#119600 From: "philip" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:54 pm Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo philofillet Hi Lukas > > L:brave to face nature of anatta? So you mean that we accept that whatever happens to us in life is conditioned, we cannot change it? > > Does the braveness is to lead our normal life and accept that? I don't think the courage, the braveness, means that we have to accept whatever our life is, there are limits to that. If we are doing things that are bad, akusala kamma patha, again and again and again, we are hurting ourselves and others. In the past, I would have said "we should stop, no matter what, even if self is involved," but I think now that...well, I don't know what to say, actually. We have to stop. We can think about the disadvantages of akusala deeds and the advantage of akusala, but will that stop us? Probably not. Not soon, if we are doing bad things. Moha blinds us, strong desire drives us. How do we stop? I don't know. But we do stop, more and more often. I cannot say how listening to Dhamma leads to stopping bad deeds, but I am confident it does. @ The fact of anatta doesn't mean hopelessness, the fact of anatta means that all dhammas are fluid, they fall away and are gone, and that means listening to Dhamma can be a conditioning force for goodness. If we had a self or soul that was dark and "bad" or evil, we would be lost, but there are only dhammas, and thaks to Dhamma, good, helpful dhammas will be conditioned to arise more and more. I'm pretty sure about that. Don't you feel confident about that? Sorry, I'm a bit tired, I can't write very clearly tonight. But I do have confidence that if we keep listening to Dhamma, conditions for abstaining from bad and harmful deeds are developing more and more. I hope that is helpful a little bit at least... Metta, Phil #119601 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 1:22 am Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo epsteinrob Hi Phil, Lukas, all... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: ...We can think about the disadvantages of akusala deeds and the advantage of akusala, but will that stop us? Probably not. Not soon, if we are doing bad things. Moha blinds us, strong desire drives us. How do we stop? I don't know. But we do stop, more and more often. I cannot say how listening to Dhamma leads to stopping bad deeds, but I am confident it does. > > @ The fact of anatta doesn't mean hopelessness, the fact of anatta means that all dhammas are fluid, they fall away and are gone, and that means listening to Dhamma can be a conditioning force for goodness. If we had a self or soul that was dark and "bad" or evil, we would be lost, but there are only dhammas, and thaks to Dhamma, good, helpful dhammas will be conditioned to arise more and more. I'm pretty sure about that. Don't you feel confident about that? > > Sorry, I'm a bit tired, I can't write very clearly tonight. One of the clearest things you ever said, Phil. Very good stuff. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #119602 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 1:44 am Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo philofillet Hi Rob > One of the clearest things you ever said, Phil. Very good stuff. Thank you. Metta, Phil #119603 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 1:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 31-okt-2011, om 12:04 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > The clenching of the teeth shows the Bodhisatta's supreme effort, > > but this was accompanied by paññaa of a high degree. The bhikkhu > > referred to in the > who > > has to abandon his unwholesome thoughts is on the way to arahatship. > > Why do you say "on his way to arahatship?" Because the sutta says > "noble disciple" or because of something to this point in the > commentary? ------ N: I continue with what I wrote: < As we read in this sutta, quoted above, he should restrain, subdue and beat down the (evil) mind by the (good) mind. If someone just clenches his teeth with dispair or fear because he does not want to have unwholesome thoughts, it is not the right effort that must be accompanied by paññaa. > The goal of monkhood is arahatship, his life style is supposed to point to that. He has to lead the brahma life, brahma cariya. ------- Nina. #119604 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 2:16 am Subject: The dark citta (transcript, india 2005, sarnath, pt.2) (to be continued) philofillet Hi all, some more from that talk: Q: So if there's only light when there's a moment of seeing, and if there's only one moment of consciousness at any given time, then it means that because the seeing moments must be just a small proportion of our time, there's more darkness than light.. A.S (cuts in) Yeah, I think we cannot imagine anything when it does not happen yet. So while we're talking now we shouldn't imagine how many millions moments of seeing so that it continues as non-stop seeing, that is only thinking. But the right understanding is seeing the distinction between that which experiences it and the object which one used to take something out of as my friend, my home, my things. Actually, it's only a moment of appearing as visual object. Whenever citta sees, it sees only that, and then thinking follows, and that's what it comes the word rupa nimitta, because only one kalappa, or many kalappa, it's not enough to condition the memory of eyes or ears or people and things. (snip a bit) So thinking about reality which is so dark, before experiencing any object at all, like bhavanga, no object appears, so no one can experience how dark it is, but when there is a moment of experiencing an object, it's time to really time to understand that the object appears because of the citta. Q: Also because of the sense base, the eye base... A.S: No thinking at all, no thinking, the way to understand reality is a moment of expderiencing with understanding about reality which one has learned before, about visible object, about seeing... Q: So this present moment of experiencing the world through the eye door is just one moment of seeing consciousness.... A.S (cuts in) We don't have to tell or say one moment, but learn to understand that what we take for people and things in reality is only the reality which can contact the eye base and appear. If there is no eye base, the reality now cannot appear, just that, only that, but ignorance does not understand that at all. #119605 From: Lukas Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 2:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo szmicio Hi Phil, Rob E. I think the way out of samsara is not exactly that we think it is. Only understanding can free us.  Best wishes Lukas ________________________________ From: Robert E To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 3:22 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo  Hi Phil, Lukas, all... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: ...We can think about the disadvantages of akusala deeds and the advantage of akusala, but will that stop us? Probably not. Not soon, if we are doing bad things. Moha blinds us, strong desire drives us. How do we stop? I don't know. But we do stop, more and more often. I cannot say how listening to Dhamma leads to stopping bad deeds, but I am confident it does. > > 　 The fact of anatta doesn't mean hopelessness, the fact of anatta means that all dhammas are fluid, they fall away and are gone, and that means listening to Dhamma can be a conditioning force for goodness. If we had a self or soul that was dark and "bad" or evil, we would be lost, but there are only dhammas, and thaks to Dhamma, good, helpful dhammas will be conditioned to arise more and more. I'm pretty sure about that. Don't you feel confident about that? > > Sorry, I'm a bit tired, I can't write very clearly tonight. One of the clearest things you ever said, Phil. Very good stuff. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #119606 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 2:21 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Nina > The goal of monkhood is arahatship, his life style is supposed to > point to that. He has to lead the brahma life, brahma cariya. Brahma cariya. What is difference between leading the brahma life, brahma cariya, and living according to the vinaya, all those hundreds of rules, I forget the Pali. It is about right understanding? Anyone can follow rules and keep precepts, it is good, but not enough. Metta, Phil #119607 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 2:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo philofillet Hi Lukas > I think the way out of samsara is not exactly that we think it is. Only understanding can free us. Excellent!!! I can almost hear A. Sujin say that. I like what Scott wrote earlier, pariyatti as "impersonal learning." Maybe we can quote John Lennon. "Pariyatti is what happens when we're making other plans." But no, not true, not if the plans are related to "wisdom" and "enlightenment" and all that jazz, because all our making other plans interferes with pariyatti, not to mention patipati. We are socially condtioned to make plans and have great projects, and that screws up our ability to understand Dhamma. Dhamma is not a project, or an endeavour, or a practice. It is deep, and we need patience, and courage, not to get our eager hands all over it, so that understanding can grow gradually through listening, reading, discussing and studying dhammas now. But as I said earlier, that doesn't mean that we have to keep doing bad things. Or that we will keep doing bad things. Understanding will keep us out of trouble, and when it doesn't keep us out of trouble, it will get us out of trouble sooner, because we won't get lost in regret and remorse and self-torture about bad things we do, we'll understand the conditions that led to it, and panna will walk us out of that bad place sooner or later, probably sooner. Metta, Phil #119608 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 3:33 am Subject: Buddha recommended striving truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >A: Whenever the suttas talk about effort, "crushing mind with mind", >"effort as ardently as one would put out head on fire", "two strong >people subduing a man" , "trying to the point the body is emaciated" >etc I don't see how the Buddha could be even more clear and vivid in >getting the point of putting in strong energy. > ----- >N:...The clenching of the teeth shows the Bodhisatta's supreme >effort, but this was accompanied by paññaa of a high degree. >============================================ The Buddha recommended "crushing mind with mind" and "striving so hard that one is emaciated" to *others*. Of course it is to be done with panna. No doubt about that. The point is that it IS an intentional right effort, that is ought to be done when circumstances require it. With best wishes, Alex #119609 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 4:31 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, S: "Yes....I think the danger is when we get hung up on the words or the text and take the reciting or clarifying of these to be pariyatti rather than the understanding now, at a considering level, of the actual dhammas appearing..." Scott: Could you differentiate between 'clarifying' words and 'considering level' understanding? Despite appearing to agree about pariyatti, you continue to make this distinction. Do you see me as missing something here? S: "It is not the words, but the understanding of those particular words that is the condition for enlightenment, for direct realisation of the very dhammas being discussed. Many, many other beings would hear just the same words, but without the accumulations for such insight to arise." Scott: Okay. For discussion's sake, what might it be about these particular words that is understood, what is this understanding, and in what way is this condition for 'direct realisation?' Sarah: "...Hearing and considering wisely about present dhammas anytime. I don't know where you get the expressions 'mundane discussion' and 'mundane study of texts'. There can be discussion and study of texts with or without kusala cittas, with or without panna. There can be considering wisely now, whilst cooking, whilst travelling to work, anytime. Hearing may be just remembering a few words that the Buddha has taught. 'dhamma' - one word, 'heard' and reflected on wisely or unwisely. Suta-maya pa~n~naa - understanding based on hearing, cinta-maya pa~n~naa, understanding based on thinking wisely." Scott: I am simply using 'mundane discussion' or 'mundane study of texts' to refer to the distinction I thought we had already made between ordinary study and the actual 'study' of dhammas. We had been differentiating these, and, I thought, agreeing about the distinction. Again, am I saying anything that leads you to think I've not gotten something about this? 'Considering wisely:' Does this involve thought? Is this a function of pa~n~naa? If 'hearing' is 'remembering' is this thought as well? Sarah: "There is yoniso manasikaara whenever kusala cittas arise. Usually it refers in context to the arising of p~an~naa. If there is thinking wisely, there must be yoniso manasikaara with pa~n~naa arising." Scott: Do you consider 'thinking wisely' to include thoughts with content? If so, what are the constituents of this thought content? Remembered words from the texts? Other contents? Sarah: "Yes, but I'm saying we can never 'think' our way through to determining which aspects of reading or listening is pariyatti, because it is only pa~n~naa that knows when pa~n~naa (of any kind) appears and it is only pa~n~naa which is the determining factor for this, not the activity at any time." Scott: Again, agreed, and in particular with: "we can never 'think' our way through to determining which aspects of reading or listening is pariyatti" since this is the correct way to see it. Do you think I'm seeing it otherwise? Sarah: "I'm saying, never mind about the 'others', the 'opposing views' and so on. What's important for all of us, whether in agreement or not, is the understanding now of what appears. I don't think we can emphasise the present dhammas too much." Scott: Okay, this is more clear. You are expressing two separate thoughts sort of in one. On the one hand you are expressing an opinion about how to see discussions on the list, while on the other hand reiterating what we already agree to. It makes more sense that one part of our discussion is still about how to relate with others and other opinions on the list. When I coin a phrase like 'mundane discussion' I'm talking as well about ordinary ways in which to deal with the ordinary aspects of discussing ideas on the list. I'm saying that while real pariyatti or whatever goes on whenever it does, there is still just discussing on the list - agreeing, disagreeing, clarifying, whatever, and, whether you focus on it or not, there *are* other views; there *are* other opinions. There seems to be no reason to pretend this doesn't exist. Scott. #119610 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 4:56 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Sarah, Sarah: "I agree with you too and also your last comment. As you suggest, 'should' is usually taken to mean Someone Should Do Something. I just couldn't understand why you were asking Alex (more than once) to get out a Pali grammar (and I don't think he could either), but a very minor issue!" Scott: Oh, well I was just asking that Alex back up his point about Paa.li grammar with a bit of Paa.li grammar from a Paa.li grammar text. No big deal - just something one does in a discussion about something. I wanted to see what aspect of grammar he was referring to. The 'more than once' is simply because Alex makes this point about grammar 'more than once' (as you know). He disagrees with the point we've agreed to above. And has done repeatedly using this 'grammar' argument. He hasn't really shown the grammar, as it were. As we've been discussing, is this not just the give-and-take of discussion? Have I gone out of line to request some backing for his statement? Scott. #119611 From: "charlest" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:33 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? dhammasaro Good friend Robert, et al If I may, One, in the USA today, usually, defecating is a very private personal experience... Two, in my personal minority experiences, meditation is a very private personal experience... Three, I do not think you will find any two serious meditating beings able to describe their each individual personal meditating experiences the same... Hence, I observe both defecating and meditating as both very personal experiences which most of us have and each of us have unique experiences which are very private... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear technique proponents, > I see sometiems see you quote the first part of teh satipatthana > sutta about anapanasati - saying that this proves there is a technique for developing vipassana. > When later in the sutta the Buddha says "while defectaing and urinating" I havent seen it explained exactly how one defecates according to good technique? > robert > #119612 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 5:03 am Subject: Intention: was Borers in framework of roof dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, et al You wrote in part: S: Is there any intention to kill or harm at these times? It is the intention that counts. Chuck: If you interact with Theravada monks; please study the Vinaya-pitaka. Ignorance of breaking a rule does not always excuse the monk. That is why I so strongly believe we practitioners who interact with monks should understand some of the important Vinaya rules so we practitioners can help the monks. One may consider the relationship between the monks and laypersons as extended mutualistic symbiotic relationships ..................... On the intention for laypersons; I have no comment. I believe you (or Nina) wrote you do not want to write about personal layperson activities. Hence, I respect that. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck ............ rest deleted ...................... #119613 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 5:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo epsteinrob Hi Lukas. I'm sure that what you say is true. But if a person uses this understanding as a reason to ignore akusala behavior -- kamma patha -- then the mental factors involved in doing so would not be good, and I believe this would be an obstacle to more kusala and greater understanding developing. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > > Hi Phil, Rob E. > I think the way out of samsara is not exactly that we think it is. Only understanding can free us. >  > Best wishes > Lukas > > > ________________________________ > From: Robert E > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 3:22 PM > Subject: [dsg] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo > > >  > Hi Phil, Lukas, all... > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > ...We can think about the disadvantages of akusala deeds and the advantage of akusala, but will that stop us? Probably not. Not soon, if we are doing bad things. Moha blinds us, strong desire drives us. How do we stop? I don't know. But we do stop, more and more often. I cannot say how listening to Dhamma leads to stopping bad deeds, but I am confident it does. > > > > 　 The fact of anatta doesn't mean hopelessness, the fact of anatta means that all dhammas are fluid, they fall away and are gone, and that means listening to Dhamma can be a conditioning force for goodness. If we had a self or soul that was dark and "bad" or evil, we would be lost, but there are only dhammas, and thaks to Dhamma, good, helpful dhammas will be conditioned to arise more and more. I'm pretty sure about that. Don't you feel confident about that? > > > > Sorry, I'm a bit tired, I can't write very clearly tonight. > > One of the clearest things you ever said, Phil. Very good stuff. > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #119614 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 5:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections, was: Pt's Galaxy ... epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Lukas (Sarah, Phil, Scott), > Op 19-okt-2011, om 11:03 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > > > > What is patience? > > > ----- > > N: Another word is endurance. It does not matter to be insulted by > > someone else. There are conditions to experience unpleasant objects > > through the senses. The Bodhisatta said that if there are no > > contrarious people there would not be an opportunity to develop > > patience. > > > But to be honest, this is not easy to apply, we may have aversion, > but it is good not to speak out. > As Sarah wrote: > S: No one wants to be miserable, to have endless > unhappy experiences, and yet we forget about patience as "a shore > bounding the great ocean of hatred; a panel closing off the door of > the plane of misery." > > > > > > > > Patience to peform kusala, patience with whatever appears now > > through the sense doors or mind door. Patience with understanding. > N: I discussed with Lodewijk diplomatic language which some people do > not appreciate. They think it is not sincere not to speak out > straight what one thinks. Lodewijk, who has a lot of experience in > this field, says that it is absolutely necessary to be diplomatic in > one's dealings with others, not insulting them. He said that one has > to have respect for other people. This fits in with the Brahma > Vihaaras I just read to Lodewijk last night. The connection of mettaa > with respect for others. I read: > < Acharn Sujin stressed the connection between síla and mettå. Síla > includes not only abstention from akusala kamma, it also includes > paying respect to those who deserve it and helping others, rendering > service. > I quote from Acharn Sujin's "Wholesome Deeds": "The citta can be > respectful by abstaining from hurting or harming others through body, > speech or mind." > When there is mettå we do not disturb the happiness of others or > cause them to be in trouble. ... Thank you for writing about this, Nina. I found it very inspiring. Hard to apply in difficult situations with people, but it reminds me of the benefit of metta and patience, and taking a better approach in speech and action. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #119615 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:18 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) sarahprocter... Hi Scott (& Phil, Ann, Sukin), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > R: "I don't use those terms as technically as you..." > > Me: "You should start." > > Sarah: "Should?" > > Scott: No disrespect intended but, yes 'should.' Here are some quotes from the Survey: > > "...This means that one should investigate realities, notice their characteristics in order to know them precisely as they are...) (p. 57). > > "...The aim of the study of Dhamma should be the direct understanding of realities through satipa.t.thaana...) (p. 92). > > "...We should know the jati (the nature) of the cittas that arise in processes and of those that do not arise in processes...) (p. 107. .... Sarah: Yes, if we are interested in the study of Dhamma, there must be the direct understanding of realities now. What I'm questioning is whether the direct understanding of those realities is the same as using all terms technically correctly. For example, there can be the understanding of the "jati (the nature)" of a citta, e.g. whether it's kusala, akusala or vipaka without ever having heard of the words "jati, kusala, akusala or vipaka". So I'm just suggesting we don't get hung up on the terms, on the book knowledge and instead put the emphasis on directly investigating, understanding what appears at this very moment. For example, now when we urge others to check the terms or do their own research, what kind of cittas are they? Of course, it's panna which will know. We have friends in Thailand who've never taken an interest in learning the details of processes and many technical details but who have a lot of confidence in understanding realities now such as seeing, visible object, hardness and so on. I think we have to allow for different accumulations and not think that those with a lot of "book-study" accumulations necessarily understand the present realities any better. Phil, with regard to what you just heard about really considering, understanding a word, again this isn't a dictionary definition. Take maana, conceit. or pride in the dictionary. But what about at this moment? When we go to work, do we have an idea of how the place could be run better? Maana. Do we think we can respond more helpfully than someone else here? More maana. Do we think the colour of the paint in our friend's house is a bit too dark? Maana. So many opportunities to understand maana in a day, even now as we discuss dhamma. The same applies to any dhamma. Anyway, I know you both appreciate this already as do other friends with different styles of study. .... > > Scott: There are many, many such 'shoulds.' I don't misunderstand the use of the word. I exhorted Rob E. to work harder at seeking out the meaning of things intellectually. I wasn't suggesting anything that I don't do or haven't done. I accept that you prefer that such things go unsaid. ... Sarah: No such preference - I'm just picking up on a point of dhamma about whether exhorting everyone to go away and seek out "the meaning of things intellectually" for themselves is where the emphasis should be. To me it sounds close to being another ritual, rather than a help in understanding the present dhamma. As I've said, we have friends who have a lot of interest in understanding realities who've never opened a book. Ask Ken H how often he pulls out dictionaries or texts, for example! Failing to do so has not done him any harm at all. > > S: "...I'm sure that when I started to listen to K.Sujin I mis-used lots of terms and mis-understood many more, but she never told me I 'should' do anything..." > > Scott: I've listened, more than once, to every recorded session. I hear you working very hard to clarify things. I can tell you've read and thought and tried to figure things out and that your questions come after much of your own 'effort.' And yes, even in these recordings, there is a lot of 'should' but, as I said, one needn't misunderstand the word. .... Sarah: My accumulations are more like yours in this regard and you'll have often heard K.Sujin warning those like us about attachment to "working it out", "thinking about the details" rather than directly understanding the confusion, the dosa, the lobha, the seeing now. Always back to this moment. Such "working it out" study can be conditioned by atta-ditthi too, even though there is no wrong view arising at the time. it can be subtle. Ann and Sukin will remember discussions on this topic. ... > > S: "...but there's never a suggestion that they shouldn't be there, should keep quiet or should expound on personal details if they'd prefer not to..." > > Scott: I don't mind if Rob E. or anyone is here. I'm here too. You don't think that I shouldn't be here, do you? ... Sarah: ha ha - that's entirely your projection! Of course, I'm delighted you're here, Scott! .... >Do 'personal details' equal the actual 'practice' that one claims to have? .... Sarah: This is just my 'personal' opinion - I just don't find it helpful to urge friends to examine personal details, practice experiences or anything else which is likely to be taken in the process for "Me". After all, they're just thoughts, feelings and other realities which have gone and which are anatta. (As Phil nicely demonstrates, ideas about the Dhamma change all the time too.) Even with my mother or family/friends who have no interest in the Dhamma, I like to encourage them to see all such thoughts and dreams as past and to let them go. No rule!! ... >You may not think it a fair request, and I accede to your authority, but how else to examine the claims of practitioners except by looking at their 'practice?.' ... Sarah: Why do we care about the claims? I think that if we discuss more about dhammas, then their panna will know the truth. For example, a friend in Thailand often talks about his past jhana experiences. K.Sujin never bothers to argue or question it. She just will ask whether there is jhana now, what the reality is now. Others will argue at length, but it never gets anywhere because the person with the experience becomes more and more defensive. ... >As Kh. Sujin said, 'We should know the jati (the nature) of the cittas that arise in processes and of those that do not arise in processes., and this should include an examination of 'practice.' .... Sarah: Yes, in simple terms (for others reading this discussion), we can gradually begin to understand the difference between moments of seeing and thinking with attachment to what is seen. These dhammas arise in eye-door and mind-door processes. In between the the sense and mind door processes, there are also bhavanga cittas, vipaka (result) cittas. In the beginning, when we are learning about the distinction between seeing and thinking, between seeing and visible object, we don't have to be concerned about how there are also bhavanga cittas, process-free cittas arising. Understanding of seeing now, directly, is practice. We don't have to talk about any other practice do we? .... >I'm not so convinced that it is an unreasonable request. If it is an 'impolite' one, then fair enough - two very different things, though. We can a2D and I'll do as I'm told. > > I'm not being oppositional. Please discuss this with me, as I think it counts as Dhamma study. ... Sarah: Yes, it is Dhamma study. Any thread/topic I discuss under my own name is as Dhamma study, just as it is for you or anyone else. I'm just a regular member too when I join in threads! Metta Sarah ==== #119616 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 7:47 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Here's the missing post from Oct 20th. Sarah: "Yes, if we are interested in the study of Dhamma, there must be the direct understanding of realities now..." Scott: I've already responded to the point-form version (not as 'lovely' as this one). The only thing that seems less well-addressed is the question about 'should.' When, say, Kh. Sujin says one 'should' do something, how do you think this is meant to be understood? Scott. #119617 From: "azita" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 8:48 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) gazita2002 Hallo Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > The only thing that seems less well-addressed is the question about 'should.' When, say, Kh. Sujin says one 'should' do something, how do you think this is meant to be understood? > > Scott. azita: Have wondered about this also, and have decided that it is a case of 'should' verses 'should not' it is conventional language but how else do we communicate, and that we should do good is preferable to we should not do good. It is my way of dealing with the 'should' issue. patience, courage and good cheer azita #119618 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 9:21 am Subject: Fw: [moderatorcentral] Missing messages and more sarahprocter... Dear All, Forgot to f/w this the other day - yahoo catching up at last.... no need to reply! Sarah ----- Forwarded Message ----- >From: Yahoo! Groups Team >To: moderatorcentral@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Friday, 28 October 2011, 1:33 >Subject: [moderatorcentral] Missing messages and more > > > >Several of you have reported issues on the following: > >-Email Delivery >-Chat >-Bounce History > >Just a quick note that we are aware and we are investigating. Thanks for your patience. > >Y! Groups Team #119619 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 8:49 am Subject: The 10 Perfections Explained. bhikkhu5 Friends: The10 Perfect Qualities Explained: The 10 Perfect Qualities (Dasa Parami ) are: 1st Perfection: Generosity (DÄna ): Just as a water pot turned upside down lets all its liquid run out, and takes none of it back, so is the perfection of generosity not having the slightest remorse over what has been given away, even when sacrificing everything! 