#120800 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:20 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Jon, Scott and all > > > > > J: Thanks for asking me to clarify. I should perhaps have made it clear that I was speaking in purely conventional terms: resolving to be a 'better' spouse/person, etc by being conventionally more considerate/attentive/sympathetic. I'm sure we've all done this at times throughout our lives and seen the difference that it can bring. > > > > Yes, none whatsoever! Jon, this is one step short of recommending multi-directional metta radiation!!! > > But as has often been noted, you and Sarah are paragons of patience ( from what I can see) so conventional prompts might have more conditioning impact on your piddly impatience. But really a bit surprised to see you recommending behaviour vows. Yahoo account hacker/Jon imitator at work? > =============== J: Hold on, Phil. I wasn't recommending anything. I was simply drawing on conventional experience to show that we do not normally associate deliberate practice with the development of a mental 'quality' or condition (so why should we infer the need for deliberate practice when we read about the development of kusala in the suttas). Talk about a straw man!! Jon #120801 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:38 pm Subject: Re: Looks like Buddhism sarahprocter... Hi Ken H (& Scott), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > >>K: It's only the dhammas that matter. > > > S: <. . .> Only dhammas that matter - kusala cittas are dhammas too, so when there is assisting one's mother or shovelling for one's neighbours *with kusala cittas*, it is to be commended and > encouraged. > > > We all know that cittas change all the time, but this doesn't mean we don't > assist and give when there are opportunities, does it? > ------ > > KH: Remember that Scott, Phil and I (as somewhat like-minded Dhamma students) were trying to find some points of contention amongst ourselves. So when you say "this doesn't mean we don't assist and give when there are opportunities" I am a bit reluctant to just agree and leave it at that. I am inclined to add that it doesn't mean we *do* assist and give, either. .... S: Right - depends on conditions, as we know, what cittas arise now or any time. Right understanding knows what is kusala and what is akusala. Moments of bhavana are the development of kusala, that's all. .... > > Apart from that I don't know what to say. It's like the KK "Act of Dana" nightmare all over again. There is a subtle difference of understanding amongst us that I can't put my finger on. > > Until I can, it's probably best not to try too hard. (I think you might have told me that.) .... S: Yes! Just the present thinking, the present seeing, the present 'panic' that can be known now! ... > > -------------- > > S: Talking of giving, I loved the story about the 'worry beads' your friends gave > you! So suitable!! As Sukin just said, always something to worry about. Now, if > there had been some appreciation of their kind thoughts and gift instead of > concern about *Ken* and how no one understood you, there wouldn't have been that > disappointment written all over your face, would there? > --------------- > > KH: Oh, how nice, worry beads! Just what I wanted, but not very much! .... S: My point was just that when it's all about "what I wanted, what I want" now, then that's the reality to be known - lobha or dosa or moha now. ... > > But they have led to this Dhamma discussion, so what more could I want? :-) ... S: More "I want...." now , more disappointment:-) Metta Sarah ===== #120802 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:44 pm Subject: Re: Looks like Buddhism sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& Ken H), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Sarah: "...Now, if there had been some appreciation of their kind thoughts and gift instead of concern about *Ken* and how no one understood you, there wouldn't have been that disappointment written all over your face, would there?" > > Scott: I find this a bit troublesome since the reality was that there were other dhammas that arose at the time. As Ken alludes to, are you suggesting, Sarah, that Ken should have faked his response or that his response was somehow 'wrong' in the response that came up? What is it: we can control our responses, or there is no control? .... Sarah: Let's get this clear once and for all - I've never suggested or had any interest in "fake" any kind of responses. There are kusala and akusala cittas. When there is understanding, when there is metta, consideration for the others instead of for *Me*, thn at such times there's no thought of 'fake', no disappointment, no idea of 'control'. It always comes back to understanding now. Understanding of dhammas now knows what is right and wrong! Metta Sarah ===== #120803 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:02 pm Subject: Re: Looks like Buddhism sarahprocter... Hi Ken H (& Scott), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: >---------- > > Scott: As Ken alludes to, are you suggesting, Sarah, that Ken should have faked his response or that his response was somehow 'wrong' in the response that came up? What is it: we can control our responses, or there is no control? > ------------- > > KH: I think your question is silly and, at the same time, profound. It is silly because we all know Sarah did not mean there was control. She meant that panna knew the advantages of kusala and the disadvantages of akusala. Talk of my (Ken H's) knowing the same thing was just Sarah's use of conventional language to describe something non-conventional. .... S: Thank you! ... > >K: At the same time your question gets to the crux of this thread. Panna might know an urgent, fire-on-the-head need to overcome akusala, but so what? Panna and the others are only dhammas, rolling on by conditions, so who cares? .... S: At the moment panna arises, akusala has already been 'overcome' - gone already. Yes, "panna and the others are only dhammas, rolling on by conditions". When panna and other kusala cittas arise, such as hiri and ottappa, there is 'care' or 'abstention from akusla' at such moments. The cittas themselves perform the function of seeing the harm in akusala. preventing akusala momentarily. Of course, other dhammas roll on immediately, 'just like now'. Like the growing of a very delicate plant, slowly and gradually panna will work its way. ... > >K: There is no control. Conventional reality might depict us as heinous criminals, murdering our neighbours and paving the way to hell, but so what? How is that ultimately different from being mister nice guy? .... S: There are simply different cittas, cetasikas and rupas rolling on. Some cittas can be known to be useful and productive in a kusala way and some to be the opposite. Metta and dosa have different qualities. When right understanding develops, so do the other paramis such as metta. I think it was Herman who used to say that we cannot say anything was kusala or preferable. If that were so, there'd be no point in studying dhammas, no point in understanding the distinction between kusala and akusala now at all. ... > > I think conventional reality is of no ultimately real relevance whatsoever. But isn't that what we are all supposed to think? Isn't that the Dhamma? Why do you and I (or I, at least) suspect there is a slight difference of opinion somewhere amongst us no-controllers? .... S: Yes, forget conventional reality has no "ultimately real relevance". Sometimes, however, it's used as a short-hand, as in the suttas, to refer to ultimate realities as you pointed out at the top of this message. When we refer to the 'kind neighbour' as opposed to 'the hostile neighbour' it may be with no understanding of paramattha dhammas, or with understanding that there are only dhammas, and those such as metta and dana are sobhana, and encouraged by the wise without any idea of a person or control. .... >K PS: Perhaps we could split into the "so what?" no-controllers and the "yes, but even so!" no controllers. :-) .... S: Or "just dhammas, no no-controllers or controllers at all" :-) Metta Sarah ===== > #120804 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:10 pm Subject: Re: Looks like Buddhism sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& Ken H), Still going......! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Hey Ken H., > > KH: "I am a bit miffed by talk in this thread about different dhammas at different times. I would have thought we had all accepted that, and we were trying to take this particular conversation to another level." > > Scott: Well, it seemed as if the message was that there *should* have been different dhammas at the time than the ones which actually seemed to arise - given the story right? .... Sarah: Not *should* have..... like now, just kusala or akusala when receiving an offering, to be known as they are. ... >But, as you suggest later, stories are so very misleading given that the dhammas are gone already but the story goes on. .... Sarah: Yes, all gone..... all down to the cittas now. Any disappointment now? Just dosa, not the 'other' or the 'gift'. ... > Scott: I don't know why Sarah thought to suggest that it would have been better if... You reacted as you did because you did. Conventionally speaking. And, apparently, it didn't look like buddhism. Conventionally speaking. ... Sarah: Again, just dhammas, like now! ... > Scott: Or, since it's over, who cares now? .... S: Kusala or akusala cittas now....... .... > > K: "I think conventional reality is of no ultimately real relevance whatsoever. But isn't that what we are all supposed to think? Isn't that the Dhamma? Why do you and I (or I, at least) suspect there is a slight difference of opinion somewhere amongst us no-controllers? > PS: Perhaps we could split into the 'so what?' no-controllers and the 'yes, but even so!' no controllers..." > > Scott: A conventionally expressed narrative can refer to realities - just consider