He encouraged the development of the path with an understanding that in an ultimate sense there are no followers, no action, no Buddha, no 'own might'. When there is right understanding, there is right effort, right encouragement, right everything, without any idea of Anyone Doing Anything!! Metta Sarah ===== #118289 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 9:31 pm Subject: Re: Chariot simile means that there is a self?: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >Rob K: You are really going wrong. That sutta does in fact reject living >beings as being anything other than conventional designations. > >============ > > >A: "A burden indeed are the five aggregates, and the carrier of the burden is the person." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html > > Buddha never denied the existence of a person as a conditioned phenomena dependent on the 5 aggregates. .... S: See the footnotes attached to B.Bodhi's translation, recently posted by Han, #105089. for example: -------------------- >Foot Notes: [Note 36] Commentary: In what sense are these "five aggregates subject to clinging" called the burden? In the sense of having to be borne through maintenance. For their maintenance: by being lifted up, move about, seated, laid to rest, bathed, adorned, fed and nourished, etc., is something to be borne; thus they are called a burden in the sense of having to be borne through maintenance. >[Note 37] The puggalavaada or "personalist" schools of Buddhism appealed to this passage as proof for the existence of the person (puggala) as a real entity, neither identified with the five aggregates nor different from them. It is the puggala, they claimed, that persists through change, undergoes rebirth, and eventually attains Nibbaana. This tenet was bluntly rejected by the other Buddhist schools, who saw in it a camouflaged version of the aatman, the self of the non-Buddhist systems. The mainstream Buddhist schools held that the person was a mere convention (vohaara), or concept (pa~n~natti) derivative upon (upaadaaya) the five aggregates, not a substantial reality in its own right. >Thus, by the expression "the carrier of the burden", he shows the person to be a mere convention. For the person is called the carrier of the burden because it "picks up" the burden of the aggregates at the moment of rebirth, maintains the burden by bathing, feeding, seating, and laying them down during the course of life, and then discards them at the moment of death, only to take up another burden of aggregates at the moment of rebirth. .... Metta Sarah ===== #118290 From: "philip" Date: Tue Oct 4, 2011 10:12 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Rob E (and Alex) > I understand that you have a philosophical commitment to sati being a pure 100% cetasika that is either there or not there, but that is not justified or discussed by the text. That is an interpretation based on a predisposed view. I see mindfulness as a quality that is increased over time through practice, and that is the sense in which these suttas are written. > I should explain that my grouchy feeling indicated in my post demanding a description of your meditation was conditioned by the above. I can't believe that after all this time at DSG, which was founded with respect for the tipitika and commentaries, that you tell Jon he has a "philisophical commitment" rather than acknowledging that he has correct understanding of Dhamma on a basic Dhamma 101 point as taught in the tipitika and commentaries. You and others who base their understanding of Dhamma on interpreting suttas are the ones who must come up with "philosophical commitments" based on your interpretations. I guess I have come full circle and am back where I was a few years ago when I couldn't understand why people who didn't accept Abhidhamma and commentaries insisted on pushing their views here, or a, just having a particularly grouchy day. I have no doubt that you are a great human being, mind you. But Jon doesn't have a "philosophical commitment", he understands Dhamma. You are the one who have come up with your own ideas and your own commitments (wrong view) based on them, sorry. I will retreat for a few weeks at least to read UPs and listen. I am temporarily tired of Alexisms and Rob E isms. Of course it is all clinging to what *I* want from DSG, it is always about that. Metta, Phil #118291 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 12:02 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues [Closed] dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, et al As I asked several times; please no argument, yes??? Please respect my message yesterday, okay? Yesterday, I wrote this thread is closed as you nor others have not provided the document you quote, yes? Please do not insult me and other students on your valuable forum. If you prefer to disparage monks; please do not do it with me, okay? I've tried to walk the walk!!! Not, just talk the talk!!! Have you "walk the walk"??? When you give grapes to a monk; do you make it presentable before giving it to a monk??? Heh??? Have you actually read the Vinaya-pitaka??? There is much, much more for monks to follow than just the mere 227 (more for bhikkhunis) rules!!!! It is not easy; not, only for one day!!! I almost daily confessed some small infraction!!! Please let us in be peace, okay? Please disparage monks with someone else!!! Let us go our separate ways in peace, okay?? Respectfully, yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck From: sarahprocterabbott@... <....> C>1. Would you be so kind to share with us your understanding of how a monk is to handle money. .... >S: Simply, a monk doesn't handle money. If he does handle money, he isn't a Buddhist monk in the true sense. Furthermore, he cannot even hint at needing requisites unless invited to do so. Lay people purchase his requisites according to what is appropriate in the Patimokkha. <...> #118292 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 12:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/4/2011 6:02:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > But when the Buddha says on a number of occasions, without any metaphors, but sometimes with clear analogies, that we should "strive with all our might," with "unceasing devotion," or anything like that, such statements are not mysterious. They'd not abstract. They are the normal kinds of admonitions that a coach would give to an athlete. Is that really confusing? .... S: Only confusing if such striving is assumed to be done by a Self ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: Why is that red herring fished out of the murky depths every time there is a quoting of the Buddha's urging of proactivity? (Though close to never, BTW, with respect to study of the Tipitaka and commentaries)? ---------------------------------------------------- or if there's the idea that right striving can be made to arise by will. -------------------------------------------------- HCW: Of *course* intention, conscious or subliminal, is involved with striving! [Dictionary entry for "To strive": to devote serious effort or energy : _endeavor_ (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/endeavor) ] To *devote* serious effort or energy (as in striving to finish a project) is willful, but there need not be a particular overriding sense of self/actor/one-who-strives involved. The willing itself is an impersonal mental activity. It's "okay" and not a defilement! --------------------------------------------------- ... > >S: In the very first two suttas taught by the Buddha, the Four Noble Truths, the Middle Way, the explanation of the khandhas as being anatta and not in anyone's control are elaborated on by the Buddha. Effort, viriya is included in sankhara khandha - a conditioned dhamma that can never be made to arise by one's will. ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: That last is incorrect: Every time there is a standing up or sitting down or reaching for a pen or typing on a keyboard or opening the mouth to eat or to speak, will is a condition. The willing alone isn't sufficient, but sufficiency is not the issue. ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118293 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 1:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues [Closed] sarahprocter... Dear Chuck, I apologise for giving any distress - unintentionally, I assure you. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > As I asked several times; please no argument, yes??? .... S: I have no interest in arguing with you. I thought I was just answering your questions. I hadn't read the subsequent note. ... > Please do not insult me and other students on your valuable forum. > > If you prefer to disparage monks; please do not do it with me, okay? .... S: I don't believe I've ever insulted you or anyone else here. I have certainly never disparaged monks. If you consider a discussion of the vinaya or a pointing out of the rules for monks as 'disparaging', so be it. ... > Have you actually read the Vinaya-pitaka??? There is much, much more for monks to follow than just the mere 227 (more for bhikkhunis) rules!!!! .... S: Yes to all of that. ... > Let us go our separate ways in peace, okay?? > > Respectfully, yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, .... S: Happy to let the discussion drop. "In the Dhamma-vinaya" is what we agree on, according to the Buddha's Teachings. Metta Sarah ===== #118294 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 1:32 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues [Closed] dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, et al Sincere warm thanks for your most polite response. I respectfully apologize about you defaming monks - it is a very sensitive point for me - a monk's life is not easy... as you know, I have tried... three times... as a temporary monk... as I wrote, almost daily I had to confess a small infraction... [bummers] You wrote you have read the complete Vinaya-pitaka. I have not been able to read nor purchase the complete Vinaya-pitaka. Would you share with me where I can purchase the complete Vinaya-pitaka? The book store across from Wat Bovonieves Vihara keeps telling me they have the third book in print... [bummers] Again, please accept my sincere apology on my accusation of you defaming monks... peace... yours in the dhamma-vinaya Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: sarahprocterabbott@... I apologise for giving any distress - unintentionally, I assure you. .............Rest deleted by Chuck................. #118295 From: "connie" Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 5:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues [Closed] nichiconn hi Chuck, > I have not been able to read nor purchase the complete Vinaya-pitaka. Would you share with me where I can purchase the complete Vinaya-pitaka? > c: try pariyatti.com or palitext.com for hard copies. you can read the "Vinaya Texts" translation online here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe13/index.htm (Vinaya Texts vol.1) http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe17/index.htm (Vinaya Texts vol.2) http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe20/index.htm (Vinaya Texts vol.3) you should be able to google & download pdf's of the "Book of Discipline" translation: p1sacredbooksofb20londuoft_bw.pdf (Book of the Discipline vol.2) p2sacredbooksofb20londuoft_bw.pdf (Book of the Discipline vol.3) p3sacredbooksofb20londuoft_bw.pdf (Book of the Discipline vol.5) bookofdiscipline10hornuoft_bw.pdf (Book of the Discipline vol.1) bookofdiscipline14hornuoft_bw.pdf (Book of the Discipline vol.4) if memory serves, the pdf's are all at archive.org you might try looking there for the Vinaya Texts as well. good luck, connie #118296 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 5:48 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > > These formulations in different suttas show a specialized, and yet potentially decipherable form of speech that uses this interesting image of putting mindfulness in front of one, having it rise up before one, or setting it to the fore [front] etc. It seems to me to include placing the attention on the object in front of the body, as your translation suggests, in order to attend the object with mindfulness. But it has the specialized sense of 'setting mindfulness up,' of preparing to...meditate. And the sense of putting mindfulness in front of you may have some other spatial sense of the 'space in front of you' being the area of the perceptual field in which mindfulness is focused. > > Ph: I would like to repeat Scott's invitation to tell us in detail about your meditation. It seems to me you are always just writing about ideas about meditation, and I don't know why. Well, I guess it is because you read ideas rejecting meditation, and you (perhaps rightfully) feel obliged to defend it. But is meditation a reality for you? Do you actually meditate every day? I know Alex can't because of his health. In my opinion, unless one has a formal meditation practice, it is a bit odd to advocate the benefits of a formal meditation practice. How is yours, care to share just what goes on, what are the realities of meditation for you? Let me answer your invitation and question in two parts, and since you asked, I hope you'll have the patience to read my answer, which will necessarily be lengthy. The two parts of my answer will be: 1/ Why I think my meditation practice is irrelevant to the above post, and 2/ A description of my meditation history and practice. 1/ In the above discussion I am trying to establish what the Buddha said and what his intent was. My basis for this is the sutta. I don't understand why I have to talk about my personal practice in order to discuss the correct way of translating the Pali, or whether Buddha talked about or advocated meditation. Can you tell me why my personal life is relevant to *that* particular topic? Has anyone else been asked to justify their views on Dhamma by describing in detail what their personal practice is like? I don't think so. I think it's worth sharing the details of practice, as I said, in a friendly discussion about "practice," but *not* as a prerequisite for having an opinion about the Buddha's view of meditation. Scott was wrong to make his or others' assessment of a meditator's practice an argument for or against the role of meditation in the Noble 8-fold path. If I ever said "I know this is relevant because in meditation I have experienced how sati and panna arise and so I am qualified to have this opinion" then my practice would come into question. I may be a lousy or nonexistent meditator and it doesn't mean I can't read a sutta and argue about what the Buddha said or didn't say. The question here is not *how do you meditate,* the question is *what is the path.* The question is whether one *should* meditate if they want to follow the Buddhist path, and then each person can adapt to that as they wish. 2/ As I have mentioned a number of times over the years, and also quite recently, my meditation practice has been sporadic during the last few years. I haven't been sitting regularly, and I am unhappy about this, but lately haven't been fighting very hard. I think meditation is important and I feel and think much better when I practice, but life, household, family, care and feeding of a teenage girl, running my business and doing my work, and other "householder" obligations have kept me on the treadmill during the day, and tired at night. My background: I studied and practiced T'ai Chi with several different teachers for over a decade, and during that time had a powerful experience of doing Taoist standing meditation. I then did some yoga and experienced deep relaxation work and pranayama. I then did a smattering of zen and Tibetan meditation, and spent 8 years doing an esoteric form of meditation that is somewhat similar to kayagatasati/Buddhist practice of mindfulness of the body, tracing sensation and bringing awareness to the body, organs, cells, nerves, bloodstream, etc. I also spent some years practicing a form of emotional awareness meditation that is somewhat similar to the second foundation of mindfulness/vedana, as well as mindfulness of mental states, etc. Intermixed with this was 25 years of practicing and 15 years of teaching Iyengar style yoga, and during this time I did a period of serious pranayama practice, which includes mindfulness of breathing. Partway through this period, one of my teachers introduced me to Vipassana meditation, and I adopted this as my main form of meditation. The method I was introduced to was very "open," with little forced concentration, and with attention on the rise and fall of the abdomen during inhalation and exhalation, a la Mahasi. The method is very simple - follow the sensation of the rise and fall of the breath, be aware of the nature and quality of the movement of the breath, and when anything arises that draws the attention, focus awareness on that object and then go back to the breath. It's the bare bones of basic anapanasati. My practice with this basic Buddhist meditation has sometimes been more regular, sometimes more sporadic. At times I have focused on foundations of mindfulness, at other times my focus has been building concentration on the breath and relaxing the breath and body, ie, samatha meditation, and sometimes just on bare bones mindfulness, being aware of whatever arises. For a while, I followed the anapanasati sutta as a direct meditation guide, with several translations with commentaries as references, but that has been interrupted. Something I hope to return to. I also find 'body scan' work, a la Goenka and others, valuable, as a form of kayagatasati. I also practice general mindfulness of the body, breathing and 4 foundations while walking, jogging, falling asleep, and doing other activities. This "daily life" practice is consistent over a number of years, and has not been interrupted. My basic practice is always the same - basic practice of breathing awareness, with mindfulness applied to the 4 foundations as they arise. Since this is already long enough, and vague enough to possibly be misinterpreted, I'll leave it there for now. As long as it is, the above is just a sketch. I've had some very positive results of meditation, and some striking experiences, some of which I've reported on dsg over the years, and some times when it was just very basic and ordinary. Such is practice when it occurs. I think the above is relevant to exchanges of practice notes, and understandings that may come from practice. I don't see how it is relevant or necessary for anything else. Since you invited this kind of personal description, I hope you'll describe your practice as well. I can share more details if it's relevant to a particular topic, or if you want to exchange notes, but otherwise, this gives a sense of my experience and background in meditation. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #118297 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 5:59 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Money; was Thread: A few issues [Closed] dhammasaro Good friend Connie, Sincere warm thanks for the web site reference. I will download and study. Plus I will put on DVD's for my friends at Wat Thai Washington DC, Wat Thai Mongoltepmunee and Wat Dhammabucha. This is a real treasure for my fellow English (only) reading monks and future monks. I am sure they will further distribute. Again, sincere warm thanks. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: nichicon@... >c: try pariyatti.com or palitext.com for hard copies. you can read the "Vinaya Texts" translation online here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe13/index.htm (Vinaya Texts vol.1) http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe17/index.htm (Vinaya Texts vol.2) http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe20/index.htm (Vinaya Texts vol.3) you should be able to google & download pdf's of the "Book of Discipline" translation: p1sacredbooksofb20londuoft_bw.pdf (Book of the Discipline vol.2) p2sacredbooksofb20londuoft_bw.pdf (Book of the Discipline vol.3) p3sacredbooksofb20londuoft_bw.pdf (Book of the Discipline vol.5) bookofdiscipline10hornuoft_bw.pdf (Book of the Discipline vol.1) bookofdiscipline14hornuoft_bw.pdf (Book of the Discipline vol.4) if memory serves, the pdf's are all at archive.org you might try looking there for the Vinaya Texts as well. <....> #118298 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 7:46 am Subject: The 5 Abilities! bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the Five Mental Abilities making Safe? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these 5 mental abilities. What five? The ability of Faith (saddhā ) The ability of Energy (viriya ) The ability of Awareness (sati ) The ability of Concentration (samādhi ) The ability of Understanding (pañña ) When, Bhikkhus, a Noble Disciple understands as they really are the gratification, the danger, and the escape regarding these five abilities, then he is called a Noble Disciple, who is a stream-enterer, no longer bound to the lower worlds, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as his assured future destination! <....> Source of reference (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. Book [V: 193] 48 The Mental Abilities: 2 Stream-Enterer.. Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <....> #118299 From: "foreverweeping" Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 7:59 am Subject: *Book Study* Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization by Bhikkhu Analayo foreverweeping As a silent participant of the dhammastudygroup for years, I would like to invite everyone to a book study on Bhante Analayo's satipatthana commentary. This is a scholarly book that many people are trying to read but could use some help with. Everyone would benefit from the breadth of knowledge that exists here at dhammastudygroup. If you haven't read it yet but have been meaning to, now is your chance! -James Stewart Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization By: Bhante Analayo <....> #118300 From: "connie" Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 11:36 am Subject: part 2! Guide to CR/Patthana nichiconn dear bookworms, thanks to budaedu! “Being a guide to pages 13-141 of CONDITIONAL RELATIONS. Explanations of the First 2 Chapters as given in the Commentary, of the Question Chapter and of the First 6 Chapters of the Faultless Triplet Pa.t.thaana Section. “ Part 2 of the Guide to Conditional Relations: http://ftp.budaedu.org/ebooks/pdf/EN324.pdf It is a huge file (~140MB) so I can neither upload it to the group’s files nor email it. My best offer* if the above link is troublesome is the same file, slightly renamed: http://www.wuala.com/nichicon/chewPatthana/EN324-gcr2.pdf/ I’m also sorry to say I can’t convert it to another format. enjoy, connie *this wuala account will expire in ~ a year & I don’t expect to renew it. If you think I might have other files you’d like, email me offlist. #118301 From: "connie" Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 11:50 am Subject: Re: *Book Study* Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization by Bhikkhu Analayo nichiconn thanks, James. >I would like to invite everyone to a book study on > > Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization > By: Bhante Analayo > Is the book available online or could we talk you into leading the discussion/providing exerpts here ... or just what did you have in mind? connie #118302 From: "azita" Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 3:11 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) gazita2002 hallo Scott, > Azita: "have been kinda following you two and yr discussions, and this comment made me laugh out loud, to my slight embarressment in an internet cafe. Anyway, I think yr right Scott, with the former comments, it was jst the last sentence that humoured me, loudly:)" > > Scott: I do that stuff without any other stimulation than concepts. You can always find another internet cafe. azita: the sea of concepts, seems very real when there is no awareness of realities...I guess! Was reading something from NIna where she calls the sankharakhandas 'habitual tendancies' which I'm sure I've heard before but this time the meaning 'sunk in'. Accumulations/habitual tendancies [ht] names for realities that we take to be mine, me. I think it made more sense to me when I was wondering why I do the messy things I do, and realised its bec of these ht's that have been accumulated for who knows how long. Development of right understanding seems like the only sane 'thing-to-do' but can only occur when theres lettin go of a 'me' who can make it happen. may all beings be happy azita #118303 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 8:43 pm Subject: Re: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 5, no 3. philofillet Hi all (p.s to Rob E) A great post from Nina about how easy it is to fool oneself about sati. (And not meditators in this case, those of us who seek to grab sati in daily life.) Metta, Phil p.s Rob E, sorry for my hissy fit yesterday. And here is Nina: > Satipatthna is not concentration or trying to focus on a specific > reality. There are so many pittfalls by which we mistake for > satipatthna what is not satipatthna. For example, we experience for > a moment just sound, no other reality and then we believe that this > is satipatthna. However, akusala citta with attachment can also > experience the paramattha dhamma that is sound. Acharn Sujin spoke > about hardness that can be experienced by different types of citta. > She said that we all notice when something hard impinges on the > bodysense, that also a child can notice this. Body-consciousness > experiences hardness, it is vipkacitta, result of kamma, and this > citta is not accompanied by awareness. One may fix one's attention > with lobha on a paramattha dhamma such as hardness , but that is not > satipatthna. Or there maybe a moment of sati and then quickly after > that there is again lobha trying to hold on to the object. Cittas > arise and pass away so fast. Pa must be very keen to discern all > those different moments. We are likely to have many misconceptions of > what sati is. We forget that sati falls away in splitseconds, just > like all other conditioned realities. Do we believe that sati does > not fall away and, while it is lasting, that it can be aware now of > this reality and then of that reality? We may have intellectual > understanding of the fact that sati falls away immediately, but, > unknowingly, we may still tend to hold on to sati as if it could > last. We take sati for self and that is a hindrance to its arising. > Listening to the Dhamma and considering what we heard can condition > the arising of sati. It depends on someone's accumulated inclinations > how deeply he will consider what he hears. Nobody can control the > arising of mindfulness, it all depends on the accumulated conditions > for it. Nobody can control the object of mindfulness either. As we > were often reminded: nobody can choose to see, nobody can choose to > hear, nobody can choose to have sati. It will arise when there are > the right conditions. We may try to have conditions as a support for > pa but this is motivated by clinging to the concept of self. > Acharn Sujin stressed that we need more understanding of the truth of > non-self as a firm foundation that can condition the arising of right > awareness. She said: > > "When a characteristic of a reality appears, do we just remember the > name of that reality, or is there sati arising because of its own > conditions? A reality such as seeing may appear, but it appears for a > very short time, and then it falls away. Sati arises for a very short > moment and then it falls away. Sati that is aware without trying to > focus on a reality is right awareness. But the clinging to the > concept of self comes in between all the time. It is very difficult > to become detached from it. Gradually we can become familiar with the > different characteristics that appear." > > ***** > Nina. > > > > > > #118305 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 9:21 pm Subject: Kamma accumulates? philofillet Hi Sarah (Rob E, all) > S: ...completed kamma patha, liable to bring results by way of unhappy rebirth and subsequent akusala vipaka. Ph: Today I heard somerhing that confused me, kamma is not one cetana, but accumulation of many moments, "there cannot be ill cetana" A.S said, meaning maybe that what we think of as one incident of "ill will" is really many many cetanas? Or does it mean many incidents of ill will accumulate to create kamma? I thought kamma was utterly momentary and fell away, the result to arise later, bur it accumulates? Does this have something to do with nimitta, I know there is nimitta of all khandas. Is one moment of "ill will" actually nimitta of many many cetanas that have just fallen away? I hope this makes sense. No hurry. Metta, Phil #118306 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 10:19 pm Subject: Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi philofillet Hi all "When someone clings to the concept of self, being, person or different things and really believes that they exist, there is the wrong view of sakkaya-ditthi." (SPD p.242) I have also heard about atta-ditthi. What is the difference between sakkaya ditthi and atta ditthi? What does believing this i-phone exists have to do with personality belief? Thanks Metta, Phil #118307 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 10:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/5/2011 7:19:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: What does believing this i-phone exists have to do with personality belief? ================================ I think that is an interesting and worthwhile question. My perspective on it is the following: Within the (fuzzily-boundaried and dynamic) aggregate of namas and rupas we call "a person," there is no core of identity or self, and nothing at all that exists independently, separately or lastingly. Isn't that equally true with regard to your i-phone? With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118308 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 11:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi philofillet Hi Howard > I think that is an interesting and worthwhile question. > My perspective on it is the following: Within the (fuzzily-boundaried > and dynamic) aggregate of namas and rupas we call "a person," there is no > core of identity or self, and nothing at all that exists independently, > separately or lastingly. Isn't that equally true with regard to your i-phone? Thanks for your feedback. This is tricky. What you wrote seems to help to establish that the person and i-phone are equally concepts, but does it establish personality view re the phone, not sure... Metta, Phil #118309 From: "philip" Date: Wed Oct 5, 2011 11:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi philofillet Hi again Howard > This is tricky. What you wrote seems to help to establish that the person and i-phone are equally concepts, but does it establish personality view re the phone, not sure... On second thought, probably you were not saying anything about concepts, if I remember correctly you see people somewhat differently than that. In passing, thanks for pointing out the danger of arrogance, lack of generosity etc re newly acquired understanding/enthusiasm etc. It will be back, I'm sure of it, but for today at least it is dormant. Metta, Phil #118310 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 12:14 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, as you say, we go through life lost in a dream world of concepts. The realities are hidden by the curtain of ignorance and the roof of lobha which the Buddha pointed out. The suffering is caused by not understanding the Truths, by ignorance of and attachment to the 5 khandhas and ideas about them. The attachment is only 'alleviated' and eradicated by the Noble Path, beginning with the understanding of dhammas now as anatta. Otherwise, it'll always be 'me', 'my loved ones', 'my rug', 'our house' and so on without any understanding of the Truths. I am just looking for a bit of a logical sequence from conventional to paramatha realities. It seems that dukkha is real for us in conventional living, otherwise we'd never be goaded towards the path. If true disgust and disillusionment with conventional suffering and the conventional dissatisfaction with conventional objects was not experientially real, we would have no motivation whatsoever to enter onto the path. We would just keep seeking satisfaction from that which cannot satisfy, and finding signs of self in that which is non-self. We may not experience dukkha and anatta directly in relation to conventional objects, but we surely do really suffer, and this is what the Buddha seemed to address when making his case. Do we really have to wait until we are able to see paramatha dhammas to understand the first Noble Truth and to have a sense that life is filled with suffering? I don't think so. And I think we can get a sense of anicca and anatta as well when we see that conventional objects fade and fail to satisfy over and over again. That is what drives us towards a spiritual solution and to look into Buddhism in the first place. So I don't see this stark separation between the 'pure illusion' of conventional life and the gradual understanding and then eventual direct discernment of paramatha dhammas. I see a continuum in which the path is in play as soon as one gets a sense of the truths and where the solution lies, and where the understand gradually gets more clear and direct. I can see that there is no final detachment or letting go until the true reality of dhammas is revealed to citta, but before that there seem to be many stages that are part of the path while we are still attached to conventional objects and ideas. > > I hope you see what I am driving at since it is somewhat confusing. > .... > S: Whether or not I'm seeing what you're driving at, I find it helpful to reflect further. I'll look forward to your further elaborations. :-) Much appreciated. It is a very propitious situation for me to be able to sort things out with someone with your degree of clarity. Thanks! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #118311 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 12:19 am Subject: Re: Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I have also heard about atta-ditthi. What is the difference between sakkaya ditthi and atta ditthi? > > What does believing this i-phone exists have to do with personality belief? ... S: Believing the i-phone exists, is some thing, is atta ditthi, but not sakkaya-ditthi. It's not taken for oneself or personality! So atta-ditthi is broader. Also 20 kinds when taking the various khandhas for atta in one of 4 ways. When sakkaya ditthi is eradicated, all other kinds of atta-ditthi, all ditthi are eradicated at the same time. Metta Sarah ==== #118312 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 12:29 am Subject: Re: Kamma accumulates? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > S: ...completed kamma patha, liable to bring results by way of unhappy rebirth and subsequent akusala vipaka. > > Ph: Today I heard somerhing that confused me, kamma is not one cetana, but accumulation of many moments, "there cannot be ill cetana" A.S said, meaning maybe that what we think of as one incident of "ill will" is really many many cetanas? .... S: In order for kamma to be of the strength of kamma patha, many, many moments of kamma have been accumulated. It's not just one moment of kamma out of the blue. This is why it says that kamma can only be a condition by way of natural decisive support condition, accumulated tendencies for such kamma to arise. I haven't heard the comment about "there cannot be ill cetana" and wonder if you heard it right? Also, the quote you gave from Survey in the last message I replied to on sakkaya-ditthi - I agree it's a little misleading. I've mentioned it to KS before as well. Her answer was very clear on sakkaya ditthi and atta ditthi. .... > Or does it mean many incidents of ill will accumulate to create kamma? I thought kamma was utterly momentary and fell away, the result to arise later, bur it accumulates? .... S: Yes, ill will accumulates and with it akusala cetana (kamma) until it's of the strength of kamma patha, when perhaps one behaves in a hostile manner, hurting another. Kamma (cetana) is momentary, but if it didn't accumulate, no kamma patha. .... > > Does this have something to do with nimitta, I know there is nimitta of all khandas. Is one moment of "ill will" actually nimitta of many many cetanas that have just fallen away? ... S: No, nothing to do with nimitta in this context that I can think of. Let me know if this is still confusing. Metta Sarah ===== #118313 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 12:30 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > But when the Buddha says on a number of occasions, without any metaphors, but sometimes with clear analogies, that we should "strive with all our might," with "unceasing devotion," or anything like that, such statements are not mysterious. They'd not abstract. They are the normal kinds of admonitions that a coach would give to an athlete. Is that really confusing? > .... > S: Only confusing if such striving is assumed to be done by a Self or if there's the idea that right striving can be made to arise by will. > ... I see that as being somewhat beside the point. We all agree that there is no self to do anything by "its" will, but yet right intention/volition can be caused to arise by right conditions, and one of those conditions is hearing the Buddha say to "go for it!" It seems the Buddha thought that by cheering people on and telling them to work hard at focusing on the path, that he could motivate people to make progress and develop the enlightenment factors. That seems to be why he decided to teach, train and instruct people, as well as telling them to work at it continuously. Surely when he said those things *he* was not under the illusion that he was talking to a self that could get up and do it, but he knew that the minds of those he spoke to could take his words to heart and accelerate their attention to the path and their progress greatly. The same is true for us. We can hear his words, heed his words, and let his words spur us on to right effort, including the practice of right concentration and right mindfulness, rather than inviting lacksadaisical and casual cittas that study Dhamma "just because its interesting" and are afraid of saying that they are really interested in making progress on the path - as we all secretly or not-so-secretly are. Why not just admit it and follow those right volitions that arise when we hear the Buddha's words? If we have the kusala impulse to go sit under a tree, or if we just have the sudden interest in seeing that the computer screen is a concept, then why not follow the Buddha's lead and follow those impulses with enthusiasm? We don't have to hold back from following the Buddha's admonitions out of fear that some imaginary self will try to take over. > > >S: In the very first two suttas taught by the Buddha, the Four Noble Truths, the Middle Way, the explanation of the khandhas as being anatta and not in anyone's control are elaborated on by the Buddha. Effort, viriya is included in sankhara khandha - a conditioned dhamma that can never be made to arise by one's will. > > > > > > All the teachings have to be understood in this light. > > > >R: I think that is an intriguing explanation, and I would like to see how it is applied without taking away from the Buddha's specific statements on right effort. If he says "strive with all your might," "practice diligently with continuous effort like your hair is on fire," etc., how are those statements to be interpreted in the light of what you have said about viriya? > .... > S: Simply, as explained in the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta (the first sutta) the Middle Way taught by the Buddha is the Eightfold Path, the development of right understanding.....right effort....and so on. As explained in the Anattalakkhana Sutta (the second sutta), all these dhammas are anatta, the conditioned dhammas are the 5 khandhas, not subject to anyone's will at all for even a moment. If they were, we'd all use Self to strive now and be enlightened immediately. "Strive with all your might" can only be samma vayama of the path if it arises with samma ditthi of the path and clearly understood as anatta. Well if that is the case I wish the Buddha had explained himself a little bit more the way you do. He seemed to think that citta could take up his admonitions and run with them, not stop, resist, interpret and wait for something else to happen instead of doing what he said. I think the point is that the right factors *can* arise when we naturally follow his words and take them at face value. No reason for a self to get involved - especially if we move fast enough before the self-concept can arise. :-) [joke, sort of...] > >Are you saying that he did not mean to encourage his followers to take action, to work towards understanding and enlightenment, when he made those very clear statements? > ... > S: He encouraged the development of the path with an understanding that in an ultimate sense there are no followers, no action, no Buddha, no 'own might'. Why didn't he say that? He easily could have said "Do not mistake my encouragements for calls to action by your self. Simply develop understanding of these right factors, and the rest will follow." He did not make these statements calling for restraint from action and fear of self-concept. Instead he said "work, strive, do not cease, follow the path like *your hair is on fire.*" Are we to ignore all that, rather than realizing that following those admonitions with enthusiasm *will* have the right result, and that is why he said them? I think that holding back and thinking, thinking, thinking is *more* an exercise of self-concept and trying to control the result of the teachings than just going for it like an enthusiastic student and doing what he said to do. > When there is right understanding, there is right effort, right encouragement, right everything, without any idea of Anyone Doing Anything!! I think we can live well, work correctly, practice diligently, guard the senses, practice right speech and action as much as possible, develop the path and do it all without thinking there is any controlling self. I also think we can think that right understanding is everything, refrain from practice, do things "naturally," including drinking, smoking and gambling, and falsely suppose that this is somehow circumventing the "self-concept" that is lurking in the background in any case. I think it's better to follow the path in every way, than to hold back and not follow it out of fear of self. I would say, don't kill the path in order to save it; don't refrain from the path in order to follow it. That kind of inverted thinking leads nowhere. Nothing wrong with leading with right understanding, as you would advocate, but we also should follow the path diligently in every way we can, even though there is no control and no self. No control and no self is not an excuse for ignoring conventional kusala. [I add the disclaimer that I'm not any good at it either way - my right understanding includes the knowledge of how frail my adherence to the path is, but at least it's very obvious to me that I have no control...] Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #118314 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 12:38 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E (and Alex) > > > I understand that you have a philosophical commitment to sati being a pure 100% cetasika that is either there or not there, but that is not justified or discussed by the text. That is an interpretation based on a predisposed view. I see mindfulness as a quality that is increased over time through practice, and that is the sense in which these suttas are written. > > > > I should explain that my grouchy feeling indicated in my post demanding a description of your meditation was conditioned by the above. I can't believe that after all this time at DSG, which was founded with respect for the tipitika and commentaries, that you tell Jon he has a "philisophical commitment" rather than acknowledging that he has correct understanding of Dhamma on a basic Dhamma 101 point as taught in the tipitika and commentaries. It might be a good idea to look at the issue that is being argued about. It is being argued on principle on both sides. I can't base my view on my great respect for Jon. If I did, I would be a worthless participant. I have to play my role and say what I think. And I think the "all-or-nothing" approach to qualities of mind like sati cuts out a lot of "right practice." That's my job here whether I like it or not. I'd be happier if we all agreed, but that is not possible when we are all working out our understanding of the path and that is just the way it is. > You and others who base their understanding of Dhamma on interpreting suttas... What do you mean by "interpreting suttas?" I am talking about what the sutta says, and that's why I get frustrated. It's upside down to say that "Buddha's x = y" is direct, and "Buddha's x = x" is an interpetation. > ...are the ones who must come up with "philosophical commitments" based on your interpretations. Give an example of where my direct reading of a sutta is an interpretation not justified by the text itself. I'd love to discuss that with you, rather than just getting an emotional reaction. > I guess I have come full circle and am back where I was a few years ago when I couldn't understand why people who didn't accept Abhidhamma and commentaries insisted on pushing their views here, or a, just having a particularly grouchy day. I have no doubt that you are a great human being, mind you. Well that makes one of us, thanks! > But Jon doesn't have a "philosophical commitment", he understands Dhamma. That is also a predisposed point of view. I can't agree with Jon based on the fact that he is more knowledgable than me. I have to say what I see. > You are the one who have come up with your own ideas and your own commitments (wrong view) based on them, sorry. How do you know that? Are you sure that everything I say is wrong? > I will retreat for a few weeks at least to read UPs and listen. I am temporarily tired of Alexisms and Rob E isms. Well, I never tire of Phil-isms. You are always very exciting and fun, if unpredictable. > Of course it is all clinging to what *I* want from DSG, it is always about that. Good to look at. We're all in that same boat. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #118315 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 12:40 am Subject: Re: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 5, no 3. epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi all (p.s to Rob E) > > A great post from Nina about how easy it is to fool oneself about sati. (And not meditators in this case, those of us who seek to grab sati in daily life.) > > Metta, > Phil > p.s Rob E, sorry for my hissy fit yesterday. No problem, feel free to stay engaged with me when you have something to say and say whatever you like. I appreciate your passionate interest. And I will read this post - it looks very good. I may argue a lot, but I get a lot out of the brilliant people here. My gain. I learn slowly but I keep sucking up the information. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118316 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 12:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Thx for your feedback. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > But when the Buddha says on a number of occasions, without any > metaphors, but sometimes with clear analogies, that we should "strive with all our > might," with "unceasing devotion," or anything like that, such statements > are not mysterious. They'd not abstract. They are the normal kinds of > admonitions that a coach would give to an athlete. Is that really confusing? > .... > S: Only confusing if such striving is assumed to be done by a Self > ---------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Why is that red herring fished out of the murky depths every time > there is a quoting of the Buddha's urging of proactivity? (Though close to > never, BTW, with respect to study of the Tipitaka and commentaries)? > ---------------------------------------------------- S: Usually when anyone, in any context, picks on these words from a particular translation and stresses that "we should 'strive with all our might,' with 'unceasing devotion,' ", it is because they believe that this is what *we* *should* *do*. They might agree that dhammas are anatta and conditioned, but still think there is a Personality or a Conventional Self that should strive in such a way. I believe they misunderstand the Teachings at such times. If anyone suggests that "we should 'strive with all our might,' with 'unceasing devotion,' " with regard to study of the Tipitaka and commentaries, I'll be the first to point out the same. In fact I have pointed it out many times to friends with regard to believing that the Teachings or Practice are the slavish study of texts, becoming a Pali expert, memorising the Abhidhamma or anything else. I don't mind what the activity is - it's the understanding now that matters. .... >S: or if there's the idea that right striving can be made to arise by will. > -------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Of *course* intention, conscious or subliminal, is involved with > striving! [Dictionary entry for "To strive": to devote serious effort or energy > : _endeavor_ (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/endeavor) to finish a project>] > To *devote* serious effort or energy (as in striving to finish a > project) is willful, but there need not be a particular overriding sense of > self/actor/one-who-strives involved. The willing itself is an impersonal mental > activity. It's "okay" and not a defilement! > --------------------------------------------------- S: It depends. It is a defilement when it accompanies, attachment, ignorance or wrong view of Self making a serious effort or striving. I believe that when there is an understanding now of conditioned dhammas, it's clear that right effort and wholesome intention do not involve a *trying to do* or *trying to will*. There is right effort at that moment of understanding already. Likewise, wholesome cetana arises with every moment of kusala. If there is a trying to have kusala, that moment is not kusala however. ... > > >S: In the very first two suttas taught by the Buddha, the Four Noble > Truths, the Middle Way, the explanation of the khandhas as being anatta and > not in anyone's control are elaborated on by the Buddha. Effort, viriya is > included in sankhara khandha - a conditioned dhamma that can never be made > to arise by one's will. > ----------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > That last is incorrect: Every time there is a standing up or sitting > down or reaching for a pen or typing on a keyboard or opening the mouth to > eat or to speak, will is a condition. The willing alone isn't sufficient, > but sufficiency is not the issue. > ================================== S: Cetana arises with every single citta, even now - not just when there seems to be 'willing'. Cetana is not the condition for samma vayama (right effort) to arise and develop, panna is. Furthermore, whenever there's the idea of "one's will" making anything happen, it surely indicates that there is no understanding of conditioned dhammas, let alone of cetana, a fleeting dhamma conditioned to arise and fall away at every moment. I think we've gone round in circles on this topic before more than a few times:) Metta Sarah ===== #118317 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 1:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/5/2011 8:26:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Howard > I think that is an interesting and worthwhile question. > My perspective on it is the following: Within the (fuzzily-boundaried > and dynamic) aggregate of namas and rupas we call "a person," there is no > core of identity or self, and nothing at all that exists independently, > separately or lastingly. Isn't that equally true with regard to your i-phone? Thanks for your feedback. This is tricky. What you wrote seems to help to establish that the person and i-phone are equally concepts, but does it establish personality view re the phone, not sure... ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, I see what you mean. I would say that it establishes atta-view with regard to the phone but not personality view. I understand personality view to pertain to so-called persons only. ---------------------------------------------- Metta, Phil ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118318 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 1:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/5/2011 8:43:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi again Howard > This is tricky. What you wrote seems to help to establish that the person and i-phone are equally concepts, but does it establish personality view re the phone, not sure... On second thought, probably you were not saying anything about concepts, if I remember correctly you see people somewhat differently than that. -------------------------------------------- HCW: I view people as conglomerates/groups/aggregates of namas and rupas that are conventionally treated (due to thinking) as though they were individuals. And often, the convention of individuality is erroneously thought of as more than mere convention. -------------------------------------------- In passing, thanks for pointing out the danger of arrogance, lack of generosity etc re newly acquired understanding/enthusiasm etc. It will be back, I'm sure of it, but for today at least it is dormant. -------------------------------------------- HCW: We all seem to "come back" to our "tried and false" (LOL!) propensities! --------------------------------------------- Metta, Phil ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118319 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 1:52 am Subject: Re: *Book Study* Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization by Bhikkhu Analayo rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "foreverweeping" wrote: > > As a silent participant of the dhammastudygroup for years, I would like > to invite everyone to a book study on Bhante Analayo's satipatthana > commentary. This is a scholarly book that many people are trying to read > but could use some help with. Everyone would benefit from the breadth of > knowledge that exists here at dhammastudygroup. If you haven't read it > yet but have been meaning to, now is your chance! > > -James Stewart > > Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization > By: Bhante Analayo > Dear James Yes it is a good demonstrtion of how someone can misunderstand Dhamma s But then there are many books like that these days I think.. Robert > #118320 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 2:37 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view moellerdieter Hi Scott , you wrote: Dieter, D: "I think that Bhikkhu Thanissaro's comment to the sutta provides a good review of this lasting controversy...Indeed both sides are right..." Scott: The Indecisivida school. Scott. says one of the LBSOS (left brain sphere only -school ) ;-) with Metta Dieter #118321 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 3:35 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view moellerdieter Hi Phil, you wrote; ': " A good review?" You must know Th. Bh's agenda, "The Buddha never said there us no self" , posting a tract by him is not going to impress anyone who values understanding anatta, you should know that. D: what you should know, Phil , is : as long there is delusion , as long as the fetters ( including one of the most stubborn ones , mana ) aren't abolished , there is indeed a person , which lives by its attachments, identifications. The delusion is a personal reality although without substance. By penetration of anatta , i.e. recognizing the process of rising and ceasing dhammas within the stream of the law of dependent origination, its conditioning can be recognized . But still there is suffering and this individual being needs 'to walk' the Path. One needs to keep both realities in mind : puggala and the supramundane world of mental and bodily phenomena. P: An example of how unreliable T.B is: Th Bh: When defining this factor as the person (or individual, puggala), the Buddha drops the abstract form of the other factors, and uses the ordinary, everyday language of narrative: the person with such-and-such a name. And how would this person translate into more abstract factors? He doesn't say. Ph: Nonsense. Why would someone who translated hundreds of suttas, many about the khandas and ayatanas, write this? He is out to support his agenda, Dieter. So I would try to find a "good review" elsewhere. D: my point was that he provides a good review of this lasting controversy. I have noted some interpretations of T.B. , which indeed can be subject for debate , not excluding to be dismissed. But picking up this single statement to reject his rendering on the topic at all , is a bit pettyminded. Phil , by all means , do as you announce and find us a good , i.e. better , review ... with Metta Dieter #118322 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 5:02 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view scottduncan2 Dieter, Me: "The Indecisivida school." Scott: Oh yeah. I notice I spelled it wrong. It's 'Indecisivada.' Sorry for the confustion. D: "says one of the LBSOS (left brain sphere only -school )" Scott: Forget the winky guy. Such a comment is definitely against the 'Law of D.O.' Scott. #118323 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 5:11 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 RobE., Regarding: R: "...My basic practice is always the same - basic practice of breathing awareness, with mindfulness applied to the 4 foundations as they arise..." Scott: What is your experiential description or definition of 'awareness?' What is your experiential description or definition of 'mindfulness?' Can you compare and contrast? Scott. #118324 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 5:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter (and Phil) - In a message dated 10/5/2011 12:39:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Phil, you wrote; ': " A good review?" You must know Th. Bh's agenda, "The Buddha never said there us no self" , posting a tract by him is not going to impress anyone who values understanding anatta, you should know that. D: what you should know, Phil , is : as long there is delusion , as long as the fetters ( including one of the most stubborn ones , mana ) aren't abolished , there is indeed a person , which lives by its attachments, identifications. The delusion is a personal reality although without substance. By penetration of anatta , i.e. recognizing the process of rising and ceasing dhammas within the stream of the law of dependent origination, its conditioning can be recognized . But still there is suffering and this individual being needs 'to walk' the Path. One needs to keep both realities in mind : puggala and the supramundane world of mental and bodily phenomena. ===================================== I'm writing in reply only to what you wrote above, Dieter. There is some basis for it in the following teaching of the Buddha's, which asserts that one might (justifiably) *say* there is a being so long as there is any desire, passion, delight, or craving for any of the five aggregates - any attachment therein: _____________________________________ SN 23.2 I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?" "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up_[1]_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html#fn-1) there, tied up_[2]_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html#fn-2) there, one is said to be 'a being.'_[3]_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html#fn-3) "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' "Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:_[4]_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html#fn-4) as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play. "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding." ____________________________________ However, it is probably better not to raise the term 'puggala' due to its sense in the school associated with it of a true but subtle "person" that is neither identical with nor different from the aggregates. If, of course, one identifies 'puggala' with the craving for any of the aggregates, then it could be spoken of as a "reality," but since 'puggala' is rarely give that sense, I think it better to not call it a "reality" or, for that matter, to even use the term at all. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #118325 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 5:47 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. I'm using these words as I understand them, and based on experiential factors as well. Will try to contextualize below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > RobE., > > Regarding: > > R: "...My basic practice is always the same - basic practice of breathing awareness, with mindfulness applied to the 4 foundations as they arise..." > > Scott: What is your experiential description or definition of 'awareness?' How I use awareness is a little variable depending on context. In the above sentence I mean it in a fairly generic way, "to be aware, conscious" of the breath. In other words, I put my attention on the breath and begin to take in the movements, sensations, flow, speed, texture, etc. of the breath in a perceptual way. So I would say that is being aware of tactile sensations as the breathing continues. > What is your experiential description or definition of 'mindfulness?' In this context, my definition of mindfulness is sort of similar to "awareness," but a little more specific. You could say it has an aspect of "remindfulness" to it, and I know that memory/sanna is included in the official attributes of sati, and I think there is a practical aspect to this. To me, you could be aware of the breath in a general way and not be unaware of this, but in general the attention will tend to become taken-for-granted and peripheralized, while the mind goes off to this or that thought-process or perception. Mindfulness of breathing would mean that one is aware of the braething in a more conscious way, that one is 'reminded' by this strong attention to pay attention and not to get lost in the wash of general awareness. There are so many times when I start out by taking a bite of something and before I know it it's been swallowed and I sort of "missed" tasting it. Well one wants to keep the taking-in awareness, taking in what is happening at the moment, alive and conscious of what is happening, not get lost and forget. There is another aspect that this brings out, which sounds silly on paper [or whatever this writing surface is...] but which is being aware of being aware. A more sensible way to say this would be to say that you are conscious of being aware of the object. So not only does one take in the object as clearly as possible with attentive awareness, but one is alive to the conscious faculty, at least this is how it seems to me. One result of this intention, to stay awake and take in the experience of the breath or other object, is a general sense of being aware of the conscious faculty, realizing at various times that citta is at play and taking in this or that object, rather than just being aware of the object. There is a sense of the perceptual bases making contact and taking in this or that object, and of citta receiving it and mental factors processing it. I don't mean to suggest that I am aware of these things happening in 'real time' or in detail, but there are moments when it is very clear that I'm not experiencing an object directly, but I seem to experience the way it is processed by a sense organ, almost as if I was seeing through a camera or hearing through a speaker, an awareness that there is an eye or an ear, not just the taken-for-granted object one would take in without conscious awareness/mindfulness, and that citta touches the object and takes it in through this sensory window or filter. Whoops, I guess I do go on.... Best, Robert E. = = = = = = = = = = = #118326 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 5:59 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...In the above sentence I mean it in a fairly generic way, "to be aware, conscious" of the breath...In other words, I put my attention on the breath...my definition of mindfulness is sort of similar to 'awareness,' but a little more specific...it has an aspect of 'remindfulness' to it...Mindfulness of breathing would mean that one is aware of the breathing in a more conscious way...not to get lost in the wash of general awareness...being aware of being aware...you are conscious of being aware of the object...one is alive to the conscious faculty...realizing at various times that citta is at play and taking in this or that object...there are moments when it is very clear that I'm not experiencing an object directly, but I seem to experience the way it is processed by a sense organ, almost as if I was seeing through a camera or hearing through a speaker, an awareness that there is an eye or an ear, not just the taken-for-granted object one would take in without conscious awareness/mindfulness, and that citta touches the object and takes it in through this sensory window or filter..." Scott: How might this differ from common, ordinary 'introspection' and concomitant thinking? What makes this 'practice' in a Dhamma sense? Scott. #118327 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 6:09 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > > R: "...In the above sentence I mean it in a fairly generic way, "to be aware, conscious" of the breath...In other words, I put my attention on the breath...my definition of mindfulness is sort of similar to 'awareness,' but a little more specific...it has an aspect of 'remindfulness' to it...Mindfulness of breathing would mean that one is aware of the breathing in a more conscious way...not to get lost in the wash of general awareness...being aware of being aware...you are conscious of being aware of the object...one is alive to the conscious faculty...realizing at various times that citta is at play and taking in this or that object...there are moments when it is very clear that I'm not experiencing an object directly, but I seem to experience the way it is processed by a sense organ, almost as if I was seeing through a camera or hearing through a speaker, an awareness that there is an eye or an ear, not just the taken-for-granted object one would take in without conscious awareness/mindfulness, and that citta touches the object and takes it in through this sensory window or filter..." > > Scott: How might this differ from common, ordinary 'introspection' and concomitant thinking? What makes this 'practice' in a Dhamma sense? In my understanding, the actual mechanics of being conscious and practicing staying conscious of the details of the passing moments, whether in the breath or in other areas - feeling, mental states, etc., matches the Buddha's descriptions in the suttas and develops mindfulness and leads to other factors coming into play. I don't see it having anything to do with what I understand by introspection or any kind of related thinking. It's a very spare technical attentiveness that leads to other mental factors developing. It's not a general thought-process or an introspective process. It's a perceptual and attentional process. It's developing an aware, attentive understanding of what is actually present. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #118328 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 7:30 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...the actual mechanics of being conscious and practicing staying conscious of the details of the passing moments, whether in the breath or in other areas - feeling, mental states, etc., matches the Buddha's descriptions in the suttas and develops mindfulness and leads to other factors coming into play..." Scott: What evidence can you offer that your own version of 'being conscious' or 'staying conscious' is in fact what the Buddha had in mind? At this point, on the basis of your own rationalizations, I fail to see why a being as supposedly 'enlightened' as a Buddha would be peddling common, everyday, paying-attention-to-one's-self. R: "I don't see it having anything to do with what I understand by introspection or any kind of related thinking..." Scott: Oxford defines 'introspection:' "the careful examination of your own thoughts, feelings and reasons for behaving in a particular way." You say: R: "...It's a very spare technical attentiveness that leads to other mental factors developing. It's not a general thought-process or an introspective process. It's a perceptual and attentional process. It's developing an aware, attentive understanding of what is actually present." Scott: How would you differentiate 'a perceptual and attentional process' from introspection, say as defined above (since one can assume that the Oxford would be as good a dictionary as any to offer a common definition of the word.)? Scott. #118329 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 8:32 am Subject: Re: Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi kenhowardau Hi Phil and Howard, ----- <. . .> >> Ph:What does believing this i-phone exists have to do with personality belief? >> > H: I think that is an interesting and worthwhile question. My perspective on it is the following: Within the (fuzzily-boundaried and dynamic) aggregate of namas and rupas we call "a person," there is no core of identity or self, and nothing at all that exists independently, separately or lastingly. Isn't that equally true with regard to your i-phone? ------ KH: My understanding of the Dhamma is different. I would say each of the *clearly defined* *separate but co-arising* conditioned *realities* (namas and rupas) we call "a person" bears the characteristic of anatta (no self). That is not equally true with regard to the *concept* of a person (nor to the concept of an i-phone). Concepts of people and i-phones are defined in terms of *lasting* properties and components. Ultimately those properties and components do not exist, but for conventional convenience we *say* they exist. To believe an i-phone (or any other concept) exists in *ultimate* reality is to go a step further than mere conventional convenience. Such a belief enters the realm of wrong view. If an i-phone ultimately exists, so too does a sentient being. You can't have one without the other. Ken H #118330 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 10:45 am Subject: Re: Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi philofillet Hi Ken H, Howard and all > To believe an i-phone (or any other concept) exists in *ultimate* reality is to go a step further than mere conventional convenience. Such a belief enters the realm of wrong view. If an i-phone ultimately exists, so too does a sentient being. You can't have one without the other. > Sarah has already clarified that the book is mistaken/unclear in saying that belief in things is sakkaya ditthi rather that atta ditthi but this thread gives me the opportynity to post thus from SPD which understanding just clucjed on: "From the beginning it should be known precisely which dhammas panna can penetrate, namely, all tgat is reality and that appears right now through the eyes, ears, the nose, the tongue. the bodysense and the mind-door." (p.313) I think it is either irrelevant or premature to say that people and i-phones "don't exist." I don't think establishing that understanding is the point of Dhamma; the point of dhamma is penetrating dhammas to uhderstand reality in a liberating way, and people and i-phones are not dhammas that can be penetrated by panna, they can only be thought about. Metta, Phil #118331 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 11:08 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view philofillet Hi Dieter Ph: Your post also fell in range of my bad mood the other day so my apologies. > D: what you should know, Phil , is : as long there is delusion , as long as the fetters ( including one of the most stubborn ones , mana ) aren't abolished , there is indeed a person , which lives by its attachments, identifications. > The delusion is a personal reality although without substance. By penetration of anatta , i.e. recognizing the process of rising and ceasing dhammas within the stream of the law of dependent origination, its conditioning can be recognized . But still there is suffering and this individual being needs 'to walk' the Path. Ph: I know what you mean, but in my opinion this approach attributes too much independent reality to the person and it seems doomed to set up reliance on practices motivated by the person and the person's interests and this could be a trap that understanding enters thinking that it will eventually find the way out of, but never does. > One needs to keep both realities in mind : puggala and the supramundane world of mental and bodily phenomena. Ph: To me supramundane means realities that can only be enlightened by deep degrees of panna. What is supramundane about seeing and visible object? At a monent of seeing visible object does the person exist? Instead of a person walking tge path, why not start with such understanding that can be developed here and now and leads to the path developing without people involved? (Except, of course. as conceptual objects of metta, dosa etc.) > D: my point was that he provides a good review of this lasting controversy. > I have noted some interpretations of T.B. , which indeed can be subject for debate , not excluding to be dismissed. > But picking up this single statement to reject his rendering on the topic at all , is a bit pettyminded. Ph: I gave listened to hundreds of hours of TB talks (shhh! Don't tell Ken H) His tradition is based on a style of meditation that was developed by Ajahn Lee after he had a heart attack during a rains retreat and had to (as TB puts it) fix his body to get out aluve. The meditatiin is very effective in this way, as a kind of yoga to help tge physically suffering being. But al hus ciuntless references to intentionally using self to develop the path - he makes such references in nearly every talk - means tgat he disqualifies himself as being trustworthy on the pugg??? issue. > Phil , by all means , do as you announce and find us a good , i.e. better , review ... > Ph: I'll pass, present moment calls. Sorry again for my harsh tone the other day. Metta, Phil #118332 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 11:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/5/2011 5:32:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: To believe an i-phone (or any other concept) exists in *ultimate* reality is to go a step further than mere conventional convenience. Such a belief enters the realm of wrong view. If an i-phone ultimately exists, so too does a sentient being. You can't have one without the other. =============================== The Buddha spoke of five aggregates. Do they not exist? The Buddha taught of them. For example, in SN 22.48 he taught that the form aggregate consists of all rupas, past, present, and future, to quote: "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the form aggregate." He spoke similarly of the other 4 aggregates. Aggregates are collections.(That is what 'aggregate' or 'heap' means.) An error comes in when we conceive of a collection of phenomena as itself a single phenomenon instead of a collection, when we conceive of it as "a reality" instead of just a conventional existent. There is a collection of past, future, and present rupas that is called an i-phone. It is not imagined. But it is only a collection, not an individual, and it is a conventional existent and not "a reality". The same is true for our bodies, our minds, and so on - mere collections of dhammas, and known only by our conceptual faculty. You are quite right when you say that i-phones and sentient beings don't *ultimately* exist. They do exist, but only as collections and as matters of convention. An i-phone cannot be seen, for it is not a sight. It cannot be heard, for it is not a sound. The same for the other 3 physical sense doors. It can, however, be known through the mind door, by thought: Correctly so if considered a mere collection (and not an individual) and a merely conventional object (and not "a reality"). To say that i-phones and persons exists in ultimate reality is to speak falsely. But it is also false speaking to say that they do not exist at all in any manner. The Buddha never made either error. He did speak of persons and trees and so on as things that exist, but only conventionally so and as aggregates. On the one hand, the Buddha taught against an extreme reality view in the Uraga Sutta: "He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin" On the other hand the Buddha taught against an extreme unreality view in the Maha-Catarrisaka Sutta: "And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view." And in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, the Buddha taught his middle-way existence view, avoiding both extremes: "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." With metta, Howard Nibbana is Real /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #118333 From: Vince Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 11:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: *Book Study* Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization by Bhikkhu Analayo cerovzt@... Hi Robert, you wrote: >>J: Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization >>J: By: Bhante Analayo > Dear James > Yes it is a good demonstrtion of how someone can misunderstand Dhamma s But > then there are many books like that these days I think.. > Robert also I'm reading this book and until today I think it's an excellent book. In my view one of the best I have read. It shows many points of view from different sources through every touched point. I think it's a very good help. I wonder if I fail to see something.... Why do you think so?. best, Vince. #118334 From: "philip" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 2:07 pm Subject: Re: Kamma accumulates? philofillet Hi Sarah Thanks for your explanation. "there cannot be ill cetana" A.S said, meaning maybe that what we think of as one incident of "ill will" is really many many cetanas? > .... > S: In order for kamma to be of the strength of kamma patha, many, many moments of kamma have been accumulated. It's not just one moment of kamma out of the blue. This is why it says that kamma can only be a condition by way of natural decisive support condition, accumulated tendencies for such kamma to arise. > > I haven't heard the comment about "there cannot be ill cetana" and wonder if you heard it right? Ph: listened again. ( Feb 4 2006, morning pt.3, starting at 12.30.) Right you are, she said "there cannot be one moment of ill cetana" though since cetana is a mimentary dhamma, I wonder if you coyld explain a bit more about the difference betwee. "there cannot be ill cetana" and "tgere cannot be ine monent of ill cetana?" > .... > S: Yes, ill will accumulates and with it akusala cetana (kamma) until it's of the strength of kamma patha, when perhaps one behaves in a hostile manner, hurting another. Kamma (cetana) is momentary, but if it didn't accumulate, no kamma patha. Ph: I (start to) see. > > Does this have something to do with nimitta, I know there is nimitta of all khandas. Is one moment of "ill will" actually nimitta of many many cetanas that have just fallen away?" > ... > S: No, nothing to do with nimitta in this context that I can think of. > Ph: So nimitta of sankhara khanda is when it is object of sati? In the case of rupa, I can understand nimitta, but in the case, say, of akusala cetana does nimitta refer to many monents of cetana that have just fallen away of which sati is aware of as nimitta, or of one monent of cetana that has just fallen away, or ????? or "whatever appears, don't think so much about just what nimitta is!" Metta, Phil #118335 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 2:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: *Book Study* Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization by Bhikkhu Analayo rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Vince wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > you wrote: > > >>J: Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization > >>J: By: Bhante Analayo > > Dear James > > Yes it is a good demonstrtion of how someone can misunderstand Dhamma s But > > then there are many books like that these days I think.. > > Robert > > > also I'm reading this book and until today I think it's an excellent book. In my > view one of the best I have read. It shows many points of view from different sources > through every touched point. I think it's a very good help. > > I wonder if I fail to see something.... Why do you think so?. > > > best, Dear Vince, he thinks he knows better than Buddhaghosa, what is the reality that makes someone have that view ? robert > > > Vince. > #118336 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 10:34 am Subject: The Ability Analysis! bhikkhu5 Friends: What is Characteristic of the 5 Mental Abilities? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these 5 mental abilities (indriya ). What five? The ability of Faith (saddhā ) The ability of Energy (viriya ) The ability of Awareness (sati ) The ability of Concentration (samādhi ) The ability of Understanding (pañña ) And what, Bhikkhus, is the Faith ability? It is when the Noble Disciple is convinced by the reality of the unexcelled enlightenment of the Tathagata thus: The Blessed One is indeed an Arahat, perfectly self-enlightened, consummated in knowledge and behaviour, well transcended, knower of all worlds, unsurpassable trainer of those who can be tamed, teacher and guide both of devas and as well of humans, the self Enlightened Buddha, the all Blessed One... This is called the Faith ability! And what, Bhikkhus, is the Energy ability? It is when the Noble Disciple lives while enthusiastically eliminating any detrimental mental state and while gradually achieving advantageous mental states. In this he is strong, determined, not shirking any good opportunity to cultivate advantageous mental states... This is called the Energy ability! And what, Bhikkhus, is the Awareness ability? It is when the Noble Disciple is aware by possessing supreme awareness of the present and memory of the past. He is one who remembers and recollects both what actually was done and what was said long, long ago. This is called the ability of Awareness ... And what, Bhikkhus, is the C oncentration ability? It is when the Noble Disciple gains Concentration, gains absorption into the object, having made release the object. This is indeed called the Concentration ability... And what, Bhikkhus, is the Understanding ability? It is when the Noble Disciple is clever by possessing understanding of the continual arising & passing away, which is Noble & cutting through, leading to the complete destruction of Suffering. This is indeed called the Understanding ability... These fine five qualities, Bhikkhus & Friends, are the 5 mental abilities! <...> Source of reference (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikāya. Book [V: 197] 48 The Mental Abilities (Indriya): 9 Analysis.. Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samāhita _/\_ * <...> #118337 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 6:31 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...the actual mechanics of being conscious and practicing staying conscious of the details of the passing moments, whether in the breath or in other areas - feeling, mental states, etc., matches the Buddha's descriptions in the suttas and develops mindfulness and leads to other factors coming into play..." > > Scott: What evidence can you offer that your own version of 'being conscious' or 'staying conscious' is in fact what the Buddha had in mind? My evidence is what I read and understand from the suttas, which explain what I am saying in similar detail, and my own common sense and experience. I don't think that basic mindfulness is too complicated to understand, though its development and nuances can be as complex as any other subject, but it has to do with paying attention to what is actually there instead of being lost in fantasy, daydream or conceptual proliferation. > At this point, on the basis of your own rationalizations, I fail to see why a being as supposedly 'enlightened' as a Buddha would be peddling common, everyday, paying-attention-to-one's-self. I don't see it as common, everyday, or paying attention to "one's self" which has nothing to do with it. It is not any more introspective than what you would define as direct experience of paramatha dhammas. It is paying attention to what is arising in perception and mind, whether it is hearing a sound, the tactile reality of the breath, or a thought, feeling or mental state - all of which is described as the content of satipatthana by the Buddha. If Buddha says to discern whether there is an attached mental state or a detached mental state, an angry mental state or a peaceful mental state, do you consider that "common, everyday...attention to oneself?" It is the Buddha's teaching, not mine. Have you read the satipatthana sutta lately? Its content is about breath, vedana, citta, mental states, objects of perception and discernment. This is the same material I am talking about, so please tell me - what is different in your view from what the Buddha *actually describes* in the sutta as satipatthana and what I have said? There is no difference, except that I'm probably pretty bad at it, very much still in process. > R: "I don't see it having anything to do with what I understand by introspection or any kind of related thinking..." > > Scott: Oxford defines 'introspection:' > > "the careful examination of your own thoughts, feelings and reasons for behaving in a particular way." Well there is contemplative introspection which is what this sounds like to me, and there is straightforward perceptual attention to the content of consciousness and perception, which is what I think Buddha is prescribing. The difference between the two is extreme. Contemplative introspection [my term for the occasion] is personal and speculative. Satipatthana is objective and direct. In other words, you merely see what is there, you don't proliferate about it. It's a big difference. The goal is not to see what you think or feel about this or that, but to become increasingly clear about what actually exists and what is merely imagined, so that the imagined and the conceptually constructed falls away or is seen as irrelevant. Satipatthana is like adjusting the lens on a camera to get a sharp picture, or like expository writing, that dismisses all opinion and is only interested in pure objective description. It's not interested in the narrative or the personal concept of what arises, just what it is. It's more like science than like introspection, except there are no tools, no concepts and no goals other than to see clearly and understand what is seen directly. When things like the characteristics of dhammas come into play I hope it is not as overlayed concepts, but as part of direct perception, so it is objective as well. There's nothing personal about it at all. It's cold work, and has nothing to do with self. In personal introspection the opposite is true. It's subjective in nature and personal, and has the goal of understanding one's own precious content more subjectively. > You say: > > R: "...It's a very spare technical attentiveness that leads to other mental factors developing. It's not a general thought-process or an introspective process. It's a perceptual and attentional process. It's developing an aware, attentive understanding of what is actually present." > > Scott: How would you differentiate 'a perceptual and attentional process' from introspection, say as defined above (since one can assume that the Oxford would be as good a dictionary as any to offer a common definition of the word.)? I don't care what the dictionary thinks, except maybe to establish common terms if one comes up, and since you've brought it up - your word, introspection, not mine - that is fine. The difference is that it's not introspection. It's perceptual attentiveness. If I were a scientist and wanted to see exactly how the image of a blade of grass was processed by my eye and understood by my brain - technically and mechanically - you wouldn't say I was introspecting, would you? Would you call it introspection if I watched a motor running, carefully in the moment, to see how the different parts worked together? Well it's like that, except there's no equipment and the goal is to be present to what is happening in the moment, not to analyze something. Whatever insight and analysis is gained is very stark and direct, and it comes from looking and seeing, not from speculating or conceptualizing about it after the fact. Mental and emotional objects are viewed with the same kind of simple objectivity - to see how they arise and how they really operate in the moment, not to gain something personal. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118338 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 6:49 pm Subject: Re: Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi kenhowardau Hi Phil and Pt, -------- <. . .> > Ph: I think it is either irrelevant or premature to say that people and i-phones "don't exist." I don't think establishing that understanding is the point of Dhamma; the point of dhamma is penetrating dhammas to uhderstand reality in a liberating way, and people and i-phones are not dhammas that can be penetrated by panna, they can only be thought about. ------- KH: I think Pt (if I understood him correctly) was saying something similar to me recently. I am totally mystified by it. I don't know how anyone could have any understanding of anatta without knowing that concepts do not exist in ultimate reality. In ultimate reality there is no self, no sentient being, no i-phone. . . . Isn't that just basic right understanding? Ken H #118339 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 7:01 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) ptaus1 Hi RobE and Scott, > R: "...the actual mechanics of being conscious and practicing staying conscious of the details of the passing moments, whether in the breath or in other areas - feeling, mental states, etc., matches the Buddha's descriptions in the suttas and develops mindfulness and leads to other factors coming into play..." > > Scott: What evidence can you offer that your own version of 'being conscious' or 'staying conscious' is in fact what the Buddha had in mind? At this point, on the basis of your own rationalizations, I fail to see why a being as supposedly 'enlightened' as a Buddha would be peddling common, everyday, paying-attention-to-one's-self. pt: Hope it's alright to join - this topic interests me in the sense of trying to relate our experiences to the teachings. Though i apologise beforehand if my replies are hectic - sometimes i have time during the week to reply, sometimes not at all. Still have a whole bunch of your posts to reply to as well, but didn't want to miss this one. I think first it might help to define the experiences as precisely as possible and then see how they relate to sati, panna, kusala and akusala. So, I'd say there are roughly four different states, that experientially seem different when for example considering the instance of "being aware of breathing": 1. thinking I know that I'm breathing. It's basically just the ordinary sort of compulsive thinking. 2. knowing that I'm breathing - this is still a thought, but a bit different in the sense that there is some sort of non-forgetfulness unlike in the first case. Does this means there's sati there somewhere? Not sure. 3. knowing that I'm breathing without it being a thought at all, so it's just a clear knowing of sorts. 4. knowing that i know (that i'm breathing). (5. there's the last possible case of when actual rupa/dhamma like wind is the object of knowing, but I don't think I experienced that one, so won't discuss it here) So now we can correlate the experiences/mental states to objects and mental factors: a) object is a concept in all four cases I think - so no dhammas, just a concept of "breathing", except in the last case where it's possible that there's some conceptual understanding/valuing of mindfulness - so concept of a dhamma. Possible, I say. b) Is there sati in any of the four cases? Best case scenario - in cases 2-4, though most probably not. Case 3 might have sati, what would be a sort of kusala citta without panna, but, what makes that citta kusala in the first place so that sati is there? Not sure. The last case 4 I think might have sati because it sort of just happens, and seems so different to just thinking about knowing breathing and that sort of thing, but not sure. c) is there any panna? I think only the last case 4 might have some sort of conceptual panna, in the sense of knowing the value of a moment of knowing, so perhaps a concept of a dhamma like sati, what would kind of make it pariyatti, or some sort of samatha panna at least, but again not sure. Anyway, I find these 4 states occur thoughout the day, and I don't really find that meditation somehow makes them better/longer/more frequent. But rather than turning the discussion towards de/merits of meditaiton practice, I'd be interested in hearing your perspectives on these mental states, as I'm sure everyone experienced them, we just describe them differently, and ascribe to them sati, panna etc, in different combinations, or not at all. Best wishes pt #118340 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 7:13 pm Subject: Re: Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi ptaus1 Hi KenH and Phil, > > Ph: I think it is either irrelevant or premature to say that people and i-phones > "don't exist." I don't think establishing that understanding is the point of > Dhamma; the point of dhamma is penetrating dhammas to uhderstand reality in a > liberating way, and people and i-phones are not dhammas that can be penetrated > by panna, they can only be thought about. > ------- > > KH: I think Pt (if I understood him correctly) was saying something similar to me recently. > > I am totally mystified by it. I don't know how anyone could have any understanding of anatta without knowing that concepts do not exist in ultimate reality. > > In ultimate reality there is no self, no sentient being, no i-phone. . . . Isn't that just basic right understanding? pt: Yes, I agree with Phil. Imo, when you know/experience anatta, it's in relation to dhammas. The conclusion that people, etc, don't exist - this can be extrapolated from the experience of anatta, but it is an intellectual extrapolation imo. As such, it might help you put your expeirneces into intellectual perspective, but might utterly confuse others who have not experienced anatta, and have nothing else to go on other than intellectualisation. Thus, it is questionable whether it's more useful in practical terms to point out to such people that feeling is anatta at this moment, rather than for example point out that their person doesn't exist at this moment. People are different, but I find the first approach (about feeling, perception and other dhammas being anatta) is generally more effective than the second one (as it usually ends up as an argument about non/existence, rather than anatta). Apologies, I still have a bunch of your earlier posts to reply to, had no time last week. Best wishes pt #118341 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 9:27 pm Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view sarahprocter... Hi Dieter & all, Thx for adding your comments. I hope you won't mind if I respond directly. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > " We've had lots of discussion on this sutta before. See "Burden" in U.P. where the commentaries clarify exactly what is meant. > " > > I think that Bhikkhu Thanissaro's comment to the sutta ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html ) > provides a good review of this lasting controversy. I copy for convenience , see below.. .... S: I think his review shows: a) use of "stress" for dukkha indicates a lack of understanding of the what sankhara dukkha is. b) By referring to the Mahanama Theras as "Buddhist scolastics", a "camp" that "refused to rank the concept of person as a turth on the ultimate level" who "accused the second group of denying the concept of anatta", suggests a complete lack of understanding of dhammas as anatta. Anatta is not a concept. c) Suggesting that "both groups" including the ancient Theras, "found their positions entangled them in philosphical difficulties that have never been successfully resolved" indicates a complete lack of respect for and confidence in the Teachings as passed down to us with the assistance of these Theras. For them, there was no entanglement, no lack of resolution. All wrong view was eradicated. d) His drawing on MN 72 where the Buddha "refuses to get involved in questions of whether a person has a live essence separate from or identical to his/her body etc, completely misunderstands the point of such suttas. The point of such suttas is that dhammas as anatta is a given, so therefore, any speculation about whether people have any characteristics is a waste of time. It's akin to discussions here about the characteristics of cars crashing into trees and the qualities of knives and forks. e) "The strategy of the practice..." Enough said. .... > > Indeed both sides are right : of course there is a person from the mundane point of view (finally the Buddha stated that he taught for this suffering individual) .... S: No, there isn't a person period. The concept of a person or an individual is used for convenience, that's all. Vohaara sacca, ... > and it is as well correct to speak from the supramundane point of view of conditioned dhammas, like described by D.O. , in which the khandas are 'embedded'. .... S: From the mundane or supramundane "point of view" there are only conditioned dhammas. The truth about realities now is the same whether there is mundane, supramundane or zero understanding. Just dhammas, just khandhas regardless. This is true whether or not a Buddha ever appears in the world. ... > The wrong starts if either side rejects the point of the other ..and that seems to be the case with the lots of discussion you mentioned. .... S: The wrong starts with wrong view at this very moment when the visible object or hardness which appears now is taken for something or someone. If what we read and hear conforms with the Buddha Dhamma it is the Buddha's Teachings. If it doesn't, it should be rejected as wrong view. I'll be glad to hear your further feedback. I appreciate that you won't agree with my comments:) Metta Sarah > "This discourse parallels the teaching on the four noble truths, but with a twist. The "burden" is defined in the same terms as the first noble truth, the truth of suffering & stress. The taking on of the burden is defined in the same terms as the second noble truth, the origination of stress; and the casting off of the burden, in the same terms as the third noble truth, the cessation of stress. The fourth factor, however - the carrier of the burden - has no parallel in the four noble truths, and has proven to be one of the most controversial terms in the history of Buddhist philosophy. When defining this factor as the person (or individual, puggala), the Buddha drops the abstract form of the other factors, and uses the ordinary, everyday language of narrative: the person with such-and-such a name. And how would this person translate into more abstract factors? He doesn't say. <...> #118342 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 9:35 pm Subject: Re: A few issues sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I used to complain about "detachment from the beginning", maybe it would be better to say "moments of detachment from the beginning." .... S: Detachment and the growth of detachment from the beginning. Of course, detachment is momentary. ... > > Having said that, I still sometimes think if we are habitually breaking a precept, exercising of self might be necessary to put a stop to it. .... S: What is this "exercising of self"? There is no self to be exercised. Also, when you referred to A.Sujin as having said that "even if we manage by exercise of self to stop drinking in this lifetime", again I think the "exercise of self" is more likely to be you words added to her comment. Her point was just that we may lead a very good, pure life this time round, but if wisdom hasn't been sufficiently accumulated to the degree of eradicating wrong views, there's no guarantee about other lifetimes. Never a self involved in any way, regardless. Just conditioned dhammas. ... >Habitual bad behaviour might be different from moments of bad behaviour, which can be appreciated with more detachment. Habitual bad behaviour has to be stopped. .... S: Yes through understanding of the harm and appropriate conditioned action, not through "self-exercise". Metta Sarah ===== #118343 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 11:50 pm Subject: In Memoriam upasaka_howard Hi, all - Whatever arises, ceases. With metta, Howard /Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose./ (Steve Jobs) #118344 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Oct 6, 2011 11:57 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] In Memoriam dhammasaro very sincere ditto... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com; KalamaDhamma@yahoogroups.com From: upasaka@... Hi, all - Whatever arises, ceases. With metta, Howard /Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose./ (Steve Jobs) #118345 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 12:17 am Subject: Re: In Memoriam sarahprocter... Dear Friends, "Unindicated and unknown is the length of life of those subject to death. Life is difficult and brief and bound up with suffering. There is no means by which those who are born will not die." Salla Sutta, Snp 3:8 Metta Sarah "No one wants to die," he [Steve Jobs] added. "Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet, death is the destination we all share. " "Your time is limited," Jobs added. "So don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice." ======= #118346 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 12:56 am Subject: Re: A few issues philofillet Hi Sarah > > > I used to complain about "detachment from the beginning", maybe it would be better to say "moments of detachment from the beginning." > .... > S: Detachment and the growth of detachment from the beginning. Of course, detachment is momentary. Ph: I like that, "detachment and the growth of detachment." Of course you know what "I like that" probably means, no, no one knows that except me. Probably a few moments of understanding mixed in with a lot of lobha. (Adding "probably" satisfies my concern re the facile speculation thing, not a big deal) > > Having said that, I still sometimes think if we are habitually breaking a precept, exercising of self might be necessary to put a stop to it. > .... > S: What is this "exercising of self"? There is no self to be exercised. Ph: Surprised to see you write that, any number of times in talks there is reference to something someone does as "just self, just trying to be a good person." Of course there is no self, but there is a lot of wrong view about being able to control things, that's what I meant by "self", of course. I'm sure there are lots of people who have quit drinking by force of self-esteem, concern about their image in the eyes of others, not hiri otappa, an akusala near cousin of it, lots of akusala rooted ways people quit drinking, that doesn't seem surprising. But what's important is (especially for me, considering the kinds of concerns I expressed again and again last year, even at KK this year) that fixing a habit in this lifetime through that kind of self-image, self-concern rooted effort won't do anything whatsoever in the long run. As I wrote in a bit you didn't quote, actually, personally speaking, one of the most important things I've written at DSG as a sign of understanding developing: "As A Sujin says to a woman who is asking about drinking alcohol, even if we manage by exercise of self to stop drinking in this lifetime, what about the next one? Only the sotapanna is free from bad behaviour, and only understanding will lead us in that direction, clinging to ideas of self, ideas of being a better person, they might seem to be helping in the short run, but even as we are getting rid of some bad habits from this lifetime, we are deepening our bonds to all the lifetimes to come, with their bad habits arising in ways we can't even imagine now. We have to get out. We have to take the first steps towards getting out. Small steps, with moments of detachment being absolutely necessary." OK, A Sujin certainly didn't use the words "exercise of self", I paraphrased, but haven't I often heard her say things like "just self" or "it's me all the time" or "just trying to be a better person" or whatever other words to get at wrong view of self. S: Also, when you referred to A.Sujin as having said that "even if we manage by exercise of self to stop drinking in this lifetime", again I think the "exercise of self" is more likely to be you words added to her comment. Ph: Sorry. S: Her point was just that we may lead a very good, pure life this time round, but if wisdom hasn't been sufficiently accumulated to the degree of eradicating wrong views, there's no guarantee about other lifetimes. Never a self involved in any way, regardless. Just conditioned dhammas. Ph: I see. So even a purely kusala life with all the abstention happening in a kusala way, still not enough. But I don't understand what you mean by "never a self involved", again and again and again we hear about people trying to do things because of wrong view of self. > >Habitual bad behaviour might be different from moments of bad behaviour, which can be appreciated with more detachment. Habitual bad behaviour has to be stopped. > .... > S: Yes through understanding of the harm and appropriate conditioned action, not through "self-exercise". > Ph: Ideally, through understanding. But people stop drinking for all sorts of reasons, and sometimes it's about self-esteem. But when it is about self-esteem it binds us tighter to samsara. Last word to you cuz I'm feeling very happy about being released from my stomping ground of the value of using self-esteem, self-image etc (i.e exercising self) to condition kusala etc, the kinds of things I talked about at KK, I don't believe in them anymore, not interested, I was wrong. But it goes on a lot in this world, and in the short term makes for sunnier households etc. But doesn't help in the long run. Metta, Phil #118347 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 1:08 am Subject: Re: Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi philofillet Hi Ken H (and pt) > I am totally mystified by it. I don't know how anyone could have any understanding of anatta without knowing that concepts do not exist in ultimate reality. Well, panna develops in different ways. For now, for me, it is enough to understand that people and things can only be experienced as concepts. We can't see people, we can only see visible object, and we can only think about people even though people not sensitive to Dhamma