2nd Perfection: Morality (SÄ«la ): Just as a yak whose tail is caught in bush will rather die than to tear it off, so consists the perfection of morality in being meticulously careful about keeping all precepts and promises & not breaking them in any circumstance, even if being threatened with death! 3rd Perfection: Withdrawal (Nekkhamma ): Just as one imprisoned in jail does not desire anything more intensely than to get out of there, so the perfection of withdrawing renunciation consists in the longing to get out of the prison of transitory existence & having only this one wish: To spit out the impermanent, to be rid of it once and for all! 4th Perfection: Understanding (PaÃ±Ã±Ä ): Just as a monk on alms-round neglects no house, but goes to all the families without exception, so the perfection of understanding consists in leaving no gaps, leaving nothing out, & of being ready to learn from all wise people, who are more advanced, even though they may be younger than oneself. 5th Perfection: Energy (Viriya ): Just as a lion marshals his strength whether standing, going, or sitting even so does the perfection of energetic & enthusiastic effort consist in keeping on striving with initiative launching into action, that endures until fulfilment! 6th Perfection: Patience (Khanti): Just as the great earth accepts even the most disgusting things thrown onto it, so consists the perfection of patience in accepting slander, disgrace and every disrespect without aversion, enduring them, while letting them pass. 7th Perfection: Honesty (Sacca ): Just as a star never strays from its fixed orbit, so consists the perfection of honest truthfulness in not lying under any circumstances, not moving even an inch from the actual and real truth for any trivial advantage whatsoever. 8th Perfection: Determination (AdhitthÄna ): Just as a mountain stands immoveable even in the strongest storm and is incapable of being thrown over, so consists the perfection of determination in remaining unshakeable in one's advantageous choices and not being able to be distracted by anything when pursuing something good and beneficial. 9th Perfection: Friendliness (MettÄ ): Just as water refreshes and cleanses both just and unjust persons without discrimination, so does the perfection of friendliness include both friends and foes alike and doesn't display any distinction, favouritism, or partiality. 10th Perfection: Equanimity (UpekkhÄ ): Just as the great earth remains unmoved and equanimous, avoiding like and dislike whether one throws pure or impure things onto it, even so does the perfection of equanimity consist in always remaining, calm and composed, neither being repulsed nor attracted, whether by any pain or any pleasure. Imperturbable even in strong conflicts as well as in the greatest success! SujÄtÄ perfecting generosity by giving The Buddha his last meal before Awakening! More on these 10 Mental Perfections (Dasa Parami ): The_Ten_Perfections , The 10 Mental Perfections, The_10_Perfect_Qualities Source: Buddhavamsa II verses 117-166 (Edited Excerpt): In: Similes of the Buddha: An introduction BP 427S by Hellmuth Hecker. Tr. Ven. KhantipÄlo and Ven. Piyadhammo. Ed. Ven. Nyanatusita. http://www.bps.lk Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu SamÄhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net The 10 Perfections Explained. #119620 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 10:19 am Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo rjkjp1 Nice post phil. You are reAlly geeting what anatta implies now imho. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Lukas > > > I think the way out of samsara is not exactly that we think it is. Only understanding can free us. > > Excellent!!! I can almost hear A. Sujin say that. > > I like what Scott wrote earlier, pariyatti as "impersonal learning." > > Maybe we can quote John Lennon. "Pariyatti is what happens when we're making other plans." But no, not true, not if the plans are related to "wisdom" and "enlightenment" and all that jazz, because all our making other plans interferes with pariyatti, not to mention patipati. We are socially condtioned to make plans and have great projects, and that screws up our ability to understand Dhamma. Dhamma is not a project, or an endeavour, or a practice. It is deep, and we need patience, and courage, not to get our eager hands all over it, so that understanding can grow gradually through listening, reading, discussing and studying dhammas now. > > But as I said earlier, that doesn't mean that we have to keep doing bad things. Or that we will keep doing bad things. Understanding will keep us out of trouble, and when it doesn't keep us out of trouble, it will get us out of trouble sooner, because we won't get lost in regret and remorse and self-torture about bad things we do, we'll understand the conditions that led to it, and panna will walk us out of that bad place sooner or later, probably sooner. > > > Metta, > > Phil > #119621 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 10:26 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Sarah > Sarah: Yes, if we are interested in the study of Dhamma, there must be the direct understanding of realities now. What I'm questioning is whether the direct understanding of those realities is the same as using all terms technically correctly. For example, there can be the understanding of the "jati (the nature)" of a citta, e.g. whether it's kusala, akusala or vipaka without ever having heard of the words "jati, kusala, akusala or vipaka". So I'm just suggesting we don't get hung up on the terms, on the book knowledge and instead put the emphasis on directly investigating, understanding what appears at this very moment. For example, now when we urge others to check the terms or do their own research, what kind of cittas are they? Of course, it's panna which will know. Ph: Yes, as A.Sujin so often emphasizes, as with the trascript I posted yesterday, too much asking, too much thinking about terms a lot of the time. For the natural development of understanding in daily life, yes, gradually, the study of characteristics of nama and rupa, without terms. But here at DSG it's different. If people are just going to talk in vague terms about their experience, and apply paramattha sounding terms on to their conventional experiences to try (either intentionally or more likely unintentionally, with no intent to mislead at all) to get closer to the truth, it's just a mess. As nice as Rob E is, when he writes about what mindfulness is to him, it is just a mess of vaguely paramattha sounding terms, a sea of opinions and ideas and it doesn't help me understand mindfulness at all. So when Scott was pushing him to do more study and understand terms in more detail, it could help for better discussion. I don't know Rob E's cittas, in those cittas perhaps there is sati more and more through his meditation, but he doesn't manage to communicate it. At least not to me, nor apparently Scott. So you would say success in communicating it is not the point, I am too eager to have productive discussion, clinging to results, etc. Sure, that is true, of course. > We have friends in Thailand who've never taken an interest in learning the details of processes and many technical details but who have a lot of confidence in understanding realities now such as seeing, visible object, hardness and so on. I think we have to allow for different accumulations and not think that those with a lot of "book-study" accumulations necessarily understand the present realities any better. Ph: Your friends in Thailand don't go on and on and on about how great meditation is! Your friends in Thailand don't post sutta passages and imply by posting sutta passages that their understanding is parallel to the sutta passages. So your friends in Thailand are not relevant here, really. If Rob E was just talking about seeing, visible object, hardness and so on I'd be delighted to reflect on what he is saying. But when he posts, for example, sutta passages about various stages of jhana attainment and implies that it has anything to do with anyone here, and then goes off on another long speculation on how mindfulness develops from thinking about concentrating on conventional activities such as sitting, no thanks, no thanks, no thanks. So that is why I have decided to stop reading his posts, no matter what a great fellow he obviously is. The effort to study the texts in detail would indicate that he is not just a friendly guy enjoying the heck out of Dhamma, which is what I am as well, basically. Me knoweth Rob E, I am Rob E! Metta, Phil #119622 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 10:31 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi again > another long speculation on how mindfulness develops from thinking about concentrating on conventional activities such as sitting, no thanks, no thanks, no thanks. Oops, I meant to write "another long speculation on how mindfulness develops from concentrating on conventional actities..." not "thinking about concentrating on" - though of course that goes on as well! Metta, Phil #119623 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 10:44 am Subject: Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? rjkjp1 Dear charles That sounds good. If you feel inclined could you comment on this: in the first part of the satipatthan sutta - anaapanasati is mentioned. Do you think that is a exhortation to sit down crossleged and concentrate on breath.? Or is it merelya description of what some monks- those with genuine tendencies and skill in this object- are doing. ? The implication of this second possibilty being that the buddha is exhorting the monks to be aware of the pressnt moment, whethee they are walking, talking, anapaansating or urinating , defecating. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "charlest" wrote: > > Good friend Robert, et al > > If I may, > > One, in the USA today, usually, defecating is a very private personal > experience... > > Two, in my personal minority experiences, meditation is a very private > personal experience... > > Three, I do not think you will find any two serious meditating beings > able to describe their each individual personal meditating experiences > the same... > > Hence, I observe both defecating and meditating as both very personal > experiences which most of us have and each of us have unique experiences > which are very private... > > peace... > > yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, > > Chuck > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > Dear technique proponents, > > I see sometiems see you quote the first part of teh satipatthana > > sutta about anapanasati - saying that this proves there is a technique > for developing vipassana. > > When later in the sutta the Buddha says "while defectaing and > urinating" I havent seen it explained exactly how one defecates > according to good technique? > > robert > > > #119624 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 10:56 am Subject: "depends on first jhana" rjkjp1 Dear robert e You wrote 'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' suggests that this is the case. The term "depends on," if it is an accurate representation of the Pali, highly suggests that jhana is a condition for the development of insight, rather than merely an object of insight for those already versed in it. " ---------------- Actuaalt thtT same phrase is used in the commentray to satipathhana sutta forsuch objects as the five hindrances. So as far as the theravada is concerned whether first jhana or anger or lust it doesnt reaaly matter. Robert Ps writing from my ipad in airport please excuse typos #119625 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 11:03 am Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo philofillet Hi Rob K > Nice post phil. You are reAlly geeting what anatta implies now imho. Thanks, it seems a coin dropped. I often remember posts in which you've written about how life becomes easier when anatta is understood better. But life becoming easier doesn't mean becoming more easygoing about akusala, like I used to accuse people of. I should repost what in various notebooks I call "the Rob K" quote about how our interest moves from trying to know kusala from akusala, moves toward knowing the anattaness, so that each moment is "perfectly instructive." I loved that quote, then ranted against it, now I would love it again, if I had it. Let me go get my notebook. Here it is: "I think we become less concerned about what the object is and whether there is kusala or akusala and the focus changes to the anattaness and conditionality of the moment. Then every moment is so utterly perfect and instructive." For awhile, when I was opposed, I took this to mean that we could be content to do bad things, that we could soak in bad deeds and thinking about the anattaness of things as an excuse. But when I wrote that I didn't take into account the benefit of listening to dhamma, discussing dhamma, studying characteristics. As I said to Lukas, panna will walk us out of bad behaviour, sooner or later, probably sooner, as a result of listening to Dhamma, there is confidence about that. So I am not so worried about Lukas, as long as he keeps listening, studying, discussing, reflecting... Metta, Phil #119626 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 11:14 am Subject: Re: Sanna and memory philofillet Hi Sarah Thanks for the feedback I've never managed to keep discussing one topic for more than 3 or 4 posts, let this be an experiment in perseverence. I will let it sit for a few days, but I will be back on this, thanks. Metta, Phil #119627 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 11:35 am Subject: What should we say rjkjp1 Sarah: Why do we care about the claims? I think that if we discuss more about dhammas, then their panna will know the truth. For example, a friend in Thailand often talks about his past jhana experiences. K.Sujin never bothers to argue or question it. She just will ask whether there is jhana now, what the reality is now. Others will argue at length, but it never gets anywhere because the person with the experience becomes more and more defensive. --- Dear sarah, all Do you remember a time in kaeng krachan where a friend was telling us how she has a habit of meditating and sees white lights and its just her way of relaxing and she knows it has nothing to do with satipatthana. Its just like watching tv etcfor her. I supported her and said if thats her daily life then fine, no problem. Khun sujin then said she would like her to stop doing it as she was just attached to strange exoerinces.( i paraphrase, cant remember her exact words). So i think all u say about sujin ignoring - or cutting through the ideas to get to the heart is true- but she is also flexible in her approach. Sometimes she will say" dont copy" if anyonr E thinks they should approach life/ Dhamma in her way. Robert Sorry for typos just f Geeting on planr E now #119628 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 11:41 am Subject: Re: "depends on first jhana" rjkjp1 Hi robert, Not quite the same wording, but similar meaning ( portal) This is from satipatthana sutta comentary Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally." In this way the bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects, by laying hold of the five hindrances amongst the mental objects of his own mind or amongst the mental objects in another's mind or at one time amongst the mental objects of his own mind, and at another time amongst the mental objects of another's mind. .... Here the mindfulness which lays hold of the hindrances is the Truth of Suffering. Thus the portal of deliverance of the bhikkhu who lays hold of the hindrances should be understood. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear robert e > You wrote > 'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' > > suggests that this is the case. The term "depends on," if it is an accurate > representation of the Pali, highly suggests that jhana is a condition for the > development of insight, rather than merely an object of insight for those > already versed in it. " > ---------------- > Actuaalt thtT same phrase is used in the commentray to satipathhana sutta forsuch objects as the five hindrances. So as far as the theravada is concerned whether first jhana or anger or lust it doesnt reaaly matter. > Robert > Ps writing from my ipad in airport please excuse typos > #119629 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 1:52 pm Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo rjkjp1 Yes phil I read onother forums where people are deprssed , think about giving up buddhism, try to convince themselves they should put in more effort, . Then they try even harder and camt see it is becuase of wrong view. So they feel guilty when they cant be calm, or they feel proud if they feel calm for a few weeks. Then the cycle goes on. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob K > > > Nice post phil. You are reAlly geeting what anatta implies now imho. > > > Thanks, it seems a coin dropped. I often remember posts in which you've written about how life becomes easier when anatta is understood better. But life becoming easier doesn't mean becoming more easygoing about akusala, like I used to accuse people of. > > I should repost what in various notebooks I call "the Rob K" quote about how our interest moves from trying to know kusala from akusala, moves toward knowing the anattaness, so that each moment is "perfectly instructive." I loved that quote, then ranted against it, now I would love it again, if I had it. Let me go get my notebook. Here it is: "I think we become less concerned about what the object is and whether there is kusala or akusala and the focus changes to the anattaness and conditionality of the moment. Then every moment is so utterly perfect and instructive." For awhile, when I was opposed, I took this to mean that we could be content to do bad things, that we could soak in bad deeds and thinking about the anattaness of things as an excuse. But when I wrote that I didn't take into account the benefit of listening to dhamma, discussing dhamma, studying characteristics. As I said to Lukas, panna will walk us out of bad behaviour, sooner or later, probably sooner, as a result of listening to Dhamma, there is confidence about that. So I am not so worried about Lukas, as long as he keeps listening, studying, discussing, reflecting... > > Metta, > > Phil > #119630 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 1:55 pm Subject: Who wants to meditate, if not the self? philofillet Hi all This little exchange: Q: One feels one has to do sonething. It feels like it's common sense to do sonething. Otherwise it feels like a cork on the ocean. A.S : But who "do"? See? It's not I who will do, but it's the realities which are now doing. Someone else: And who's the cork in the ocean, it's the self again... Q: But there's a member on DSG (who writes?) it makes you feel so helpless and almost hopeless if there is nothing to be done . A.S : Because the idea of self is there so its hopeless, right? Q: I know... A.S : Just to understand for the sake of understanding whatever will arise, to understand it. Someone else: They will not be satisfied if we say it is just the self that is hopeless. A.S : Who else? ------------------------- Ph: I know from experience that as obvious as the above is, ditthi gets around it, says sure there is self in meditation, panna will develop and "take self apart" and things like that. Maybe I'll feel that way again, no way to know, but now the above exchange says it all.... Metta, Phil #119631 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 2:07 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: What is the method/technique of meditation for defecating? dhammasaro Good friend Robert, et al Warm thanks for your message. I think you can discuss DSG messages in an approved method much better than I; hence, I quietly decline. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck ......................................................................... rest deleted ............................................................................ #119632 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 5:12 pm Subject: Re: What should we say sarahprocter... Dear Rob K & all, Good to see you posting - have a good trip to wherever you're going! The floods must have been pretty awful in Bkk. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Do you remember a time in kaeng krachan where a friend was telling us how she has a habit of meditating and sees white lights and its just her way of relaxing and she knows it has nothing to do with satipatthana. Its just like watching tv etcfor her. > I supported her and said if thats her daily life then fine, no problem. .... S: Yes, I remember well. I was rather surprised by your support, but you were probably just trying to get a response! .... > Khun sujin then said she would like her to stop doing it as she was just attached to strange exoerinces.( i paraphrase, cant remember her exact words). .... S: I think KS's comments were a lot stronger - stressing the danger of wrong view and wrong practices. She often talks about the importance of developing detachment from wrong view when it arises, otherwise one just becomes more and more attached to the views and practices. It can be very dangerous as we often say. ... > > So i think all u say about sujin ignoring - or cutting through the ideas to get to the heart is true- but she is also flexible in her approach. .... S: I think it depends on the occasion whether it's useful to say anything or not. That occasion you mentioned, must 10 years ago or more now, the person in question raised her experiences for comments, as I recall. Last year, on the Saturday before the KK trip with Phil, the same person was talking at length about her similar experiences and practices and this time, KS hardly said a word. Only when the discussion was brought around to satipatthana and present realities did she speak. Phil has suggested along the lines that friends in Bangkok don't repeatedly stick to their meditation practices, let alone talk at length about them, but this is a good example of an intelligent Thai friend who has listened to KS on and off since the 70s when Jon first introduced her to the group, but who continues to cling to her practice, see it of value and talks about it a lot. I can think of many others. There are all sorts of ideas of various extraordinary attainments. Wrong view doesn't let go easily at all. ..... > Sometimes she will say" dont copy" if anyonr > E thinks they should approach life/ Dhamma in her way. .... S: Yes, any kind of "copying" of her lifestyle or way would also be an example of wrong practice - thinking that some kind of imitation would lead to right understanding. ... > Robert > Sorry for typos just f > Geeting on planr > E now .... S: :-) write more from the other end! Thx for writing. Metta Sarah ==== #119633 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 5:13 pm Subject: Indriyas with all kusala? philofillet Hi Nina I don't hear much talk of the indriyas. Is that because they arise with any monent of kusala? No, not panna. I read this in Cetasikas, p.240: "When we develop right understanding, we do not have to aim at confidence, it arises already." That can be said of the other indriyas, can't it? I think it is in Visudhimagga, but the notion of gauging imbalances of the indriyas, deciding to have more of this one, less of that one, it feels so strange. There is virya with almost every citta, how can we decide to have "more virya?" I wonder how it is explained in Vlsudhimagga? Thanks, Nina. Only when you have time... Metta, Phil Metta, Phil #119634 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:52 am Subject: Re: view 'I have no self' is wrong view scottduncan2 All, D: "...( B.T.W. : M. stands for Mitchell Ginsberg/Jinavamsa..." Scott: Here Jinavamsa opines on 'meditation': "Meditation in this context (as a translation of the Indic term bhavana) is the process of bringing about changes. A word I find that captures this basic idea is Cultivation. This sort of 'meditation' may be distinguished from meditation as an intellectual (conceptual) process, as a focused, topic-defined contemplation, or a detailed, thorough thinking, the way it does in a Western philosophical context (compare the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius or Descartes' Meditations). Thus, in the sense of Cultivation, a 'tranquility meditation' is the systematic cultivation of tranquility, and an 'insight meditation' is the systematic cultivation of insight. This means specifically insight into the nature (features, structure, patterns) of our own experience. Stated generally, insight (vipassana) practice (or meditation) operates through mindfulness (sati), as tranquility (samatha) practice (or meditation) operates through concentration (samadhi). Here, by being mindful of what is ongoingly current in our life situation, we come to insight into how we are experiencing our world. In particular we may carry out this practice in various physical positions or 'forms' (seated, standing, walking/moving, and lying down). Beyond that 'formal' way of naming a meditation, we may describe it in a 'formless' way, in terms other than those concerned with our bodily posture or status. This formless meditation that is mindfulness practice or insight meditation is simply a matter of paying attention to what is most prominent in our consciousness at each moment, and doing this repeatedly, ongoingly. This is perhaps the simplest description of what this practice is..." Scott: Please note the tell-tale, self-ridden core of his definition: "Meditation in this context (as a translation of the Indic term bhavana) is the process of bringing about changes ... insight meditation is simply a matter of paying attention to what is most prominent in our consciousness at each moment, and doing this repeatedly, ongoingly..." Scott. #119635 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 6:35 pm Subject: Re: What should we say philofillet Hi Sarah > > Phil has suggested along the lines that friends in Bangkok don't repeatedly stick to their meditation practices, let alone talk at length about them, but this is a good example of an intelligent Thai friend who has listened to KS on and off since the 70s when Jon first introduced her to the group, but who continues to cling to her practice, see it of value and talks about it a lot. I can think of many others. There are all sorts of ideas of various extraordinary attainments. Wrong view doesn't let go easily at all. Ph: Ok, my aplogies for misrepresenting what goes on at the foundation, I was speaking based only on what I have heard in the recorded discussions that are available for listening. Of course I woyldn't know if people stick to meditation, I was just referring to how much and how forcefully they speak out about. Meditation - the practice that dares not speak its name! I remember early one morning at KK I was sitting cross-legged ( which is how we often sit in Japan) on the front porch enjoying the pre-dawn symphony of tree frogs or whatever they are when Sukin emerged from the gloom. "Were you meditating?" he asked, not unkindly but also not completely unlike a puritanical dad catching his son in onanistic bliss! I denied it, of course, just digging the frogs man!!! Metta, Phil p.s shhhhh on this don't tell sukin but i was in fact m'ing!!!! I will post further reports of same if I co > > Sometimes she will say" dont copy" if anyonr > > E thinks they should approach life/ Dhamma in her way. > .... > S: Yes, any kind of "copying" of her lifestyle or way would also be an example of wrong practice - thinking that some kind of imitation would lead to right understanding. > ... > > Robert > > Sorry for typos just f > > Geeting on planr > > E now > .... > S: :-) write more from the other end! Thx for writing. > > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > #119636 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 7:09 pm Subject: Re: What should we say sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Ph: Ok, my aplogies for misrepresenting what goes on at the foundation, <...> ... S: None of it matters at all - just thinking and stories. All that matters is the understanding now of what appears! ... > > Meditation - the practice that dares not speak its name! I remember early one morning at KK I was sitting cross-legged ( which is how we often sit in Japan) on the front porch enjoying the pre-dawn symphony of tree frogs or whatever they are when Sukin emerged from the gloom. "Were you meditating?" he asked, not unkindly but also not completely unlike a puritanical dad catching his son in onanistic bliss! I denied it, of course, just digging the frogs man!!! > > Metta, > Phil > p.s shhhhh on this don't tell sukin but i was in fact m'ing!!!! .... S: Ha, ha:-) "Meditation" - just a word! It can become a little precious, can't it? Perhaps Sukin will be reading himself when he's finished trying to protect his house from the floods. He was rather worried last time I heard from him briefly. > I will post further reports of same if I co ... S: Ok, look forward to that if you "co"! Appreciating your transcripts - even small sections are interesting. I like to read what people find helpful. (Nina, if you add the year and place for your transcripts of KS, that's always interesting to know too.) Metta Sarah ===== #119637 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 7:31 pm Subject: Re: What should we say philofillet Hi Sarah > > Ph: Ok, my aplogies for misrepresenting what goes on at the foundation, <...> > ... > S: None of it matters at all - just thinking and stories. All that matters is the understanding now of what appears! Ph: Yes, take my above retraction also for the excessive analysis I wrote of Rob E's posting style this morning, really just a waste of time to think so much about other people, but we do, some of us more than others. So please don't waste your time by responding to it when you come across it, if you haven't yet. I want to fully exploit your knowledge of Dhamma, not your diplomatic skills. Exploit! Sweatshop labour! Metta, Phil #119638 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2011 11:16 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Azita, azita: "Have wondered about this also, and have decided that it is a case of 'should' verses 'should not' it is conventional language but how else do we communicate, and that we should do good is preferable to we should not do good. It is my way of dealing with the 'should' issue." Scott: Makes sense. Kusala is preferable to akusala. 