the suttas. Study of dhammas now is not in my control, right? Thoughts about actions are way too diffuse to be of much use. .... Sarah: Agreed on both points. Metta Sarah ====== #120805 From: "philip" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:11 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Jon > J: Hold on, Phil. I wasn't recommending anything. I was simply drawing on conventional experience to show that we do not normally associate deliberate practice with the development of a mental 'quality' or condition (so why should we infer the need for deliberate practice when we read about the development of kusala in the suttas). Talk about a straw man!! Ph: Ok, that's fine. I know you wouldn't recommend vowing to be a better person, or vowing to be a more patient person, etc. It did seem that you were doing so, my misinterpretation of your post, fine. Straw man demolished. BTW, having responded to your post, it gave me pause for consideration. The fact is, based on my experience, those kind of vows *do* have a temporary effect, for a day or so. "Metta meditation" does too, through the day when there has been "metta meditation" in the morning. There isn't much doubt about that. But it is all about the wellbeing of the khandas, clinging to the comfort of being a nice person and not getting angry. Fortunately there were somehow conditions for seeing through the trap of being a regular metta meditator, and earning pleasant moods (and yes, in truth, some short term avoiding of causing unpleasant moments for others) at the cost of accumulating wrong view. I'm sure there are some people who manage to "generate metta" right through their adult years, and old age, and are lovely people, but then die without having developed right understanding at all, tightly trapped in their identity as a lovely person, and what about the next life, and countless lifes to come? Just a few thoughts, no need for a reply. Phil #120806 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:24 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: 201 dhammas to be "directly known" sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > >S: Next question: what do you mean by 'namarupa'? > > Rupa is what we perceive through 5 sense organs or a memory of previous perception of it, the perception itself is nama. Nama refers to mental content cognized through the mind. ..... S: Here we were discussing your definition of meditation. You said that by 'meditation', you mean 'the direct study of the present moment' and that this means 'the direct study of the momentary instance of namarupa.' The point is that by 'present moment' and 'namarupa' we may have different understandings. Can we agree that by 'meditation, you mean the 'direct study of a nama or a rupa', in that only one can ever be known or directly studied with panna and sati at a time? Furthermore, that rupas refer to those dhammas experienced through the five senses, the five sense bases themselves and the other (16) subtle rupas experienced through the mind-door. Namas refer to those dhammas which can experience an object, i.e. cittas and cetasikas. '"mental content" cognized through the mind' cannot be said to be namas. The arammana (object) experienced through the mind-door may be a nama, a rupa or most usuall, a concept. Concepts are not namas. Let's try to clarify and agree on this point first. >A: When you've said in #120661: > > >Is there thinking and wondering now? Doubt now? Worry? Seeing? >Visible >object? This is the time for the direct study of such >realities when >they appear one at a time.... > >I'm not recommending a textbook 'study of ingredients' but a direct >understanding of the namas and rupas appearing now without any idea >of 'me' doing anything or trying to know > >anything. > >======================================== > > It does fit what I would call "meditation". .... S: I'm glad to hear that. We just need to discuss a little more (or a lot more!) on what namas and rupas are before we can fully agree on our definitions of 'meditation' here. Thanks for the discussion, Alex. Metta Sarah ===== #120807 From: "philip" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Scott (and Rob E below) > P: "...My previous belief was that perfectly understood concepts could somehow be stripped down to reveal realities, or something like that but no, it starts with patiently considering the very ordinary seeming realities of this moment, especially seeing and visible object..." > > Scott: The consensus is that an expressive and/or cognitive comprehension of Dhamma is founded on - begins with, is supported by, is based on, is secondary to, stems from - the function of pa~n~naa in relation to dhammaa; wherein 'Dhamma' is the teaching and 'dhammaa' are the realities. First penetration of realities (non-intellectual) then teaching (involved with concepts). Ph: Thank you for reminding me that "consensus" needed be about the forced forging of a shared view of things for some yucky, truth diluting purpose, it can represent shared correct understanding. I'm not sure about "first penetration of realities (non-intellectual) then teaching (involved with concepts)" because I think there is some important role for concepts of realities to be a part of the conditions for the penetration of realities, I mean sure, we listen to the teaching, we're listening to concepts about realities. Have you and Jon been saying that concepts of realities cannot be involved somehow in a non-greedy way as conditions for the the development of understanding that penetrates realities? That sounds a bit odd. But I'm weak on this topic, and not really interested in it. To the sense doors, Sir! (Both as read about in a comfy chair, and studied at the doors themselves as objects arise and fall away, leaving nimittas to be studied.) > There is no thinking one's way to enlightenment. And daydreaming about how the world might appear to me if I were enlightened is pointless - that's what acid is for (ha ha)... Ph: I think this is Rob E's approach. In a way, he is lucky, because I suspect he isn't actually a serious meditator, he doesn't seem to make declarations and expound theories based on his meditation experience, he seems to read what people say and think and write as he goes. So he's still free. It's the serious meditators who get locked into the error of thinking that the things they think about during meditation are anything other than thinking about stuff while sitting in a noble looking position. Stay free, Rob E! Maybe it will be you who has a Road to Damascus moment about Abhidhamma, but my money is still on Alex, another person who has been spared (by health issues, apparently) from being a "serious meditator." Phil p.s I'm out of this topic. #120808 From: "philip" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi again > Ph: Thank you for reminding me that "consensus" needed be about the forced forging of a shared view of things for some yucky, truth diluting purpose, it can represent shared correct understanding. "Needn't be." Lots of sanna screw-up typos these days. The A bomb is ticking in my brain, methinks. Phil #120809 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, Thank you for your kind thoughts. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Back to the 'correct' conventional story - my friend is still in critical > condition and we've been told she has permanent brain damage for sure. > ========================== > I'm so sorry, Sarah. It may well be that the damage is permanent, but > there are cases of remarkable improvement (as in the circumstance of the > U.S. congresswoman Gabrelle Giffords who is recovering amazingly well from an > assassination attempt that put a bullet straight through one hemisphere of > her brain.) ..... S: yes, a good example. I've been having daily chats with my friend's husband - he gives me updates and I try to encourage him with such examples, encouraging him to talk to her, to be brave and patient and so on. Her condition remains much the same, but he said she looks better. Over the weekend I was not allowed to visit because of 'security' concerns! Now I can visit, but have a cold, so it'll have to wait. My friend's teenage daughter and sister are now here, so there's plenty of support for now and top quality medical care. Like the mustard-seed story shows, we all experience tragedies and will continue to do so over and over again in samsara. Again, as Ken H & Scott will point out - just dhammas rolling on, in truth no 'we' who experience anything. Metta Sarah ======= #120810 From: "philip" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Nina > > Re the above, I heard A Sujin say that without realities arising no > > concepts, and the better we understand realities, the better we are > > understanding concepts. > ------- > N: We cannot understand what DO is, what samsara means when we do not > understand dhatu now, khandha now aayatana now. Ph: That's for sure. I've recently felt some kind of encouragement to hear A. Sujin saying that we can't even really be aware of cetasikas because I had been feeling that whenever people write about cetasikas in daily life at DSG it is kind of speculation about what cetasika seems likely to be functioning at any time in a situation. I think I was right about that hunch. And as for DO, also. I've always shied away from it after a little bit of reading, feeling it is way way way over my head. Now I feel I have had that confirmed. We have to get down to the basics, start again, seeing now, hearing now. The understanding that people form about DO is likely to be quite wrong, I feel. All right for us, we understand the value of understaning dhatu now, khanda now, aayatana now. that after having steered clear from DO over the years, sensing from my brief reading on it that it is way way way over my head, OK, I have gone too far, Scott will scold me about having a superstitious fear of difficult topics or something. Of course we can read about DO and muse on it. Not for me, though. We'll see when that changes. I find the 24 paccayas are closer to the sense doors for me, there can perhaps be some real understanding of some of them. Anyways, thanks Nina. I am not ceremoniously buring my beautiful, aquamarine blue "Cetasikas", all bound together with duct tape. It is a treasure. Phil #120811 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! sarahprocter... Hi Chris, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" wrote: > For myself, I often consider the Pabbatopama Sutta: The Simile of the Mountains, to remind myself not to be complacent about myself or dear ones. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.025.than.html > > Thinking of you and holding you in my heart with metta. .... S: Again, my sincere thanks and condolences for the loss of your mother. The Pabbatopama Sutta is a wonderful one and your reminding me of it and linking of it is most appropriate and appreciated. As you say, a great reminder not to be complacent - aging and death are rolling in as we speak. We never know when it might be the last moment. We also never know when our conversation with friends and family will be the last one. As I walked with my friend and chatted on the beach, we had no idea what would occur. It's a reminder to be gentle and kind with all at anytime. Even more so, a reminder to develop understanding at this very moment. Please share any other suttas you've been finding helpful and inspiring. Metta Sarah ===== #120812 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! sarahprocter... Dear Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: I am touched very much by your story. Without the Dhamma we would > be totally lost. .... S: It's true. Lots of dukkha dukkha with or without the Dhamma, but without the Dhamma, no way out. ... > A neighbbour of us has a very bad lung cancer and his daughter of > about nine years does not know yet. She is such a sweet girl and we > feel heartbroken about her. He is about twenty years younger than > Lodewijk and we were also shaken by this story. And so many friends > around us have passed away recently. What to do? There is seeing now, > visible object now, Kh Sujin would say. .... S: I'm sorry to hear about your neighbour. As you say, tragedies all around. When we think about the conventional stories or kamma in such terms, there's no peace at all. it really only is by understanding seeing now, visible object now, kamma now, that true peace can ever be found without having this as a goal or something that is 'tried for'. .... >We may expect another answer, > but this is the best answer. As she said: just like now, and this is > unforgettable, as it shocked us at first. We asked her about the > cremation of a dear friend, just like now. .... S: :) Yes, whether at the cremation, in the ICU at the hospital or writing on the list - just seeing, visible object, pleasant and unpleasant feelings, thinking about concepts. Very, very ordinary, as K.Sujin always reminds us, even when we have a long story about 'a tragedy'. Metta Sarah ===== #120813 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > what a terrible experience! > Certainly the Dhamma can be of great support to overcome the shock and help to restore moments of equanimity . > I hope very much that your friend may survive with the least possible damage. > And yes, you are right, life is very short and we never know what the next moment has in store for us. > > with Metta and Garuna .... S: Thank you so much for your kind thoughts and wishes which I appreciate a lot. We're fortunate to have such good Dhamma friends here. Metta Sarah ==== #120814 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:07 pm Subject: Re: kamma and this moment sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > I think we all know what you must be going through. Not only are you worried about your friend, there are additional traumas for you. The fact you were there means you will inevitably be plagued by useless thoughts of "if only." "If only we had stayed at the restaurant, if only we had decided to sit on the beach a little longer" and so on. > > None of us expects you to be a saint and unaffected by the trauma. But we do know there will be peaceful moments when you understand it's only conditioned dhammas, and no self. As Nina says, "Just like now." .... S: :-)) Metta Sarah ====== #120815 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:13 pm Subject: Re: kamma and this moment sarahprocter... Hi Azita, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "azita" wrote: > What a traumatic event! Gosh, we jst never know what will occur in the next moment. > > Even when we have heard the dhamma for a long time, until kilesa are completely eradicated we will continue to be devastated by such an event. Only by taking the 'bitter medicine' over and over again, can we see that 'our lives' are only momentary arisings and fallings, wonderful times, terrible times here and gone so briefly. We feel dosa because there are conditions for it to arise, not me, not mine, not myself. > > Patience, courage and good cheer. .... S: Wonderful reminders at just the right time. Thank you. Yes, lots more 'bitter medicine' required:) Moments when the 'momentary arisings' and the dhammas as 'not me, not mine, not myself' are truly appreciated are so very liberating - momentarily. Like now, vipaka - just this moment of seeing and then gone.... Metta Sarah p.s we spoke to Khun Duangduen in Bangkok at the weekend. Still floods at Bangsai, but Ok at the Foundation and KK. They had a good India trip 'as usual'. 23rd-25th Jan KK confd. ======== #120816 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! sarahprocter... Hi Colette, Nice to see you again! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > What is all this about? What has happened to you since I have been away? .... S: Just more dhammas in samsara, 'just like now'! ... >Could you point me to the message number where I can begin catching up on this major point of focus that people have had. I would believe that there are a lot of PEARLS OF WISDOM from readers and from the Dharma, held in this string during this moment of STRESS for you and the readers here. .... S: Nina gave you the start of the thread. Thank you so much for your concern. .... > > I hope everything is okay now and that you are not in any danger or ill health ... S: I'm fine, thank you - there is always danger and ill health, bolders of aging and death rolling in. Did you see the sutta Christine posted? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.025.than.html I'll leave the Republicans out of this discussion - same dhammas, same problems, same aging and death rolling in regardless of ones' political views!! Metta Sarah ====== #120817 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:29 pm Subject: Re: kamma and this moment sarahprocter... Dear Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Thank you for sharing your own hospital blanket. While I hope I'd never wish your nightmarish story on anyone, I'll be the first to take advantage of it to wiggle out of having to write my own post on "the reminder on the hospital blanket tags" from when my mom was in the hospital earlier this year. I really doubt the manufacturer meant to be prompting moments of considering "what's real now" / just visible object, etc when I’d be lost in storylands instead... or imagined that image would still pop into my head at odd moments after all this time. I hope Dhamma reminders will still pop into your friend's. .... S: Thanks for sharing the hospital blanket too! True - when there's some understanding, when one has heard about paramattha dhammas, anything, even the label o the hospital blanket, the reminder, can condition awareness right now. That's why KS always reminds us that whatever we read - even signs out of the bus window as we travel in India - is dhamma or reminders for satipatthana now. "It's not in the book"!! Just dhammas regardless. Visible object seen now. I'm thinking that we never know how conditions may work and there may be conditions for more wise reflection for my friend in the days, weeks ahead as she lies on the sick-bed than when life was going to plan. We never know, but the greatest Blessing is hearing the Dhamma, wisely reflecting and most of all, directly understanding it. Nothing else matters. Metta Sarah ==== #120818 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowing vipaka from kamma (transcript, kalkutta.2, India 2004) moellerdieter Hi Scott, you wrote: ('...Regarding the Dhamma thus shown by me in different ways, if there are those who agree with, consent to, and accept what is rightly said and rightly spoken, it may be expected of them that they will live in concord and amity, without dispute, like milk (that easily mixes) with water, looking at each other with friendly eyes.' a nice motto for any Buddhist forum, isn't it?") Scott: Do you have any particular reason you keep bringing stuff like this up? D: hm.. do you have any particular reason to ask instead of contemplating in context ? with Metta Dieter #120819 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowing vipaka from kamma (transcript, kalkutta.2, India 2004) scottduncan2 Dieter, D: "...hm.. do you have any particular reason to ask instead of contemplating in context?" Scott: Yeah. Scott. #120820 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:57 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta", "samsara", "rise and fall of citta" scottduncan2 Dear Jon, J: "...I think Alex understands my statement. He goes on to say that we should not mix up the two ways of talking. That is a very pertinent observation." Scott: Yes, of course very pertinent, but I'll wait to see if the words are understood by the shape of the next posts. Alex *may* be getting this straight after all this time - or not. In another thread I read that anicca and anatta are concepts... Scott. #120821 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:18 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Jon, J: "Thanks for