would be convinced they are seeing them. Hey, come on, that's a good step! I can't leap to "there are no people" yet. So rather than the famous "there is no Nina" which is beyond my understnading for now, give me "is seeing Nina? Is hearing Nina?" That I can understand, and that's progress! Maybe one day "there is no being know as Nina" will be as obvious to me as "is seeing NIna?" is now. Maybe it will happen in a minute when I walk away from the computer and it clicks that there is no Steve Jobs. Metta, PHil #118348 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 1:56 am Subject: Re: Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi philofillet Hi Sarah I think I missed this one. > > > > What does believing this i-phone exists have to do with personality belief? > ... > S: Believing the i-phone exists, is some thing, is atta ditthi, but not sakkaya-ditthi. It's not taken for oneself or personality! So atta-ditthi is broader. Ph: I see. S: Also 20 kinds when taking the various khandhas for atta in one of 4 ways. Ph: With Sakkaya ditthi as well, these 20. I heard Nina say she found these 20 difficult, "one reality at a time" was A. Sujin's response, I'm pretty sure. S > When sakkaya ditthi is eradicated, all other kinds of atta-ditthi, all ditthi are eradicated at the same time. Ph: Ok. Thanks. Metta, Phil #118349 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 3:17 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I don't think that basic mindfulness is too complicated to understand...it has to do with paying attention to what is actually there instead of being lost in fantasy, daydream or conceptual proliferation..." Scott: The 'basic mindfulness' to which you refer is, indeed, a simplistic notion. It is not sati. It is described as a task to be done by someone - a mere mental exercise with a mystical costume on it. R: "...I don't see it as common, everyday, or paying attention to 'one's self' which has nothing to do with it..." Scott: See above. These two statements are contradictory. R: "...It is paying attention to what is arising in perception and mind, whether it is hearing a sound, the tactile reality of the breath, or a thought, feeling or mental state..." Scott: See above. These statements are contradictory. R: "...what is different in your view from what the Buddha *actually describes* in the sutta as satipatthana and what I have said?..." Scott: You are presenting a warmed-over, 19th century phenomenological psychology. Plus, as I've mentioned before, you persist in claiming a special understanding of 'what the Buddha *actually describes*' which is, of course, ludicrous, and hardly a sophisticated argument. R: "...there is straightforward perceptual attention to the content of consciousness and perception...The goal is not to see what you think or feel about this or that, but to become increasingly clear about what actually exists and what is merely imagined, so that the imagined and the conceptually constructed falls away or is seen as irrelevant." Scott: What is 'straightforward perceptual attention? Even philosophically (and I mean from a completely non-Dhamma perspective where I think you are ultimately coming) the notion that there is such a thing - as a conscious act as you suggest - is naive. Is this your definition of 'sati' ('straightforward perceptual attention') or is this your version of 'mindfulness' as a consiously willed mental exercise? What is the perceptual apparatus? What are the objects of this apparatus? Since you clearly invoke an observer in conscious control over the process, what is the role of this 'observer?' Do you actually believe in such a notion as 'objectivity' in relation the psychology you are offering? R: "...Satipatthana is like adjusting the lens on a camera to get a sharp picture, or like expository writing...It's more like science than like introspection, except there are no tools, no concepts and no goals other than to see clearly and understand what is seen directly...it is not as overlayed concepts, but as part of direct perception, so it is objective as well. There's nothing personal about it at all. It's cold work, and has nothing to do with self..." Scott: This is lovely prose, and quite mystical, but is little more than rhetoric. R: "...The difference is that it's not introspection. It's perceptual attentiveness..." Scott: A definition would be good, as mentioned. R: "...Whatever insight and analysis is gained is very stark and direct, and it comes from looking and seeing, not from speculating or conceptualizing about it after the fact. Mental and emotional objects are viewed with the same kind of simple objectivity - to see how they arise and how they really operate in the moment..." Scott: What is your defintion of 'insight?' What is your definition of 'analysis?' How is your method 'objective?' How is this whole system not so much thinking about things? Scott. #118350 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 3:32 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 pt, pt: "...But rather than turning the discussion towards de/merits of meditaiton practice, I'd be interested in hearing your perspectives on these mental states, as I'm sure everyone experienced them, we just describe them differently, and ascribe to them sati, panna etc, in different combinations, or not at all." Scott: Yes, too many things are ascribed to sati that are not in any way sati. This is what Rob E. is doing. Do you see merit in what he is proposing? Not all roads lead to Rome. It is much more than a mere difference of definition or description, as you suggest. Sati is being fundamentally misunderstood, re-defined, and the whole project moved out of a Dhamma context into a psychological context, while being promoted as not only being Dhamma, but being Rob E.'s correct understanding of Dhamma. The merits or demerits of 'meditation practice' are very much at the forefront of the discussion I'm having with Rob E. as far as I'm concerned. He advocates for meditation. He, for reasons only he knows, has decided to describe his practice. I am looking for evidence that what a 'practice' advocate calls 'practice' is worthy of merit. If you think a more diplomatic approach will somehow further your study of the matter, please feel free to pursue it from that point of view. Scott. #118351 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 3:47 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) dhammasaro Good friend Scott, pt, et al If I may... On what was written in part: He advocates for meditation. He, for reasons only he knows, has decided to describe his practice. I am looking for evidence that what a 'practice' advocate calls 'practice' is worthy of merit. If you think a more diplomatic approach will somehow further your study of the matter, please feel free to pursue it from that point of view. For us on practice, "meditation", there is what is called, "Noble Silence." What I practice here I guess about 99.99%... Just a FYI... I am very pleased you are concerned with being diplomatic with whom you may disagree... in Theravada Buddhism, my ajahns taught each path, "practice" is private; is it not? Hence, why disparage? Is this what the Historic Buddha taught? Warm thanks for reading... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck ................... rest deleted by request................... #118352 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 9:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, > .... > S: In the context of this sutta or any other sutta or non-sutta, >viriya, vayama that 'ought to be done' is right effort arising with >right understanding which knows dhammas as conditioned and anatta. >Whenever there is an idea of Self making an intention to strive >hard, it indicates not only that there is no understanding, but >worse, there is wrong view arising. >============================= And the only way the right effort arises, if one actual does it. To think that effort will arise without putting any effort defeats the whole point of the active sense of the word "effort". Of course one should not cling to it, but clinging is not a required component for action. Arhats can do things quite well without any clinging. >Awakening doesn't "simply drop on one's lap", there is no "one's >lap" for a start. >======= What I've meant by "Awakening doesn't "simply drop on one's lap"," was that effects don't happen without appropriate causes. >Awakening is developed understanding. >============================= Awakening is complete fading of tanha and all suffering that arises out of it. Wisdom and other things of the path are, IMHO, only the means to that end. If one clings to understanding, then one isn't Awakened. If one clings to theory, then one probably isn't even a Sotapanna. With best wishes, Alex #118353 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 9:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Chuck, C: "For us on practice, 'meditation', there is what is called, 'Noble Silence.' What I practice here I guess about 99.99%..." Scott: Who is 'us?' I would hope that you are not simply suggesting that I shut up. 'Noble silence' would hold regarding attainments of some kind, and this discussion is hardly about any such thing. To invoke 'noble silence' in this context would only be of the highest pretence. There is no evidence yet that anything out of the totally ordinary is occuring in this 'practice.' Scott. #118354 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 9:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi Alex > And the only way the right effort arises, if one actual does it. To think that effort will arise without putting any effort defeats the whole point of the active sense of the word "effort". There is effort. Effort is virya. If effort is not virya, it is wrong view of believing that there is self that can create or control virya. For some reason you are pretending you don't understand this. So here we go with another round of your being told the same things again and again... BTW, I was wrong when I said lobha is the major concern for you. Wrong view of self that can control dhammas is what you are wrapping tighter and tighter around yourself. Metta, Phil #118355 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 9:33 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna philofillet Hi again > There is effort. Effort is virya. If effort is not virya, it is wrong view of believing that there is self that can create or control virya. For some reason you are pretending you don't understand this. So here we go with another round of your being told the same things again and again... To clarify, I don't mean you have to share this basic understanding of Dhamma. But to pretend to not understand that you have been told this sort of thing hundreds of times, or not care, and continue to insist on making people use precious time from their rare human birth to repeat it again and again seems perverse. Metta, Phil #118356 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 10:01 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) ptaus1 Hi Scott, > pt: "...But rather than turning the discussion towards de/merits of meditaiton practice, I'd be interested in hearing your perspectives on these mental states, as I'm sure everyone experienced them, we just describe them differently, and ascribe to them sati, panna etc, in different combinations, or not at all." > > Scott: Yes, too many things are ascribed to sati that are not in any way sati. This is what Rob E. is doing. Do you see merit in what he is proposing? > > Not all roads lead to Rome. It is much more than a mere difference of definition or description, as you suggest. Sati is being fundamentally misunderstood, re-defined, and the whole project moved out of a Dhamma context into a psychological context, while being promoted as not only being Dhamma, but being Rob E.'s correct understanding of Dhamma. The merits or demerits of 'meditation practice' are very much at the forefront of the discussion I'm having with Rob E. as far as I'm concerned. > > He advocates for meditation. He, for reasons only he knows, has decided to describe his practice. I am looking for evidence that what a 'practice' advocate calls 'practice' is worthy of merit. If you think a more diplomatic approach will somehow further your study of the matter, please feel free to pursue it from that point of view. pt: Yes I see, taking for path what is not path is dangerous, so certainly worthy of discussion. I'll focus more on "what's the difference between a moment with/experience of sati and a moment without it" since that interests me atm, though of course the issues are related. Best wishes pt #118357 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 10:38 am Subject: Re: meditation (anapanasati) truth_aerator Hello Pt, Phil, RobertE, all, The fact is that the Buddha recommended Anapanasati in many suttas saying that it develops 4 satipatthanas, 7 factors of awakening, and results in Arhatship. I believe that the burden of the proof is on those who say that Anapanasati shouldn't be done. Either one trusts the Buddha or not. See Anapanasati, Kayagatasati, Satipatthana suttas and entire collection in SN54. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.119.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.008.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.013.than.html With best wishes, Alex #118358 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 10:45 am Subject: Re: meditation (anapanasati) ptaus1 Hi Alex, > Alex: The fact is that the Buddha recommended Anapanasati in many suttas saying that it develops 4 satipatthanas, 7 factors of awakening, and results in Arhatship. I believe that the burden of the proof is on those who say that Anapanasati shouldn't be done. Either one trusts the Buddha or not. pt: As I see the problem - it's noting to do with whether the Buddha recommended anapanasati, satipatthana, effort, etc, or not. The real problem is whether what I consider to be "anapanasati, satipatthana, effort, etc" is in fact equivalent to what the Buddha had in mind when he praised anapanasati, satipatthana, effrot, etc. Do you see the difference? So, what's often warned against here is the possibility that what I consider experientially to be "anapanasati" is in fact a form of lobha, and not anapanasati that the Buddha talked about. Am I managing to explain this clearly? Best wishes pt #118359 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 10:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Just checking re concepts and panna truth_aerator Hello Phil, all, >P:There is effort. Effort is virya. If effort is not virya, it is >wrong >view of believing that there is self that can create or >control virya. >================== Why can't one have viriya without thinking "I am metaphysical Atman that can control it. Let me have effort now!". Why doesn't studying [insert your favorite Dhamma] book, or listening to your favorite teacher promote Self View of someone who knows better, someone who understands better, someone who is now better of than before, etc? Shouldn't then one not study because that will just promote more Self Views? Why is daily life a "dusty path" is OK, while following (to the extent that one can) what the suttas and even Abhidhamma masters say about meditation (such as anapanasati) is bad? In the morning, I don't think "Now I will meditate. Now I will control this or that reality". I just do as part of my ordinary routine. What if meditation is part of one's daily life as much as putting on the pants after waking up? With best wishes, Alex #118360 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 10:51 am Subject: Re: meditation (anapanasati) truth_aerator Hi Pt, Phil, all, > > Alex: The fact is that the Buddha recommended Anapanasati in many suttas saying that it develops 4 satipatthanas, 7 factors of awakening, and results in Arhatship. I believe that the burden of the proof is on those who say that Anapanasati shouldn't be done. Either one trusts the Buddha or not. > > pt: As I see the problem - it's noting to do with whether the >Buddha recommended anapanasati, satipatthana, effort, etc, or not. >The real problem is whether what I consider to be "anapanasati, >satipatthana, effort, etc" is in fact equivalent to what the Buddha >had in mind when he praised anapanasati, satipatthana, effrot, etc. >Do you see the difference? >====================== Please explain how to do Anapanasati properly. We can start to discuss specific VsM instructions if interested. >So, what's often warned against here is the possibility that what I >consider experientially to be "anapanasati" is in fact a form of >lobha, and not anapanasati that the Buddha talked about. Am I >managing to explain this clearly? >=============== And how does "studying the realities while living Daily Life" that some advocate avoids this problem? How does one avoid developing lobha or Self View by studying books and listening to lectures? With best wishes, Alex #118361 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 10:51 am Subject: Futility of sorting kusala moments from akusala by thinking philofillet Hi Jon Heard an interesting talk (2006 2/6 pt.2) which you asked " if dosa arises, and we are aware in the ordinary sense tgat tgere is dosa, and we think about that dosa, how it's not self, it's just a conditioned dhamma, is that thinking likely to be kusala?" Later in the same section you return to this point and say it is akusala. I've raised thus talk with you before, saying if thinking in this way is not kusala, how can we say tgat developing correct intellectuall understanding, which must surely involve thinking in this way, be kusala? But yesterday I better understoodA. Sujin's response (at around the 3:00 mark) "It is impossible to touch what is akusala and what is kusala by thoughts, but there must be awareness right then to understand the chaeacteristic as just a reality before we can know better and better what is there, because it arises and falls away so fast." So I feel I am understanding beter why it is said that it is more important to understand that all dhammas are anatta than it is to try to sort out by futile thinking kusala from akusala. Metta, Phil #118362 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 11:34 am Subject: Re: meditation (anapanasati) ptaus1 Hi Alex, > > pt: As I see the problem - it's noting to do with whether the >Buddha recommended anapanasati, satipatthana, effort, etc, or not. >The real problem is whether what I consider to be "anapanasati, >satipatthana, effort, etc" is in fact equivalent to what the Buddha >had in mind when he praised anapanasati, satipatthana, effrot, etc. >Do you see the difference? > >====================== > > Alex: Please explain how to do Anapanasati properly. pt: I think it fundamentally goes down to knowing the difference experientially between a moment with sati (and then sati and panna) and a moment without it. I myself am not yet certain what is the difference between the two, so I think I'm automatically disqualified from "doing" anapanasati, satipatthana, etc, properly. Basically, atm I can see there are some mental states that occur often, and I'm trying to see if there is sati there or not. Initial assumption was that there was sati and that therefore my "anapanasati, satipatthana", etc, are the same as the ones the Buddha advocated. But now, I'm under impression that most of the mental states I used to think are with sati and panna are in fact without them, what would make my "anapanasati, satipatthana, etc" not the same as the Buddha's. So now I'm back to further trying to get a sense of what is sati and what is lobha, etc. > Alex: We can start to discuss specific VsM instructions if interested. pt: With respect, I don't think yours and mine problem is inability to read. Rather, imo it's lack of experientially knowing the difference between a moment with sati and a moment without it, between sati and lobha, between kusala and akusala. So, I'm a little more interested in hearing from others what are the differences between these, rather than re-reading anapanasati sutta for example yet again. I mean, it's a bit like reading the manual on how to drive a rocket, without actually knowing what in fact is a rocket in the first place, on top of which it then turns out that you can't actually drive a rocket, because it sort of has a trajectory dependent on the amount of fuel, the burn ratio, weight, etc. > > pt: So, what's often warned against here is the possibility that what I >consider experientially to be "anapanasati" is in fact a form of >lobha, and not anapanasati that the Buddha talked about. Am I >managing to explain this clearly? > >=============== > > Alex: And how does "studying the realities while living Daily Life" that some advocate avoids this problem? How does one avoid developing lobha or Self View by studying books and listening to lectures? pt: I think it all goes down to the same issue of knowing the difference between a moment of sati and a moment without it. As to avoiding developing lobha or self view - I don't think studying/hearing somehow magically avoids it, especially if it's taken as a practice of sorts. Best wishes pt #118363 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 11:52 am Subject: Re: Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi philofillet Hi again Ken, pt,all -- I can't leap to "there are no people" yet. So rather than the famous "there is no Nina" which is beyond my understnading for now, give me "is seeing Nina? Is hearing Nina?" That I can understand and that's progress! > Let me add that I am not saying that I believe (other than through accumukated ignorance operating through momentary dhammas) as a stated view that people and beings etc do exist, just that panna that makes it clear that tgey don't exist has not yet come to be. So when people come to mind, the understanding that people can only be understood tgrough mind door processes as concepts often arises, and tgat's a good start. I don't insist that it is relevant to Dhamma (at least for now I don't, who knows where the dev'p of panna will lead?) to insist that beings actually exist. The only thing worth insisting on is better understanding the present dhamma. Not people, or beings. Metta, Phil #118364 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 12:21 pm Subject: Re: meditation (anapanasati) truth_aerator Hello Pt, Phil, all, >Alex: Please explain how to do Anapanasati properly. > >pt: I think it fundamentally goes down to knowing the difference >experientially between a moment with sati (and then sati and panna) >and a moment without it. >=========================== It is easier for a beginner to be aware during anapanasati then when living daily life. At least that was my experience. Too many concepts getting into the way, and if one can't have sati in better circumstances, what makes one think that one will have good sati in challenging circumstances? Are you saying that somehow daily life is better because of can be more aware of sati? >I myself am not yet certain what is the difference between the two, >so I think I'm automatically disqualified from "doing" anapanasati, >satipatthana, etc, properly. >================================ A toddler doesn't wait to walk when he can do it perfectly without falling down. Child practices and practices until one can walk, and then run and jump. If the toddler never tried to walk so not to fall down, then one will be legless for the rest of one's miserable life. >pt: As to >avoiding developing lobha or self view - I don't think >studying/hearing somehow magically avoids it, especially if it's >taken as a practice of sorts. >====================================== So why do you study/hear the Dhamma if it doesn't avoid the building up of Self view? With best wishes, Alex #118365 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 1:19 pm Subject: Re: Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi philofillet Hi again Ken > The only thing worth insisting on is better understanding the present dhamma. Not people, or beings. I came across a great passage in SPD, p.355: "If people did not interpret different colous or 'translate' them into shape and form, they would not conceive them as beings, people or things..." and a bit later on the same page: "When sati arises and is mindful of realities and panna begins to study and investigate their characteristics, one will begin to understand that the outward appearance and all the details of things, all the different colours, are only what apppears through the eyes, and nithing else. Then panna begins to penetrate the characteristic of realities as not a self, not a being, not a person." So for me, saying "there is no person" is not the point, it is studying dhammas so that panna can begin to develop towards the point when it can begin to "penetrate the characteristics of realities as not a self, not a being, not a person." For me it is not yet clear how saying "there is no Nina" supports this process, but I might soon come to understand why it is so clear and obvious and important for you. Metta, Phil #118366 From: "connie" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 1:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nichiconn Hi Guys, C: "For us on practice, 'meditation', there is what is called, 'Noble Silence.' What I practice here I guess about 99.99%..." Scott: Who is 'us?' I would hope that you are not simply suggesting that I shut up. 