'Should' is a modal verb, I see, and, choosing a random definition, is 'used to express ideas such as possibility, intention, obligation and necessity.' In the Dhamma sense, I think it amounts to the expression of an opinion. With the characteristic of anatta being foundational, 'should' cannot be taken for a command to be followed. 'Should' is not a prelude for any doing based on 'should.' If 'a doing' happens to derive from a kusala base, then no one should take it personally. Scott. #119639 From: "philip" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:51 am Subject: Re: Sanna and memory philofillet Hi Sarah Thanks for the awesome explanation, will have follow up question on the weekend. And noted re the re-posts, will do. metta, phil #119640 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:28 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Jon (Rob E.), Here is Walshe's version: ""Suppose, monks, a man catches six animals of different domains and different resorts of living — a snake, a crocodile, a bird, a dog, a jackal and a monkey, tethering each with a stout rope. Having tethered them with a stout rope, he fastens the ropes together in the middle, he lets go of them. Now, monks, these six animals of different domains and feeding habits would swing around and struggle, each trying to get to his natural domain. The snake would struggle, thinking 'I'll get to the ant-hill'; the crocodile: 'I'll get into the water'; the bird: 'I'll fly up in the air'' the dog: 'I'll make for the village'; the jackal: 'I'll make for the charnel-ground'; the monkey: 'I'll head for the forest.' "Now, monks, when those six hungry animals grew weary, they would yield to the one that was the strongest, go his way and be under his power. In the same way, monks, whenever a monk fails to practice and develop mindfulness as to body, the eye struggles to draw him towards attractive objects, while unattractive objects are repellent to him... The mind struggles to draw him towards attractive objects of thought, while unattractive objects of thought are repellent to him. This, monks, is lack of restraint. And what, monks, is restraint? In this, a monk, seeing objects with the eye, is not drawn to attractive objects, is not repelled by unattractive objects. He remains with firmly established mindfulness as to body, his mind being unrestricted.[1] He knows in truth that liberation of the heart, that liberation by wisdom,[2] through which those evil, unskilled states that have arisen pass away without remainder... "Suppose a man catches six animals (as before), and he fastens the rope together to a stout post or pillar... Then, when those six animals grow weary, they would have to stand, crouch or lie down by the stout post or pillar. In the same way, monks, when a monk practices and develops mindfulness as to the body, the eye does not struggle to draw him towards attractive visual objects, nor are unattractive visual objects repellent to him... the mind does not struggle to draw him towards attractive objects of thought, nor are unattractive objects of thought repellent to him. This, monks, is restraint. "'Tethered to a stout post or pillar,' monks, denotes mindfulness as to body. Therefore, monks, this is how you must train yourselves: 'We shall practice mindfulness as to body, develop it, make it our vehicle, our dwelling-place, our resort, we will build it up and undertake it thoroughly.' This, monks, is how you must train yourselves." Scott. #119641 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 1:04 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" > Scott: Makes sense. Kusala is preferable to akusala. 'Should' is a modal verb, I see, and, choosing a random definition, is 'used to express ideas such as possibility, intention, obligation and necessity.' In the Dhamma sense, I think it amounts to the expression of an opinion. With the characteristic of anatta being foundational, 'should' cannot be taken for a command to be followed. 'Should' is not a prelude for any doing based on 'should.' If 'a doing' happens to derive from a kusala base, then no one should take it personally. > > Scott. That is a rather elegant explanation Scott, I think i like it.. I am at another airport now waiting for flight back to bangkok. Hope my car is not under water.. robert #119642 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 1:07 am Subject: Re: "depends on first jhana" epsteinrob Hi Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear robert e > You wrote > 'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' > > suggests that this is the case. The term "depends on," if it is an accurate > representation of the Pali, highly suggests that jhana is a condition for the > development of insight, rather than merely an object of insight for those > already versed in it. " > ---------------- > Actuaalt thtT same phrase is used in the commentray to satipathhana sutta forsuch objects as the five hindrances. So as far as the theravada is concerned whether first jhana or anger or lust it doesnt reaaly matter. If you have a chance, can you direct me to the part of the sati... sutta where it says that "the ending of the mental fermentations depends on anger," or lust or the five hindrances in general? I'd like to see what is said about that, if you have the commentary handy. In the sutta above, "depends on" is repeated for each of the jhanas. It seems like a pretty specific thing. It also seems meaningful that is in the sutta, and that the Buddha made this assertion. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #119643 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 1:22 am Subject: Re: "depends on first jhana" epsteinrob H Rob K. Thanks for this cite. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Hi robert, > Not quite the same wording, but similar meaning ( portal) > This is from satipatthana sutta comentary > > Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally." In this way the bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects, by laying hold of the five hindrances amongst the mental objects of his own mind or amongst the mental objects in another's mind or at one time amongst the mental objects of his own mind, and at another time amongst the mental objects of another's mind. > .... > Here the mindfulness which lays hold of the hindrances is the Truth of Suffering. Thus the portal of deliverance of the bhikkhu who lays hold of the hindrances should be understood. I don't think there's any doubt that mindfulness of the hindrances in order to see them as dukkha has great significance, and saying that it represents the portal of deliverance is also a very powerful statement. Again, I don't see either this or the reference to the jhanas in the other sutta as arbitrary. There is a belief among many here that the object of satipatthana does not matter, that only the understanding matters. What I derive from both this and the other sutta is that the object does matter, and that seeing through the hindrances in particular is seen as very important and specific in this commentary. It says that the Bikkhu sees the hindrances "among the other mental objects" and so in fact is selecting these in particular, rather than any object that arises. While all dhammas are dukkha, the significance of seeing the hindrances as dukkha is highlighted here, and so it would be worth seeing more commentary or subcommentary and the role of this understanding towards deliverance. If I recall correctly, there are various places in which the seeing of one of the characteristics of dukkha, anicca or anatta is specially facilitated by a particular type of insight, or a particular object of satipatthana, but I don't have any specifics at hand. But I think there are special situations that allow one or another necessary insight or stage of development to take place. The passage you have cited does not either affirm or dismiss the significance of the jhanas and the "necessity" of the jhanas as object of the stages of insight that the sutta outlines. So I think that while the hindrances and other objects of insight are greatly important, it does not diminish or make arbitrary what Buddha says in the sutta, that it is "dependent" on the jhanas. Buddha also stated that the fourth jhana was the "culmination of equanimity and satipatthana," another definite statement of the role of jhana in completing the development of satipatthana. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #119644 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 2:28 am Subject: Re: "depends on first jhana" truth_aerator Hello RobK, Robert E, All, Mindfulness on hindrances is good. However I don't agree with interpretation that one should be compliant hindrances to be mindful of them. Hindrances are going to arise even if one is an ascetic in the caves practicing to develop Noble Eightfold Path, no need to add fuel to the fire. IMHO, one should do one's best and use whatever one has (such as hindrances) for wisdom to attain maggaphala. With best wishes, Alex #119645 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 2:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What should we say nilovg Dear Sarah, For this I depend on Phil. I just take what I have from my small recorder, things I taped for myself, mostly without adding dates, etc. I take these along to hotels where I have some time transcribing. Nina. Op 1-nov-2011, om 9:09 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > (Nina, if you add the year and place for your transcripts of KS, > that's always interesting to know too.) #119646 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 4:33 am Subject: The Fallacy of Using Hindrances For Wisdom, was: "depends on first jhana" scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...I don't agree with interpretation that one should be compliant hindrances to be mindful of them. Hindrances are going to arise even if one is an ascetic in the caves practicing to develop Noble Eightfold Path, no need to add fuel to the fire...one should do one's best and use whatever one has (such as hindrances) for wisdom to attain maggaphala." Scott: If ever there was a clear statement encompassing all that is wrong about the whole 'practice' construct, this is it. To anyone with even a modicum of ordinary introspective ability (let alone a proper understanding of anatta), 'hindrances' - akusala dhammas: anger, lust, desire, hunger, what have you - arise on their own. Kusala also arises on it's own. All of these dhammas leave on their own. This is the way in which anatta is to be understood. These dhammas arise and fall away impersonally. Belief in the person is the only thing that structures the glaring inadequacies found in the above stated opinion. These include: 1) The idea of there being some sort of 'compliance' in relation to hindrances. This is nothing but self-view - for who else could be compliant but the self? While it is refreshingly true that for once, Alex, you concede that it is *not* the magic of place and posture that prevents hindrances from arising (see your 'ascetic in a cave'), you shatter this with more self-biased talk, and this is: 2) The notion of there being a self capable of 'add[ing] fuel to the fire' - the corollary being that a self can put out the same fire; and this you go on to assert when you then go on to talk of a self who can 'use' hindrances to 'attain maggaphala.' This ought to be patently obvious to any honest observer. If you must think of the person, read that these things come and go 'in spite of yourself.' Scott. #119647 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 4:48 am Subject: With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain. truth_aerator Scott, >Scott: If ever there was a clear statement encompassing all that is >wrong about the whole 'practice' construct, this is it. > >To anyone with even a modicum of ordinary introspective ability (let >alone a proper understanding of anatta), 'hindrances' - akusala >dhammas: anger, lust, desire, hunger, what have you - arise on their >own. Kusala also arises on it's own. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain. 161. The evil a witless man does by himself, born of himself and produced by himself, grinds him as a diamond grinds a hard gem. 162. Just as a single creeper strangles the tree on which it grows, even so, a man who is exceedingly depraved harms himself as only an enemy might wish. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.budd.html With best wishes, Alex #119648 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 5:22 am Subject: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." scottduncan2 Alex, Regarding (Paa.li for reference): "160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain." "Attaa hi attano naatho, ko hi naatho paro siyaa; Attanaa hi sudantena, nattha.m labhati dullabha.m." 161. The evil a witless man does by himself, born of himself and produced by himself, grinds him as a diamond grinds a hard gem. "Attanaa hi kata.m paapa.m, attaja.m attasambhava.m; Abhimatthatidummedha.m, vajira.m vasmamaya.m ma.ni.m." 162. Just as a single creeper strangles the tree on which it grows, even so, a man who is exceedingly depraved harms himself as only an enemy might wish. "Yassa accantadussiilya.m, maaluvaa saalamivotthata.m; Karoti so tathattaana.m, yathaa na.m icchatii diso." Scott: You give these verses of the Dhammapada to show what, that there is a self? Alex, this is the question: Is atta real? My answer is that the Dhamma holds anatta to be fundamental - atta is stated only conventionally in the above. You, on the other hand, clearly, fully, and unequivocally believe that atta has all the properties of a functional dhamma capable of acting as a conditioned and a conditioning entity. Scott. #119649 From: A T Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 6:00 am Subject: Re: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." truth_aerator Hello Scott, all, Is the Buddha telling the truth or is He lying when He said: "One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain. AttÄ hi attano nÄtho kohi nÄtho paro siyÄ AttanÄ'va sudantena nÄthaṃ labhati dullabhaṃ. The evil a witless man does by himself, born of himself and produced by himself, grinds him as a diamond grinds a hard gem. AttanÄ'va kataṃ pÄpaṃ attajaṃ attasambhavaṃ Abhimatthati dummedhaṃ vajiraṃ'vasmamayaṃ maṇiṃ. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.budd.html “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. (Ärabbhavanto sattÄ paññÄyanti, ayaṃ sattÄnaṃ attakÄro ayaṃ parakÄro), I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?†http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html The Buddha has never heard of nihilistic teaching that there isn't self doer (attakÄro) or other doer (parakÄro). So please don't put teachings into Buddha's mouth which He has not even heard of! Don't sneak Brahmanism into Buddhism. With best wishes, Alex #119650 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 6:07 am Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo szmicio Hi Rob E, > I'm sure that what you say is true. But if a person uses this understanding as a reason to ignore akusala behavior -- kamma patha L: Than in such a moment there is akusala thinking, that can also be known as conditioned dhamma. Best wishes Lukas > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > > > > Hi Phil, Rob E. > > I think the way out of samsara is not exactly that we think it is. Only understanding can free us. > >  > > Best wishes > > Lukas > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Robert E > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 3:22 PM > > Subject: [dsg] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo > > > > > >  > > Hi Phil, Lukas, all... > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > ...We can think about the disadvantages of akusala deeds and the advantage of akusala, but will that stop us? Probably not. Not soon, if we are doing bad things. Moha blinds us, strong desire drives us. How do we stop? I don't know. But we do stop, more and more often. I cannot say how listening to Dhamma leads to stopping bad deeds, but I am confident it does. > > > > > > 　 The fact of anatta doesn't mean hopelessness, the fact of anatta means that all dhammas are fluid, they fall away and are gone, and that means listening to Dhamma can be a conditioning force for goodness. If we had a self or soul that was dark and "bad" or evil, we would be lost, but there are only dhammas, and thaks to Dhamma, good, helpful dhammas will be conditioned to arise more and more. I'm pretty sure about that. Don't you feel confident about that? > > > > > > Sorry, I'm a bit tired, I can't write very clearly tonight. > > > > One of the clearest things you ever said, Phil. Very good stuff. > > > > Best, > > Rob E. > > > > = = = = = = = = = > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > #119651 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:12 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott, and Chris. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > "'Tethered to a stout post or pillar,' monks, denotes mindfulness as to body. Therefore, monks, this is how you must train yourselves: 'We shall practice mindfulness as to body, develop it, make it our vehicle, our dwelling-place, our resort, we will build it up and undertake it thoroughly.' This, monks, is how you must train yourselves." I appreciate this and enjoy comparing translations. What would really be worthwhile, if one had the means and the time, would be to go through a few important passages and look at the Pali and see if we can reconstruct the passages. Chris is good at that - if she's in the mood, maybe she can take a look at some of these passages... Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #119652 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 7:44 am Subject: Re: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Is the Buddha telling the truth or is He lying..." Scott: Alex, that is just silly. The term in this sutta for 'self' is 'sattaa.' Now you are saying that 'sattaa' is to be given all of the attributes and characteristics of a dhamma, including an ontological status endowing sattaa with a reality such that sattaa is a conditioned and conditioning dhamma. Nonsense. Now let's look at the sutta: "...What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?..." Scott: The Paa.li for 'element' is 'dhaatu.' We know, then, that the Buddha is refering to a dhamma - an element. This, again, is Abhidhamma in the suttas. "...is there an element of exertion (nikkamadhaatu)...is there an element of effort (parakamadhaatu)...is there an element of steadfastness (thaamadhaatu)...is there an element of persistence (.thitidhaatu)...is there an element of endeavoring (upakamadhaatu)?...when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer." Scott: 'Sattaa' is conventional. While the Buddha's questioner was expressing nihilism, as usual, you, Alex, are mistaken to equate the so-called 'dsg' line of thinking, based on the correct way to understand anatta, to be nihilistic. The sutta shows that it is the elements - the dhaatus - each with it's own characteristic function, that are the true and only movers. The sutta is referring to viriya when it refers to exertion and effort; to the strength of an arisen element when it refers to steadfastness; to the presence of an arisen element prior to it's falling away when it refers to persistence; and so on. It is the various qualities of dhammas that are being referred to. Dhaatus *are* the 'self-doers' and the 'other-doers.' Dhaatus are the realities which 'do the moving.' The Buddha counters the nihilism implicit in the question by showing that dhaatus - elements, dhammaa - are the realities existent and operative. This by no means says that the self does the moving or that the self is anything but a conventional designation - that this is conventional speech. Only by your need to imagine yourself to be capable of making things move of your own will and accord - to justify 'practice' and 'formal meditation' - does your interpretation find itself structured. Again, Alex: Is attaa real? Is 'sattaa' real? Scott. #119653 From: A T Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 8:13 am Subject: Re: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." truth_aerator Hello Scott, all, Was Buddha lying when He said: "AttÄ hi attano..." and "AttanÄ'va kataṃ pÄpaṃ attajaṃ attasambhavaṃ..." and "...attakÄro ayaṃ parakÄro". He clearly used these "atta" words without any problem. Even in Visuddhimagga the existence of conventional person is affirmed: "I visited all quarters with my mind Nor found I any dearer than myself;Self is likewise to every other dear; Who loves himself will never harm another" (S.i,75; Ud. 47)." - VsM IX,10 With best wishes, Alex #119654 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 8:22 am Subject: Re: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Was Buddha lying..." Scott: I'm through with this current discussion, Alex. You can take it up with someone with patience. You haven't even made an attempt to consider the relevant points I took pains to construct for your consideration. Instead you come back with more of the above. The better term, to translate 'sattaa,' by the way, would be 'existent' in the sense of 'that-which-exists,' (or 'be-ing,' if you must) and not in the sense of *a* being like an extraterrestrial or human or cro-magnon or canadian or what have you. Take the mendacity of the Buddha up with someone else. Scott. #119655 From: "connie" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 8:36 am Subject: Re: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." nichiconn thanks, Scott. > > The better term, to translate 'sattaa,' by the way, would be 'existent' in the sense of 'that-which-exists,' (or 'be-ing,' if you must) and not in the sense of *a* being like an extraterrestrial or human or cro-magnon or canadian or what have you. > like atta-laabha is be-gotten: born of and borne by (its own) conditions. i didn't care so much for my last attempt. connie #119656 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 8:45 am Subject: Re: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." truth_aerator Hello Connie, Scott, all, >C:like atta-laabha is be-gotten: born of and borne by (its own) >conditions. >=================================================== How is atta-laabha different from [false] idea of Atta which is theorized to be born of and born by its own conditions? How to make sure that dhammas are not viewed as little Self entities that either exist eternally or are annihilated? With best wishes, Alex #119657 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 9:02 am Subject: Re: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." philofillet Hi Scott, Alex, Connie, all The moderator at another group Alex belongs to has latched onto atthabhava to justify his ditthi. I remember there is a term attabhavapatilabho or something like that I was very fond of when I was looking for ways to get away with exercising self. Metta Phil #119658 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 9:08 am Subject: Re: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." philofillet Hi Alex > How to make sure that dhammas are not viewed as little Self entities that either exist eternally or are annihilated? > Ph: No problem, study Dhamma. "Is seeing permanent. etc". SN 35 SN 22 should relieve your concerns, if you actually have them. But I know this won't satisfy you becauae you always have an agenda when you post here. Metta, Phil #119659 From: "connie" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 9:11 am Subject: Re: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." nichiconn hi Alex. > > How is atta-laabha different from [false] idea of Atta which is theorized to be born of and born by its own conditions? > I don't recall that Atta idea/theory... care to explain it? > How to make sure that dhammas are not viewed as little Self entities that either exist eternally or are annihilated? > I can only guess the idea that a dhamma has a soul/ego/personality is related to your other idea that Atta is a dhamma. connie #119660 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 9:18 am Subject: Re: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." philofillet Hi Connie > I can only guess the idea that a dhamma has a soul/ego/personality is related to your other idea that Atta is a dhamma. It's usually Howard that insists Abhidhamma makes dhammas into little agents of self though recently atomic monads or something like that is the term in favour. Monads. Good band name. Metta, Phil #119661 From: "connie" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 9:28 am Subject: Re: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." nichiconn haha, Phil, > Monads. Good band name. > they could attadanda - pick up the stick(s) or 'the axe'. connie #119662 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 9:45 am Subject: Shifting Atta from 5 aggregates to dhammas truth_aerator Hi Connie, all, >A:How is atta-laabha different from [false] idea of Atta which is >theorized to be born of and born by its own conditions? >=========================================================== >C: I don't recall that Atta idea/theory... care to explain it? >=========================================================== The Buddha refuted idea of Hindu idea of Atta by showing that it is not a real singular and indivisible sabhava phenomenon that either eternally exists or dies. There is no eternalism and no annihilation because there is nothing to eternally exist or to cease at death. Middle path avoids dichotomies of eternal existence and annihilation. What about dhamma (as in dhammas)? Is it a real, singular, indivisible sabhava phenomenon that arises from its own conditions, persists and then ceases? If it ceases then it is annihilation of this real, singular, indivisible sabhava phenomenon. Thus the problem of real, sabhava, singular and indivisible phenomenon seems to merely have shifted to a smaller scale rather than being totally rejected. How to reconcile the teaching of Anatta with teaching on dhammas that seem to be identical in principle to annihilationist idea of Atta? With best wishes, Alex #119663 From: "connie" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 10:08 am Subject: Re: Shifting Atta from 5 aggregates to dhammas nichiconn Hi, Alex, > > >A:How is atta-laabha different from [false] idea of Atta which is >theorized to be born of and born by its own conditions? > >=========================================================== > >C: I don't recall that Atta idea/theory... care to explain it? > >=========================================================== > > > The Buddha refuted idea of Hindu idea of Atta by showing that it is not a real singular and indivisible sabhava phenomenon that either eternally exists or dies. There is no eternalism and no annihilation because there is nothing to eternally exist or to cease at death. Middle path avoids dichotomies of eternal existence and annihilation. > > What about dhamma (as in dhammas)? Is it a real, singular, indivisible sabhava phenomenon that arises from its own conditions, persists and then ceases? If it ceases then it is annihilation of this real, singular, indivisible sabhava phenomenon. > > Thus the problem of real, sabhava, singular and indivisible phenomenon seems to merely have shifted to a smaller scale rather than being totally rejected. How to reconcile the teaching of Anatta with teaching on dhammas that seem to be identical in principle to annihilationist idea of Atta? > hmm... i think it goes back to "momentary existence" again: a dhamma, even while having an identity or 'being', is neither static nor permanent, but undergoes the whole arising, (changing while) standing & falling away (never to arise again) cycle. As Nyanaponika wrote: connie #119664 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 10:17 am Subject: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi truth_aerator Hello Connie, all, >C:hmm... i think it goes back to "momentary existence" again: a >dhamma, even while having an identity or 'being', is neither static >nor permanent, but undergoes the whole arising, (changing while) >standing & falling away (never to arise again) cycle. >======================================================= Buddha rejected eternalism or annihilationism of sabhava Atta because there isn't Atta to be annihilated or to exist eternally. Does sabhava dhamma perish? If so it is annihilationism. If it exists eternally, then how can there be momentariness? So while dhamma theory avoids eternalism or annihilationism when it comes to sabhava Atta, it itself doesn't avoid the pitfall of annihilationism. So how isn't it Uccheda-ditthi that as miccha-ditthi precludes even stream-entry? Do you understand the full weight of this issue? As long as one holds Uccheda-ditthi, maggaphala cannot occur. With best wishes, Alex #119665 From: "connie" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 10:32 am Subject: Re: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi nichiconn You've lost me, Alex. Please explain to me in terms of "seeing" or the like, this kind of 'existence' or whatever it is that you are proposing. thanks, connie > > Does sabhava dhamma perish? If so it is annihilationism. If it exists eternally, then how can there be momentariness? > #119666 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 11:03 am Subject: Re: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." philofillet Hi > > Monads. Good band name. Still working on this important project. A search revealed "string of still monads" or "discrete little monads" as possible full names. I'd go with the latter, some of us remember Stiff Little Fingers with fondness. Discrete Little Monads, D.L.M, or just the 'Nads to true devotees. And they can self-annihilate at the end of every show, thrilling their fans and denying Abhidhamma at a single, um...poof! > they could attadanda - pick up the stick(s) or 'the axe'. F'n A! But the solos will be really really really really short. Metta, Phil #119667 From: "connie" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 11:21 am Subject: Re: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." nichiconn I'll be watching for them on NoYouTube, Phil. c > > > Monads. Good band name. #119668 From: "connie" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 11:27 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nichiconn Rob! Are you saying you don't have the DPR plug-in installed on Firefox?!? http://pali.sirimangalo.org/ lol - Chris thinks thinking that you have time Is trouble. connie > > > "'Tethered to a stout post or pillar,' monks, denotes mindfulness as to body. Therefore, monks, this is how you must train yourselves: 'We shall practice mindfulness as to body, develop it, make it our vehicle, our dwelling-place, our resort, we will build it up and undertake it thoroughly.' This, monks, is how you must train yourselves." > > I appreciate this and enjoy comparing translations. What would really be worthwhile, **if one had the means and the time**, would be to go through a few important passages and look at the Pali and see if we can reconstruct the passages. Chris is good at that - if she's in the mood, maybe she can take a look at some of these passages... > #119669 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 11:33 am Subject: Re: "There is so a self. It says so in the suttas." philofillet Hi Connie > I'll be watching for them on NoYouTube, Phil. Wow, you got da panna girl! They still need a little agent, no wait, they $are$ little agents, never mind. Ok, beautiful day, I'm going hiking. Hope I come across a rotting carcass! Metta, Phil #119670 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 12:23 pm Subject: Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) philofillet Hi all We tend to think knowing nama from rupa is easy. Here is how A.Sujin answered when my question was asked. (Thanks Betty!) Q: Can you say a little to help this beginner understand why it is so important, or difficult, to know nama from rupa. Nama experiences, rupa is experienced, isn't that straightforward? (note - now I would say, "rupa doesn't experience anything") A.S: What about understanding nama as nama now, not just the word what nama means. No matter how much we translate nama as this or that, but what about nama right now? Where can we find, or understand it? If we dont' know, we just recite the meaning of nama, that nama sees, nama hears, nama knows. But at the moment of seeing, is that nama or is it I who sees? (snip of Nina talking how important this topic is, the first stage of insight, how difficult it is for her to explain, because she hasn't reached that stage of insight yet herself) A.S: That's why we keep talking about these two things, or two realities. That even at this moment, it is only awareness which *is* aware,so that panna can begin to understand it as it is. Because even if we talk about that reality, which is mental reality, which can experience or must experience an object, whenever it arises it *has to* experience, even (if) we keep on talking, or thinking, or considering, it's not the exact moment when awareness arises, and *is* aware of it. For example, right now, how and where can we find nama? We don't have to go anywhere, we don't have to think of other things, because now seeing is seeing, just that reality, which sees. Before thinking. Now there are many conditions for thinking about different things. Even thinking about nama and rupa. But that is thinking, it's not the moment of understanding, or developing, seeing without thinking. (to be continued) Ph: Is there a difference between "understanding" seeing and "developing" seeing? Recently I hear about "developing" dhamma sanna (is that right?) as compared to sanna of people and things. Does developing just mean understanding, or accumulation of understanding? Could anyone who is keen on listening to A. Sujin add some thoughts on that? (Or on any of the above, of course.) Thanks. Metta, Phil #119671 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A reply to half a dozen multi-splendoured Rob E posts epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > > >________________________________ > >From: Robert E > > >On a lighter note, aren't you afraid that if Phil and I were there at the same time, we would either get into a fistfight or go out drinking? :-) > ..... > S: :-) Just some spicy discussions I'm sure. Now, if we could find a way for Scott to come too, it would be even more interesting! I'd love for Howard, Lukas, Alex, Dieter and all the other long-term regular posters we've not met to come too. That would be quite a party, wouldn't it? Well, we can hope that the circumstances line up for a really diverse conference of all the good friends one of these days. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #119672 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 12:37 pm Subject: Re: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi truth_aerator Hello Connie, all, >C: You've lost me, Alex. Please explain to me in terms of "seeing" >or the like, this kind of 'existence' or whatever it is that you are >proposing. >======================================================= The Buddha rejected two extreme views of eternalism and annihilationism because there isn't a singular indivisible sabhava Atta to eternally exist or to cease. Only thing that exists can cease. Do you understand this point? The Buddha rejected Atta (defined above) by showing that it is divisible (into 5 aggregates, 12 spheres, 18 elements) and isn't a singular indivisible sabhava. Do you understand this point? The proposed idea that dhamma is singular indivisible sabhava is basically the same thing as false idea of Atta. It is sneaking idea of Atta from 5 aggregates, to dhamma which is said to have basically the same properties as false idea of Atta. Just the scale is different, not the principle. So when dhamma ceases, in principle it is like the false idea of Atta ceasing. Belief in Atta that ceases is Uccheda-ditthi that precludes even stream-entry. Do you understand the full weight of this issue? As long as one holds Uccheda-ditthi, maggaphala cannot occur. With best wishes, Alex #119673 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 22, 2011 2:54 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Jon (Rob E.), > > The Paa.li for: > > "...'Tethered to a stout post or pillar,' monks, denotes mindfulness as to body. Therefore, monks, this is how you must train yourselves: 'We shall practice mindfulness as to body, develop it, make it our vehicle, our dwelling-place, our resort, we will build it up and undertake it thoroughly.' This, monks, is how you must train yourselves." > > ...Da.lhe khiile vaa thambhe vaa'ti kho, bhikkhave, kaayagataaya satiyaa eta.m adhivacana.m. Tasmaatiha vo, bhikkhave, eva.m sikkhitabba.m - 'kaayagataa no sati bhaavitaa bhavissati bahuliikataa yaaniikataa vatthukataa anuṭṭhitaa paricitaa susamaaraddhaa'ti. Eva~nhi kho, bhikkhave, sikkhitabba''nti. Dasama.m. > > Scott. Thanks, Scott. Just as a starter, I see that the Pali for "mindfulness as to body" is "kaayagataaya satiyaa," and in the quote for the equivalent of "We shall practice mindfulness of the body" the passage refers to 'kaayagataa no sati bhaavitaa." I assume in the second passage that 'bhaavitaa' is a form of bhavana and that this is being translated as "practice." Just guessing for now, but this seems to be referencing Kayagatasati, the practice of mindfulness of the body, and it would be interesting to look at the Kayagatasati sutta. I would like to improve my understanding of the Pali components of the term Kayagata, so I will hunt around a little bit. I'm sure that "kaya" can be looked at as a more conventional sense of body, or in more of a paramatha sense of bodily rupa, so if you know of any commentarial material on that issue, how kayagata is seen in Abhidhamma and the practice of Kayagatasati, that would be very relevant and I would be very interested. Also to look into Kayagatasati as a form of practice - sort of look at the passage from both sides. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #119674 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:16 am Subject: Do you wield power over khandas? (was [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...You can hide behind 'understanding alone knows'..." Leaving aside whether the statement that "understanding alone knows" is true or not, my comment had nothing to do with that. What I was saying, very obviously, was that Phil was using that statement to back away form any responsibility for what he said, but only after happily expressing his opinion. The comment was about this little tactic, not about the truth or falsity of the statement. > Scott: Questions: > > 1. Are you suggesting that there is another mental factor - other than pa~n~naa - that is the functional element in bringing about the Path? > > 2.If so, what is it? > > 3. What are your sources of evidence? I'm not suggesting anything at the moment - these questions are not relevant to what I said. > R: "For intentional action and adopting specific practices, see Buddha's advice to Moggalana to overcome sleepiness in his meditation..." > > Scott: A few more questions: > > 4. Can you give the context of this sutta? > > 5. Who was Moggalana? > > 6. What were his 'accumulations?' > > 7. What did the Buddha know about Moggalana and how the particular levels of development to which the various operative mental factors available to him were constellated? The above questions are irrelevant to this discussion. They would be relevant to the specific instructions that Buddha gave Moggalana, or the timing or understanding of what to say to Moggalana at a particular time based on his knowledge of Moggalana, but none of that has any relevance, because my point is not that I know what Moggalana needed, or who Moggalana was, but merely that Buddha gave him conventional instructions to effect a conventional result. You can say it's very mysterious and that this is not true, but to do so you have to make it up out of whole cloth. The entire passage is nothing but conventional instructions to help Moggalana to stay awake. If you think there's something else going on, you have to give some evidence for that. I don't have to give evidence that a very straightforward set of instructions really *don't* mean something completely different than what they say, just because you think they mean something else. > 8. Does conventional language refer back to paramattha dhammas or to some separate 'reality' with a set of conditional laws that are somehow different from those which apply to paramattha dhammas? > > 9. Are you Moggalana? > > 10. Am I Moggalana? > > 11. What are the proofs you use to allow you to equate a modern-day person, such as you or I, to Moggalana? If an ancient person were instructed to go buy some eggs, you wouldn't absurdly insist that his situation in ancient times was so different that we cannot possibly divine what on earth was going on there. The problem of falling asleep while meditating or getting tired, one of the obstacles to practice in the category of "sloth and torpor" in Buddhism, is as normal as buying an egg. Do I have to be Moggalana or an ancient person to understand an entire passage that is straightforwardly about strategies for defeating sleepiness? No, I do not. Are you Buddha? Do you have some special knowledge that he was incapable of giving normal instructions, as he clearly does here? Or are you making it up out of your own philosophical disposition? > 12. What are the proofs you use to justify the assumption that 'instructions' are generic? If you mean generic to mean "applying to everyone" I don't! I don't know if Buddha, had I been so lucky, would have given me the same isntructions as Moggalana. Who cares? What is important is that he gave them to Moggalana, they are clearly instructions, and they give yet another example of Buddha attending to ordinary instructions and activities as part of practice and part of the path. How would you interpret these instructions? Do you have some special way of devolving them into language that is more acceptable to you than the way the Buddha chose to work and communicate with his students? Moggalana wasn't a beginner. He eventually excelled and became an arahat in a short period of time. Buddha could have talked to him in terms of paramatha dhammas, but he clearly found it valuable to give him meditation instructions so that he could practice purposely and successfully. This is Buddha as meditation teacher. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #119675 From: "connie" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 1:00 pm Subject: Re: Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) nichiconn hi Phil, We don't have to go anywhere, we don't have to think of other things, because now seeing is seeing, just that reality, which sees. > Before thinking. Now there are many conditions for thinking about different things. Even thinking about nama and rupa. But that is thinking, it's not the moment of understanding, or developing, seeing without thinking. > > (to be continued) > > Ph: Is there a difference between "understanding" seeing and "developing" seeing? Recently I hear about "developing" dhamma sanna (is that right?) as compared to sanna of people and things. Does developing just mean understanding, or accumulation of understanding? like: the moment of seeing is already past/gone ... (& then) thinking (of seeing) is not the moment of (developing) understanding; (thinking about) it is not the (same as understanding -or the developing of understanding- the) moment of seeing without thinking. that's awkward! seeing happens already just in the sense door process, before 'thinking' in mind door processes. "it all happens so fast" connie #119676 From: "connie" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 1:14 pm Subject: Re: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi nichiconn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Connie, all, > > > >C: You've lost me, Alex. Please explain to me in terms of "seeing" >or the like, this kind of 'existence' or whatever it is that you are >proposing. > >======================================================= > > > The Buddha rejected two extreme views of eternalism and annihilationism because there isn't a singular indivisible sabhava Atta to eternally exist or to cease. Only thing that exists can cease. Do you understand this point? > evidently not... or not what you're saying anyway. sabhava atta? principle of nature? what is a 'thing'? how do we recognize a 'thing'? i don't get where you keep coming up with eternalism. > The Buddha rejected Atta (defined above) by showing that it is divisible (into 5 aggregates, 12 spheres, 18 elements) and isn't a singular indivisible sabhava. Do you understand this point? > no. i still don't understand what you're saying. what is this atta you keep talking about? what is it's function? how are you defining sabhava? > The proposed idea that dhamma is singular indivisible sabhava is basically the same thing as false idea of Atta. It is sneaking idea of Atta from 5 aggregates, to dhamma which is said to have basically the same properties as false idea of Atta. Just the scale is different, not the principle. So when dhamma ceases, in principle it is like the false idea of Atta ceasing. Belief in Atta that ceases is Uccheda-ditthi that precludes even stream-entry. > i guess you are saying there is no such thing as a citta, no such thing as a cetasika, no such thing as hardness, no such thing as other rupas... just what is there? wait. let me rephrase without using 'thing': rupas, cittas and cetasikas do not exist - is that what you say? what else might come into existence? sorry i'm having trouble understanding what you're getting at. maybe if you talk to me like i'm six & stick to english? connie #119677 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 1:14 pm Subject: Re: Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) truth_aerator Hi Connie, all, >C: We don't have to go anywhere, we don't have to think of other >things, because now seeing is seeing, just that reality, which sees. >=================================== At the exact moment of seeing citta is there understanding of what is seen? With best wishes, Alex #119678 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:23 am Subject: Re: "You can't to anything to 'train'" and the suttas scottduncan2 Alex, It was the 'driving cars into trees' that got you, wasn't it. Like a red flag to a bull. Not known for my patience, I am seriously loathe to get into this again with you. A: "Please note present active verb, sikkhati...Please note all the 'he trains', sikkhati." Scott: Yes, I saw that, Alex. All the repetition. It was like 'he trains' over and over again. I shudder to ask, what is a 'present active verb?' Can you refer to some sort of Paa.li grammar reference text at least as you answer this? Or we can ask Nina, a woman of vertiginous patience, to help us both out with this instead. Scott. #119679 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 1:23 pm Subject: Re: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi truth_aerator Hello Connie, In what way is a concept of dhamma different from concept of Atta? They both are indivisible singular phenomenon. They both are said to possess sabhava. They both can said to cease (thus, Uccheda-ditthi). With metta, Alex #119680 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 1:30 pm Subject: Re: "You can't to anything to 'train'" and the suttas truth_aerator Scott, Check the dictionary for what sikkhati is. It is not passive verb. The word itself does NOT suggest some passive result that "just has happened". With best wishes, Alex #119681 From: "connie" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 1:41 pm Subject: Re: Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) nichiconn hi, Alex, > > >C: We don't have to go anywhere, we don't have to think of other >things, because now seeing is seeing, just that reality, which sees. > >=================================== > I think that was Phil quoting TA, but ok. > At the exact moment of seeing citta is there understanding of what is seen? > Seeing citta: the citta that is performing the function of seeing visible object. No, there is no 'understanding' involved. Seeing doesn't know that it sees or have an idea about what it sees. connie #119682 From: "connie" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 1:49 pm Subject: Re: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi nichiconn hi, Alex, > > In what way is a concept of dhamma different from concept of Atta? > one is a concept of a dhamma & the other is a concept of atta. > They both are indivisible singular phenomenon. wrong. > They both are said to possess sabhava. wrong. > They both can said to cease (thus, Uccheda-ditthi). wrong. 'bye, Alex. connie #119683 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:01 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > The 'active sense' you refer to is interpreted by you to mean that it is a self who is active - 'I must be active,' or, 'the Buddha is instructing me to be active.' To me it is a reflection of the naturally active sense of dhammas developing. I don't misread conventional speech. You mean you don't read it, period. You can't "misread" speech by accepting what it says. That is called "reading," not "misreading." "Misreading" is when you substitute your own understanding for what is actually written, without any justification of why you believe it is right to do so. Your justification is that you believe he means something else, but you have no evidence from the Buddha himself to support this view, so you are giving his speech your preferred meaning instead of his own. What if you're wrong? > The active sense refers only to the nature of these dhammas as development - an active sort of thing - procedes. One's ability to properly understand conventional speech is a function of one's understanding of the fundamental nature of reality. Well I would agree with that, but you mistake purposeful activity for self-view and that is the fundamental problem with your view of fundamental reality. They are not the same thing. You have been taught, or learned, or developed on your own, the view that any purposeful activity can only come from self-view. The Buddha's own pronouncements, encouraging "certain kinds of arising dhammas" if you like, goes against this interpretation. Buddha didn't think it hurt to talk and think this way, or to motivate people to do things with this kind of language, so why do you? > With this in place, one is not mistaken about 'instructions' and can see the forest for the trees. Unless your application of your view to this type of speech of the Buddha's is wrong. There's no evidence that Buddha did not speak this way because he wanted those listening to hear him on this level and act accordingly. If that is the case, then those conventional understandings and actions taken on that basis would lead to the development of kusala. Based on his consistent speech of this type, I believe that is the case. This does not take away from the nature of dhammas; it just means you are wrong about conventional practice. > Does kusala develop? Yes. Is it necessary for this development to proceed that certain conditions obtain? Yes. These facts are encapsulated by 'you must train.' It means while sati develops there are no hindrances because with kusala there is no akusala. Before kusala, or after kusala maybe, but not during. This is all the sutta means. You can't to anything to 'train' - unless you are golfing or swimming or driving cars into trees, of course. If those are all concepts, you can't do any of those things either. It's either golfing + meditation, or neither. > R: "Do you feel this active imperative sense is not a correct reflection of the Pali? Or do you agree that this appears to be a set of direct admonitions or instructions from the Buddha to the monks?" > > Scott: The Paa.li reflects the activity of developing dhammas. The 'imperative' ('I am being instructed to act') is an imputation of your own (and possibly other translators by way of 'translatory editorialization') and is a function of sakkaaya di.t.thi which causes a misreading of the meaning. This is active in the translation as well. Also, Paa.li is not English and English seems to be limited in expressing various subtle nuances. Also, the Commentaries expand on the Paa.li and are a truer source closer to a much better acquaintance with the language (under the same caveats as would any translation fall). A truer source? Do you think the Pali is so different in structure that it can't be translated? It doesn't seem that way to me. A lot of these constructions are straightforward it seems. If you can translate the Pali above into a non-instructive, non-imperative version of that passage, I would be happy to see it, without violating the basic reality of the Pali of course. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #119684 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 3:29 pm Subject: Re: "You can't to anything to 'train'" and the suttas scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Check the dictionary..." Scott: Yahoo is just kicking out posts that got stalled. I've already rewritten this one and you've already made the same argument. Once was enough. Clue: Check the date. If it's old, leave it. Scott. #119685 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 4:05 pm Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo epsteinrob Hi Phil. Hope you don't mind my jumping in. > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > I should repost what in various notebooks I call "the Rob K" quote about how our interest moves from trying to know kusala from akusala, moves toward knowing the anattaness, so that each moment is "perfectly instructive." I loved that quote, then ranted against it, now I would love it again, if I had it. Let me go get my notebook. Here it is: "I think we become less concerned about what the object is and whether there is kusala or akusala and the focus changes to the anattaness and conditionality of the moment. Then every moment is so utterly perfect and instructive." For awhile, when I was opposed, I took this to mean that we could be content to do bad things, that we could soak in bad deeds and thinking about the anattaness of things as an excuse. But when I wrote that I didn't take into account the benefit of listening to dhamma, discussing dhamma, studying characteristics. ... Another aspect of this I think, Phil, is that I think I recall hearing that knowing kusala from akusala is a prerequisite for the stages of insight to develop, so by the time your attention would change to seeing the anattaness of each dhamma you would already know kusala from akusala, as that would already be established. You would not see anattaness in a field of moral relativity, but instead the morality or wholesomeness of a dhamma would have already been recognized, so anatta would not take the place of kusala, but would add deeper insight in addition to the knowledge of kusala. I think it's probably very unlikely at that point of development that one would backslide into akusala behavior because of focusing on anatta. This idea above is based on what I recall being said on dsg, because knowing kusala from akusala is not one of the stages of insight, so I am assuming it is prior, like a basic level of insight before the official stages begin. Maybe someone can clarify that. In any case, I know in the past you questioned whether the knowing of kusala from akusala was a different form of insight from the insight that knows nama from rupa, but I think Sarah has said, and others, that one has to know kusala from akusala before the stages of insight proper can take place. Maybe you are more clear about this now, and can help clarify it for me. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #119686 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 1:03 pm Subject: Restlessness and Regret! bhikkhu5 Friends: Restlessness and Regret Agitates the Mind! A Brahmin Priest once asked the Blessed Buddha: Master Gotama, what is the cause of being unable to remember something that has been memorized over a long period and also that, which has not been memorized? Brahmin, when the mind is agitated by restlessness and regret, stressed, agitated, troubled and tyrannized by restlessness and regret, & one does neither know, nor understand any actual safe escape from this dominating restlessness and regret, in that moment, then one can neither see, nor ever understand what is advantageous, neither for oneself, nor for others, nor for both oneself and for others. Then, consequently, even texts, that have been memorized long, cannot be remembered. Why is this blind neglect so? Imagine a bowl of water with the surface stirred up by wind into ripples, undulations, & small wavelets. If a man with good eye-sight were to inspect the reflection of his own face in it, he would neither see, nor recognize it, as it really is! So too, brahmin, when the mind is distracted by restlessness and regret, excited, anxious, distressed, worried, perturbed and upset by restlessness and regret, on any such occasion even texts long memorized do not recur to the mind, not to speak of those texts, events & knowledge, that have not been memorized at all… On how to prevent Restlessness & Regret (=curable anxiety): 1: Frequent systematic attention both to bodily and mental Tranquillity! http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Forest_Bliss.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/AN.I.3-4.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/AN.I.3-4c.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Curing_Restlessness_and_Regret.htm Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikâya. Book [V:123] section 46: The Links. 55: To Sangarava... Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Restlessness and Regret! #119687 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 6:13 pm Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo philofillet Hi Rob E I just can't wrap my head around your posts, Rob, I'm sorry. Too long and I can't have enough confidence in the conistency/reliability of your understanding to make the effort. I'm sure there are lots of elements of right understanding in what you say, but I just can't try to sort it out. Basically I'm very lazy intellectually, as you've surely noticed. Surpass me in studies, leave me behind like Scott and others have! You can do it! So, again, nothing personal, but I only have enough intellectual capacity to listen to and receive an accepted teaching. And hopefully see any faults in it, if there are any, gradually. Also, I personally feel that understanding on this kind of point has to develop very gradually. When I heard A.S talk on it one dau, a coin droppped, it was clear. At tge moment it's not. Others believe in the value of triying to extract or help others to extract that understanding through writing about it, I don't. I like listening, it's so interwsting how one time you hear a talk and something clicks, and the next time it is just words pouring by, fascibating, really. So my point is I can't be a good discussant, you should (?) appreciate Scott's diligence in reaching out, your assumption that he is out to reject each and every thing you say is understandable but $almost certainly$ incorrect! Metta, Phil Metta, Phil #119688 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 6:43 pm Subject: The nature of Nina philofillet Hi all I would just like to say how impressed I am when listening to recorded talks, to hear Nina again and again and again say that she is frustrated by her inability to explain Dhamma to others better, it's so clear that that is what is so important for her, helping others to ubderstand Dhamma! How fortunate we are to have a Dhamma friend like her! Metta, Phil #119689 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 6:59 pm Subject: Re: Perfections, was: Pt's Galaxy ... sarahprocter... Hi Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > What is patience? .... S: The (kusala) acceptance of what is conditioned at this very moment. As pa~n~naa develops, understanding realities as they are, it becomes detached from them. Such detachment and patience can never be developed when there is the idea of self, so there has to be awareness of sakkaaya di.t.thi when it arises such as when seeing, hearing, heat or cold are taken as belonging to 'me' or as 'me'. Phil quoted a discussion in which someone asked KS how to help a friend who is lonely. She said help them to understand realities. If they can't understand them, they have to suffer from loneliness. The same applies to impatience. If there is no understanding of realities now, there will continue to be the idea that the problems in life are the other people or the situation of one kind or other, when actually the only real problem is ignorance now. Metta Sarah ==== #119690 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 7:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: What should we say sarahprocter... Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > For this I depend on Phil. I just take what I have from my small > recorder, things I taped for myself, mostly without adding dates, > etc. I take these along to hotels where I have some time transcribing. .... S: Understood, no problem. I appreciate your sharing them. Metta Sarah p.s you asked about Jon's skin rash problems sometime - not completely recovered, he still has to avoid heat, but much better than before. ====== #119691 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 7:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What should we say nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 2-nov-2011, om 9:02 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > p.s you asked about Jon's skin rash problems sometime - not > completely recovered, he still has to avoid heat, but much better > than before. ------ N: I am glad to hear this and so will Lodewijk. He kept on asking after Jon's health. I forgot to mention that my tapes are a mix of Thai and English. No time to separate them. ------- Nina. #119692 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 7:47 pm Subject: Re: Can a Non-Buddhist Act as a Buddhist? was: Off Topic: An Unkownd Texas Ranger sarahprocter... Hi Phil & Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Check note 53 on p.1055 of your SN anthology for a prime example of how sutta browsers get an example of free interpretation right from +the+ top authority, giving the whole idea of self-reliance a stamp of approval! I remember you once commmented on Bhikkhu Bodhi's neo-commentaries. Now that he is a social activist, we can expect even more freestyling in the upcoming AN anthology, I bet. <.....