asking me to clarify. I should perhaps have made it clear that I was speaking in purely conventional terms: resolving to be a 'better' spouse/person, etc by being conventionally more considerate/attentive/sympathetic. I'm sure we've all done this at times throughout our lives and seen the difference that it can bring." Scott: How does this differ from a 'vow' (which, I recall being shown, is to no effect)? I don't know about your experience, but the difference, as you put it, can be mixed. I just thought you were skating close to making a 'practice' recommendation. If not, you were leaving an opening for being understood to have done so, by those so inclined... J: "I was trying to illustrate just the opposite: that where there is the keeping in mind, albeit intermittently and imperfectly, of the advantage/benefit to others of improved conduct on our part, then when a relevant situation occurs there is a chance of a different response than the usual one. All very conventional." Scott: And I appreciate the clarification. When there is so much obvious confusion regarding the difference between describing things in ultimate terms and describing things in conventional terms, I found the conventionally worded description of 'resolving to be a 'better' spouse/person, etc by being conventionally more considerate/attentive/sympathetic' to be fraught with ambiguity, not to mention potential for misunderstanding. For one with a less clear grasp of the meaning of conventional phraseology this could very well be an example of 'practice.' What is the effect of such a 'resolution' supposed to be? How does resolving to be a better person differ from sitting to produce sati? Scott. #120822 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 28-nov-2011, om 10:46 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > I've been having daily chats with my friend's husband - he gives > me updates and I try to encourage him with such examples, > encouraging him to talk to her, to be brave and patient and so on. > Her condition remains much the same, but he said she looks better. ------ S: I hope you will give a report now and then. I cannot help this, beyond control, but as soon as I wake up I think of this tragedy. I am glad to hear the Foundation is not flooded, thinking of all the data, recordings etc. they keep there. They had so much trouble with the repairs last time I saw it. Bangsai, I expected this, Ayuthaya is in a bad location, and K.K. is always high and dry. ------ Nina. #120823 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:36 am Subject: Re: Looks like Buddhism scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Sarah: "Let's get this clear once and for all - I've never suggested or had any interest in 'fake' any kind of responses. There are kusala and akusala cittas. When there is understanding, when there is metta, consideration for the others instead of for *Me*, then at such times there's no thought of 'fake', no disappointment, no idea of 'control'..." Scott: Okay, Sarah, you are not advocating being fake. Perhaps we agree. At least the wording expresses the message. And it's a bit of a truism what you say above, right? Of course, 'when there is understanding' there is kusala at that moment. And at that moment it is clear - that is the nature of understanding - and there is no question then of 'fake.' Was there kusala before though? Will there be kusala afterwards? Is external behaviour necessarily a trusted source of data? Isn't this just getting lost in stories about continuities? What are your thoughts on 'resolving' to have consideration for others instead of *Me*? What are your thoughts about someone who might use the term 'fake' to refer to the need to stick close to the understanding of the moment and to the fact that many, many more moments will lack it? And to not be fooled by appearances - especially as things appear to the inner story-teller? Scott. #120824 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 7-nov-2011, om 22:07 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > ------ > > N: Ruupas of the body and outside ruupas can also be known through > > the sense-doors. > > ------ > > That is good to know, but is that also true of the kaya -- the > aggregate...? -- Maybe I'm not too sure about the distinction > between kaya and kalapas, and how they are known, as opposed to > individual rupas. Since rupas do arise in sequential groups, I > guess knowing them as a kalapa is normal, but would the knowledge > of them as aggregate only be a mind-door process, while the > individual rupas are first known through the sense-doors? And is > there a difference between knowing the kalapa - a group of rupas - > and the kaya - rupas in aggregate? Sorry for confusing questions, > but this is where I am a little mixed up right now. > ------- N: Only one ruupa at a time can be object of citta. Take sound, this is experienced through the ear-door and through the mind-door. We do not have to think of kalapa, it arises within a group, but the accompanying ruupas of sound are not heard. Sound is a khandha, it is past, present, future, far or near, etc. The fact that it is khandha reminds us, as Sarah explained in another post, that sound that arises now is never the same as sound that arose before. ----- > > > I am also trying to fix in my mind how the kandhas intersect with > the division of experience by dhammas. I guess that the kandhas > also encompass rupas and namas within their divisions, but it is > just a more specific classification of rupas and the types of namas? > ------ N: To remind us that each ruupa and each citta or cetasika that arises is not the same as the former ones. -------- > N: . Since the first stage is already difficult enough > > for me, I would rather consider the first stage, knowing the > > difference between naama and ruupa. > > ------- > > R: I think that is a good point for anyone, to consider what is > relevant in current experience. It seems to help me to understand a > little more of the stages afterwards, just to see the direction > that the stages are headed in, but then to focus back again on > something that is relevant, as you say. > ------ N: All stages are headed to detachment. At each stage there is more detachment, no self attaining it. -------- > Nina. #120825 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 3-nov-2011, om 21:19 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > 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? > ------ N: Let us think of examples, like helping someone else with kusala cittas. The kusala citta is the source of the deeds, there are many moments and these fall away but are accumulated. When you speak of deed, you may think of the outward appearance of a deed, but from the outward appearance we cannot always tell the intention. It is the kusala intention, kusala cetanaa that is important. ------ > > > N: . 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. > > R: 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? > ------ N: When there is right understanding and right awareness of visible object that appears, as only a ruupa, not a person or a thing, the 37 enlightenment factors are developing. Four satipa.t.thaanas, four right efforts, etc. They develop together, not separately. ------- > > > R.: as to mindfulness of breath: > > > 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? > ------- N: Rupas of the body are originated by kamma, or by citta, or by temperature or by nutrition. Breath can be originated by citta rooted in lobha, and then the breath is coarse, as was explained by Kh Sujin. The Visuddhimagga explains that as this subject becomes more developed the breath becomes more refined, until it is hardly perceptable. This shows again how difficult this subject is. > ------- Nina. #120826 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 4-nov-2011, om 1:28 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > 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 learn to be aware of sound as a ruupa, or feeling as a naama. It is ruupa, not self, it is naama not self. Is that not anatta sa~n~naa? ------ > > > > 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. ----- N: Thinking about Dhamma and discussing are useful to gain more understanding. Also when there are conditions for sati, the goal is more understanding. ------- Nina. #120827 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:30 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: I would say it is the right understanding that makes the moment a 'right' one. There is no concept within the teachings of 'right concept'. How then does right understanding relate to the information that is given by suttas and Abhidhamma? Isn't such writing conceptual material, and thus aren't there concepts being understood and known that leads to the right understanding that is based on hearing Dhamma? And if right understanding is also developed by "wise consideration" what is it that is being "wisely considered?" If the Dhamma is being thought about and clarified intellectually, isn't it the concepts that have been communicated by the Dhamma that are being "wisely considered?" If not, how do "Dhamma concepts" from sutta, Abhidhamma, commentary, discussion, consideration, etc. develop into right understanding? > > =============== > > [RE:] If I have right understanding of an irrelevant concept, let's say that "if I cross the street I may get hit by a car," that is not going to set any groundwork for direct understanding of realities. It is the concept that is rightly understood *about dhammas* that makes it a concept that creates right understanding for dhammas, is that not correct? > > =============== > > J: Concepts do not 'create right understanding for dhammas'. Right understanding is conditioned by hearing the teachings, understanding what has been heard, and wisely reflecting on what is thus understood. Well if you are "wisely refecting" on what is thus understood, isn't what is "thus understood" the concepts that have been understood