'Noble silence' would hold regarding attainments of some kind, and this discussion is hardly about any such thing. To invoke 'noble silence' in this context would only be of the highest pretence. There is no evidence yet that anything out of the totally ordinary is occuring in this 'practice.' > connie: i think 'noble silence' (ignoring the 'not really' marks) is attained from the second jhana on & has nothing to do with "sitting with dosa" (which is how I tend to think of the Not Really Kind of dumb practice). This (ab)use of the phrase is an excellent example of how we all tend to forget that (to quote a friend) < since most words preceded the Buddha's teachings, we should be careful to understand what each word signifies in the Buddha's teachings before rushing to presume knowledge of the teachings, which might lead to wrong view/practice instead. > Say, isn't that the whole point of this exercise? just my write view, connie #118367 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 3:14 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > pt: Hope it's alright to join - Of course it is. > this topic interests me in the sense of trying to relate our experiences to the teachings. Well, that is a good intention. I always think you have a relatively balanced approach. ... > I think first it might help to define the experiences as precisely as possible and then see how they relate to sati, panna, kusala and akusala. So, I'd say there are roughly four different states, that experientially seem different when for example considering the instance of "being aware of breathing": > > 1. thinking I know that I'm breathing. It's basically just the ordinary sort of compulsive thinking. > > 2. knowing that I'm breathing - this is still a thought, but a bit different in the sense that there is some sort of non-forgetfulness unlike in the first case. Does this means there's sati there somewhere? Not sure. > > 3. knowing that I'm breathing without it being a thought at all, so it's just a clear knowing of sorts. > > 4. knowing that i know (that i'm breathing). > > (5. there's the last possible case of when actual rupa/dhamma like wind is the object of knowing, but I don't think I experienced that one, so won't discuss it here) I get a different feeling from "knowing" than I do from "being aware of." When I say "being aware of," I don't mean a "thinking knowing" or registering through thought, but just the kind of awareness that is cognizant that something is happening, if that makes any sense. It's a closer cousin to perception than to thought. I just wonder what you mean by knowing and how it registers in your experience. > So now we can correlate the experiences/mental states to objects and mental factors: > > a) object is a concept in all four cases I think - so no dhammas, just a concept of "breathing", except in the last case where it's possible that there's some conceptual understanding/valuing of mindfulness - so concept of a dhamma. Possible, I say. I find the idea of either/or concept or dhamma pretty confining, and not necessarily corresponding to experience. I don't presume that if I am aware of sensation that it is really a "concept." I think of it more as a less refined perception, like various degrees of focus and separation of different objects of awareness. The idea that anything that is not a micro-moment separated from all others is a concept does not seem right to me. In other words, I'm not sure if the most useful thing to do is impose the exact concepts of Abhidhamma on one's experiences of objects and of the presence of mindfulness and degrees of awareness either. Maybe an experiential description is more useful in this context. > b) Is there sati in any of the four cases? Best case scenario - in cases 2-4, though most probably not. Case 3 might have sati, what would be a sort of kusala citta without panna, but, what makes that citta kusala in the first place so that sati is there? Not sure. The last case 4 I think might have sati because it sort of just happens, and seems so different to just thinking about knowing breathing and that sort of thing, but not sure. This is analytic speculation, I think, rather than referring to what is actually experienced. Do you experience sati? Rather than "would x situation warrant calling it sati?" Correct me if I'm wrong. > c) is there any panna? I think only the last case 4 might have some sort of conceptual panna, in the sense of knowing the value of a moment of knowing, so perhaps a concept of a dhamma like sati, what would kind of make it pariyatti, or some sort of samatha panna at least, but again not sure. > > Anyway, I find these 4 states occur thoughout the day, and I don't really find that meditation somehow makes them better/longer/more frequent. But rather than turning the discussion towards de/merits of meditation practice, I'd be interested in hearing your perspectives on these mental states, as I'm sure everyone experienced them, we just describe them differently, and ascribe to them sati, panna etc, in different combinations, or not at all. The four mental states - do you mean the different states of knowing that you described? Say a little more about the knowing. If you could somehow relate these states to the language I used about awareness and being aware of being aware, some of the stuff I said, that would be helpful to me - but might be too difficult for you to look at those posts on your schedule... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118368 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 3:29 pm Subject: Re: meditation (anapanasati) ptaus1 Hi Alex, > >Alex: Please explain how to do Anapanasati properly. > > > >pt: I think it fundamentally goes down to knowing the difference >experientially between a moment with sati (and then sati and panna) >and a moment without it. > >=========================== > > > Alex: It is easier for a beginner to be aware during anapanasati then when living daily life. At least that was my experience. Too many concepts getting into the way, and if one can't have sati in better circumstances, what makes one think that one will have good sati in challenging circumstances? > > Are you saying that somehow daily life is better because of can be more aware of sati? pt: Hm, well these are things/arguments that exist in your mind, seeing that you keep bringing them up even though the focus of the discussion is somewhat different - imo, a much more fundamental issue is the lack of experiential understanding of the difference between a moment with sati and a moment without it. When such understanding is lacking, it's very easy to assume that my "anapanasati, daily life, study, hearing, effort, etc" are this or that, while in truth there's no knowing if they really are equal to what the Buddha was teaching, or not. > >pt: I myself am not yet certain what is the difference between the two, >so I think I'm automatically disqualified from "doing" anapanasati, >satipatthana, etc, properly. > >================================ > > Alex: A toddler doesn't wait to walk when he can do it perfectly without falling down. Child practices and practices until one can walk, and then run and jump. If the toddler never tried to walk so not to fall down, then one will be legless for the rest of one's miserable life. pt: I think you have completely misused the toddler analogy in this case - imo, it would be more like this: If a toddler is trying to learn to walk (trying to do anapanasati, satipatthana, etc) but is instead poking himself in the eye with a spoon believing that that is what walking is all about (mistaking lobha for sati), he will then never learn to walk (never develop sati) but will eventually learn how to poke his eye out very effectively (develop wrong view). Though he'll run out of eyes of his own quite quickly so will then try to tell others how to do it (advocate wrong view). > >pt: As to >avoiding developing lobha or self view - I don't think >studying/hearing somehow magically avoids it, especially if it's >taken as a practice of sorts. > >====================================== > > Alex: So why do you study/hear the Dhamma if it doesn't avoid the building up of Self view? pt: Why? Lobha, mana, ditthi, maybe chanda sometimes, I don't know. That's the point, not yet knowing the difference between a moment with sati and a moment without it. Without that, very hard to tell if anapanasati or dhamma study is truly kusala or just akusala mistaken for imagined kusala. Best wishes pt #118369 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 3:49 pm Subject: Re: Futility of sorting kusala moments from akusala by thinking philofillet Hi again. Correction to this transcription: "It is impossible to touch what is akusala and what is kusala by thoughts, but there must be awareness right then to understand the chaeacteristic as just a reality before we can know better and better what is there, because it arises and falls away so fast." "Touch" should be "clearcut" Metta, Phil #118370 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 3:52 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...I don't think that basic mindfulness is too complicated to understand...it has to do with paying attention to what is actually there instead of being lost in fantasy, daydream or conceptual proliferation..." > > Scott: The 'basic mindfulness' to which you refer is, indeed, a simplistic notion. It is not sati. It is described as a task to be done by someone - a mere mental exercise with a mystical costume on it. I think you're wrong. And I think you're kind of full of yourself to talk that way - speaking of "self." You don't seem to understand the basic idea of paying attention to an experience. Or experiencing an experience without being distracted by something else. Ever enjoy a sunset? How do *you* know what sati is or is not? If you've experienced it, describe *your* personal understanding and experience of it. If not, you are speaking out of personal ignorance and ideology. > R: "...I don't see it as common, everyday, or paying attention to 'one's self' which has nothing to do with it..." > > Scott: See above. These two statements are contradictory. How so? "Paying attention," as I've said, is not done by someone, but it does take place. Try it sometime. > R: "...It is paying attention to what is arising in perception and mind, whether it is hearing a sound, the tactile reality of the breath, or a thought, feeling or mental state..." > > Scott: See above. These statements are contradictory. Only to someone who is obsessed by their own notion of self, and injects it into every human activity. Ideology. > R: "...what is different in your view from what the Buddha *actually describes* in the sutta as satipatthana and what I have said?..." > > Scott: You are presenting a warmed-over, 19th century phenomenological psychology. Plus, as I've mentioned before, you persist in claiming a special understanding of 'what the Buddha *actually describes*' which is, of course, ludicrous, and hardly a sophisticated argument. I know how to read, that's all. I can read what is on the page, and I don't do handsprings trying to turn it into conceptual altruism according to some mystical notion of reality that is not on the page. I knew that as soon as I attempted "describe" something you would jump all over it and say it was "self-based" and some form of "pop psychology." Of course, when you say "describe your practice and what you experience" you are setting up a perfect trap to then deride it as self-description. Well, have fun talking to yourself and verifying your own treasured concepts. > R: "...there is straightforward perceptual attention to the content of consciousness and perception...The goal is not to see what you think or feel about this or that, but to become increasingly clear about what actually exists and what is merely imagined, so that the imagined and the conceptually constructed falls away or is seen as irrelevant." > > Scott: What is 'straightforward perceptual attention? Paying attention to what you see, hear, tactile object, etc. > Even philosophically (and I mean from a completely non-Dhamma perspective where I think you are ultimately coming) the notion that there is such a thing - as a conscious act as you suggest - is naive. > > Is this your definition of 'sati' ('straightforward perceptual attention') or is this your version of 'mindfulness' as a consciously willed mental exercise? I see mindfulness/sati on a continuum, just like any other mental state that is subject to development. It is the mental state or factor of seeing clearly and consciously what is arising in the moment, which develops over time with practice. That is the base of how sati functions. It doesn't get lost in concepts and mental proliferation, but stays with the bare reality of what exists. Other factors coordinate with it, such as knowledge of Dhamma and memory, as well as clear comprehension, vittakha and vicara, but the basic reality of sati is seeing what is before the senses or the mind at the moment that it occurs. Buddha said "in the seen there will be only the seen" and that is the base-level clarity of sati, being aware of the sensory object without adding, subtracting or adding a conceptual overlay. > What is the perceptual apparatus? What are the objects of this apparatus? Since you clearly invoke an observer in conscious control over the process, Nope, that's a presumption. Processes don't need an "observer," but there is awareness. ...what is the role of this 'observer?' Just plug in "citta" instead of "observer" and you'll hve the exact same thing. You're the one adding self-concept, not me. > Do you actually believe in such a notion as 'objectivity' in relation the psychology you are offering? There's no psychology, here, Scott, except in your conception of what you are reading. You are adding it, proliferating away. There's no "psychology" in what I'm "offering" either. It's just the exercise of paying attention to what is perceived. You can call it "contact between eye-base and visual object" if that language makes you feel better, but it's the same damn thing. > R: "...Satipatthana is like adjusting the lens on a camera to get a sharp picture, or like expository writing...It's more like science than like introspection, except there are no tools, no concepts and no goals other than to see clearly and understand what is seen directly...it is not as overlayed concepts, but as part of direct perception, so it is objective as well. There's nothing personal about it at all. It's cold work, and has nothing to do with self..." > > Scott: This is lovely prose, and quite mystical, but is little more than rhetoric. No, it's a sincere attempt to help you see what I am talking about. Being the inflexible antagonist you are, you won't entertain such an idea. Too bad for you. What I said above is actually clear. It's not rhetoric. It's a description of what I understand as satipatthana. If you wanted to be useful, you could look at what I am saying and give your own version of it, and what you think is right or wrong about the specifics, and look at it collaboratively, but I won't hold my breath. Better to keep breathing anyway. :-) Do you have a personal way of describing what you personally think sati and satipatthana are, based on your experience, or can you only tersely quote the official textbook? > R: "...The difference is that it's not introspection. It's perceptual attentiveness..." > > Scott: A definition would be good, as mentioned. That is the definition, my own little definition for anyone's benefit who wants to see what I think about it, as are all the descriptions above - it is 'paying attention to what is perceived.' Awareness of visual object and how it is apprehended. Awareness of mental object and how it is experienced. Etc. Is there something not clear about that. And when I say "it's not any different than the Buddha's definition," I'm not claiming, as you insist, that I have some special understanding of what the Buddha *meant.* I am talking about what he said, nothing more or less. "When breathing in a long breath, he is aware 'I am breathing in a long breath.'" That is an example of *Buddha's* description of sati. Do you really need an interpretation to understand what that means? I mean really? Are you that convoluted in your understanding that you can't understand pure redundancy, and that Buddha at the very least would like you to understand that you are breathing in a long breath when you are breathing in a long breath. I'm not saying that is the be-all and end-all of satipatthana, but it is the basic function of sati as clearly described by the Buddha in the anapanasati sutta. Now please tell me how that is an interpretation, okay? Just tell me how repeating what the Buddha said verbatim, and saying "this is what he said" is an interpretation? And how is that you saying "dhamma this," and "dhamma that" instead of what he said is *not* an interpretation, if not a diversion? I mean, give me a break! > R: "...Whatever insight and analysis is gained is very stark and direct, and it comes from looking and seeing, not from speculating or conceptualizing about it after the fact. Mental and emotional objects are viewed with the same kind of simple objectivity - to see how they arise and how they really operate in the moment..." > > Scott: What is your definition of 'insight?' What is your definition of 'analysis?' How is your method 'objective?' How is this whole system not so much thinking about things? What is your definition of "definition?" I mean, give me a break. I now have to define the basic dictionary in order to have a conversation with you? My definition of insight is a realization or understanding that was not there before. If you want to talk about 'stages of insight' as defined in Dhamma that is another story. Is that what you want to talk about? I was talking about insight in general above, that's why I said "whatever insight is gained..." without defining it. It was a general statement in order to make the point that it is not based on conceptualization, but on continued attention. How is it objective? it is objective to the extent that it is correct, which is to say staying with what arises and not adding interpretation, that's all. My definition of analysis is inventing or creating an explanation of something based on a particular way of assembling and understanding a set of facts. It requires conceptual thinking, and attempts to explain an object or situation rather than experience it. Anything else? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #118371 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 3:53 pm Subject: Re: Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi kenhowardau Hi Phil and Pt, ---- <. . .> > Ph: For me it is not yet clear how saying "there is no Nina" supports this process, but I might soon come to understand why it is so clear and obvious and important for you. ---- KH: Fair enough, and I will try to understand why you and Pt see it the other way. Meanwhile, however, please consider what you have just written: > Ph: < . . . > saying "there is no person" is not the point, it is studying dhammas so that panna can begin to develop towards the point when it can begin to "penetrate the characteristics of realities as not a self, not a being, not a person."> KH: Is there a hint of wrong view in there? Are you perhaps seeing Dhamma-study as something you can deliberately do? Certainly we should understand the value of Dhamma study, but not as something to be `done' in the conventional sense of the word. There is only the present moment, after which the existing five khandhas will exist no more; a completely new five khandhas will have taken their place. Absolutely nothing will have continued from one moment to the other. Therefore, a deliberate practice makes no sense. `Conditioned right understanding now' is the only way that makes sense. There is no control over that, and why should there be? For whom, and by whom, would a controlled right-understanding be brought about? Ken H #118372 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 4:02 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > He advocates for meditation. He, for reasons only he knows, has decided to describe his practice. For reasons only I know? Are you joking? Do you think this was my idea? You said in two or three posts in a row that you would like me to describe my practice and then Phil said "Yeah, like Scott said, you really should describe your practice." With great reluctance, I offered this description because you asked me to. Scott, if you can't keep track of your own thoughts and speech from day to day, better to keep your mouth shut. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #118373 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 4:26 pm Subject: Lost thread kenhowardau Hi Sarah, I am trying to find a message you posted a few days ago. It was about someone in an intensive care unit and how even that was just one citta after another. Do you remember the subject heading? I've tried the Advanced Search option but `intensive care' was the only prompt I could think of, and apparently you didn't use those words. My plan is to write a note to someone (a Buddhist) who has suffered a severe stroke, but I am struggling with it. Ken H #118374 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 5:17 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) ptaus1 Hi RobE (Scott), > > Scott: He advocates for meditation. He, for reasons only he knows, has decided to describe his practice. > > For reasons only I know? Are you joking? Do you think this was my idea? You said in two or three posts in a row that you would like me to describe my practice and then Phil said "Yeah, like Scott said, you really should describe your practice." With great reluctance, I offered this description because you asked me to. > > Scott, if you can't keep track of your own thoughts and speech from day to day, better to keep your mouth shut. pt: RobE, you have to have worked out Scott's posting style by now - terse, provocation, confrontation, these are all tools among others of a psychiatrist that have a function and can be used skilfully. Sure, often the initial response is to get offended, but it's more useful to take him on his best merits - as in look at your own reactions and what's coming out in response. That's his purpose I think as well, and it can be useful, though not always pretty. E.g. if he's questioning my understanding of sati - well that's something I should be doing anyway, so the questioning is useful in that it advances my own understanding. And if he's wrong in his assessment of my understanding, well, so what, who cares. But if he's right, and he often is, then the whole argument, though ugly, is useful. So, taking Scott as your cranky conscience of sorts can be useful and avoids the need to try to prove who's right. That said, I gotta get back to replying to posts on the issue of right speech. Best wishes pt #118375 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 9:32 am Subject: Dead not Proud... bhikkhu5 Friends: Life is Short, Difficult, Unknown & Surely Lethal! The Blessed Buddha once pointed out: The life of mortals here is difficult, brief, unknown, without any guarantees and it is always joined with the inherent misery of ageing, decay, sickness and death!!! For there is no chance, that one born will not die! To die is the nature of all beings. Just as for ripe fruit, there is constantly fear of falling, even so do all beings also constantly fear death. Just as clay-pots all break up sooner or later, even so is the life of all mortals. Whether young or old, foolish or wise, all of them will surely die! When they are overcome by death, going from here to the next existence, no one, neither father, son, or family can protect the mortal, who is led away like a cow to be slaughtered. And that even while the wailing relatives are actually looking on... This world is irreversibly infected by death, sickness and old age. Knowing this as unavoidable absolute, wise men do not grieve, but accept this very fact just as it is. Lamenting over a mortal is utterly useless. One whose path one cannot know, seeing neither from where he came, nor where he is going, cannot be helped by moaning! Any wise can realize, that lamentation just harms oneself, serving no good purpose.. And this is true, whether it is oneself or another who is dying: Weeping won't help! Sutta-Nipta verses 574-583 Edited excerpt. <...> The Thorn! Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samhita _/\_ * <....> #118376 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 5:32 pm Subject: Re: Lost thread ptaus1 Hi KenH, > KH: I am trying to find a message you posted a few days ago. It was about someone in an intensive care unit and how even that was just one citta after another. Do you remember the subject heading? pt: I remember this one, not sure if that's the one though: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118284 There's this bit in there: > S: ... She told me my aunt's husband had just died. He had worked hard, accumulated a lot of wealth, they'd lived in a beautiful house with a huge garden. In the end it's all left behind - just alone with visible objects, sounds and thinking on one's death bed, just like now. At the same time, my mother told me about another aunt with early alzheimers. Her children are trying to move her into a home but she doesn't want to leave her old antiques and porcelain. Dukkha - parting with the beloved all day long. Occasionally there can be a moment of sanity when there is understanding of seeing or visible object or clinging as just passing dhammas. >... > S: Yes, as you say, we go through life lost in a dream world of concepts. The realities are hidden by the curtain of ignorance and the roof of lobha which the Buddha pointed out. The suffering is caused by not understanding the Truths, by ignorance of and attachment to the 5 khandhas and ideas about them. The attachment is only 'alleviated' and eradicated by the Noble Path, beginning with the understanding of dhammas now as anatta. Otherwise, it'll always be 'me', 'my loved ones', 'my rug', 'our house' and so on without any understanding of the Truths. > Best wishes pt #118377 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 5:37 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > > > Hi RobE (Scott), > > > > Scott: He advocates for meditation. He, for reasons only he knows, has decided to describe his practice. > > > > For reasons only I know? Are you joking? Do you think this was my idea? You said in two or three posts in a row that you would like me to describe my practice and then Phil said "Yeah, like Scott said, you really should describe your practice." With great reluctance, I offered this description because you asked me to. > > > > Scott, if you can't keep track of your own thoughts and speech from day to day, better to keep your mouth shut. > > > pt: RobE, you have to have worked out Scott's posting style by now - terse, provocation, confrontation, these are all tools among others of a psychiatrist that have a function and can be used skilfully. How about manipulation and lying? Are those legitimate tools? > Sure, often the initial response is to get offended, but it's more useful to take him on his best merits - as in look at your own reactions and what's coming out in response. Sure, that's fine in terms of "one's own" personal work, but not so much in terms of letting some one keep behaving over a certain line with impunity. It's one thing to be blunt and provocative, but it's another to orchestrate a situation to his advantage, using me as a pawn, and then pretend it was my idea. Sorry, not going to tolerate that. > That's his purpose I think as well, and it can be useful, though not always pretty. I think Scott's purpose is to put others down and win the hand for his team. And you're right, it's not pretty. There's something wrong with it. > E.g. if he's questioning my understanding of sati - well that's something I should be doing anyway, so the questioning is useful in that it advances my own understanding. There's a difference between questioning and drawing a conclusion without presenting either his own description or any evidence that the conclusion is based on. Scott, as I predicted, likes to play Grand Inquisitor, but he won't reveal his own view for close inspection. > And if he's wrong in his assessment of my understanding, well, so what, who cares. But if he's right, and he often is, then the whole argument, though ugly, is useful. Ends justify the means, eh? A dangerous path. What if there is damage done along the way - is it automatically worth it? > So, taking Scott as your cranky conscience of sorts can be useful and avoids the need to try to prove who's right. That said, I gotta get back to replying to posts on the issue of right speech. Well, thanks for the sidebar. I always appreciate your [generally] measured view, even when it's in the service of a loose rhinocerous. Let's hope no one gets too badly gored. Dodging rhinos - good Dhamma practice! :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #118378 From: "ptaus1" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 5:52 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) ptaus1 Hi RobE, > > pt: And if he's wrong in his assessment of my understanding, well, so what, who cares. But if he's right, and he often is, then the whole argument, though ugly, is useful. > > RE: Ends justify the means, eh? A dangerous path. What if there is damage done along the way - is it automatically worth it? pt: Yes, that's the dilemma, though imo, this being an online world, with no physical and verbal contact, the potential damage is minimal, especially if approached on best merits. > RE: Well, thanks for the sidebar. I always appreciate your [generally] measured view, even when it's in the service of a loose rhinocerous. Let's hope no one gets too badly gored. Dodging rhinos - good Dhamma practice! :-) pt: Yes, that's what I sort of mean - this being an online world, we have the space and time to let the the personal remarks slide and just focus on the dhamma issues. And I find Scott is generally a great source when it comes to dhamma. Best wishes pt #118379 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 6:17 pm Subject: Re: Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------------ <. . .