> > > http://records.photodharma.net/appeals/bhikkhu-bodhi-introduces-buddhist-global-\ relief ..... S: I agreed with Ken H's comments on this and the bhikkhu's role/lifestyle. It's not appropriate for a Theravada bhikkhu to be involved in social activism. With regard to the move away from the commentaries, there have been many examples. One is the change of stance on the Luminous Sutta. See #104093, where I quoted: "Luminous (pabhasara'm). AA states that here "the mind" (citta) refers to the bhava'nga-citta, the 'life-continuum' or underlying stream of consciousness which supervenes whenever active consciousness lapses, most notably in deep sleep. The 'adventitious defilements' are greed, hatred and delusion, which appear at a stage of the cognitive process, which, in later Buddhist literature, is called 'javana', 'impulsion'. AA says that the defilements do not arise simultaneously with the bhava'nga, but they 'arrive' later, at the phase of javana. The fact that this expression 'luminous mind' does not signify any 'eternal and pure mind-essence' is evident from the preceding text, in which the mind is said to be extremely fleeting and transitory. The 'uninstructed worldling' (assutavaa puthujjana) is one who lacks adequate knowledge of the Dhamma and training in its practice." In 2002 after we touched on some controversial points together in Hong Kong, he wrote the letter I posted in #16751. Metta Sarah ==== #119693 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 8:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo nilovg Dear Rob E, You always have interesting remarks and these are worth considering. As I am writing to you it helps me to consider dhammas for myself! Op 2-nov-2011, om 6:05 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > This idea above is based on what I recall being said on dsg, > because knowing kusala from akusala is not one of the stages of > insight, so I am assuming it is prior, like a basic level of > insight before the official stages begin. Maybe someone can clarify > that. > > In any case, I know in the past you questioned whether the knowing > of kusala from akusala was a different form of insight from the > insight that knows nama from rupa, but I think Sarah has said, and > others, that one has to know kusala from akusala before the stages > of insight proper can take place. -------- N: As far as I remember, I understood that before the first stage of insight there cannot be clear understanding of different cetasikas and of the difference between citta and cetasika. We have dosa, we notice dosa, and then we hear from Kh Sujin: "it is still your dosa". That wakes us up. It is still thinking of dosa, not the immediate attention to its characteristic in being mindful of it. We notice in a coarse way when there is kusala and when akusala, but it is still "ours". We do not even know naama as naama before the first stage of insight, and how could understanding be precise if this is not known? We learnt that first of all the realities that appear because of their own conditions (not we concentrating on it) should be known as just dhammas. It is important not to try to select any object, because than the self is at work, and we do not learn that dhammas arise because of their own conditions. Those who developed samatha before the Buddha's time had to know the difference between kusala citta and akusala citta; indeed, this is necessary for the development of samatha. They had mindfulness and understanding of the level of samatha, but not understanding that leads to the eradication of the belief in a self. If there is no selection of particular objects, such as the hindrances you mentioned in another post, then we can begin to learn that whatever arises does so because of its own conditions. Sometimes Kh Sujin says: we cannot do anything. She also said that when someone tries not to do anything, there is an idea of self trying not to do anything. I had to think this over. A good remark. Any trying with an idea of self may be in the way of developing understanding of the reality appearing at this moment. It may be trying, then we learn that this is conditioned, just a dhamma. ------ Nina. #119694 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 8:20 pm Subject: Nama more subtle than rupa? philofillet Hi Sarah and all Was just listening to the talk (Benares 2004, pt.) in which you and AS discuss whether nama is subtler to know than rupa, her point is that nama doesn't appear like rupa, which appears so clearly all the time. You contend that there is no way to say that, I'm wondering do you still feel that way? For example, think of the way sanna takes all that visible object and thinks about people and things. Isn't that rupa of visual object surely less sutble than, for example, the characteristic of nama that thinks about it? Then again, as we agreed tge other day "do you know me?" is a way to confirm the characteriatic of sanna, so maybe you were right. I'm 95 percent sure you're going to say "it depends, can't say" but I'll throw it out just in case you've come to agree with a.s on that point...as always no hurry whatsoever...just curious cuz it feels to me she was right, but when things feel obvious it's good to think twice... Metta, Phil #119695 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 8:29 pm Subject: Re: Pt's visit by car - this moment does not mean crashing into trees! sarahprocter... Dear Pt & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > - Bhojjanga Samyutta, jhana mastery, enlightenment factors, p. 1573 in Bodhi's transl of SN. More later by one of us. .... S: You raised a different translation of this sutta from the Bojjha"ngasa.myutta 46:4 'Clothes' for discussion. "... The Venerable Saariputta said this: 'Friends, there are these seven factors of enlightenment. What seven. The enlightenment factor of mindfulness.....discrimination of states.....energy......rapture.....tranquillity.....concentration....equanimity.\ ..... 'Whichever of these seven factors of enlightenment I want to dwell in during the morning, I dwell in that factor of enlightenment during the morning Whichever I want to dwell in during the middle of the day, I dwell in that factor of enlightenment during the middle of the day. Whichever i want to dwell in during the evening, I dwell in that factor of enlightenment during the evening. 'If, friends, it occurs to me, '[Let it be] the enlightenment factor of mindfulness,' it occurs to me, 'It's measureless'; it occurs to me, 'It's fully perfected.' While it persists, I understand, 'It persists.' If it abates in me, I understand, 'It has abated in me for a particular reason.'....{and so on for the other factors.} 'Suppose, friends, a king or a royal minister had a wardrobe full of differently coloured clothes. Whatever suit he might want to wear in the morning he would wear in the morning. Whatever suit he might want to wear during the middle of the day he would wear during the middle of the day. Whatever suit he might want to wear in the evening he would wear in the evening. So too, friends, whichever of these seven factors of enlightenment I want to dwell in during the morning....during the middle of the day...during the evening, I dwell in that factor of enlightenment during the evening. 'If friends, it occurs to me, '[Let it be] the enlightenment factor of mindfulness' (all as above)....I understand, 'It has abated in me for a particular reason.'" ***** Pt, please correct me if I misunderstood you, but as I recall, your questions related to the apparent 'control' involved, the 'deciding' on which factors would arise and perhaps the suggestion of intention and choice by a Self. First of all, we need to appreciate that this refers to phala-samapatti or fruition-attainment, whereby anagamis or arahats (only) who attained with jhana as basis, may dwell. B.Bodhi adds the following commentary note which confirms this: "Spk: In this sutta the elder's fruition enlightenment factors (phalabojjha"nga) are discussed. For when he enters fruition attainment after making the enlightenment factor of mindfulness the key, the other six enlightenment factors follow along; and so for the others. Thus the elder spoke this sutta to show his own mastery over fruition attainment." S: Just as someone learns a musical instrument and attains some particular skill in its use, so with the development of jhanas, after the first jhana there is a 'mastery' of jhana. Likewise, for these anagami or arahat like Sariputta, there is skill or mastery in phala samapatti with nibbana as object and in the repeated experience of enlightenment factors. The same applies to experience of past lives in detail and in the case of the Buddha to omniscience, whatever his mind was put to. Does any of this imply any control or choice by any Self? Of course not - all mere conditioned dhammas. There is no player of a musical instrument, no musical instrument, no jhana attainer, no Sariputta and no Buddha in reality. Just conditioned dhammas, conditioned namas and rupas like now - all beyond the control of any Atta. Metta Sarah ====== #119696 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 8:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nama more subtle than rupa? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, >Was just listening to the talk (Benares 2004, pt.) in which you and AS discuss whether nama is subtler to know than rupa, her point is that nama doesn't appear like rupa, which appears so clearly all the time. You contend that there is no way to say that, I'm wondering do you still feel that way? ... S: I recall the discussion and I think we were slightly talking at cross purposes. I agree that rupas that appear through the sense doors are more gross (less subtle), but my point was that it entirely depends on accumulations what appears, i.e what awareness is aware of, at anytime. On other occasions AS has agreed with this/said the same. For example, most people find visible object is more apparent than seeing, but for some of us, seeing consciousness is also apparent and if we make any rule or have expectations, there is likely to be clinging to particular experiences again which is unhelpful. Likewise, often people say that hardness or sound are more apparent than visible object and again I tend to object. It may be true for them, but not for all of us and again, clinging of any kind to any experience can only lead to more clinging, less awareness. A bit of a subtle point. I remember you used to say that none of us ever questioned or disagreed with anything KS said, so glad to hear you're finding some examples! Reminds me, when I was young, I was the BIg Social Activist and used to question why we were discussing seeing and visible object as opposed to rescuing refugees in Thailand. It takes a long time, a lot of careful consideration and understanding before we really appreciate that it is just the present understanding that counts. Then no more questioning or disagreement. .... >For example, think of the way sanna takes all that visible object and thinks about people and things. .... S: Sanna just marks (and remembers) one object at a time that is experienced by citta. It doesn't think. ... >Isn't that rupa of visual object surely less sutble than, for example, the characteristic of nama that thinks about it? .... S: Yes, I think vis object is less subtle than the various namas involved, but again, it depends on accumulations as to which dhamma may appear. Sanna is not easy to know, likewise vitakka, but slowly through consideration, such as the questions and points we've been discussing, we may become more familiar with their characteristics, at least at a pariyatti level. .. >Then again, as we agreed tge other day "do you know me?" is a way to confirm the characteriatic of sanna, so maybe you were right. I'm 95 percent sure you're going to say "it depends, can't say" but I'll throw it out just in case you've come to agree with a.s on that point ... S:"it depends, can't say"!! You can add these points to your KK list!! ... > ...as always no hurry whatsoever...just curious cuz it feels to me she was right, but when things feel obvious it's good to think twice... .... S: As you know, she really is almost always right - often I may question a point, and then I find the texts support exactly what she has said and I even find the similes she's used later. Still, good to question and discuss and not just agree because we've been told it's so by her or anyone else. She'll say we need to even question and really understand what we read in the texts too, not just accept it because the book says so! Metta Sarah p.s Thx for your consideration - as usual, the "no hurry" posts seem to be the ones I pick up on passing... ===== #119697 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 9:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/1/2011 9:42:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: I'm sure that "kaya" can be looked at as a more conventional sense of body, or in more of a paramatha sense of bodily rupa, so if you know of any commentarial material on that issue, how kayagata is seen in Abhidhamma and the practice of Kayagatasati, that would be very relevant and I would be very interested. =========================== Just an observation that might add to our understanding that term: The most common usage of 'kaaya' is to denote the body of a being, but the precise meaning (and the most general one) so far as I know is that of "collection" or "aggregation" (as in the English example of a "body" of work). This is how I think of bodies, and, for that matter, of beings - namely as collections (of a particular sort) of interrelated mental and physical phenomena. And collections in general are neither seen, heard, tasted, smelled, nor cognized as "bodily sensations". Collections per se are known only through the mind door. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #119698 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 9:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nama more subtle than rupa? philofillet Hi Sarah Thanks for your quick feedback, I'll strike while the iron is hot and write back now, day off and all... >I agree that rupas that appear through the sense doors are more gross (less subtle), but my point was that it entirely depends on accumulations what appears, i.e what awareness is aware of, at anytime. Ph; Yes, just before you brought this up, you were asking about "arise" vs. "experience" involved in a loud noise, is there awareness of the rupa of hardness, or the rupa of sound, depends on conditions, but different doors... >On other occasions AS has agreed with this/said the same. For example, most people find visible object is more apparent than seeing, but for some of us, seeing consciousness is also apparent Ph: Wow, I have no sense of that dark citta of seeing consciousness appearing at all, can only understand it intellectualy, interesting. (In passing, I read Bhikkhu Bodhi's letter, where he talks about all cittas to some degree "illuminating" things, or something like that, not showing understanding of the dark citta at that point..) >and if we make any rule or have expectations, there is likely to be clinging to particular experiences again which is unhelpful. ph: Ok, pretty inevitable, but ok... >Likewise, often people say that hardness or sound are more apparent than visible object and again I tend to object. It may be true for them, but not for all of us and again, clinging of any kind to any experience can only lead to more clinging, less awareness. ph: appreciated. > A bit of a subtle point. I remember you used to say that none of us ever questioned or disagreed with anything KS said, so glad to hear you're finding some examples! ph: sorry to disappoint, but this exchange of yours, which I remember mentionning a few years ago, remains the clearest example of someone sticking to a point of disagreement *during a talk*, and that's fine. I'm sure the more usual way is to reflect afterwards, and bring a point up at the next talk. And that's great. I still say there is a different dynamic, a valuable dynamic, when people are in the listening mode, basically. That's the traditional way, in any, um, "way"... > >For example, think of the way sanna takes all that visible object and thinks about people and things. > .... > S: Sanna just marks (and remembers) one object at a time that is experienced by citta. It doesn't think. Ph: The reason I wrote that is because I heard today, in the same talk, A.S say re that loud sound and hardness that it shows how fast realities are, rising and falling away, but "sanna keeps on thinking in the sea of concepts." So maybe when the object is conepts, we can say sanna thinks, effectively, but when it is visible object, "sanna thinks" is wrong...? > >Isn't that rupa of visual object surely less sutble than, for example, the characteristic of nama that thinks about it? > .... > S: Yes, I think vis object is less subtle than the various namas involved, but again, it depends on accumulations as to which dhamma may appear. Sanna is not easy to know, likewise vitakka, but slowly through consideration, such as the questions and points we've been discussing, we may become more familiar with their characteristics, at least at a pariyatti level. Ph: Thanks Sarah. Sanna is especially difficult for me, back to that other thread in a few days... Metta, Phil #119699 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Wed Nov 2, 2011 11:10 pm Subject: Monk Bodhi No-Nol was, Can a Non-Buddhist Act as a Buddhist? dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, et al You wrote, in part: It's not appropriate for a Theravada bhikkhu to be involved in social activism. Two questions: 1. What is your definition of "social activism" of/for Theravada monks? 2. Where specifically in the Vinaya-pitaka is this a violation of the Vinaya-pitaka? yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck ................................ rest deleted ........................................................................... #119700 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 12:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Monk Bodhi No-Nol was, Can a Non-Buddhist Act as a Buddhist? sarahprocter... Dear Chuck, ________________________________ >From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro >You wrote, in part:  It's not appropriate for a Theravada bhikkhu to be involved in social activism. > >Two questions: > >1.  What is your definition of "social activism" of/for Theravada monks? .... S: For example, organising "disaster relief" programs, political demonstrations - any activities which are likely to involve discussion other than about the Dhamma,  "irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life..." are unsuitable. > >2.  Where specifically in the Vinaya-pitaka is this a violation of the Vinaya-pitaka? .... S: First, from the Suttas: Mahavagga of the Samyutta Nikaya (Saccasamyutta) 10 (10) Pointless Talk "Bhikkus, do not engage in the various kinds of pointless talk, that is, talk about kings, thieves, and ministers of state; talk about armies, dangers, and wars; talk about food, drink, garments, and beds; talk about garlands and scents; talk about relations, vehicles, villages, towns, cities and countries; talk about women and talk about heroes; street talk and talk by the well; talk about those departed in days gone by; rambling chitchat; speculation about the world and about the sea; talk about becoming this or that. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this talk is unbeneficial, irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and does not lead to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana." ***** In the Vinaya Pitaka, Suttavibhanga, Expiation, Pacittiya 85, it says that monks must not enter a village at the wrong time because they are more likely to get involved in worldly talk. The bhikkhu's life properly lived is a training for the life of an arahat, removed from the worldly concerns and "animal talk", just concerned with the Path. In AN 10.69  , Kathavatthu Sutta: Topics of Conversation (Thanissaro Transl) the Buddha says: "It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get engaged in such topics of conversation, i.e., conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state... talk of whether things exist or not. "There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful — to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects." **** S: In other words, these are the suitable topics for bhikkhus and it's helpful for us all to reflect on this as well. When I am in the company of a bhikkhu, I will definitely try to keep to Dhamma discussion only. Metta Sarah ==== #119701 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 12:45 am Subject: Re: Can a Non-Buddhist Act as a Buddhist? was: Off Topic: An Unkownd Texas Ranger scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Phil, S: "...One is the change of stance on the Luminous Sutta..." Scott: The luminous citta is bhavanga citta. Bh. Bodhi suggests: "...I would tentatively interpret it something like this: In its own nature, on all occasions of experience (even in unwholesome acts of consciousness), citta possesses a certain luminosity which enables it to 'illuminate' the objective field. Just as a lamp can illuminate a room, or as the sun illuminates the world, so the citta illuminates its objective field. This luminous capacity is always present in any citta, but in the case of akusala cittas, the 'adventitious defilements' (aagantuka upakkilesa) dim that luminosity and prevent it from illuminating objects 'as they really are' (yathaabhuuta). The noble disciple has seen the possibility of eradicating rthe defilements right down to the level of latent tendency, and thus knows that the citta is not intrinsically corrupted by the defilements. Such a disciple knows that with suitable mental development, the defilements can be uprooted, and when this occurs the citta will shine forth in its intrinsic luminosity no longer dimmed by the mental defilements. This does not imply that the citta is a metaphysical absolute, an indestructible core of subjectivity; reach citta too is subject to arise and pass away, but now the cittas shine forth brightly on each occasion of their arising..." Scott: He seems to suggest that 'luminous' refers to characteristic or function. He seems to be referring to 'vi~n~naa.na.' Attasaalinii (p.186) notes: 'Vi~n~naa.na is cognizing.' Scott. #119702 From: "philip" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 1:35 am Subject: Re: Can a Non-Buddhist Act as a Buddhist? was: Off Topic: An Unkownd Texas Ranger philofillet Hi Sarah, all >Now that he is a social activist, we can expect even more freestyling in the upcoming AN anthology, I bet. <.....> > > > > http://records.photodharma.net/appeals/bhikkhu-bodhi-introduces-buddhist-global-\ relief > ..... > S: I agreed with Ken H's comments on this and the bhikkhu's role/lifestyle. It's not appropriate for a Theravada bhikkhu to be involved in social activism. I'm sorry to say this, but it is hard to watch the video at the site above and read through bits from the group's website, including the below, without concluding that Bhikkhu Bodhi is becoming very eccentric: "The seed of the BGR walk was a dream I had several years ago in which I walked the length of Manhattan. I acted on this dream in May 2010, accompanied by Evan, a young man staying at my monastery, and Sylvie Sun, a BGR board member. We started from Sylvie's home in Fort Lee, New Jersey, walked across the George Washington Bridge into Manhattan, and continued walking until we reached Chinatown, a distance of about fourteen miles, which we covered in six hours." I really wonder what's going on. I'm sorry if this is gossipy, but it really makes you wonder what that AN anthology is going to be like.... I know, just a story. Time to remember Matt Roke a.k.a Ivan's letter about the ordination of women etc, all stories aside, just seeing and visible object and other realities now. metta, phil #119703 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 2:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Monk Bodhi No-Nol was, Can a Non-Buddhist Act as a Buddhist? nilovg Dear Chuck, Op 2-nov-2011, om 14:17 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > You wrote, in part: It's not appropriate for a Theravada bhikkhu > to be involved in social activism. > > ------- N: There are only two tasks (dhura burden or task) for the bhikkhu: gantha dhura and vipassanaa dhura, gantha or the texts of the Tipi.taka, and vipassanaa, the development of insight. As to the texts, not just abstract knowledge of these, but pariyatti which is understanding the texts as related to the present moment. ------ Nina. #119704 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 2:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) nilovg Dear Phil, Thank you for this good transcript. Op 2-nov-2011, om 2:23 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Is there a difference between "understanding" seeing and > "developing" seeing? ---- N: No, developing the understanding of seeing is meant. Developing understanding of seeing without thinking, knowing the difference of experiencing visible object and cognizing the concept of person. Right now we seem to see persons, things, but then we are just dreaming, not seeing. -------- > Ph: Recently I hear about "developing" dhamma sanna (is that > right?) as compared to sanna of people and things. Does developing > just mean understanding, or accumulation of understanding? ------ N: To elaborate: Developing anatta sa~n~naa instead of atta sa~n~naa, then we understand what dhamma is. Just now we say: know dhamma, but do we understand what dhamma is, different from concept? Do we understand that visible object is not a person? In theory yes, but right now while seeing? ------ Ph quotes: even (if) we keep on talking, or thinking, or considering, it's not the exact moment when awareness arises, and *is* aware of it. For example, right now, how and where can we find nama? ------- N: We may keep on talking about realities, but when there can be awareness of this moment it is far more effective to understand realities then so much talking. ----- Nina. #119705 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 3:10 am Subject: Re: Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) truth_aerator Hi Connie, all, >A: At the exact moment of seeing citta is there understanding of >what >is seen? >================================================== >C: Seeing citta: the citta that is performing the function of >seeing >visible object. No, there is no 'understanding' involved. >Seeing >doesn't know that it sees or have an idea about what it sees. >================================================== So understanding (certain citta-vitthi processes) of what was seen happens only after seeing-citta has ceased. If we assume the extreme momentariness view with only one citta at a time, then: The "understanding of what was seen" does not take an existing seeing-citta to understand it. At best it understands a concept, an afterimage of what was seen. The examining of triple characteristics of the presently arisen citta never occurs, so one examines what no longer is at the present time. Whenever we talk about citta, cetasika, rupa - we always talk about a concept of "citta, cetasika, rupa" because none of these last long enough to be examined themselves. With best wishes, Alex #119706 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 3:12 am Subject: Re: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi truth_aerator Hi Connie, all. >A:In what way is a concept of dhamma different from concept of Atta? >=================================================== >C:one is a concept of a dhamma & the other is a concept of atta. >=================================================== So they are both similar in that they are concepts. >A:They both are indivisible singular phenomenon. >C: wrong. Please explain, otherwise it is mere assertion on your part. >A:They both are said to possess sabhava. >C:wrong. Please explain, otherwise it is mere assertion on your part. >A:They both can said to cease (thus, Uccheda-ditthi). >C: wrong. Please explain, otherwise it is mere assertion on your part. With best wishes, Alex #119707 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 3:57 am Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > I just can't wrap my head around your posts, Rob, I'm sorry. Too long and I can't have enough confidence in the conistency/reliability of your understanding to make the effort. I'm sure there are lots of elements of right understanding in what you say, but I just can't try to sort it out. Basically I'm very lazy intellectually, as you've surely noticed. Surpass me in studies, leave me behind like Scott and others have! You can do it! So, again, nothing personal, but I only have enough intellectual capacity > to listen to and receive an accepted teaching. And hopefully see any faults in it, if there are any, gradually. That's fine. I'll just highlight the fact that I was talking about an Abhidhamma issue that I am really very interested with. When it was brought up in your post it incited some pertinent thought processes and I got excited about it, that's all. > Also, I personally feel that understanding on this kind of point has to develop very gradually. When I heard A.S talk on it one dau, a coin droppped, it was clear. At tge moment it's not. Others believe in the value of triying to extract or help others to extract that understanding through writing about it, I don't. I like listening, it's so interwsting how one time you hear a talk and something clicks, and the next time it is just words pouring by, fascibating, really. So my point is I can't be a good discussant, you should (?) appreciate Scott's diligence in reaching out, your assumption that he is out to reject each and every thing you say is understandable but $almost certainly$ incorrect! It's hard to agree about Scott on this point. He has said explicitly in posts that he is just bouncing off of me to practice his dhamma points and check his own understanding, not really trying to have a conversation, but that's fine. To each his own. Those posts were not addressed to me, but since I can read, I happened to see them. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #119708 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 4:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Howard, (and Sarah and Nina for second part...) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 11/1/2011 9:42:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > epsteinrob@... writes: > > I'm sure that "kaya" can be looked at as a more conventional sense of > body, or in more of a paramatha sense of bodily rupa, so if you know of any > commentarial material on that issue, how kayagata is seen in Abhidhamma and > the practice of Kayagatasati, that would be very relevant and I would be very > interested. > =========================== > Just an observation that might add to our understanding that term: The > most common usage of 'kaaya' is to denote the body of a being, but the > precise meaning (and the most general one) so far as I know is that of > "collection" or "aggregation" (as in the English example of a "body" of work). > This is how I think of bodies, and, for that matter, of beings - namely as > collections (of a particular sort) of interrelated mental and physical > phenomena. And collections in general are neither seen, heard, tasted, smelled, > nor cognized as "bodily sensations". Collections per se are known only > through the mind door. That really is interesting, Howard. It sheds some light on the issue and also leads me to consider another issue. I would still like to know whether in Abhidhamma when the bodily 'kaya' is mentioned as a field of mindful awareness, whether the body as an aggregate is being considered, or whether that is a shorthand for the specific rupas associated with the body to be understood through mindfulness. Your talking about the kaya, or aggregate of the body, only being apprehended through the mind-door, leads me to ask another question. The third stage of insight is the ability to experience and understand the "groups" of dhammas that arise, and how they arise in groupings. I wonder if that is the understanding of an aggregation of dhammas through the mind-door, or whether it is an insight that is of direct perception of the dhammas involved, and if so, how the "groupings" are understood in which those dhammas arise? Maybe the dhammas involved are directly understood, and then the groupings of those dhammas are subsequently or sequentially understood through the mind-door as part of that grouping. Maybe Sarah or Nina could help with this aspect... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #119709 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 4:17 am Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo scottduncan2 Rob E., S: "...It's hard to agree about Scott on this point. He has said explicitly in posts that he is just bouncing off of me to practice his dhamma points and check his own understanding..." Scott: It's like Nina said to you: "...As I am writing to you it helps me to consider dhammas for myself..." Scott: And, for me as well, I would add 'Dhamma' to 'dhammas' because this studying 'Dhamma' is just studying texts and words and whatnot - no 'practice' obviously. The study of 'dhammas' in a day is an impersonal sort of 'study.' I don't agree with you for reasons I have clearly stated to you many times but I carefully consider what I find incorrect within what you write and use it to re-evaluate what I consider to be correct. I don't mind that Nina has a different style of discussion than do I. Scott. #119710 From: "connie" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 5:29 am Subject: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi nichiconn Hi, Alex >A:In what way is a concept of dhamma different from concept of Atta? >=================================================== >C:one is a concept of a dhamma & the other is a concept of atta. >=================================================== A: So they are both similar in that they are concepts. c: So "they are concepts" is the explanation for my "wrong" answers. While you may have meant something else, what you asked about were concepts. A different answer to your first question: unlike the word 'atta', the word 'dhamma' refers to something that it is/can be meaningful to speak in terms of 'existence'. >A:They both are indivisible singular phenomenon. >C: wrong. A: Please explain, otherwise it is mere assertion on your part. >A:They both are said to possess sabhava. >C:wrong. A: Please explain, otherwise it is mere assertion on your part. >A:They both can said to cease (thus, Uccheda-ditthi). >C: wrong. A: Please explain, otherwise it is mere assertion on your part. c: see above. If you wish to continue, I think we should crack a few books and come to some kind of consensus as to what they assert - whether we think we might agree with them or not. connie #119711 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 6:32 am Subject: Re: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi truth_aerator Hi Connie, all, >C:A different answer to your first question: unlike the word 'atta', >the word 'dhamma' refers to something that it is/can be meaningful to >speak in terms of 'existence'. >=================================================== Can a singular momentary dhamma cognize itself? No. To know things such as characteristic of the citta, the citta-viithi process made of 17 cittas is required. -Only one citta happens at a time, and past cittas do not exist. So when we speak of characteristics of the citta, we can never in principle talk about what exists this moment. So what are we talking about? Just a concept of non-existent specific citta with certain characteristics. There is also concept of non-existent Atta... With best wishes, Alex #119712 From: "connie" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 6:44 am Subject: Re: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi nichiconn Hi, Alex. > > To know things such as characteristic of the citta, the citta-viithi process made of 17 cittas is required. > hm. Again, I'd suggest we open a few books. I think that process you refer to is just the one for a full explanation of the sense and mind door cittas when the sense object can be said to last as long as 17 cittas. I'd suggest the kind of full understanding you are trying to get at would be something else. off to read I go. thanks, connie #119713 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 7:59 am Subject: Re: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi truth_aerator Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Hi, Alex. > > > > To know things such as characteristic of the citta, the citta-viithi process made of 17 cittas is required. > > > > hm. Again, I'd suggest we open a few books. I think that process you refer to is just the one for a full explanation of the sense and mind door cittas when the sense object can be said to last as long as 17 cittas. I'd suggest the kind of full understanding you are trying to get at would be something else. > > off to read I go. thanks, > connie > This is what occurs when you study the books, certain questions arise. Please answer my questions if you can. With best wishes, alex #119714 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 8:00 am Subject: Re: The nature of Nina glenjohnann Hello Phil, Nina and All Nicely said, Phil. We are indeed fortunate that Nina's passion for Dhamma and accumulations for sharing with her writings and transcriptions from her tapes come our way. Anumodana! Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi all > > I would just like to say how impressed I am when listening to recorded talks, to hear Nina again and again and again say that she is frustrated by her inability to explain Dhamma to others better, it's so clear that that is what is so important for her, helping others to ubderstand Dhamma! How fortunate we are to have a Dhamma friend like her! > > > Metta, > Phil > #119715 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 1:47 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Monk Bodhi No-Nol was, Can a Non-Buddhist Act as a Buddhist? dhammasaro Good friend Sarah, et al Warm thanks for your rapid response! Wow!! 1. Thank you for your definition. 2. I did not ask for any Sutta-pitaka reference; did I? I do softly suggest you carefully re-peruse your referenced sutta's in light of your "disaster relief." 3. Your Vinaya-pitaka quote is not applicable to this discussion. 4. Real life application of the Dhamma-vinaya in Thailand: a. Currently, in Thailand, due to the multi-month flooding, over half of the seventy-plus provinces (states) are flooded or were flooded. Many, if not most, monks are performing "disaster relief"!!!! b. When the tsunami hit Phuket and Phange-Nye Provinces; monks helped in "disaster relief"!!! Among mundane things they performed; they built coffins!!! c. All under the approval of the Thai Supreme Sangha and HH The Thai Supreme Patriarch. d. FWIW, under the relatively recent past Royal Thai Constitutions, monks were prohibited from voting. However, they were allowed to express opinions. I have not read an English translation of the new 2007 Royal Thai Constitution. 5. Real life application of the Dhamma-vinaya in Myanmar (Burma): One frequently observes monks demonstrating against the extreme cruelty and killings by the illegal military junta government. There are more examples; but, I know it will not change your mind. It is not my purpose. Your perceptions are your perceptions. I simply was curious of your knowledge of the Vinaya-pitaka. Now, I understand. peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck ........................................................... rest deleted ............................................. #119716 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 2:32 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Monk Bodhi No-Nol was, Can a Non-Buddhist Act as a Buddhist? dhammasaro Good friend Nina, Thank you for your opinion. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck. ....................................................... rest deleted ........................ #119717 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 7:02 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Off-topic: Earthquakes & Floods dhammasaro Good friends all, For several days, most, if not all, of Bangkok is in high flood stage. My wife canceled her trip to Bangkok which was scheduled today as she can not be of any help being there... she would just eat the scare food; although she would visit relatives outside Bangkok. Once the crisis is over, we plan to fly there and help in the needed cleanup... Again, please, in your individual way; please chant/meditate/pray and financial aid all affected by the multi-month flooding of over half the 70-plus provinces (states)... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck Post script: Dear doctor Han Tun, I trust you and yours are well and dry. ................................................................................\ ................................. rest deleted .................................... #119718 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Music and Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/21/2011 10:25:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Vince, Op 21-okt-2011, om 4:58 heeft Vince het volgende geschreven: > We can be detached easily when we hear just sounds. > However, How can we explain, in Abhidhamma terms, the strange speed > of strong attachment we can develop when hearing music? ------- N: We like the melody, consisting of many sounds, and each moment of hearing sound is followed by javana cittas which are akusala in the case of attachment. This can remind us that countless processes of cittas experiencing an object through a sense-door and then through the mind-door succeed one another incredibly fast. We cannot imagine to what extent akusala is accumulating and accumulating. We cannot force ourselves not to like music, but we can come to understand more different realities, little by little. ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: What do you mean by "liking" in this case? If it is craving more, then that is imperfect. But what if it is merely finding the music pleasant, i.e. vedana feels it as pleasant? Is that alone akusala? (I think not.) ---------------------------------------------------- Nina. =================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #119719 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 9:00 am Subject: Curing the Scatter Mind! bhikkhu5 Friends: Curing the agitated Restlessness and Regret! Noticing Restlessness-&-Regret arise can make it fade away: When Restlessness-&-Regret is present, the bhikkhu notes & understands: There is Restlessness-&-Regret in me, while when Restlessness-&-Regret is absent, then he notes & understands: No Restlessness-&-Regret is in me. He also understands well how Restlessness-&-Regret arise. He understands how to leave behind any arisen Restlessness-&-Regret, and he understands how left Restlessness-&-Regret will not arise again. MN 10 What is the feeding cause that makes Restlessness-&-Regret arise? There are unrest, unsettledness, nervous unease, agitation & anxiety, often giving irrational & unwise attention to such states, this is the feeding cause of the arising of Restlessness-&-Regret, & the feeding cause of worsening and exacerbation of already arisen Restlessness-&-Regret. SN 46:51 What is the starving cause that makes Restlessness-&-Regret cease? There is the mental state of serene tranquillity, calm, quietude, stillness, imperturbability, peace, frequently giving rational & wise attention to this exquisite mental state, is the starving cause for the non-arising of absent Restlessness-&-Regret, & the starving cause for the dampening and calming of Restlessness-&-Regret, that has already been stirred up. SN 46:51 Advantageous reflections whenever Restlessness-&-Regret is provoked: When the mind is restless, it is the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: Tranquillity , Concentration and Equanimity , because an agitated mind can easily be quietened by them. SN 46:53 Restlessness-&-Regret is like Slavery: Just as when a man is a slave, not independent, but dependent on others, unable to go where he likes, exactly & even so is restlessness since it forces one into unwanted activity & destroys any ease & calm. Later he is set free from slavery, is now independent, no longer dependent, a freeman who can go where he wants. And at that he rejoices, is glad at heart... Such is also the blissful freedom from restlessness. DN 2 Deliberately Directing to a Conscious and Clever Centre of Concentration: Herein, Ananda, a Bhikkhu attends to this single Focus: This is Real, this is Supreme, namely: The Stilling of all mental Construction, The Calming of all Restless Activity, The Fading of all Concern and Anxiety, The Cooling of all Temptation and Urge, The Ending of all Longing and Craving, The Exhaustion of all Fuel of Becoming, Ceasing, Peace, Bliss, Freedom, Nibbâna … AN V 319 DOING GOOD = NO REGRET! Here and now the good-doer rejoices! :-) Even so after passing away and re-emerging, the doer of good reaps only Joy & ease... So both here and beyond, the wise with merit well done, enjoys the purity of own prior good behaviour. Dhammapada 15 DOING BAD = MUCH REGRET! Here and now the bad-doer suffers... :-( Even so after passing away and re-emerging, the doer of wrong reaps only pain and regret... So both here and beyond, the evil wrongdoing fool suffers the painful results of prior bad behaviour. Dhammapada 16 Restlessness-&-regret is followed by worry, anxiety, agitation and attention deficit! <...> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #119720 From: "charlest" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 9:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: When Can A Monk Ask Me for Something? dhammasaro Good friend Connie, Were you able to retrieve the file? Was it clear? please advise. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck ............... rest deleted ...................... #119721 From: "philip" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 10:51 am Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo philofillet Hi Rob E Hi Rob E > That's fine. I'll just highlight the fact that I was talking about an Abhidhamma issue that I am really very interested with. When it was brought up in your post it incited some pertinent thought processes and I got excited about it, that's all. Right, and your questions got a great response from Nina. I would guess that in the future if/when understanding improves from me I'll be able to discuss better with you, for now it is too difficult to know what you're saying because my understanding/experience with discussing difficult topics isn't up there yet and you too are in the midst of working things out, and are long winded. Nina was able to quickly grasp your questions, and answer them. I just can't "go there", as we say... Metta, Phil > #119722 From: "charlest" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 10:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Can a Non-Buddhist Act as a Buddhist? dhammasaro Good friend Ken H, et al Please forgive if I missed your response... I done fergit... [bummer] Please provide your response message number. Sincere warm thanks. yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck ........... rest deleted .................................... #119723 From: "connie" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 11:33 am Subject: When Can A Monk Ask Me for Something? nichiconn hi, Chuck, re: "Were you able to retrieve the file? Was it clear? please advise." I was satisfied with your own answer. Thanks. connie #119724 From: "philip" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 12:41 pm Subject: Ivan's letters 1: Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (1) philofillet Hi all I mentionned in another post a very good letter written by Ivan writing under the name Matt Roke. I did a search and came up with another good letter, I think I'll post a few. Here's the first one: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "matt roke" wrote: > > Dear All, > > This is a reply to something I saw written by Elaine quite a few days ago > and I think it is a view shared by others on DSG. I have not had a chance to > read all the comments on DSG, so my apologies if I am repeating anything > others have said since that posting by Elaine. > > Elaine: Oh wow! I think you have captured the whole essence of DSG > perfectly. The DSG notion of the "no-I" and the "no-doing" is contradictory > from the actual real life stuffs that they are actually doing. They are > sitting at the PC typing, thinking and doing things. Yet they are saying > "no-I" and "no-doing". It is as if there is this mystical "not-I" that is > "not doing", did some things on their behalf. > > Matt: DSG people do things; they make decisions, they go to Dhamma talks, > they write letters on line, they choose what to eat, places to travel to, > jobs they do and friends they visit, etc. > > However, they appreciate that the dhammas that are rising and falling away > when they choose to do those things or when they are doing those things are > not in their control and they are too numerous for there to be a choice as > to what dhamma will arise next. > > We can appreciate the speed that realities arise and fall away by observing > how quickly we can respond to spoken words when we are having a conversation > with another person in our mother language. > > There is sound, interpretation of what that sound means and then a response. > This is happening incredibly fast, and while it happens there are also other > sounds, sights, touch, (and maybe) smells and tastes arising and falling > away followed in each case by thinking, which creates concepts of what was > experienced through those sense doors. > > It is not our choice that there are 6 sense doors. We did not choose what > will arise at the sense doors. We do not know what the next dhamma moment > will be and we do not know which sense door it will arise at. And we cannot > stop that which has arisen from falling away. > > The reason we think we control situations is because realities arise and > fall away to create concepts, and these concepts give the impression that we > can do things. > > It is due to ignorance if there are only concepts and no understanding of > dhammas that make up concepts. Clinging to concepts, particularly the idea > that there is a self, is an obstacle to insight into the true nature of > realities and the understanding of no self. > > Even if we only intellectually understand that concepts are realities that > arise and fall away immediately, we can appreciate that there is no one that > controls those realities; there is no one who makes them arise and there is > no one who can prevent them from falling away. > > People who do not have the opportunity to hear Dhamma or the inclination to > learn about Dhamma, think that they have control over what they do and they > think there is a self who does things. > > When we investigate the true nature of realities we will appreciate that > there are only conditioned dhammas arising and falling away, which we have > no control over. These dhammas do not last, they are unsatisfactory because > they do not last and there is no self to be found in any of these dhammas. > > Because there are only dhammas and concepts are not real, where is the > person or *I* who does things? > > When we hear the Dhamma we act in accordance to how we interpret it. But, > there is no one who chooses to act in this or that way. Had the Dhamma not > been heard then that act would not take place. Having heard the Dhamma, > however, is the condition that makes the action come about. > > Matt > > _________________________________________________________________ > Advertisement: Experience 5 GB storage in your inbox. Upgrade to Windows > Live Hotmail today! > http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=810&referral=H\ otmailtaglineOct07&URL=http://www.livehotmail.ninemsn.com.au/ > #119725 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 12:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/2/2011 1:07:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: I would still like to know whether in Abhidhamma when the bodily 'kaya' is mentioned as a field of mindful awareness, whether the body as an aggregate is being considered, or whether that is a shorthand for the specific rupas associated with the body to be understood through mindfulness. ------------------------------------------- HCW: I don't know about the Abidhamma with respect to that, but it seems to me that the Satipatthana and Kayagata-sati suttas deal with the body in steps of progressive refinement from the grossest mind-door level down to the rupic level. ------------------------------------------ Your talking about the kaya, or aggregate of the body, only being apprehended through the mind-door, leads me to ask another question. The third stage of insight is the ability to experience and understand the "groups" of dhammas that arise, and how they arise in groupings. I wonder if that is the understanding of an aggregation of dhammas through the mind-door, or whether it is an insight that is of direct perception of the dhammas involved, and if so, how the "groupings" are understood in which those dhammas arise? ---------------------------------------- I assume you are speaking of the kalapas? I believe it would have to be via the mind door inasmuch as a kalapa is a collection, but I cannot speak for the Abhidhamma. ------------------------------------------- Maybe the dhammas involved are directly understood, and then the groupings of those dhammas are subsequently or sequentially understood through the mind-door as part of that grouping. ------------------------------------------ Maybe so! -------------------------------------------- Maybe Sarah or Nina could help with this aspect... -------------------------------------------- I bet they can! ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #119726 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 1:03 pm Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > S: "...It's hard to agree about Scott on this point. He has said explicitly in posts that he is just bouncing off of me to practice his dhamma points and check his own understanding..." > > Scott: It's like Nina said to you: > > "...As I am writing to you it helps me to consider dhammas for myself..." > > Scott: And, for me as well, I would add 'Dhamma' to 'dhammas' because this studying 'Dhamma' is just studying texts and words and whatnot - no 'practice' obviously. The study of 'dhammas' in a day is an impersonal sort of 'study.' > > I don't agree with you for reasons I have clearly stated to you many times but I carefully consider what I find incorrect within what you write and use it to re-evaluate what I consider to be correct. I don't mind that Nina has a different style of discussion than do I. Thanks for clarifying. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #119727 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 1:30 pm Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: ...I would guess that in the future if/when understanding improves from me I'll be able to discuss better with you... I'll look forward to that! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #119728 From: "connie" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 1:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Music and Abhidhamma nichiconn Excuse me, Howard, just butting in as usual - > What do you mean by "liking" in this case? If it is craving more, then that is imperfect. But what if it is merely finding the music pleasant, i.e. vedana feels it as pleasant? Is that alone akusala? (I think not.) > ---------------------------------------------------- The refrain goes: if it is not a moment of dana, sila or bhavana, it is akusala. Even if it is only subtle liking, consider what our friend Anonymous says: < the normal usage of the word 'eye' is just for the eye-base which takes the form of a base of kamma-born materiality founded in the desire to see >. connie #119729 From: "philip" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 1:33 pm Subject: "Form (i.e the body)" -another incorrect BB note? philofillet Hi all I would appreciate it if only those who can answer based on knowledge of the Abhidhamma and commentary respond to this inquiry, I am also capable of interpreting based on reading the SN anthology on its own, can't benefit from further interpretations, thanks. :) In a commentarial note to SN 22:95, the lump of foam, Bhikkhu Bodhi writes "Spk explains at length how form (i.e the body) is like a lump of foam." He does quote spk saying "form is full of holes and fissures, abode of many creatures" which gives the conventional idea of body, but I suspect his "i.e the body" is inaccurate. I assume the commentary also explains "form" in terms of rupas as dhammas? Thanks, no hurry. Metta, Phil #119730 From: "connie" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 2:02 pm Subject: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi nichiconn Hi, Alex, I am reading Karunadasa's essay on Annica in Wheel Pub 186. You can find it in the online library section of bps.lk (they won't allow a direct link) or else on ATI. He might help with understanding "thitassa aññathatta (otherwiseness of that which is existing)". I liked this: <> connie This is what occurs when you study the books, certain questions arise. Please answer my questions if you can. #119731 From: "connie" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 2:30 pm Subject: Re: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi nichiconn sorry, Alex, that should've been "a~n~nathatta" in previous post connie #119732 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 2:59 pm Subject: Re: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi scottduncan2 connie, c: "I am reading Karunadasa's essay on Annica in Wheel Pub 186...." Scott: Thanks! Scott. #119733 From: Vince Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 3:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Music and Abhidhamma cerovzt@... Send Email Send Email Hi Nina. Howard, Connie.... Nina wrote: > N: We like the melody, consisting of many sounds, and each moment of > hearing sound is followed by javana cittas which are akusala in the > case of attachment. This can remind us that countless processes of > cittas experiencing an object through a sense-door and then through > the mind-door succeed one another incredibly fast. yes, this is in the side of each sound. However, my interest is in what we name music. I was looking for more stuff in Abhidhamma terms but there are not many things. I have found this distinction of Narada Maha Thera in a manual about "The Arising of Material Phenomena (Rupasamutthana-Naya)", inside the definition of Sadda: "Sadda - Articulate sounds are caused by mind; inarticulate sounds are caused by utu. Musical notes caused by men are produced by utu, conditioned by mind." He explain the utu is considered rupa in Abhidhamma and also "sappaccayam", because it is due to causes (together with kamma, citta and ahara). He says: "It is clear that the term utu has been used in the sense of tejo which constitutes both heat and cold. Strictly speaking, it is the internal and external tejo elements which produce rupa. It should be understood that rupas produced by climatic conditions are also included in the utuja class." So I understand the musical notes are not just sounds like the rest. I don't understand the meaning of "conditioned by mind", although I suspect it can be referred to the activity of the will while producing music. When somebody produce random sounds without added intention, we hear it but we don't say "it's music", because we don't find the beauty. It is when we find the beauty then we name to this "music". So I wonder if musical notes arise conditioned by the same intention to produce beauty. In that case, the point is if the beauty can be a characteristic of the mind in the present moment. > It depends on accumulations whether it is liked or > disliked. Beauty is a conventional idea. When you heard a lot of > Spanish Baroque you may have accumulated a liking for it. There is > attachment to it. that's the point: Do we like it because it's music, or it becomes music when we like it? Narada Thera says musical notes are different of other rupa sounds. Each person has different accumulations and everyone differs in where they can find beauty. However, the reality of the appreciation in itself exists for everybody. Buddha cited the characteristic of the creativity of the mind as something already existing. I wonder if the accumulation exists only in the appreciation. Artists they are always searching where is beauty until they die and mostly they are quite unsatisfied. So in fact they are not attached to to the beauty itself because they don't feel as possessing that; on the contrary they miss that and they look for it using music, paint, or whatever. So I wonder if beauty already exists in a natural way, and the akusala exists in the attachment to the pursuing of that. Not to the beauty in itself which maybe can be an inherent characteristic (the "creativity of mind" cited by Buddha). Connie wrote about the example of the eye-base and kama but I'm feel unable to know how to extrapolate to this issue. I don't know how it can be explained. Well. I think this is interesting regarding the detachment to what is pleasurable and beauty. Music is an speedy experience of attachment, even with Baroche despite being so calm :) best, Vince. #119734 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 10:31 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Parochial Buddhiam dhammasaro Good friends all, Just a reminder... monks are human, too... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: dhammasaro@... <...> Are you sometimes exposed to parochial Buddhism? I ask, as I am somewhat infrequently. Especially, when discussing, in depth, Buddhist topics with my myriad ajahns... I have learned not to quote a source from another Thai Buddhist sect within the Thai Theravada Tradition!!! [bummers] In fact, my translation from Thai to English by my friend, His Holiness, the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand, was suspect!!! Once, my senior ajahn did not believe the translation from Thai to English. To date, he has not provided a different teaching based on the Tipitaka. No, I do not remind him... I fully respect him as I do all sentient beings... plus, he is my personal senior ajahn... why argue on a minor point? Plus he has "walked the talk" many, many more years than I... just relating real life... <...