from reading, hearing, discussing, etc.? What else is there? Certainly if I hear about individual dhammas arising and understand it, that is a concept at that point which I have understood. If that then conditions an ability for an individual dhamma to be recognized when it arises, I can understand your saying that what has "thus been understood" has developed into something that is direct, not conceptual. But isn't there a long period of pariyatti in which the link between initial understanding and direct discernment is not immediate, but comes gradually by way of understanding the concepts more precisely, more clearly and in more detail? Isn't that a lot of the process of right understanding prior to the onset of the stages of direct insight? > > =============== > > [RE:] So it seems to me that the content of the concept, ie, the "object of correct understanding" is equally relevant. Just to state it again for clarity, it seems to me that one must have a correct concept and correct thinking or correct understanding of that concept in order to have "right understanding," or "right conceptualizing." Is that not correct? > > =============== > > J: Perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'one must have a correct concept'. As far as I can see, the correctness of any thinking is a function of the understanding that accompanies the thinking. Well I could have a wrong understanding of right concept, for instance, I could wrongly think that "individual dhammas" means that there are little actual things that rise up, are suspended in space for me to discern, and then fall away again, like little ping-pong balls. I'm sure there is a tendency to turn dhammas into all kinds of images, rather that understanding them correctly. Or I could have a wrong understanding of a wrong concept. I could think that dhammas are permanent and don't fall away completely, but that one dhamma morphs into the next one and becomes the next dhamma. So that would be wrong understanding, but would also be a concept that is wrong no matter how I understand it. What is the "content" of right understanding? Is it something totally removed from the content that has been understood? This is still confusing. If you could give an example of right understanding that is apart from the concept understood, eg, "dhammas arise and fall away one at a time," that would be helpful. > > =============== > > [RE:] Most of the Dhamma in written form, such as suttas and Abhidhamma, are indeed collections of concepts, which become objects of misunderstanding or objects of correct understanding, ie, objects of thinking. If the concepts, the objects of thinking, were irrelevant, the Dhamma wouldn't be necessary or helpful to developing understanding. Have I somehow misunderstood what you were getting at? > > =============== > > J: Reading/hearing about the teachings involves communication by means of concepts. The concepts being 'sent' may or may not represent the expression of right view. However, if they do represent right view on the part of the sender, for the receiver it's still a matter of how they are understood by the receiver. I can understand this, but when you say how "they" are understood by the receiver, you are still talking about understanding "those concepts" correctly. That is my only point - that right understanding of Dhamma is initially right understanding of the concepts communicated by the Dhamma. If that's not correct, then I am still confused. If the concepts as expressed in the Dhamma are correct, then the understanding of them can be correct or incorrect, but if the understanding is correct, it will be correct understanding of a correct concept, as other sources -- not of the Dhamma -- could very well be communicating incorrect concepts that would never be correct no matter how well they were understood, such as the totally wrong concept "dhammas are permanent and never fall away." Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #120828 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:32 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...It makes sense that Buddha would understand that which he had experienced with correct understandings, and be able to express it in words..." > > Scott: What are 'correct understandings?' Correct intellectual formulations of that which has been experienced, which can be communicated verbally or in writing, such as in a sutta. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = #120829 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:40 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...It makes sense that Buddha would understand that which he had experienced with correct understandings, and be able to express it in words..." > > Scott: What are 'correct understandings?' > > From Dhammasa'nga.nii (I've used Khine's translation this time; parenthetical comments below are not in the Paa.li, and may be Khine's opinions, reader discretion is advised): > > 16. What at that time is the faculty of wisdom? That which at that time is wisdom, thorough understanding, scrutiny (of impermanence, etc. of phenomena), comprehensive scrutiny, investigative knowledge of the dhamma (i.e. the Four Ariya Truths), right observation (of impermanence, etc.), close observation, direct observation, erudition, proficiency, refinement in knowledge, discriminative knowledge, reflection (on impermanence, etc.), comparative examination, breadth of knowledge, wisdom that destroys defilements, penetrative wisdom, insight, clear comprehension, wisdom like a guiding goad, wisdom as the faculty of wisdom, power of wisdom, wisdom like a sword (for destroying defilements), wisdom like a tower, wisdom like light, wisdom like radiance, wisdom like a torch, wisdom like a jewel, non-bewilderment, investigative knowledge of the dhamma, right view - this at that time is the faculty of wisdom." > > "16. Katama.m tasmi.m samaye pa~n~nindriya.m hoti? Yaa tasmi.m samaye pa~n~naa pajaananaa vicayo pavicayo dhammavicayo sallakkha.naa upalakkha.naa paccupalakkha.naa pa.n.dicca.m kosalla.m nepu~n~na.m vebhabyaa cintaa upaparikkhaa bhuurii medhaa pari.naayikaa vipassanaa sampaja~n~na.m patodo pa~n~naa pa~n~nindriya.m pa~n~naabala.m pa~n~naasattha.m pa~n~naapaasaado pa~n~naaaaloko pa~n~naaobhaaso pa~n~naapajjoto pa~n~naaratana.m amoho dhammavicayo sammaadi.t.thi – ida.m tasmi.m samaye pa~n~nindriya.m hoti." > > Scott: Remember, 'that which at that time is wisdom...' (Yaa tasmi.m samaye pa~n~naa...), refers to a moment of consciousness. These are the functions of pa~n~naa 'at that time' - the time of it's arising and before it falls away. Quicker than thoughts. I enjoyed that passage and it is very impressive, but it does not account for the effect of the Buddha's words and the concepts that they communicate in sutta, or for that matter in Abhidhamma scriptures, as they take place in slower time and are understood as concepts before they develop into knowing the reality of a single moment. I am trying to get clear on the role of such intellectual understanding and how it develops into direct understanding. It seems to me that the concepts communicated by the words have to be understood and "wisely considered" before the single moment will become clear for panna. Do you agree? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #120830 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:44 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Rob E., 'Correct understandings' are: R: "Correct intellectual formulations of that which has been experienced, which can be communicated verbally or in writing, such as in a sutta." Scott: And so, with definition interpolated, your statement is: R: "...It makes sense that Buddha would understand that which he had experienced with *correct intellectual formulations of that which has been experienced, which can be communicated verbally or in writing, such as in a sutta." Scott: And upon what were these 'correct intellectual formulations' predicated? Scott. #120831 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:49 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I am trying to get clear on the role of such intellectual understanding and how it develops into direct understanding..." Scott: It doesn't. Thoughts and pa~n~naa are two absolutely different things altogether. A concept will never, ever develop into pa~n~naa. R: "...It seems to me that the concepts communicated by the words have to be understood and 'wisely considered' before the single moment will become clear for panna. Do you agree?" Scott: No. Such concepts will only become clear when pa~n~naa has developed in relation to realities as object. It is not the other way round. There is no such thing as a wise man. There is wisdom. Scott. #120832 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:52 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E > > (120647) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon. > > ... > > No offense taken. If you are not offended by all the undereducated challenges I've thrown your way, I'm not offended by anything you say to me, to be sure! :-) > > =============== > > J: Well I know you have a preference for approaching the teachings very much from the perspective of your own experience and views (as opposed to trying to understand the texts as they stand). Fair enough. However, it does make meaningful discussion difficult at times ! :-)) I don't think that's quite correct. I approach the teachings from what I understand of sutta and the Buddhist traditions I am familiar with, so it's a different perspective than yours at times, but I would not agree that is my personal perspective based solely on my own experience or my own views. I listen to what the Buddha says and take it at face value unless I don't understand what is being said. I don't think that represents a far-flung view or "my own" view either. My view is that "Buddha's the boss," and I try to stay grounded in what he communicates as much as possible. > > =============== > > [RE:] I mean, there are some obvious