> >> KH: To believe an i-phone (or any other concept) exists in *ultimate* reality is to go a step further than mere conventional convenience. Such a belief enters the realm of wrong view. If an i-phone ultimately exists, so too does a sentient being. You can't have one without the other. >> > HThe Buddha spoke of five aggregates. Do they not exist? The Buddha taught of them. For example, in SN 22.48 he taught that the form aggregate consists of all rupas, past, present, and future, to quote: "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the form aggregate." ---------- KH: Note the wording "whatever form." It is singular, not plural. So it would seem the Buddha is talking about any form you might like to mention. He is not talking about all forms - pleasant, unpleasant, past, present and future etc - existing together at the same time. ----------------------------------- > H: He spoke similarly of the other 4 aggregates. Aggregates are collections.(That is what 'aggregate' or 'heap' means.) An error comes in when we conceive of a collection of phenomena as itself a single phenomenon instead of a collection, when we conceive of it as "a reality" instead of just a conventional existent. ----------------------------------- KH: I don't know of anyone who regards a khandha as a collection of phenomena existing as a single phenomena. Each khandha is a category of phenomena, at least of one of exists in any given moment of consciousness. ------------------------------------------------ > H: There is a collection of past, future, and present rupas that is called an i-phone. ------------------------------------------------- KH: No such collection exists. An i-phone is a collection of atoms and molecules, not of rupas. In ultimate reality there are no atoms and molecules, there are just the presently arisen namas and rupas. --------------------------- > H: It is not imagined. But it is only a collection, not an individual, and it is a conventional existent and not "a reality". The same is true for our bodies, our minds, and so on - mere collections of dhammas, and known only by our conceptual faculty. --------------------------- KH: Again, I would say human bodies were made of atoms, not of rupas. Ultimately there are no atoms and no humans. ----------------------------------------- > H: You are quite right when you say that i-phones and sentient beings don't *ultimately* exist. They do exist, but only as collections and as matters of convention. ----------------------------------------- KH: These types of collections should not be confused with khandhas. And any "existence" that a matter of convention only is no existence at all. ---------------------------------------------------- > H: An i-phone cannot be seen, for it is not a sight. It cannot be heard, for it is not a sound. The same for the other 3 physical sense doors. It can, however, be known through the mind door, by thought: Correctly so if considered a mere collection (and not an individual) and a merely conventional object (and not "a reality"). To say that i-phones and persons exists in ultimate reality is to speak falsely. But it is also false speaking to say that they do not exist at all in any manner. The Buddha never made either error. He did speak of persons and trees and so on as things that exist, but only conventionally so and as aggregates. --------------------------------------------------- KH: The way I understand his teaching, the Buddha spoke about conditioned dhammas. Often he did so in conventional language, and that might have been difficult for any listeners who were not familiar with the Abhidhamma. But I am sure special arrangements were made for them. ------------------------- > H: On the one hand, the Buddha taught against an extreme reality view in the Uraga Sutta: "He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none " such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin" On the other hand the Buddha taught against an extreme unreality view in the Maha-Catarrisaka Sutta: "And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view." ----------------------- KH: All of those things exist, but only as conditioned dhammas. At the time of the first sutta conditioned existence was "previously unheard of" (Dhammacakkavattana-sutta). It can be taught only by a Buddha. --------------------------------- > H: And in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, the Buddha taught his middle-way existence view, avoiding both extremes: "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." --------------------------------- KH: In other words, the world (before the Buddha) knew of only two possibilities, eternal existence and annihilation. After the Buddha it knew of a middle way of existence conditioned dhammas. Ken H #118380 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 7:02 pm Subject: Re: Lost thread kenhowardau Hi Pt, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi KenH, > > > KH: I am trying to find a message you posted a few days ago. It was about someone in an intensive care unit and how even that was just one citta after another. Do you remember the subject heading? > > > pt: I remember this one, not sure if that's the one though: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118284 > > There's this bit in there: > > > S: ... She told me my aunt's husband had just died. He > had worked hard, accumulated a lot of wealth, they'd lived in a beautiful house > with a huge garden. In the end it's all left behind - just alone with visible > objects, sounds and thinking on one's death bed, just like now. -------------- KH: Thanks Pt (and Sarah), that's the one! When I first read it I imagined someone in an intensive care unit being just as happy and content with his present-moment understanding as he had formerly been with other [then] present-moment understandings. And so that's how I remembered it. :-) Ken H Don't laugh, Pt, you'll be old too one day! #118381 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 7:23 pm Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death. Life is a fatal disease that always ends in death. sarahprocter... Hi Phil, (Alex & all), you wrote to Alex: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > You are confident that all the lobha driving the mind is somehow turned into kusala by dint of force, great. But that is not logical for me. > > On the other hand, I question A. Sujin and Sarah's (in the talk I heard) that there must always and inevitably be lobha driving meditation. I think it is conceivable that kusala could be the motivator for samatha practice taught in Vism, conceivable. Not for me, and that is enough to know. .... S: I'm not sure exactly what you heard, but it wouldn't have been quite this. What we would have said would have been that whenever there is a trying for or wishing to have particular states arise and whenever one follows any kind of activity ofr this purpose, it is lobha at work. For example, if we try to have and wish to have metta arising now, it is lobha - wishing to be the person with metta. This is different from naturally having metta when we think of others in a friendly way or when there is understanding of the characteristic of metta, leading to its development. With regard to "samatha practice", samatha bhavana can only ever be developed through understanding and clearly knowing the distinction between moments of kusala and akusala right now. It can never be developed through desire or wishing to follow/have a samatha practice! ... > But good to reflect on conventional death, and good to understand intellectually that with the falling away of every citta and the arising of the next there is moment akin to cuti and patisandhi. Akin to, not identical to, I don't understand yet how it can be denied that cuti citta is more meangful than the falling away of a moment of seeing etc. .... S: Reflecting on death wisely by conditions as opposed to setting out to reflect on death, wishing to develop samatha bhavana. As to the detail here, each citta is equally momentary, impermanent, dukkha and anatta. "Cuti" is just another name - actually, just another citta arising and falling away. Death each moment now with the falling away of each citta. Like waking up from sleep and seeing visible object, just ordinary. And then lots of lobha as usual. ... > > I'm out on this topic as well, for now. It's an important one, but I'm spending too much time posting these days, as are you,Alex. .... S: I'd sooner encourage Alex to read, write, consider and discuss Dhamma as he does here than to focus on his breath with all kinds of wrong concentration and illusion, leading to mental and physical disturbances. Given the extreme difficulties in leading the true bhikkhu's life today and hearing good Dhamma, I also wouldn't encourage this course except in special circumstances. Just imho's. Actually, I appreciate our discussions here with Alex, Rob E and all those with different understandings too. Where would DSG be without them? Metta Sarah ===== #118382 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 7:30 pm Subject: Re: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, you wrote to Phil: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >P:But why are you insisting ob "simuktaneous awareness" of rupa, > >============ > > >A: If there was simultaneous awareness of five sense consciousness + mind, then all 8 inseparable qualities could be experience to greater or lesser degree at the same time and in one rupa. > > Otherwise we have a case that some rupas are experienced only as color, some as odor, some as hardness, etc. ... S: There's something that you've misunderstood here, Alex, as others have tried to explain. To repeat them: 1. There is only ever the experience of one object, one rupa through one door-way at a time. 2. There is never "simultaneous awareness" of more than one reality. 3. Five sense consciousness are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. These are cittas which can only ever be experienced through the mind-door. 4. The 8 inseperable rupas are never "in one rupa". They arise together in one kalapa, one group of rupas. 5. Only one of these rupas, or another one, such as sound which has arisen with them, can appear at a time, i.e can be experienced at a time. 6. Each of these rupas has a particular characteristic, so visible object is always experienced as visible object, hardness always as hardness and so on. Pls let us know if this still isn't clear. If it is, we can discuss it further. Metta Sarah ====== #118383 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 7:38 pm Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death. Life is a fatal disease that always ends in death. philofillet Hi Sarah I don't understand yet how it can be denied that cuti citta is more meangful than the falling away of a moment of seeing etc. > .... > S: As to the detail here, each citta is equally momentary, impermanent, dukkha and anatta. "Cuti" is just another name - actually, just another citta arising and falling away. Death each moment now with the falling away of each citta. Like waking up from sleep and seeing visible object... Ph: This might just be one of those points, such as "there is no Nina" that understanding hasn't grown into yet. For me it seems cuti citta and patisandhi citta are of more significant import than this monent of seeing now, etc. There are lots of teachings about favourable and unfavourable destinations. Maybe the point to understand is that it is kamma that conditions rebirth, not cuti and patisandhi, they are just operative(?) dhammas performing their function.... Metta, Phil #118384 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 7:57 pm Subject: Re: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? sarahprocter... Hi Connie & Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >C: on second thought, Alex, > >also the nutritive essence is known thru the mind door and i'm not >sure I don't confuse the sukhuma/subtle and asabhava rupas... still, >hardness is hardness and always, when it's experienced, will be thru >the same door way and be the same kind of experience, etc. > >============ ... S: not just nutritive essence, also aapo, water. The seven rupas experienced through the 5 sense doors also include sadda, sound, which is not a avinibbhogaruupa, inseperable rupa in the 8. So out of the avinibbhogaruupa, we're left with 6 which are experienced through the 5 sense doors, i.e pathavii, tejo, vaayo, vanna, gandha, rasa, plus sadda (solidity, temperature, motion, colour, smell, taste, sound). The sukhuma/subtle rupas include all rupas *except* the five sense bases (eye-sense etc) and the seven rupas just mentioned that are experienced through the sense doors. These 5 + 7 rupas are said to be gross because they are 'proximate' and 'impinging', not as subtle and distant as the other rupas, i.e more apparent if there's any awareness! (In other words, forget about awareness of water element or nutritive essence if there's no awareness of visible object or sound!!). As for the asabhava rupas or the "non-concrete" (anipphanna) rupas, these are attributes of or dependent on the nipphanna, "concrete" rupas and don't have sabhava nature which can be known. All the 28 rupas are nipphanna or sabhava rupas *except*: - aakaasadhaatu (space element), - the two vi~n~natti rupas - speech and bodily intimation, - the 3 vikaara rupas - mutable rupas, i.e lahutaa (lightness), mudutaa (malleability) and kamma~n~nataa (wieldiness) - the 4 lakkha.na (characteristics) or rupas, i.e the upacaya (production), santati (continuity), jarataa (decay) and aniccataa (impermanence). Again, if there's no awareness of the sabhava rupas, there certainly won't be any awareness of the asabhava rupas such as speech intimation! ... > >A: 8 inseperables are sabhava, This includes nutritive essence which is subtle rupa. ... S: Yes, that's right. ... > Not only one eats nutrition through the mouth, but through other eyes as well. .... S: ?????? ... >A: I wonder how much calories does on eats seeing this screen ... .... S: !!!! Metta Sarah ===== #118385 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 8:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A few issues sarahprocter... Hi Chris, Just to thank you for adding the helpful extract from A.Brahmavamso: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" wrote: > Vinaya Monks and Money by Ajahn Brahmavamso > On Monks and Money > Buddhist monks (bhikkhus) and nuns (bhikkhunis) are not allowed to accept money for themselves. Nor are they allowed to tell a trustworthy layperson to receive it on their behalf and keep it for them (e.g. keeping a personal bank account). Such practices are explicitly prohibited in the 18th rule of the section of Vinaya called Nissaggiya Pacittiya. <...> > References > [1] Book of the Discipline, volume 5, page 424. > [2] Book of the Discipline, volume 2, page 102. > [3] Anguttara Nikaya, volume 2, page 53. (my translation) > [4] Samyutta Nikaya, volume 4, page 326. (my translation) > http://www.viet.net/anson/ebud/ebsut018.htm .... I appreciate your sharing. Metta Sarah ====== #118386 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 8:07 pm Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death. Life is a fatal disease that always ends in death. sarahprocter... Hi Phil, > I don't understand yet how it can be denied that cuti citta is more meangful than the falling away of a moment of seeing etc. > > .... > > S: As to the detail here, each citta is equally momentary, impermanent, dukkha and anatta. "Cuti" is just another name - actually, just another citta arising and falling away. Death each moment now with the falling away of each citta. Like waking up from sleep and seeing visible object... > > Ph: This might just be one of those points, such as "there is no Nina" that understanding hasn't grown into yet. For me it seems cuti citta and patisandhi citta are of more significant import than this monent of seeing now, etc. There are lots of teachings about favourable and unfavourable destinations. Maybe the point to understand is that it is kamma that conditions rebirth, not cuti and patisandhi, they are just operative(?) dhammas performing their function.... .... S: As you say, the rebirth of the next life is conditioned by kamma. The cuti (death) citta and patisandhi (birth) citta are just vipaka cittas, results, just as seeing and hearing are vipaka cittas. The cuti citta seems so important to us because we cling so much to an idea of this life and usually there's no understanding of the momentary death even now as we speak. There's a new world, a new beginning at each moment, even now. Understanding more about dhammas now, there will be less and less concern about or fear about the conventional death. Metta Sarah ===== #118387 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 8:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concepts never cease to be percieved? Even after Parinibbana? sarahprocter... Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: S: From the commentary (Masefield transl): > > Udana comy 395 : > > " 'Monks, if there were not' that unconditioned element having as its own > nature (S: sabhava) that which is unborn and so on, `there could not be > made known', > there could not be discovered, there could not be witnessed, `here', in > this world, `the escape', allayment without remainder, `for that which is > conditioned' reckoned as the khandha-pentad of form and so on that has as > its own nature (sabhava) being born and so forth. > ------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > The commentary introduces 'sabhava', but not the Buddha's teaching. .... S: this is just an elaboration of the sutta. The sutta talks about how there is the "not-conditioned" and so on. Sabhava is the characteristic of the unconditioned dhatu or dhamma. As the text says, if there were not the unconditoned element (asankhara dhatu), it could not be realised, there could be no escape for the conditioned khandha elements. ... > One may notice the absence of a quality by noting that the quality is not > there. But the absence is not itself a quality or thing. How often has the > Buddha said that something-or-other "is not found". That something-or-other > "not being found" is not a property af anything; all that is being stated is > that there IS NO such something-or-other! .... S: With respect, the descriptions of nibbana here in the Udana and elsewhere point to the nature of the element which is distinct from all other (conditioned) elements. So we read in another description about how it doesn't have any of the characteristics of even the arupa jhana or any other dhammas. It is the unconditioned dhamma. .... >Speaking of an absence of a > quality does not mean that the absence is itself an existent thing or quality; > it merely asserts that there is no such quality present. For me, making > absences of qualities into qualities is a pointless reification that I do NOT > see the Buddha engaging in. .... S: I agree that referring to an absence of qualities, just means an absence of qualities. However, nibbana is an element, a dhatu, a dhamma, an ayatana, a paramattha dhamma, an asankhara reality. ... >That is my perspective. I suspect there is no > point in debating it, for it would just be a yes-no-yes-no- ... sort of > conversation. > One addendum: There are some cases when a quality is missing exactly > when (or only when) another (different) quality is present, in which case > the absence of the first and the presence of the second are conventionally > identified. This is useful speech, but confused ontology. > ---------------------------------------------------- .... S: In the case of paramattha dhammas, if the dhamma is not a conditioned (sankhara) dhamma, it is the unconditioned dhamma and vice versa. .... > > For states associated > with the ariyan path, such as right view and so on, as they proceed making > nibbana their object, extirpate the defilements without remainder. In this > way, there is made known in this connection the non-occurrence of, the > disappearance of, the escape from, the entire dukkha belonging to the > cycle..."< .... S: And only is this possible by realising the nature, the sabhava of the unconditioned dhamma, nibbana. As you suggest, we may need to let this one rest a while..... Metta Sarah ==== #118388 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 8:51 pm Subject: Re: Kamma accumulates? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Ph: listened again. ( Feb 4 2006, morning pt.3, starting at 12.30.) > Right you are, she said "there cannot be one moment of ill cetana" though since cetana is a mimentary dhamma, I wonder if you coyld explain a bit more about the difference betwee. "there cannot be ill cetana" and "tgere cannot be ine monent of ill cetana?" .... S: (Assuming that "ill cetana' is referring to akusala cetana), for a start, in any javana process when akusala cittas with akusala cetasikas arise, always a minimum of 7. Furthermore, never just one mind door process or one sense door process without being followed by further mind door processes. For example, when there is what seems like the briefest thought/feeling of unease now, we can be sure that there are many mind door processes occurring, many, many moments of akusala citta, with dosa, akusala cetana and so on. As for "there cannot be ill cetana" - there is akusala cetana with every akusala citta. Was something different meant in context by "ill cetana"? I just wonder as you know all this, I think. .... > > .... > > S: Yes, ill will accumulates and with it akusala cetana (kamma) until it's of the strength of kamma patha, when perhaps one behaves in a hostile manner, hurting another. Kamma (cetana) is momentary, but if it didn't accumulate, no kamma patha. > > Ph: I (start to) see. > > > Does this have something to do with nimitta, I know there is nimitta of all khandas. Is one moment of "ill will" actually nimitta of many many cetanas that have > just fallen away?" > > ... > > S: No, nothing to do with nimitta in this context that I can think of. .... S: Perhaps you meant that the idea we have of ill will, or the general feeling of ill will is nimitta or image of many cetanas? We can say it is the nimitta, the 'sign" of those cetanas. In this case it's the nimitta concept (such as in the suttas when the Buddha urges his listeners not to cling to the signs and details "nimitta anupya~njana"), not the sankhara nimitta. ... > Ph: So nimitta of sankhara khanda is when it is object of sati? ... S: All conditioned dhammas have a sankhara nimitta. Only nibbana doesn't. As an object of sati in satipatthana, it must be sankhara nimitta or reality. As an object of samatha, it is nimitta of concept. So when we refer to sati, we need to be clear on our context. Usually here we're referring to sati in satipatthana unless we're discussing samatha and jhanas! .... >In the case of rupa, I can understand nimitta, but in the case, say, of akusala cetana does nimitta refer to many monents of cetana that have just fallen away of which sati is aware of as nimitta, or of one monent of cetana that has just fallen away, or ????? or "whatever appears, > don't think so much about just what nimitta is!" .... S: :) Assuming we're talking sati of satipatthana, it is the nimitta of the akusala cetana which has just fallen away. Not just one moment of akusala cetana, but many, but one characteristic of that dhamma appears. Yes, 'whatever appears' is the answer and if we try to count, we go very wrong. I understand what you're asking now and it's a subtle point I've also asked. All will become clear to panna! Metta Sarah ===== #118389 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 9:13 pm Subject: Re: A few issues sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > >P: Having said that, I still sometimes think if we are habitually breaking a precept, exercising of self might be necessary to put a stop to it. > > .... > > S: What is this "exercising of self"? There is no self to be exercised. > > Ph: Surprised to see you write that, any number of times in talks there is reference to something someone does as "just self, just trying to be a good person." Of course there is no self, but there is a lot of wrong view about being able to control things, that's what I meant by "self", of course. .... S: So what you are saying above then reads: "Having said that, I still sometimes think if we are habitually breaking a precept, exercising of self, i.e *a lot of wrong view about being able to control things*, might be necessary to put a stop to it" ... S: So you "still sometimes think" that "exercising" *a lot of wrong view about being able to control things* might "be necessary" to stop breaking the precepts???? Wrong view is also a conditioned dhamma. It either arises or it doesn't. It doesn't arise by "exercising" or trying to have it arise in order to behave better! ... >P: I'm sure there are lots of people who have quit drinking by force of self-esteem, concern about their image in the eyes of others, not hiri otappa, an akusala near cousin of it, lots of akusala rooted ways people quit drinking, that doesn't seem surprising. .... S: Anyway, yes, people may quite drinking for all sorts of reasons. Someone might be about to lose their job, their wife, anything. Regardless, all conditioned dhammas and developing wrong view is never going to help! .... >But what's important is (especially for me, considering the kinds of concerns I expressed again