> #119735 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 5:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Form (i.e the body)" -another incorrect BB note? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, >In a commentarial note to SN 22:95, the lump of foam, Bhikkhu Bodhi writes "Spk explains at length how form (i.e the body) is like a lump of foam." He does quote spk saying "form is full of holes and fissures, abode of many creatures" which gives the conventional idea of body, but I suspect his "i.e the body" is inaccurate. I assume the commentary also explains "form" in terms of rupas as dhammas? .... S: The sutta is referring to the khandhas (khandhasa.myutta). Here it is referring to rupas and how any rupa at all is like a lump of foam in that it is void of atta, insubstantial, it cannot be grasped because it breaks up immediately. "Bhikkhus, suppose that this river Ganges was carrying along a great lump of foam. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in a lump of foam? So too, bhikkhus, whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in form?" As the commentary notes, form, i.e rupa, "lacks any substance that is permanent, stable, a self." It is "pulverized in the mouth of death." We also read these commentary details in the Sammohavinodanii (commentary to Vibhanga), but I don't have it with me. Metta Sarah ===== #119736 From: "philip" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 6:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Form (i.e the body)" -another incorrect BB note? philofillet Hi Sarah Thank you, perhaps writing "i.e rupas/materiality of the body" rather than "i.e the body" would have been better. But the spk reference about form being full of fissures, abode for many creatures is somewhat confusing, as is, in Vism (if I remember correctly) the space element being described as being a cavity, like found in a nostril, rather than space between the kalapas. Let me check that...no, just says "it is manifested as untouchedness, as the state of gaps and apertures." "Apertures" sounds more conventional than space between kalapas. I've also always found the AN sutta that says there is no form more disturbing(?) to a man than the form of a woman, and vice versa. Hard to understand that meaning rupas rising and falling away again rather than a sexy body, 15 years old, or whatever age is used, I forget. O w y h t. (only when you have time, i'll shorthand it from now on, though I know it goes without saying.) Metta, Phil #119737 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 5:40 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Monk Bodhi No-Nol was, Can a Non-Buddhist Act as a Buddhist? dhammasaro Good friends Nina and Sarah, Sincere warm thanks for allowing these last five or six messages pass your censorship. No further comment? peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck ..................................... rest deleted ..................................................... #119738 From: "charlest" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 6:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Monk Bodhi No-Nol was, Can a Non-Buddhist Act as a Buddhist? dhammasaro Good friends Nina & Sarah, A sincere thank you for allowing my messages to pass your censorship; albeit, some many hours on this DSG board. Amazingly, via e-mail yawl and I discussed w/i minutes; but, via DSG, it was many hours to be posted!!! In fact, my DSG post. my DSG post, I repeat of a copy of our much, much earlier e-mails were post w/i minutes... Amazing!!! Aint true Buddhist gre-e-a-t? as ever, yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > > > Good friend Nina, > > Thank you for your opinion. > > yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, > > Chuck. > ....................................................... rest deleted ........................ > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > #119739 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 7:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi nilovg Dear Alex, Op 2-nov-2011, om 20:32 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > To know things such as characteristic of the citta, the citta- > viithi process made of 17 cittas is required. > > -Only one citta happens at a time, and past cittas do not exist. > > So when we speak of characteristics of the citta, we can never in > principle talk about what exists this moment. So what are we > talking about? Just a concept of non-existent specific citta with > certain characteristics. There is also concept of non-existent Atta. -------- N: Do you remember the posts on nimitta, sa"nkhaara nimitta. What you say is correct, but the nimitta or sign of a reality, a dhamma, can be experienced. Thus, it is not a sign of a concept, but of a reality. If that were not possible, the eightfold Path could not be developed. We can still speak of present moment, because the dhamma has just fallen away. Do ask if there is anything about nimitta you would like to know. Nina. #119740 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 8:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Music and Abhidhamma nilovg Hi Howard, Op 22-okt-2011, om 13:45 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > HCW: > What do you mean by "liking" in this case? If it is craving more, then > that is imperfect. But what if it is merely finding the music > pleasant, > i.e. vedana feels it as pleasant? Is that alone akusala? (I think > not.) > ---------------------------------------------------- N: Pleasant feeling can accompany kusala or akusala cittas rooted in lobha. As Connie said, if it is not daana, siila or bhaavana, our reactions to what is experienced through the senses is akusala. Even if it is subtle and we do not harm others. It is very meaningful that monks are not allowed to listen to music. ------- Nina. #119741 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Form (i.e the body)" -another incorrect BB note? nilovg Dear Phil, Op 3-nov-2011, om 3:33 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > In a commentarial note to SN 22:95, the lump of foam, Bhikkhu Bodhi > writes "Spk explains at length how form (i.e the body) is like a > lump of foam." He does quote spk saying "form is full of holes and > fissures, abode of many creatures" which gives the conventional > idea of body, but I suspect his "i.e the body" is inaccurate. I > assume the commentary also explains "form" in terms of rupas as > dhammas? ------ N: The English word body sometimes stands for the Pali ruupa, sometimes for kaya. We have to see the context. Also, I have found that the word form is a translation of body or of visible object. The above text seems to be dealing with the five khandhas. Ruupakkhandha comprises all ruupas, not only of the body. But here there is a reminder that body is not attractive. Nina. #119742 From: "philip" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 8:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Form (i.e the body)" philofillet Hi Nina, > N: The English word body sometimes stands for the Pali ruupa, > sometimes for kaya. We have to see the context. Also, I have found > that the word form is a translation of body or of visible object. Ph: Thank you, does kaya always refer to a concept of the body or can we understand kaya as a body that is 15 years old, 100 years old, etc. Still made up of rupas, but somehow existing? This is what confuses me, and reading spk mention hollow places where creatures abide in the body etc. And yet I do understand that such a body, if it exists, cannot be seen, touched, only concept remembered by sanna. It will be a long time until this is clear to me, probably, but no rushing panna... Metta, Phil #119743 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 9:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Form (i.e the body)" sarahprocter... Dear Phil (& Nina), In this sutta and commentary, it is ruupa which is used (and translated as body). The text makes it clear that it is the 5 khandhas being referred to, beginning with rupa. The commentary to this section of the sutta is actually quite long. For more on meanings of kaya (body) in other contexts, see more in U.P. under "body". Metta Sarah >> N: The English word body sometimes stands for the Pali ruupa, >> sometimes for kaya. We have to see the context. Also, I have found >> that the word form is a translation of body or of visible object. > >Ph: Thank you, does kaya always refer to a concept of the body or can we understand kaya as a body that is 15 years old, 100 years old, etc. Still made up of rupas, but somehow existing? This is what confuses me, and reading spk mention hollow places where creatures abide in the body etc. And yet I do understand that such a body, if it exists, cannot be seen, touched, only concept remembered by sanna. ===== #119744 From: "philip" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 10:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Form (i.e the body)" philofillet Hi Sarah Thanks, yes, off to the UPs, and my previously planned plan to study Vism, Nina recommended the section on rupa, with the sub-commentary. Really, this is pretty much poisoned arrow issue for me, at this point, as is my asking so much about sanna. The number of poisoned arrow issues is much greater when our understanding is so weak, we get distracted by things that are beyond our understanding, our attention is always moved away from the present moment by various defilements, and of course there can be moments of kusala chanda mixed in with all the akusala reasons to want to gather knowledge. But technically speaking, not a poisoned arrow issue, of course, topics like this are related to liberation as taught by the Buddha. Metta, Phil #119745 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2011 11:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Form (i.e the body)" scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "...Really, this is pretty much poisoned arrow issue for me...The number of poisoned arrow issues is much greater when our understanding is so weak, we get distracted by things that are beyond our understanding...But technically speaking, not a poisoned arrow issue..." Scott: I'm never sure what you mean when you say stuff like the above. It always strikes me as a bit nervous - a bit superstitious. What sort of 'understanding' are you referring to? If you are referring to intellectual understanding, then you'll read something and either you'll get it or you won't get it. Do you worry you'll think too much about it? We think about everything, that is, thinking always happens. Are you worried that reading will somehow damage 'weak understanding' as in 'pa~n~naa?' Even 'weak' pa~n~naa is robust because it's pa~n~naa. Pa~n~naa will arise or not due to conditions, not to what you are doing. 'Reading' is not the object of pa~n~naa. Just 'reading' is not true 'study' anyway - this can occur whenever, and this true study is hardly to be daunted by 'reading,' anymore than it is to be daunted by doing the dishes or defecating. The worry sounds a bit like the same sort of nervous ideas about masturbation - how it can make one go blind or cause hair to grow on the palms of one's hands. These ideas were supposed to scare children into keeping their hands off themselves. No truth to them. Similarly I've heard many times that one shouldn't read the Abhidhamma because it's too complicated or something; or consider all the injunctions against reading that come from adherents of the forest monks. Even on the list there are deliberate efforts to repeatedly misconstrue the so-called 'dsg message' to be 'reading texts is practice.' This all comes from the same nervous place and is wrong. Reading something in U.P. is just reading. No big deal. Go ahead and read if you want. Scott. #119746 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 12:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Form (i.e the body)" philofillet Hi Scott > Scott: I'm never sure what you mean when you say stuff like the above. It always strikes me as a bit nervous - a bit superstitious. What sort of 'understanding' are you referring to? I'm totally attached to results, you know, that joke about baby panna was nicely worded, but it was fully true. I believe in the idea of a panna tgat develops and sees through the vipallasas, leading to happy existence now and happy rebirh and who knows, awakening in some life to come. Religious, superstitious, rules and rituals, you name it. But listening to A. Sujin helps, her way of talking about Dhamma is an antidote for that, to sone extent at least. > > If you are referring to intellectual understanding, then you'll read something and either you'll get it or you won't get it. Do you worry you'll think too much about it? We think about everything, that is, thinking always happens. Ph: No, not worried about that, not really. I just run off at the mouth/fingers here. I'm a bit frustrated by some things I can't undwrstand, probably talk away the frustration by pretending it's not time to understand them or something, relieving the tension. I'll leave it there. Time for bed! I hope I don't dream about anything over my head. Metta, Phil #119747 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 12:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 2-nov-2011, om 18:07 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > Your talking about the kaya, or aggregate of the body, only being > apprehended through the mind-door, leads me to ask another question. ------ N: Ruupas of the body and outside ruupas can also be known through the sense-doors. ------ > R: The third stage of insight is the ability to experience and > understand the "groups" of dhammas that arise, and how they arise > in groupings. I wonder if that is the understanding of an > aggregation of dhammas through the mind-door, or whether it is an > insight that is of direct perception of the dhammas involved, and > if so, how the "groupings" are understood in which those dhammas > arise? -------- N: Looking at Vis. Ch XX, 6. Comprehension by Groups, sammasana ~naa.na. This refers to the khandhas. It is difficult reading, it seems that all this is theory, but insight is not thinking, it is direct understanding. The khandhas are past, future, present. This refers to their impermanence, their arising and falling away. There comes to be more understanding of what the khandhas are. I think Sarah mentioned a discussion about awareness of the groups, but I did not quite understand. As I understood from Kh Sujin's explanation, this is the third stage of tender insight and the arising and falling away of dhammas is not as precisely realized as at the following stage when the arising and falling away of realities one by one is realized. What I keep in mind, while talking and thinking about stages, this is not as clear as when there is awareness now of realities, and when these stages occur. Since the first stage is already difficult enough for me, I would rather consider the first stage, knowing the difference between naama and ruupa. ------- A quote from Kh Sujin in Bhutan: N: This question will not be solved unless there is awareness of realities at this moment. I just heard this morning that there should be sati all the time, no matter in what situation. Also: there should be no clinging to specific objects or to realizing stages of insight. ------- Nina. #119748 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 29-okt-2011, om 0:52 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > N: I would not put it this way: you see it as just causing arising > > of more kusala cetana which will cause arousal of more kusala. > > Instead I would emphasize understanding. It is understanding that > > conditions more kusala. > > ------- > > R: What role does cetana play? Any? ------- N: It has its own task in intending what is kusala, but this in connection with the other accompanying sobhana cetasikas. They all have their own task. ------- > > > > > R: What's kind of interesting to me is that the quote from the > > > commentary that Scott presented speaks about cetana leading to > > > physical action. ... > > R: Well I guess what I'm aiming at is what kind of cittas will > promote kusala actions, and can those actions lead to more kusala, > or more understanding. ------- N: Kusala cittas can motivate kusala deeds. Each moment of kusala falls away and it is accumulated so that it can condition the arising again of kusala. --------- > R: When Buddha addressed the monks who were accustomed to jhana and > told them how to attend jhana so that it could be used as object of > sati, how would this lead to the monks using jhana as an object > that would lead to more sati and development of enlightenment factors? ------- N: As Sarah explained, using jhaana is not such a good expression. When there are conditions for the development of jhaana it arises and it can then be object of insight. Jhaanacitta is an impersonal element it cannot be 'used'. It is not jhaana itself that leads to more sati and to the development of the enlightenment factors. All 37 bodhipakkhiya dhammas have to be developed, including the four applications of mindfulness, the seven factors (among these calm and concentration, but also investigation of dhamma), etc. ---- > > > > > Then Måra the evil one thought: `Sister Selå knows me', and sad and > > sorrowful he vanished there and then." > > ------ > > R: > > > That sort of opens the door for the body to be involved in right > > > action, I think, and then that leaves open the question for what > > > kind of physical action would constitute right action? ... > > ------ > > > N: Or developing mindfulness while standing, walking, lying down. > > > It all depends on conditions. Phenomena rolling on. > > R: That all seems good to me. I would never say that only > meditation is a setting for developing mindfulness. I just would > like to know why Buddha spent the time on showing how meditation > could develop satipatthana through breath and other objects of > attention. > > Of course, all activities were also included as objects for > practice of mindfulness. ----- N: Kh Sujin just dealt with anapanasati in a Thai recording. She stressed that only great men (Buddha and arahats) were successful and could attain all the stages of ruupajhaana with it, since breath is so subtle. That is why even ariyans had other recollections of calm (the Triple Gem etc.). But, she said, ordinary persons can be aware of breath when it appears, as just a ruupa. N: It is a ruupa produced by citta, not by other factors. When we die no more citta that produces breath. I can post this part and then she added more, that is for later. ----- Nina. #119749 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 12:54 am Subject: mindfulness of breath. nilovg Dear friends, Kh Sujin: < Mindfulness of Breath. Breath is very subtle , it is an object for the Buddha and for arahats, mahaapurisas or great men (N: See Visuddhimagga, Ch VIII, 211) . They could attain five stages of jhaana with this subject (of the fivefold system). Since this subject is so subtle, even ariyans had other objects of calm, namely six subjects: the recollection of the Triple Gem, generosity (caga), siila and the devas. This does not mean that ordinary persons cannot be aware of breath when it appears; just as sound or smell appears, also breath may appear. When it appears it can be object of mindfulness, but one should not cling to concentrating on it. It appears for a short moment and then it falls away. Kusala accompanied by pa~n~naa is calm and it must be developed, it grows very slowly. Pa~n~naa is most valuable. Some people want to cultivate calm in order to suffer less from sickness. However, when kusala citta with pa~n~naa arises there is true calm. This is like having a rest from defilements. So long as there is body there must be sickness. We should not expect to be free from sickness. We should not wish for the disappearance of sickness, it is the result of kamma that has already been committed.> **** Nina. #119750 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Form (i.e the body)" nilovg Dear Phil, Op 3-nov-2011, om 10:38 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > N: The English word body sometimes stands for the Pali ruupa, > > sometimes for kaya. We have to see the context. Also, I have found > > that the word form is a translation of body or of visible object. > > Ph: Thank you, does kaya always refer to a concept of the body or > can we understand kaya as a body that is 15 years old, 100 years > old, etc. Still made up of rupas, but somehow existing? This is > what confuses me, and reading spk mention hollow places where > creatures abide in the body etc. And yet I do understand that such > a body, if it exists, cannot be seen, touched, only concept > remembered by sanna. ----- N: As Sarah said, the five khandhas in this context, beginning with ruupakkhandha Not concepts, the khandhas are real. No problem that the Buddha also speaks of the body in conventional way of teaching. We need all sorts of reminders! Nina. #119751 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Indriyas with all kusala? nilovg Dear Phil, Op 1-nov-2011, om 7:13 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I read this in Cetasikas, p.240: "When we develop right > understanding, we do not have to aim at confidence, it arises > already." That can be said of the other indriyas, can't it? ------- N: Saddhaa, confidence arises with each kusala citta, otherwise you would not perform kusala. As to indriya: a leader, each in its own field. When the indriyas are more developed they become balas, powers. Sat as a bala; it arises any time, no matter how contrarious the circumstances are. ------- > > Ph: I think it is in Visudhimagga, but the notion of gauging > imbalances of the indriyas, deciding to have more of this one, less > of that one, it feels so strange. There is virya with almost every > citta, how can we decide to have "more virya?" I wonder how it is > explained in Vlsudhimagga? ------ N: When there is pa~n~naa the indriyas are balanced already, no need to think of more of this one or that one. Nina. #119752 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nilovg Dear Scott, Op 31-okt-2011, om 21:47 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > The only thing that seems less well-addressed is the question about > 'should.' When, say, Kh. Sujin says one 'should' do something, how > do you think this is meant to be understood? ------ N: Not as a command. When you do this or that it will have such or such effect. The Pali has tabba (sevitabba, said of maana): may, can, it is rather versatile, depending on the context. Nina. #119753 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: monk's life, was: Khandhas... nilovg Dear Phil, Op 31-okt-2011, om 16:21 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > > The goal of monkhood is arahatship, his life style is supposed to > > point to that. He has to lead the brahma life, brahma cariya. > > Brahma cariya. What is difference between leading the brahma life, > brahma cariya, and living according to the vinaya, all those > hundreds of rules, I forget the Pali. It is about right > understanding? Anyone can follow rules and keep precepts, it is > good, but not enough. > -------- > N: Vinaya should never be separated from satipa.t.thaana. Only then > the rules become very meaningful. Seeing wrong in the smallest faults. The rules are aimed to discourage a life of sense pleasures, enjoying food, entertainment, gossip and what not. As Kh Sujin said, the life of the monk and the laylife are as different as heaven and earth. Becoming a monk is like a new birth (the commentary). ------ Nina. #119754 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha recommended striving nilovg Dear Alex, Op 31-okt-2011, om 17:33 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > N:...The clenching of the teeth shows the Bodhisatta's supreme > >effort, but this was accompanied by paññaa of a high degree. > >============================================ > > The Buddha recommended "crushing mind with mind" and "striving so > hard that one is emaciated" to *others*. Of course it is to be done > with panna. No doubt about that. > > The point is that it IS an intentional right effort, that is ought > to be done when circumstances require it. ------ N: Right, done by pa~n~naa, and this is a cetasika, not self as you know. The same for viriya, certainly there is viriya. But this is, as you know, a cetasika, not self. If we remember this, there is no problem really. Just as I heard this morning: there should be sati all the time (Thai: thug mya), no matter when eating, talking, walking, etc. A good reminder and we know that sati cannot be manipulated by a self. ----- Nina. #119755 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:45 pm Subject: Re: Sense/mind door appears... sarahprocter... Dear Phil, I'd like to add to this one too according to my understanding: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > When it is said "the sense door appears" it actually means that the characteristic of the sense door consciousness is experienced, is that right? .... S: I take it to refer to the awareness of the object experienced through the sense door only, such as visible object, sound or tangible object. Usually, there's no awareness of visible object or sound, just thinking about what's been seen and heard. ... >And "the mind door appears" is even more difficult to fathom because we confuse the mind door consciousness which, for example, also experiences rupa, with thinking, which thinks about concepts. I have no understanding whatsover of a mind door which can experience rupas, but not by thinking about them.. .... S: When there is awareness of objects which only appear through the mind door, such as feeling, thinking or hearing, then it becomes more apparent what is meant by mind door/mind door processes. Usually it seems that we see or hear (or both at the same time) for a long time. In actuality, there are just very brief moments of seeing visible object or hearing sound, followed by lots and lots of thinking without any awareness. Sometimes through thinking, we make the Dhamma too complicated and forget that it refers to the ordinary dhammas appearing now that can be directly known. Again, pls ask for any further clarification on what I've written in response to your comments. Metta Sarah ====== #119756 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 2:42 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Ruupas of the body and outside ruupas can also be known through > the sense-doors. > ------ Yes, okay. But they are known individually in the sense doors, not in groups. As you say later, the "group" [kalapa] stage of insight is below that of seeing individual rise and fall. So the kalapas must be seen in the mind door as nimittas? Or is there a sense-door perception that is not so refined so it is clumped together in the mind-door in "groups?" Or do the kalapas actually get received in the sense-doors? > > R: The third stage of insight is the ability to experience and > > understand the "groups" of dhammas that arise, and how they arise > > in groupings. I wonder if that is the understanding of an > > aggregation of dhammas through the mind-door, or whether it is an > > insight that is of direct perception of the dhammas involved, and > > if so, how the "groupings" are understood in which those dhammas > > arise? > -------- > N: Looking at Vis. Ch XX, 6. Comprehension by Groups, sammasana > ~naa.na. This refers to the khandhas. It is difficult reading... I may try to look at that, since the Vis. is one of the books I actually have from online, even though I'm sure I will be confused. > As I understood from Kh Sujin's explanation, this is the third stage > of tender insight and the arising and falling away of dhammas is not > as precisely realized as at the following stage when the arising and > falling away of realities one by one is realized. That makes sense, good to know. > What I keep in mind, while talking and thinking about stages, this is > not as clear as when there is awareness now of realities, and when > these stages occur. Since the first stage is already difficult enough > for me, I would rather consider the first stage, knowing the > difference between naama and ruupa. That is hard enough for me, for sure! After the last few posts, I suddenly started thinking about telling kusala from akusala, which I...think...is a prior sort of general knowing prior to knowing nama and rupa...? But after talking about it recently it suddenly occurred to me, almost stupidly, "Oh kusala and akusala are not the same," and my mind sort of became interested in what is kusala and what is akusala in the moment. Though I'm sure I don't see any momentary realities, my mind would perk up and say "oh that was akusala," and would find that interesting, I guess in a conventional way. I had one moment when I said something nice and I noticed that I really wasn't being nice, just saying something to get a good reaction, and I noticed "that is not really kusala, it's akusala, not really nice." > N: This question will not be solved unless there is awareness of > realities at this moment. I just heard this morning that there should > be sati all the time, no matter in what situation. That is good to hear. I think it makes the mind want to be awake. > Also: there should be no clinging to specific objects or to realizing > stages of insight. Good to remember this too. It's easy to sense that there's always clinging to everything, even though I'm sure I don't see it in the real moment. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #119757 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 3:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "Not as a command. When you do this or that it will have such or such effect..." Scott: Exactly. As I've mentioned to Sarah, I don't misunderstand this usage of the word since a broader understanding of anatta precludes the misconception that this is an instruction to do. N: "...The Pali has tabba (sevitabba, said of maana): may, can, it is rather versatile, depending on the context." Scott: Yes. As Jon and Rob E. were discussing, regarding the Chappana Sutta and the so-called command to 'train:' 'eva.m sikkhitabba.m' can also be seen in this light. Scott. #119758 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 3:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha recommended striving scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "...Just as I heard this morning: there should be sati all the time Thai: thug mya), no matter when eating, talking, walking, etc. A good reminder and we know that sati cannot be manipulated by a self." Scott: Here is another one of those statements as we just discussed. How do you understand the phrase: 'there should be sati all the time?' Is this a statement of possibility? Of command? To initiate activity designed to make sati arise 'all the time?' Is it even possible for sati to arise 'all the time?' Scott. #119759 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:46 pm Subject: Bhikkuni(s) dhammasaro Good friends all, I want to locate the monastery of these very strict Chinese female monks. They have a house monastery in rural Maryland which I visited once... Background: 1. When at Wat Thai Washington DC, I met Mahayana female Chinese Bhikkhu(s) who shave their hair and eyebrows and would not look at male monks. They were very strict vegetarians and did not eat chives, garlic, onions and similar as it may raise their Chi... plus, they tried not to sleep reclining... they meditated until they fell asleep... They are stricter than any male Theravadin monk............. 2. Hence, I respect them and all women who ordain... 