conventional statements that point in this direction, such as "practice this for 7 yrs., months or days and you will become enlightened." You can argue that this is only for one capable of "really practicing" for the 7 weeks or days, but still, it is a specific result, a fruit of the path, based on doing a specific practice. It is clearly not just awaiting for kusala moments to arise, but is a practice said to take place in a defined time frame, so we are talking "conventional time" here, not the space of a single citta. Here is the quote from the satipatthana sutta: > > =============== > > J: Thanks for quoting the sutta text (below). I think the key words are "develop [mindfulness] in this way". This refers to the way of development described in the preceding part of the sutta. So only by analysing the rest of the sutta could one know whether a deliberate 'practice' of some kind is being referred to. > > That apart, however, we know from personal experience that the development of a mental quality (such as being more considerate/attentive/sympathetic) does not require a deliberate practice of any kind, but only that one keep in mind the importance of the quality to be developed and make the most of the opportunities that present themselves. So I don't quite see why you are so confident that it's a deliberate practice that's being referred to here. Well if it's not a deliberate practice that is referred to by "this way of practice" or "this way of development," how could one "practice it or develop it" for 7 months, 7 weeks or 7 days, or any time at all? Wouldn't the Buddha just say "for whatever period of time it takes" instead of mentioning these time frames? My question is "what then is the meaning of these time frames?" ... > > [RE:] So this is saying not only will certain factors develop if practiced consistently according to the sutta, but that the culmination of enlightenment, or else non-return if there is still a bit of clinging left, will ensue from such a practice. > > =============== > > J: Yes, but the passage does not tell us what constitutes 'practice' [actually, 'development', a somewhat more neutral term] according to the sutta. That is the very question we are at issue on. The assurance of attainment passage simply doesn't help resolve this issue. > > > =============== > > > [J:] So I would not see the assurance of attainment as suggesting any time frame for a practice to be done, or as encouraging a kind of deliberate practice. Doesn't seem like much of an assurance if it isn't based on anything that can be "practiced" or "developed." What is the assurance then? > > [RE:] Why the mention of all the years and such, and giving a definite time frame and then saying an even shorter time frame would do as well. What's that all about? > > =============== > > J: To indicate that this development alone will suffice. That makes sense, but doesn't make sense of the time frame. Still, I like that explanation for the "method," if not the time frame. That's pretty neat. > > =============== > > [RE:] The assurance of enlightenment has to take place in some time frame, otherwise it is not a contractual assurance. :-) > > > > I really don't have any legal background at all, but I recall that a contract without a time frame is moot, since one can put off the guarantee forever without violating the contract. > > =============== > > J: :-)) No question of a contract here, but you're right. If there's no agreement on a basic term, such as time of completion, price or manner of performing, then there's no actual 'agreement' and so no contract in the first place. If it is an "assurance" it is a guarantee, which is the equivalent of a contract, is it not? Buddha is saying that "if this development takes place in this way for a consistent period of time the following results will surely take place." > > =============== > > [RE:] I hear you saying there is no time frame in the above assurance, but yet you have not accounted for the time frame that is given, or why it is given, if there is in fact no time frame. That doesn't seem to add up to me. Buddha does give a time frame; it's right there. But then you say there is no time frame. Can you explain? > > =============== > > J: He mentions a period of time, but is not giving a time frame for 'practice'. The idea of a time frame only makes sense in the context of a set form of 'practice'. But he does talk about these time frames. If a time frame only makes sense in the context of set practice, then why does Buddha talk about these time frames? It seems that doing so backs up the idea of a set form of practice. How else to account for the time frames? I mean, it's Buddha who is putting the time frames into his "assurance," not me. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #120833 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > There is no thinking one's way to enlightenment. And daydreaming about how the world might appear to me if I were enlightened is pointless - that's what acid is for (ha ha)... > > Ph: I think this is Rob E's approach. In a way, he is lucky, because I suspect he isn't actually a serious meditator, he doesn't seem to make declarations and expound theories based on his meditation experience, he seems to read what people say and think and write as he goes. So he's still free. It's the serious meditators who get locked into the error of thinking that the things they think about during meditation are anything other than thinking about stuff while sitting in a noble looking position. Stay free, Rob E! Maybe it will be you who has a Road to Damascus moment about Abhidhamma, but my money is still on Alex, another person who has been spared (by health issues, apparently) from being a "serious meditator." Just to clarify that meditation has nothing to do with thinking. That shows a really interesting misunderstanding of meditation as a whole. I won't say it's "being aware" of the moment since that has a whole set of technical implications for folks around here, but it is sensory and psychophysical, not thought-based. If one were to sit around thinking that would be contemplation not meditation. Note over, Rob out. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #120834 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > R: I think that is a good point for anyone, to consider what is > > relevant in current experience. It seems to help me to understand a > > little more of the stages afterwards, just to see the direction > > that the stages are headed in, but then to focus back again on > > something that is relevant, as you say. > > > ------ > N: All stages are headed to detachment. At each stage there is more > detachment, no self attaining it. Thanks Nina, that is good. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - #120835 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:58 am Subject: Re: The camp thing... glenjohnann Hello Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > p.s Do hope you and Glen are well these days. > ===== Yes, we are well. I am progressing with trying to reduce the medications for the arteritis etc - fairly successfully, although the symptoms break through on each reductions creating the need to slow down or go back up again. Otherwise, feeling pretty well. We are making some big changes - have just sold our house and are looking for something smaller in the same general area - either a condo, townhouse or duplex. That's keeping us busy! All of the loba and thinking about "our home" is arising in abundance, just to confirm again and again the extent to which we take these things as being so very important and "real". Trusting that you and J. are well too. Ann #120836 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:59 am Subject: The 9 Supreme Persons! bhikkhu5 Friends: There are these 9 Superior and Noble Persons! 1: The perfectly self-awakened Buddha... (SammÄsambuddho) 2: The solitary self-awakened Buddha... (Paccekasambuddho) 3: The one released both ways... (UbhatobhÄgavimutto) 4: The one released by understanding... (Paññavimutto) 5: The body-witness of direct experience... (KÄyasakkhÄ«) 6: The view-winner of straight comprehension... (Ditthipattto) 7: The one released by faith... (SaddhÄvimutto) 8: The one guided by Dhamma... (DhammÄnusÄrÄ«) 9: The one guided by faith... (SaddhÄnusÄrÄ«) <...> Source: The 4th Abhi-Dhamma Book: The Personality Concept: Puggala-Paññatti. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130096 Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu SamÄhita _/\_ * <...> #120837 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) philofillet Hi Nina > > 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 learn to be aware of sound as a ruupa, or feeling as a naama. > It is ruupa, not self, it is naama not self. Is that not anatta > sa~n~naa? Ph: Thank you, a little bit clearer now. We must now nama as nama before we can know characteristics of this or that nama. Of course we can read about or discuss the characteristics of this or that cetasika. "Abhidjamma is not in the book" are your familiar words. But I am not sure about thus. Sometines I think we are too eager to move beyond the understanding of dhammas which must still be theoretical. There are 19 cetasikas with every kusala moment. Until there has been vipasanna-nana that knows nama from rupa, how could there possibly be distinguishing them in daily life except by self thinking about it and lobha wanting it? If we allow Abhidhamma to stay in the book on this topic (i.e study and discuss as theory) isn't that better? Seeing, visible object, here to be studied now, not in the book. May I ask your thoughts on this Nina, when you have time, no hurry at all. Phil Phil #120838 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:55 am Subject: Re: Looks like Buddhism kenhowardau Hi Sarah, -------- <. . .