and again last year, even at KK this year) that fixing a habit in this lifetime through that kind of self-image, self-concern rooted effort won't do anything whatsoever in the long run. As I wrote in a bit you didn't quote, actually, personally speaking, one of the most important things I've written at DSG as a sign of understanding developing: "As A Sujin says to a woman who is asking about drinking alcohol, even if we > manage by exercise of self to stop drinking in this lifetime, what about the next one? ... S: Yes, what about the next one? I didn't pick it up, but I don't think AS's words would have been "even if we manage by exercise of self". Just, if we manage to stop drinking... ... >Only the sotapanna is free from bad behaviour, and only understanding will lead us in that direction, clinging to ideas of self, ideas of being a better person, they might seem to be helping in the short run, but even as we are getting rid of some bad habits from this lifetime, we are deepening our bonds to all the lifetimes to come, with their bad habits arising in ways we > can't even imagine now. We have to get out. We have to take the first steps towards getting out. Small steps, with moments of detachment being absolutely > necessary." ... S: Yes. Not "we" to do anything or "our" bonds, of course. Ideas of self never help anything, not even in the short-term. ... > OK, A Sujin certainly didn't use the words "exercise of self", I paraphrased, but haven't I often heard her say things like "just self" or "it's me all the time" or "just trying to be a better person" or whatever other words to get at wrong view of self. ... S: Thx for clarifying....I'm just reading as I write, so only just got to this part. Yes, 'wrong view of self' when she says 'just self' or 'it's me all the time'. I think she'd say that to your last set of comments about 'we have to get out' and so on. .... > S: Also, when you referred to A.Sujin as having said that "even if we manage by exercise of self to stop drinking in this lifetime", again I think the "exercise of self" is more likely to be you words added to her comment. > > Ph: Sorry. .... S: Oh, forgot I'd already picked up on this!! My point was that even in this lifetime, it is never through "exercise of self" that we stop drinking. ... > > S: Her point was just that we may lead a very good, pure life this time round, but if wisdom hasn't been sufficiently accumulated to the degree of eradicating wrong views, there's no guarantee about other lifetimes. Never a self involved in any way, regardless. Just conditioned dhammas. > > Ph: I see. So even a purely kusala life with all the abstention happening in a kusala way, still not enough. But I don't understand what you mean by "never a self involved", again and again and again we hear about people trying to do things because of wrong view of self. .... S: Yes, a wrong view of self. That means "never a self involved". No one to exercise or do anything. Just dhammas. ... > Last word to you cuz I'm feeling very happy about being released from my stomping ground of the value of using self-esteem, self-image etc (i.e exercising self) to condition kusala etc, the kinds of things I talked about at KK, I don't believe in them anymore, not interested, I was wrong. But it goes on a lot in this world, and in the short term makes for sunnier households etc. But doesn't help in the long run. .... S: Just forget about all this "using self-esteem" etc. It's an illusion that any wrong view, such as the idea that anything can be "used" leads to "sunnier households". Maybe Jon & I should ban the use of "using" here! J/k all!! No need to reply, Phil. I'm just repeating myself, I think. Metta Sarah ===== #118390 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 9:21 pm Subject: Re: Sakkaya ditthi vs atta ditthi sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > What does believing this i-phone exists have to do with personality belief? > > ... > > S: Believing the i-phone exists, is some thing, is atta ditthi, but not sakkaya-ditthi. It's not taken for oneself or personality! So atta-ditthi is broader. > > Ph: I see. > > S: Also 20 kinds when taking the various khandhas for atta in one of 4 ways. > > Ph: With Sakkaya ditthi as well, these 20. ... S: Yes, same 20. ... >I heard Nina say she found these 20 difficult, "one reality at a time" was A. Sujin's response, I'm pretty sure. ... S: True. Like now, taking the hardness that is touched for being something such as a computer or in something or belonging to something and so on, just "one reality at a time". ... > S > When sakkaya ditthi is eradicated, all other kinds of atta-ditthi, all ditthi are eradicated at the same time. > > Ph: Ok. .... S: When there's direct understanding of hardness, it doesn't matter in the slightest what kind of hardness it is, it's just that dhamma experienced. That's why all doubt and ditthi are eradicated by the sotapanna. Metta Sarah ====== #118391 From: "azita" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2011 9:32 pm Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death. Life is a fatal disease that always ends in death. gazita2002 Hi Sarah and Phil > S: As you say, the rebirth of the next life is conditioned by kamma. The cuti (death) citta and patisandhi (birth) citta are just vipaka cittas, results, just as seeing and hearing are vipaka cittas. > > The cuti citta seems so important to us because we cling so much to an idea of this life and usually there's no understanding of the momentary death even now as we speak. There's a new world, a new beginning at each moment, even now. Understanding more about dhammas now, there will be less and less concern about or fear about the conventional death. > azita: and mayb less and less concern/fear about conventional birth. I write this as I have some worries about a pregnant daughter and her child, woke suddenly this morning with some anxiety. reading this post was a condition for me to contemplate my concerns re the 'conventional story' of my daughter's situation. There is cuti citta followed immediately by patisandhi citta, somewhere, some plane. I thought of this unborn child and I thought about its 'aloneness' in a new realm, in a new body.......again and again we are born and we die...... we are all worthy of compassion, no matter who or what we are. patience, courage and good cheer, azita #118392 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 8, 2011 12:24 am Subject: Sati in Theravada upasaka_howard Hi, all - What is said about sati in Theravada? In part, there are the following: ________________________ And what is right mindfulness? 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 in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness... (From DN 22) ______________________ "And what is the development of the frames of reference? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to feelings, remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to feelings, remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to feelings — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the mind, remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the mind, remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the mind — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. "He remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to mental qualities, remains focused on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, remains focused on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to mental qualities — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. "This is called the development of the frames of reference. (From SN 47.40) __________________________ Sati {Dhs $14} - by this they remember the object, or one remembers the object, or the mere remembering of the object - this is mindfulness. From overcoming confused memory, it is a faculty in the sense of predominance. It exercises government (over associated states) by the characteristic of ','^4 hence it is a controlling faculty, and hence the compound 'mindfulness-faculty.' Its characteristic is 'not floating away,'^1 and acquirement. As the young treasurer of the king, in charge of the tenfold treasure, both early and late causes the king to take note of and remember the royal possession, so mindfulness takes note of, remembers a moral act. Hence the Elder said: 'As, your majesty, the king's confidential adviser early and late makes the universal monarch remember: so many, lord, are your elephants, so many horses, so many chariots, so much infantry, so much bullion, so much gold, so much property; let you majesty remember it - even so, your majesty, mindfulness does not allow the floating away of moral states, such as the four applications of mindfulness, the four supreme efforts, the four bases of supernatural potency, the five controlling faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of wisdom, the Ariyan eightfold path, calm, insight, knowledge, emancipation, the transcendent states: - thus, your majesty, mindfulness has non-floating away as its characteristic.'^2 And as that jewel, the confidential adviser of the universal monarch, knowing what is disadvantageous and what is advantageous, removes the disadvantageous and promotes the advantageous, so mindfulness, searching well the courses of advantageous and disadvantageous states: - 'these are disadvantageous states, misconduct in body,' etc., removes the disadvantageous states, and [122] acquires the advantageous ones: - 'these are advantageous states, good conduct as regards body,' etc. Hence the Elder said: 'As, your majesty, that king's jewel, the confidential adviser, knows what is advantageous and what is disadvantageous to the king: - "these are advantageous to the king, those disadvantageous; these are serviceable, those not serviceable" - and then removes the disadvantageous and acquires the advantageous, even so, your majesty, mindfulness as it arises searches well the courses of states, advantageous and disadvantageous: - "these states are advantageous, those disadvantageous; these states are serviceable, those not serviceable" - and then removes the disadvantageous and acquires the advantageous. Thus, your majesty, mindfulness has acquirement as its characteristic.' {Mil i 59} {p159 n4: Namely, in any object of the past. -Pyii. p160 n1: Not allowing any floating away, as of a pumpkin in a stream. It does not suffer the object to slip, but keeps it steady as a rock. -.Tiikaa. p160 n2: Mil i 59. 'Transcendent' (lit. supramundance) states is not in the cited work. It sums up the foregoing 41. -Ed.} (From the Atthasalini - Commentary to the Dhammasangani) _________________________________ 141. (x) By its means they remember (saranti), or it itself remembers, or it is just mere remembering (sarana), thus it is mindfulness (sati). It has the characteristic of not wobbling.64 Its function is not to forget. It is manifested as guarding, or it is manifested as the state of confronting an objective field. Its proximate cause is strong perception, or its proximate cause is the foundations of mindfulness concerned with the body, and so on (see M. Sutta 10). It should be regarded, however, as like a pillar because it is firmly founded, or as like a door-keeper because it guards the eye-door, and so on. (From the Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa) _______________________________________ 30. Sati—Derived from √ sar, to remember. Sati does not exactly correspond to the Western conception of memory. Mindfulness is a better equivalent for Sati. It has to be developed. In the Satipaññh na Sutta are described in detail various methods to develop this Sati. When it is highly developed one acquires the power of remembering past births. It is this Sati that is regarded as one of the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path. Sati tends to present before oneself good things without allowing them to be forgotten. Its chief characteristic is ‘not floating away’ (apil pana). Unlike pumpkins and pots that float on water, Sati plunges into the object of thought. It should be noted that this particular Sati is not found in immoral types of consciousness. What is found in immoral consciousness is Micch Sati (wrong mindfulness.) Dhammasaïganã explains Sati as follows:— “The mindfulness which on that occasion is recollecting, calling back to mind; the mindfulness which is remembering, bearing in mind the opposite of superficiality and of obliviousness; mindfulness as faculty: mindfulness as power, right mindfulness”. (Buddhist Psychology, p. 16). Commenting on Sati, Mrs. Rhys Davids says:— “Buddhaghosa’s comment on Sati, in which he closely follows and enlarges on the account in Mil. 37, 38, shows that the traditional conception of that aspect of consciousness had much in common with the Western modern theory of conscience or moral sense. Sati appears under the metaphor of an inward mentor, discriminating between good and bad and prompting choice. Hardy went so far as to render it by ‘conscience’, but this slurs over the interesting divergencies between Eastern and Western thought. The former is quite unmystical of the subject of Sati. It takes the psychological process or representative functioning (without bringing out the distinction between bare memory and judgment), and presents the same under an ethical aspect.” (Buddhist Psychology, p. 16.) (From the Abhidhamma Sangaha) #118393 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 8, 2011 12:59 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > > > pt: And if he's wrong in his assessment of my understanding, well, so what, who cares. But if he's right, and he often is, then the whole argument, though ugly, is useful. > > > > RE: Ends justify the means, eh? A dangerous path. What if there is damage done along the way - is it automatically worth it? > > pt: Yes, that's the dilemma, though imo, this being an online world, with no physical and verbal contact, the potential damage is minimal, especially if approached on best merits. Well I wasn't suggesting that anyone might break out into a fistfight, but it does change the environment quite a bit, and raises the tension level. The question is whether this kind of challenge is worthwhile, and we might also ask if it leads to more kusala or akusala. I think it causes a lot of resentment on both sides when the personal stakes are made that high. > > RE: Well, thanks for the sidebar. I always appreciate your [generally] measured view, even when it's in the service of a loose rhinocerous. Let's hope no one gets too badly gored. Dodging rhinos - good Dhamma practice! :-) > > pt: Yes, that's what I sort of mean - this being an online world, we have the space and time to let the the personal remarks slide and just focus on the dhamma issues. And I find Scott is generally a great source when it comes to dhamma. I have to say, why make the personal remarks in the first place? Why traffick in derisive statements, which invites similar statements back? Aside from it definitely not being right speech, it raises more dust than light. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #118394 From: "connie" Date: Sat Oct 8, 2011 2:48 am Subject: is cakkhuppasada aware of hardness? nichiconn Thanks for the rupa review, Sarah. No matter how many times i forget the words i've read, it's always good to remember there's even less real understanding. x, connie S (#118384): Again, if there's no awareness of the sabhava rupas, there certainly won't be any awareness of the asabhava rupas such as speech intimation! #118395 From: "connie" Date: Sat Oct 8, 2011 2:49 am Subject: A few issues nichiconn Hi Phil, someone once said something to the effect that any time we think something is going to make a change for/in us, that's addiction right there. i like that. me, me, me & the old refrain: ain't hurting nobody (else). thing is, there's no consideration of anyone else. it doesn't take real deep understanding to not drink, for example, just a bit of metta(cine). cheers, connie #118396 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Oct 8, 2011 4:22 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view moellerdieter Hi Howard (Phil, Sarah,Scott, Vince), you wrote: I'm writing in reply only to what you wrote above, Dieter. There is some basis for it in the following teaching of the Buddha's, which asserts that one might (justifiably) *say* there is a being so long as there is any desire, passion, delight, or craving for any of the five aggregates - any attachment therein D: yes , there is basis for it. Finally the Buddha taught 'for the suffering being ' . H: 'However, it is probably better not to raise the term 'puggala' due to its sense in the school associated with it of a true but subtle "person" that is neither identical with nor different from the aggregates. D: In T.B.'s notes ' subtle' does not appear (and I assume you added it because you think that this school tries to introduce a core , a substance of a person/self): " One camp refused to rank the concept of person as a truth on the ultimate level. This group inspired what eventually became the classic Theravada position on this issue: that the "person" was simply a conventional designation for the five aggregates. However, the other camp - who developed into the Pudgalavadin (Personalist) school - said that the person was neither a ultimate truth nor a mere conventional designation, neither identical with nor totally separate from the five aggregates.This special meaning of person, they said, was required to account for three things: the cohesion of a person's identity in this lifetime (one person's memories, for instance, cannot become another person's memories..snip ' D: the 5 khandas are a compound, which in its function is called a being, person , individual. So we may say, a person or chariot , using the wellknown simile , represents the common whole of the 5 elements. This common whole does not appear in its parts , it cannot be found . But of course its function exists . Hence one can state: the whole /the compound is neither identical with nor different from the parts /aggregates , can't one? H: If, of course, one identifies 'puggala' with the craving for any of the aggregates, then it could be spoken of as a "reality," but since 'puggala' is rarely give that sense, I think it better to not call it a "reality" or, for that matter, to even use the term at all. ' D: the discussion of person, self has been and still is a walk on eggshells ( leaving aside eternity and annihilation belief, the latter seemingly far common than the former). The term Puggala is probably mainly used to describe types of person (e.g. Puggala Pannatti) , what other Pali word do you prefer? Frankly speaking I have doubts that 'person ' may be called 'simply a conventional designation ' , a concept (see above). The person's identity (attachment) in lifetime(s) is conditioned by previous and future kamma and this is individual reality. That in a highest / supramundane sense merely a stream of arising and ceasing mental and bodily phenomena exists , does not change this reality , does it? (Leaving aside here the Arahant) with Metta Dieter #118397 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 8, 2011 5:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 10/7/2011 1:22:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard (Phil, Sarah,Scott, Vince), you wrote: I'm writing in reply only to what you wrote above, Dieter. There is some basis for it in the following teaching of the Buddha's, which asserts that one might (justifiably) *say* there is a being so long as there is any desire, passion, delight, or craving for any of the five aggregates - any attachment therein D: yes , there is basis for it. Finally the Buddha taught 'for the suffering being ' . H: 'However, it is probably better not to raise the term 'puggala' due to its sense in the school associated with it of a true but subtle "person" that is neither identical with nor different from the aggregates. D: In T.B.'s notes ' subtle' does not appear (and I assume you added it because you think that this school tries to introduce a core , a substance of a person/self): " One camp refused to rank the concept of person as a truth on the ultimate level. This group inspired what eventually became the classic Theravada position on this issue: that the "person" was simply a conventional designation for the five aggregates. However, the other camp - who developed into the Pudgalavadin (Personalist) school - said that the person was neither a ultimate truth nor a mere conventional designation, neither identical with nor totally separate from the five aggregates.This special meaning of person, they said, was required to account for three things: the cohesion of a person's identity in this lifetime (one person's memories, for instance, cannot become another person's memories..snip ' D: the 5 khandas are a compound, which in its function is called a being, person , individual. So we may say, a person or chariot , using the wellknown simile , represents the common whole of the 5 elements. This common whole does not appear in its parts , it cannot be found . But of course its function exists . Hence one can state: the whole /the compound is neither identical with nor different from the parts /aggregates , can't one? ------------------------------------------- HCW: It is not the collection (that you call "the common whole") that acts. What is the case is that its elements are interrelated, and the namas among them function in concert. ------------------------------------------- H: If, of course, one identifies 'puggala' with the craving for any of the aggregates, then it could be spoken of as a "reality," but since 'puggala' is rarely give that sense, I think it better to not call it a "reality" or, for that matter, to even use the term at all. ' D: the discussion of person, self has been and still is a walk on eggshells ( leaving aside eternity and annihilation belief, the latter seemingly far common than the former). The term Puggala is probably mainly used to describe types of person (e.g. Puggala Pannatti) , what other Pali word do you prefer? --------------------------------------------- HCW: Even 'person' is better, I think, merely because of the common association of 'puggala' with the Puggalavada school. ---------------------------------------------- Frankly speaking I have doubts that 'person ' may be called 'simply a conventional designation ' , a concept (see above). --------------------------------------------- HCW: It is a fuzzy collection of namas and rupas that act in concert. The speaking of it as an individual thing, however, is at best a useful manner of speech, and at worse an expression of cognitive error. --------------------------------------------- The person's identity (attachment) in lifetime(s) is conditioned by previous and future kamma and this is individual reality. --------------------------------------- HCW: No person has an identity (other than in terms of an imposed name and as a matter of convention), for the components of a person undergo constant change (and replacement), always becoming (or giving way to an)other, and identity, meaning "same and same," requires that there be no alteration. ------------------------------------ That in a highest / supramundane sense merely a stream of arising and ceasing mental and bodily phenomena exists , does not change this reality , does it? -------------------------------------- HCW: I don't follow you here. That IS the reality of the situation. ------------------------------------ (Leaving aside here the Arahant) with Metta Dieter ============================= With metta, Howard /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #118398 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 8, 2011 6:01 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...paying attention to an experience. Or experiencing an experience without being distracted by something else..." Scott: You mean like when I listen to a new cd? R: "I see mindfulness/sati on a continuum, just like any other mental state that is subject to development...the basic reality of sati is seeing what is before the senses or the mind at the moment that it occurs..." Scott: This is where you go wrong. Thinking about sati as on a 'continuum' is the basis of your subsequent thinking that sati is just 'paying attention.' Sati is not 'paying attention.' 'Paying attention' is just you thinking you are 'being mindful.' You think this way because of the concept 'on a continuum.' With that in mind you then think that one simply has to access the continuum - the ongoing stream of sati - and 'pay attention' with it. Is it sati when I 'pay attention' to my new cd? Remember, sati is one of the sobhana mental factors which only arises along with kusala citta. Dhammasa.nganii defines sati as: "The mindfulness which on that occasion is recollecting, calling back to mind; the mindfulness which is remembering, bearing in mind the opposite of superficiality and of obliviousness; mindfulness as faculty: mindfulness as power, right mindfulness." Scott: 'On that occasion' refers to the moment of the arising of the accompanying citta, and to it's falling away. Not a continuum in any way. Note that the function of sati is described as 'remembering.' Nothing about 'paying attention.' You 'paying attention' is not sati. R: "...it is 'paying attention to what is perceived.' Awareness of visual object and how it is apprehended. Awareness of mental object and how it is experienced..." Scott: Compare this with the definition above. R: "...I was talking about insight in general above, that's why I said 'whatever insight is gained...' without defining it. It was a general statement in order to make the point that it is not based on conceptualization, but on continued attention..." Scott: 'Continued attention' is a concept. By 'insight' you clearly mean something other than pa~n~na since you have stated that 'continued attention' leads to 'insight.' This is not how sati and pa~n~na function together. This is your very own idea. R: "...How is it objective? it is objective to the extent that it is correct, which is to say staying with what arises..." Scott: Like when I listen to my new cd all the way through? Scott. #118399 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 8, 2011 2:01 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "For reasons only I know? Are you joking? Do you think this was my idea? You said in two or three posts in a row that you would like me to describe my practice and then Phil said 'Yeah, like Scott said, you really should describe your practice.' With great reluctance, I offered this description because you asked me to..." Scott: I agree with your synopsis of the history of events. As I said, I don't know why you let Phil and I talk you into offering your practice, apparently against your will. If you didn't want to, you shouldn't have. Since you did, it's fair game and a source of great, to-the-point, essential Dhamma discussion: the sort of discussion this list is known for. I'll consider your other points over the next while and be sure to continue the discussion. Scott.