3. A female friend is interested... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #119760 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sun Oct 23, 2011 3:07 pm Subject: Reply to Rob E was Do We All Agree... dhammasaro Good friend Rob E, et al Warm thanks for you very polite message... However, it is true... even as a monk; some of my messages were deleted, modified, delayed about 24 hours, et cetera... That is why I am usually quiet... it is very difficult to have a discussion when one has to wait several hours to pass the censors. Sincere warm thanks for your very polite message... peace... yours in the dhamma-vinaya, Chuck <.....> #119761 From: "connie" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 6:04 am Subject: dhammas and Uccheda-ditthi nichiconn Hi, Wheel Pub 186ers, <> (chrome://digitalpalireader/content/index.xul?loc=s.1.0.0.0.6.0.m¶=4) **AN 3:47 aka pts A.i.152: 3.1.5.7.47. <> (ati) Nyanaponika & Bodhi: There are, O monks, three conditioned marks of the conditioned. What three? Its origination is discerned, its vanishing is discerned, its change while persisting is discerned. (thanks, Howard) Thannisaro: Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is discernible. [alt: alteration of what stays ] (ati) Nanamoli - “There are three formed characteristics of what is formed: arising is evident, fall is evident, and alteration of what is present is evident.†(bps) ** c: Difficult to reconcile a literal reading of those translations with the the idea that < Change, as it came to be finally defined in the schools of Buddhist logic, is not the transformation of one and the same dhamma from one stage to another, but the replacement of one momentary dhamma by another.> Is that what you mean, Alex? My deleted drivel over ‘free will’, ‘higher meditation’ and a few other irrelevant things aside, the other gnarly point in this (Karunadasa’s) and the next section (Nanamoli’s) is whether there are 2, 3 or 4 phases or moments. connie #119762 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 6:32 am Subject: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, >N: the nimitta or sign of a reality, a dhamma, can >be experienced. Thus, it is not a sign of a concept, but of a reality. >====================================================== Thank you very much for your reply. Is number conceptual or ultimate reality? With best wishes, Alex #119763 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 7:01 am Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...Is number conceptual or ultimate reality?" Scott: Could you please proceed to your refutation? Scott. #119764 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 7:12 am Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? truth_aerator Hi Scott, > A: "...Is number conceptual or ultimate reality?" > >Scott: Could you please proceed to your refutation? >======================================================= Please answer the question: Is number conceptual or ultimate reality? With best wishes, Alex #119765 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 7:17 am Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Please answer the question: Is number conceptual or ultimate reality?" Scott: I know for a fact that you have your own opinion on this matter. I know for a fact that this very thing has been discussed by you many times before. Next you'll suggest it's 'a fair question.' Well, by you it is not. You know very well that you are building up to making a point, so make your point already and then, if it's worth discussing, someone will do so. Scott. #119766 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 7:19 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > R: Well I guess what I'm aiming at is what kind of cittas will > > promote kusala actions, and can those actions lead to more kusala, > > or more understanding. > ------- > N: Kusala cittas can motivate kusala deeds. Each moment of kusala > falls away and it is accumulated so that it can condition the arising > again of kusala. > --------- When kusala deeds take place, what is the significance of the deed - anything? Or does only the originating citta(s) matter for accumulation of kusala? > > R: When Buddha addressed the monks who were accustomed to jhana and > > told them how to attend jhana so that it could be used as object of > > sati, how would this lead to the monks using jhana as an object > > that would lead to more sati and development of enlightenment factors? > ------- > N: As Sarah explained, using jhaana is not such a good expression. > When there are conditions for the development of jhaana it arises and > it can then be object of insight. Jhaanacitta is an impersonal > element it cannot be 'used'. It is not jhaana itself that leads to > more sati and to the development of the enlightenment factors. All 37 > bodhipakkhiya dhammas have to be developed, including the four > applications of mindfulness, the seven factors (among these calm and > concentration, but also investigation of dhamma), etc. Okay. Obviously this is complex, so I won't be able to easily understand how all the 37 factors develop, and how they work together or build on each other. But maybe they have some relations among them that cause them to develop...? Is there a special order that the various factors go in, and build on? R.: > > Of course, all activities were also included as objects for > > practice of mindfulness. > ----- > N: Kh Sujin just dealt with anapanasati in a Thai recording. She > stressed that only great men (Buddha and arahats) were successful and > could attain all the stages of ruupajhaana with it, since breath is > so subtle. That is why even ariyans had other recollections of calm > (the Triple Gem etc.). But, she said, ordinary persons can be aware > of breath when it appears, as just a ruupa. That is hopeful. It is true that if one just looks at the sensation of the air going across the nostrils, at least as a regular "sensation" it is pretty obvious and easy to identify. I can see how it would not be a bad object as rupa for mindfulness, if it turned out that way. Even in meditation, I think that most people try to focus on the sensation of the breath and see it as physical sensation rather than as something else. > N: It is a ruupa produced by citta, not by other factors. When we die > no more citta that produces breath. > I can post this part and then she added more, that is for later. I will look forward to the other part; this is very helpful to me. Is there special significance to these rupas being produced by citta? Does that they arise more from what is happening in the moment, rather than other rupas that arise from past, even ancient, conditions? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #119767 From: "azita" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 8:20 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) gazita2002 hallo Scott and Rob, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" > > Scott: Makes sense. Kusala is preferable to akusala. 'Should' is a modal verb, I see, and, choosing a random definition, is 'used to express ideas such as possibility, intention, obligation and necessity.' In the Dhamma sense, I think it amounts to the expression of an opinion. With the characteristic of anatta being foundational, 'should' cannot be taken for a command to be followed. 'Should' is not a prelude for any doing based on 'should.' If 'a doing' happens to derive from a kusala base, then no one should take it personally. > > > > Scott. > That is a rather elegant explanation Scott, I think i like it.. > I am at another airport now waiting for flight back to bangkok. Hope my car is not under water.. > robert I think its an excellant explanation Scott. Rob, I do hope all is OK with yr car. I left Bkk jst before all the water entered the city - not fleeing but it was time to return to Oz anyway. I imagine its all a bit of a mess by now:( may all beings be happy azita > #119768 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 6:12 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Parochial Buddhiam dhammasaro Good friends all, Hmmm... sent on 10/29... received today 11/3... better late than never... ................................................................................\ ..................................... A request: If you believe in making merit; may I softly suggest you make "merit" for the monk you despise the most, okay? I kid you not!!! Monks are human. Most likely he needs more help in adhering to the multitude of rules in addition to 227 rules for male monks. In many instances, "intention" has no bearing!!! "Ignorance" is no excuse in most cases!!! peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: dhammasaro@... <...> Good friends all, Just a reminder... monks are human, too... peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck ............................ rest deleted ......................................... #119769 From: "connie" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 8:46 am Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? nichiconn hi, Alex: Is number conceptual or ultimate reality? c: Why do you ask? Thanks in advance. I would say the word 'number' refers to a conventional, rather than an ultimate reality, but from the choices below, what type of concept would you say 'number' is? type of pa~n~natti & what is made known / represented by it (see SPD ch25) vijjamaana - paramattha or real, ultimate, existent avijjamaanena - sammutti or conventional, non-existent vijjamaanena avijjamaana - non-existent based on existent avijjamaanena vijjamaana - existent based on non-existent vijjamaanena vijjamaana - existent based on existent avijjamaanena avijjamaana - non-existent based on non-existent connie Why do you ask? #119770 From: "connie" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 10:41 am Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? nichiconn Pali People, I keep thinking I must have these two types of concepts backwards: > vijjamaanena avijjamaana - non-existent based on existent > avijjamaanena vijjamaana - existent based on non-existent Asking because I'm too lazy to look it up in another book just now but if it's wrong, it should be pointed out. thanks, connie #119771 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 10:43 am Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? truth_aerator Hello Connie, all, So if time and number are concepts, then: The teaching that billions and billions of cittas arise per second, amount or temporal duration of a citta is conventional teaching, it is not ultimate. "avijjamaanena - sammutti or conventional, non-existent" Time is a concept, number is a concept. So any kinds of arguments based on "because cittas happen so fast..." is conceptual. Breaking mind into large amount of cittas that occur in a certain time period is conceptual division. If "identity/difference" is concept as well, this would mean that breaking up cittas into rigid categories is conventional, since no citta is identical or different from such and such a category. The conceptualizing mind reads-in notions of identity and difference. It is papanca-sanna-sankha. With best wishes, Alex >C: type of pa~n~natti & what is made known / represented by it >(see SPD ch25) >vijjamaana - paramattha or real, ultimate, existent >avijjamaanena - sammutti or conventional, non-existent >vijjamaanena avijjamaana - non-existent based on existent >avijjamaanena vijjamaana - existent based on non-existent >vijjamaanena vijjamaana - existent based on existent >avijjamaanena avijjamaana - non-existent based on non-existent > #119772 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 11:09 am Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...The teaching that billions and billions of cittas arise per second, amount or temporal duration of a citta is conventional teaching, it is not ultimate...any kinds of arguments based on "because cittas happen so fast..." is conceptual..." Scott: Finally. Same old stuff, eh? Scott. #119773 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 11:19 am Subject: Re: mindfulness of breath. philofillet Hi Nina > Breath is very subtle , Ph: Yesterday I heard that it is no different than any other rupa conditioned by citta. Do we have awareness of them? No. > > This does not mean that ordinary persons cannot be aware of breath > when it appears; just as sound or smell appears, also breath may > appear. When it appears it can be object of mindfulness, but one > should not cling to concentrating on it. It appears for a short > moment and then it falls away. Ph: Just like any other rupa conditioned by citta. > Some people want to cultivate calm in order to suffer less from > sickness. However, when kusala citta with pa~n~naa arises there is > true calm. This is like having a rest from defilements. So long as > there is body there must be sickness. We should not expect to be free > from sickness. We should not wish for the disappearance of sickness, > it is the result of kamma that has already been committed.> Ph: I think there are other ways having nothing to do with Dhamma that we can prevent sickness and alleviate the suffering from sickness. For example, when I have a headache I use a breath yoga technique (which I originally learned as a breath meditation technique of Ajahn Lee, transmitted by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) which is really effective. Also, I've read that similar techniques are useful for strengthening the brain against Alzheimers, there have been studies that prove it, and obviously that interests me. I would like to know more about yoga. I'm really happy though that I don't confuse it with Dhamma anymore. Since it is effective with minor ailments, I'm sure I'll try to use it with serious ailments, and there will be a lot of aversion when it doesn't work. Understanding is always, always best. Metta, Phil #119774 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 11:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) philofillet Hi Nina > > Ph: Recently I hear about "developing" dhamma sanna (is that > > right?) as compared to sanna of people and things. Does developing > > just mean understanding, or accumulation of understanding? > ------ > N: To elaborate: Developing anatta sa~n~naa instead of atta sa~n~naa, > then we understand what dhamma is. Just now we say: know dhamma, but > do we understand what dhamma is, different from concept? Do we > understand that visible object is not a person? In theory yes, but > right now while seeing? Ph: Why is it anatta sanna, isn't that just one characteristic of dhammas? Isn't the sanna that is developed more about specific charactersitics of each dhamma? First there is developing understanding of nature of all dhammas, than specific ones? I thought it was other way around. > N: We may keep on talking about realities, but when there can be > awareness of this moment it is far more effective to understand > realities then so much talking. Ph: But when talking and thinking is about dhammas, it can at least is helpful for awareness later. I heard someone ask A.Sujin, does thinking about dukkha inherent in all dhammas help? She said the thinking about it now can help to condition direct awareness of it later. And same for talking, I guess. Well, I hope so, or we are wasting are time here and making awareness less likely than more likely. We know that is not the case. Metta, Phil #119775 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 11:55 am Subject: Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.2) philofillet Hi all (Cont'd) A.S And if we try to do something, going away from this moment, turn back left or right, that is not the way, the way is very natural, as it sees, it's that characteristic that sees... Nina: People get so frustrated if sati arises, we will understand it. Because they will wonder, what to do to come to this stage? Because we talk about it now, we understand the theory. But they feel so hopeless. Just listening, again and again, is that the condition? A.S: Yes, but what is hope? Nina: It is attachment, that is true. A.S: So you'd like to have more hope? Because you hope to experience it, you hope to do something to *get* it. Nina: People like to know the difference between nama and rupa, but they hear there has to be sati first, so they will say, oh, I do not know *how* to. A.S The "I" is not the sati. So the "I" can never have sati. Sati is sati, seeing is seeing. Nina: But they hear it and say, oh, well, I can't do anything with that. A.S Right! No one can do anything. Can you make this hard? Can you make this sour? Nina: Not at all. So they have to listen to this, to these words. That is the only thing.. A.S: That's why, after his enlightenment, Buddha tended not to teach, because it's against the current of attachment. Metta, Phil #119776 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 11:59 am Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? philofillet Hi Scott, Alex and all > A: "...The teaching that billions and billions of cittas arise per second, amount or temporal duration of a citta is conventional teaching, it is not ultimate...any kinds of arguments based on "because cittas happen so fast..." is conceptual..." > > Scott: Finally. Same old stuff, eh? It's almost comical, we could have a "guess where Alex is going with this?" contest. Alex, in the future, please get straight to your point without the courtroom techniques, thanks! Metta, Phil #119777 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 12:02 pm Subject: Re: Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.2) philofillet Hi again A clarification Nina: People get so frustrated, (when we say) if sati arises, we will understand it.> m. p #119778 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 12:03 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? truth_aerator Hello Scott, all, >Scott: Finally. Same old stuff, eh? Do you have any reasonable reply what I've said? Time is a concept, number is a concept, breaking the mind into large amount of cittas that occur in a certain time period is conceptual. Any kinds of arguments based on "because cittas happen so fast..." is conceptual. Since "identity/difference" is conceptual, breaking up cittas into rigid categories is conventional, since no citta is ultimately identical or different from such and such a category. The conceptualizing mind makes notions of "identity/difference". With best wishes, Alex #119779 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 12:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Indriyas with all kusala? philofillet Hi Nina > N: Saddhaa, confidence arises with each kusala citta, otherwise you > would not perform kusala. Ph: A good reminder that the English translations of dhammas often fail to get across what they actually are. Our idea of confidence doesn't help here. And to think that some people believe it is just showing off to want to get to the Pali terms.... > As to indriya: a leader, each in its own field. When the indriyas are > more developed they become balas, powers. Sat as a bala; it arises > any time, no matter how contrarious the circumstances are. Ph: No need to think about this, but good to know about "no matter how contrarious the circumstances are" can come. Kusala is very weak for me. Last night there was a mosquito in Naomi's room, since she is starting her now job at Greenpeace (the head office is in Holland, she will be visiting there next year!) this week, she needs her sleep, and I sat and watched and waited to *Kill* that damn mosquito so she could sleep. It never appeared, but there has been some killing of mosquitoes recently. When they attack me in the middle of the night, it is too "contrarious" to tolerate, and they must be killed. And sometimes with very angry cittas. As for cockroaches, only the two times, when they invaded Naomi's room, otherwise I find them quite adorable. One time one was by the front door, and I let it out, it reminded me of when my dog used to want to go out for a walk when I was a kid...mosquitoes are not so skilled at imitating my dog, so they get killed.... > ------ > N: When there is pa~n~naa the indriyas are balanced already, no need > to think of more of this one or that one. Ph: That makes sense. A lot of meditation teachers really get people screwed up on this point. Metta, Phil #119780 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 12:19 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Do you have any reasonable reply what I've said?..." Scott: I doubt it since you aren't so much trying to discuss as repeated your litany of refutations. Since you ask, though, regarding: 'identity/difference' - can you cite your source? What are you reading now? I know you didn't come up with that all on your own. Scott. #119781 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 12:23 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "It's almost comical, we could have a 'guess where Alex is going with this?' contest." Scott: We'd all win. Ph: "Alex, in the future, please get straight to your point without the courtroom techniques, thanks!" Scott: I second the motion. Scott. #119782 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 12:24 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? philofillet Hi Alex > Do you have any reasonable reply what I've said? One reasonable reply is since you obviously reject Abhidhamma, why do you spend so much time at a group that is so keen on Abhidhamma? That is what I don't understand. You have many other groups, I know. Metta, Phil #119783 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:06 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? truth_aerator Hi Phil, >P:Alex, in the future, please get straight to your point without the >courtroom techniques, thanks! >===================================== I'll try. But do you have any logical refutation to what I've said in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/119771 ? With best wishes, Alex #119784 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:13 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? rjkjp1 Dear Alex , when the buddha sopke about night and day or past and future what do you think he meant? robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Scott, all, > > >Scott: Finally. Same old stuff, eh? > > > Do you have any reasonable reply what I've said? > > > Time is a concept, number is a concept, breaking the mind into large amount of cittas that occur in a certain time period is conceptual. Any kinds of arguments based on "because cittas happen so fast..." is conceptual. > > Since "identity/difference" is conceptual, breaking up cittas into rigid categories is conventional, since no citta is ultimately identical or different from such and such a category. The conceptualizing mind makes notions of "identity/difference". > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #119785 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:15 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? truth_aerator Hi Scott, all, >A: "Do you have any reasonable reply what I've said?..." > >Scott: I doubt it since you aren't so much trying to discuss as >repeated your litany of refutations. >=================================================== If you provide good refutation, then I'll accept that. >Since you ask, though, regarding: 'identity/difference' - can you >cite your source? >===================== a) It is very common philosophical issue b) I noticed that in writings of one Bhikkhu. If I mention his name, then you will use Ad Hominem rather than focus on the issue itself. Rather than steering discussion aside, or attacking my sources, or questioning my motives, do you have logical refutation of what I've said in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/119771 ? With best wishes, Alex #119786 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:18 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...I noticed that in writings of one Bhikkhu..." Scott: Cite your sources. Skip the rest. Scott. #119787 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:17 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? truth_aerator Dear RobertK, >Dear Alex , when the buddha sopke about night and day or past and >future what do you think he meant? >robert 1) Is "night/day" , "past/future" conceptual or ultimate reality? 2) Do concepts exist? With best wishes, Alex #119788 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:21 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...do you have logical refutation of what I've said..." Scott: Absolutely no interest at all. Scott. #119789 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:23 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear RobertK, > > >Dear Alex , when the buddha sopke about night and day or past and >future what do you think he meant? > >robert > > 1) Is "night/day" , "past/future" conceptual or ultimate reality? > 2) Do concepts exist? > > > With best wishes, > > Alex > Ok I see where this is leading. I asked you what I thought was a reasonable question, but instead of replying you ask me other questions. I really can't be bothered Alex, play your silly games on those who appreciate it.. i will try to remember not to make the misatke of replying to you. robert #119790 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:25 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? truth_aerator Scott, >A: "...do you have logical refutation of what I've said..." >========================================== >Scott: Absolutely no interest at all. So you cannot refute what I've said? With metta, Alex #119791 From: "connie" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:25 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? nichiconn Alex, it is difficult for me to "converse" in this fashion. excuse me, connie > > >Dear Alex , when the buddha sopke about night and day or past and >future what do you think he meant? > >robert > > 1) Is "night/day" , "past/future" conceptual or ultimate reality? > 2) Do concepts exist? > #119792 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:28 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? philofillet Hi Alex > > Do you have any reasonable reply what I've said? > > > One reasonable reply is since you obviously reject Abhidhamma, why do you spend so much time at a group that is so keen on Abhidhamma? That is what I don't understand. You have many other groups, I know. > Let me put it in a more generous way. The other day I read at Sariputta Dhamma Group and you asked about how to handle too many thoughts during meditation. Doesn't the kind of obsessive inquiring you do to find holes in Abhidhamma, for example, feed the fire of all that restlessness during your meditation? Does being active at DSG help your meditation? If "there are trees, monks" is so impressive for you, why do you spend so much time on the internet at all these groups? I am still rooting for you to ordain, sincerely. You are obviously devoted to Dhamma. Metta, Phil #119793 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:31 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? truth_aerator Hi RobertK, Scott, >Ok I see where this is leading. I asked you what I thought was a >reasonable question, but instead of replying you ask me other >questions. I really can't be bothered Alex, play your silly games on >those who appreciate it.. i will try to remember not to make the >misatke of replying to you. >====================================== My questions where meant to answer your questions. If you want to discuss these you are welcomed. I understand that I've posited very strong questions, and some prefer to attack the person if they can't refute the questions. I've asked two very quick questions that can be answered in two words (one word for each) I am perfectly willing to change my understanding if proven wrong, and I prefer to stick to an issue, not to a person. With best wishes, Alex #119794 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:37 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? truth_aerator Hello Phil, You are right. I do have serious attachments when it comes to thinking. Hopefully I will reach a point when I will more directly see the flaws of too much thinking and not proliferate so many thoughts. Maybe if I refute things I've believed in it would help not think about them. With best wishes, Alex #119795 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:49 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "So you cannot refute what I've said?" Scott: Absolutely no interest. Scott. #119796 From: "philip" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 1:50 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? philofillet Hi Alex >Maybe if I refute things I've believed in it would help not think about Ph: Hmmmm, I wonder if there will be an end to all that refuting. If you are successful, it will fuel desire for more, and you will always find more and more points to refute. And if you aren't successful, you'll keep trying, but with aversion and irritation. Maybe it is different for you. But are the points you are asking about likely to lead to samvega and kusala chanda, or just more and more restlessness? Interesting. An hour ago I felt like insulting you and telling you to s.t.f.u and now I feel affectionate and caring about your well-being. Metta and all dhammas, no control. Metta, Phil #119797 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 2:04 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? truth_aerator Hi Phil, all, >P: Hmmmm, I wonder if there will be an end to all that refuting. >=========================================== I wonder about that as well. Hopefully there will be end soon. Hopefully this (discussing dhamma) stage will pass ASAP. >P:If you are successful, it will fuel desire for more, and you will >always find more and more points to refute. >========================================== You could be right. Though I believe that if the key point is refuted, then no need to worry about secondary minor details. (I need to avoid switching on the computer.) With best wishes, Alex #119798 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 2:30 pm Subject: Re: is number conceptual or ultimate reality? scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...I've asked two very quick questions that can be answered in two words (one word for each)..." Scott: Make your point and be done with it. Scott. #119799 From: "charlest" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2011 11:19 am Subject: Re: Can a Non-Buddhist Act as a Buddhist? was: Off Topic: An Unkownd Texas Ranger dhammasaro Good friend Connie, Please forgive me if I have not responded before on your question. I could not find my response. On being a [label] Buddhist, Imho, it is in one's heart/mind if a sentient being is a Buddhist. What is your opinion? peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck .............. rest deleted ................