> > > KH: Oh, how nice, worry beads! Just what I wanted, but not very much! > S: My point was just that when it's all about "what I wanted, what I want" now, then that's the reality to be known - lobha or dosa or moha now. --------- KH: Yes, sorry, I knew that. I was just prattling. In the old days I used to leave my messages in a drafts folder for a while, read them back, and edit out the prattle. I'm too smart for that now, unfortunately. :-) Ken H #120839 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Rob E > Just to clarify that meditation has nothing to do with thinking. That shows a really interesting misunderstanding of meditation as a whole. I won't say it's "being aware" of the moment since that has a whole set of technical implications for folks around here, but it is sensory and psychophysical, not thought-based. If one were to sit around thinking that would be contemplation not meditation. Ph: Fair enough, I was referring to the "insights" people have during meditation, and cling on to, and expound on here. That is just thinking disguised (for them) as something deeper. I don't read them from you, which suggests to me that you are free of that trap. I think your lifestyle (and wife, I saw a "don't tell my wife" joke about borrowing Pattana for "a few days" from Howard) don't allow you to be a "serious meditator." So I think you are free from that trap. No 40 day retreats for you, I bet! Hallelulah, there is still hope for detachment. There is some good reason Scott keeps dialoguing with you, your mind is still open (wide open and flying all over the place, like mine!) Carry on. Phil #120840 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) philofillet Hi again Nina I wrote: > "Abhidhamma is not in the book" are your familiar words. But I am not sure about this. Sometimes I think we are too eager to move beyond the understanding of dhammas which must still be theoretical. There are 19 cetasikas with every kusala moment. Until there has been vipasanna-nana that knows nama from rupa, how > could there possibly be distinguishing them in daily life except by self thinking about it and lobha wanting it? If we allow Abhidhamma to stay in the book on this topic (i.e study and discuss as theory) isn't that better? Seeing, visible object, here to be studied now, not in the book. > Ph: May I add an example? From CMA, p.37: "Though displeasure and aversion always accompany each other, their qualities should be distinguished. Displeasure ( domanassa) is the experience of unpleasant feeling, aversion (patigha/dosa) is the mental attitude of ill will or irritation.". Can we really distinguish these dhammas? We can think we can. Maybe it is enough to know, to reflect, that there are such dhammas performing their functions. Of course they are not in a book, they are dhammas performing functions, but can there be awareness of there in a way that distinguishes them? Of course saying "no absolutely not, there cannot be such awareness" is also wrong, but.... Thanks Nina. Phil #120841 From: "connie" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:33 pm Subject: cdl - grief nichiconn dear Dieter, thought about you the other day when I was reading some of the Sutta Nipata; Jarasutta: < People grieve from selfishness, perpetual cares kill them, this (world) is full of disappointment; seeing this, let one not live in a house. > Then, tonight I was just looking in the Guide Through the Abhidhamma Pitaka pdf and wondered again whether you had given the grief/dosa connection any more thought. << Kammically unwholesome (akusala) states are rooted either in greed, hatred, or delusion (lobha, dosa, moha). (22–29) Greedy consciousness may be accompanied either by joy or by indifference, combined with wrong views or not, premeditated or not. Hence we get eight classes of greedy consciousness. (30–31) Hateful consciousness, which always is accompanied by sadness, may be premeditated or not. Hence we get two classes of delusive consciousness. (32–33) Delusion consciousness, which always is accompanied by indifference, may be accompanied either by scepticism (vicikicchaa), or merely by restlessness (uddhacca). Hence, we get two classes of delusive consciousness. >> Where I live, a lot of hunters believe the deer or whatever actually offer themselves up to them as a kind of sacrifice & that there’s a kind of spiritual honour and joy there for both the animal and the hunter so there is no akusala involved in the killing (or suicide). peace, connie #120842 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:31 pm Subject: Re: kamma and this moment glenjohnann Dear Sarah and others --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > I think we all know what you must be going through. Not only are you worried about your friend, there are additional traumas for you. The fact you were there means you will inevitably be plagued by useless thoughts of "if only." "If only we had stayed at the restaurant, if only we had decided to sit on the beach a little longer" and so on. > > None of us expects you to be a saint and unaffected by the trauma. But we do know there will be peaceful moments when you understand it's only conditioned dhammas, and no self. As Nina says, "Just like now." I am somewhat behind in my reading here, and tend to skip around a bit. So I am realizing now that when I wrote earlier today commenting at the end that I trust all is well with you and J. - I had forgotten about the incident last week with Sharon. Ken H. expressed my feelings about it very well above. I know that it must have been very traumatic all round and that you would have been quite shaken by it. Fortunately your understanding of the dhamma will shed useful perspectives and perhaps even moments of further understanding. I have been thinking of you and trusting that J. has been immensely helpful. Do take care of yourself. Ann #120843 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:49 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" glenjohnann Hi Johothan, Alex and others > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > A: Is there a dhamma called "anatta"? Is there a dhamma called "rise of citta", "persistence of citta", "fall of citta"? Is there dhamma called "samsara"? > > > > J: As I understand the Theravada texts, 'anatta' is a characteristic, or quality, of dhammas. It becomes known to panna as the understanding of dhammas (insight) is developed. > > > > So to answer your question, there is no dhamma called 'anatta'. > > > > But neither is anatta a concept, since it is an aspect of dhammas. > > > > The same would presumably apply as regards the 3 sub-moments of citta. > > > > =============== > J: Regarding that last paragraph, on further reflection I think I would like to put it a little differently, as follows: > > There is no dhamma called "samsara". I understand "samsara" to refer to the fact that rebirth continues endlessly, as reflected in the DO formulation (anuloma section), unless enlightenment is attained. > > So, as with the other expressions you have asked about, it is an aspect of dhammas that comes to be known with the development of insight. Interesting topic. I will just think aloud here for a bit. I can see anatta as a characteristic or quality of all dhammas. However, until dhammas are directly understood by panna as having the characteristic of anatta, then anatta is for the one not having yet understood this characteristic, a concept. True, it is a gradual development of panna that understands anatta. Nor is anatta a dhamma. I like your statement (above) that "is it an aspect of dhammas that comes to be known with the development of insight." Can we say that until it becomes known with the development of insight, it is but a concept? Ann #120844 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:45 pm Subject: Re: Letters on Vipassana IV, 6 philofillet Hi all A great letter from Nina on the visible objects and sounds appearing now. Thanks Nina! Phil > Dear friends, > > When we pay attention to the shape and form of things we think of > concepts, but we could not think of shape and form if there were no > seeing. Seeing sees colour or visible object but there is usually > ignorance of these realities. They arise and then fall away but they > are not known. When one considers realities more often there will be > more conditions for awareness of them. Someone said that the word > colour may be misleading, because when one recognizes red or blue > there is already thinking. However, red or blue are seen without > having to label them red or blue. These colours are not the same and > they appear through the eye-door. If there were no eyesense the > different colours could not appear. The "Dhammasangani" (Book II, Ch > II, 617) gives many details about colour. Colour can be blue, yellow, > red, white, black, crimson, bronze, green, of the hue of the mango- > bud, shady, glowing, light, dim, dull, frosty, smoky or dusty. It can > be the colour of the moon, sun, stars, a mirror, a gem, a shell, a > pearl, a cat's eye, gold or silver. The aim of giving so many details > is to remind us to be aware of colour, no matter it is the colour of > the moon, of a gem or any other colour. Satipaììhåna can be developed > in a natural way. Also when we look at the moon or at gems there is > colour and it can be known as the reality which can be seen. We do > not have to make an effort to look for a special colour in order to > be aware of it. > The "Dhammasangani" gives in the same section (621) examples of > different kinds of sounds: > > That sound which is derived from the four great Elements, is > invisible and reacting, such as the sound of drums, of tabors, of > chank-shells, of tom-toms, of singing, of music; clashing sounds, > manual sounds, the noise of people, the sound of the concussion of > substances, of wind, of water, sounds human and other than human, or > whatever sound there is... > > This passage reminds us to be aware of sound, no matter which kind of > sound it is. Sounds are not the same, they are high or low, loud or > soft, they have different qualities. We are so used to the familiar > sound of the shuffling of feet, of the turning of pages or of pen or > pencil when we are writing. We let such moments pass without > awareness. We are usually absorbed in the meaning of sounds, thus, in > concepts, but we can begin to be aware of the characteristic of > sound. This is the way to know it as a reality which can be heard. > Right understanding reduces the importance of the meaning of > something, of concepts. > > ******* > Nina. > > > > > #120845 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:32 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: Rob E.: > > 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? > > > ------ > N: Let us think of examples, like helping someone else with kusala > cittas. The kusala citta is the source of the deeds, there are many > moments and these fall away but are accumulated. > When you speak of deed, you may think of the outward appearance of a > deed, but from the outward appearance we cannot always tell the > intention. It is the kusala intention, kusala cetanaa that is important. Okay, so kusala cetana creates the kusala action. > N: When there is right understanding and right awareness of visible > object that appears, as only a ruupa, not a person or a thing, the 37 > enlightenment factors are developing. Four satipa.t.thaanas, four > right efforts, etc. They develop together, not separately. > ------- Good to know. > > R.: as to mindfulness of breath: > > > > > 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? > > > ------- > N: Rupas of the body are originated by kamma, or by citta, or by > temperature or by nutrition. Breath can be originated by citta rooted > in lobha, and then the breath is coarse, as was explained by Kh Sujin. That is fascinating. > The Visuddhimagga explains that as this subject becomes more > developed the breath becomes more refined, until it is hardly > perceptable. This shows again how difficult this subject is. That is also very intriguing. Thanks. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #120846 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:34 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > 'Correct understandings' are: > > R: "Correct intellectual formulations of that which has been experienced, which can be communicated verbally or in writing, such as in a sutta." > > Scott: And so, with definition interpolated, your statement is: > > R: "...It makes sense that Buddha would understand that which he had experienced with *correct intellectual formulations of that which has been experienced, which can be communicated verbally or in writing, such as in a sutta." > > Scott: And upon what were these 'correct intellectual formulations' predicated? On his direct understanding of dhammas, including Nibbana. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #120847 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:40 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi, namas and rupas known as "Scott." --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...I am trying to get clear on the role of such intellectual understanding and how it develops into direct understanding..." > > Scott: It doesn't. Thoughts and pa~n~naa are two absolutely different things altogether. A concept will never, ever develop into pa~n~naa. > > R: "...It seems to me that the concepts communicated by the words have to be understood and 'wisely considered' before the single moment will become clear for panna. Do you agree?" > > Scott: No. Such concepts will only become clear when pa~n~naa has developed in relation to realities as object. It is not the other way round. > > There is no such thing as a wise man. There is wisdom. I agree that it is only citta that is wise, not a person. However, your understand goes against what is generally accepted in discussions here - that direct understanding can only take place after Dhamma has been understood intellectually, and that this intellectual understanding is a prerequisite for direct discernment of dhammas. Jon was just saying this in our recent exchange, I believe. So do you disagree with this? You seem to think there is no correct understanding of Dhamma 'concepts' prior to direct experience of dhammas. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #120848 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > > Just to clarify that meditation has nothing to do with thinking. That shows a really interesting misunderstanding of meditation as a whole. I won't say it's "being aware" of the moment since that has a whole set of technical implications for folks around here, but it is sensory and psychophysical, not thought-based. If one were to sit around thinking that would be contemplation not meditation. > > Ph: Fair enough, I was referring to the "insights" people have during meditation, and cling on to, and expound on here. That is just thinking disguised (for them) as something deeper. I don't read them from you, which suggests to me that you are free of that trap. I think your lifestyle (and wife, I saw a "don't tell my wife" joke about borrowing Pattana for "a few days" from Howard) don't allow you to be a "serious meditator." So I think you are free from that trap. No 40 day retreats for you, I bet! Hallelulah, there is still hope for detachment. There is some good reason Scott keeps dialoguing with you, your mind is still open (wide open and flying all over the place, like mine!) Carry on. Well I hate to get applause for being a lousy meditator - only on dsg! I don't agree that regular meditation leads to some kind of wrong-view hypnosis, but as you say - carry on! :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #120849 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! sarahprocter... Hi Pt (& Chris), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Chris and Sarah, > > Sorry for your loss. Sometimes in situation like that at work I remember Sarah saying "what is the citta now"? Though the other stuff like "what if", regrets, etc, can't be helped either. .... S: thx for Pt. Yes, it all comes back to the citta now. Everyone experiences tragedies, deaths, loss. As we've been discussing a lot recently, when the cittas are focussed on *ME* and *MY problems*, there's no consideration for others, no metta, no understanding. A friend, actually the teacher, in my yoga class told me yesterday about the recent death of his young friend in an accident and today another friend told me she hadn't been to classes for several months because she'd had several miscarriages. When we listen to others and offer sympathy and kindness, we forget about our own problems as you know so well. So today, these couple of days, I've been rejoicing in the sutta about the "mustard-seed" http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg85.htm Kisa Gotami repaired to the Buddha and cried: "Lord and Master, give me the medicine that will cure my boy." The Buddha answered: "I want a handful of mustard-seed." And when the girl in her joy promised to procure it, the Buddha added: "The mustard-seed must be taken from a house where no one has lost a child, husband, parent, or friend." Poor Kisa Gotami now went from house to house, and the people pitied her and said: "Here is mustard-seed; take it!" But when she asked Did a son or daughter, a father or mother, die in your family?" They answered her: "Alas the living are few, but the dead are many. Do not remind us of our deepest grief." And there was no house but some beloved one had died in it. Kisa Gotami became weary and hopeless, and sat down at the wayside, watching the lights of the city, as they flickered up and were extinguished again. At last the darkness of the night reigned everywhere. And she considered the fate of men, that their lives flicker up and are extinguished. And she thought to herself: "How selfish am I in my grief! Death is common to all; yet in this valley of desolation there is a path that leads him to immortality who has surrendered all selfishness." *** "How selfish am I in my grief"! Of course, the selfishness, the regrets, the dwelling on 'the story' over and over again can't be helped. At least occasionally the cloak of ignorance may be pulled aside briefly and the reality of visible object or sound or feeling be known for what it is --- a fleeting dhamma that doesn't belong to anyone. Metta Sarah p.s Pt, when do you go on your trip to Europe? Very best wishes for that and see you in Feb! ===== #120850 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment sarahprocter... Dear Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > So sorry to hear about this terrible event. In some way I am thinking that if your friend had to go through this, that it was good that she was able to see you beforehand and have those moments with you. Maybe that is something positive for both of your paths. But I am very sorry for the pain and shock you are feeling, and hope for your friend's recovery. .... S: Thx Rob! We had had a lovely walk before hand in the countryside and talked all the way, not having seen each other for a long time. I think that some of the discussion may have been quite helpful for her such as on general topics like tolerance and patience with family members and so on. We never know when it'll be our last discussion with anyone. it's a reminder, to me, to reach out and help when and where we can. Metta Sarah ==== #120851 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:44 pm Subject: Re: kamma and this moment sarahprocter... Hi Phil (& Chris) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: >P: Sorry to hear your stories, sorry for your loss, Christine, and best wishes for Sharon's recovery, Sarah. And sorry that you had to go through that. .... S: Thx Phil - especially as I know you had to break your 'vow' to return to write it:) ... > > I appreciate that Chrstine noted that it was a traumatic incidcent for some of the people who were with her mother when she passed away, that is so true, her mother was not traumatized for all we know, it always comes back to I, me and mine, except for a few rare openings in that dome. .... S: Well put. .... >It's difficult for some to accept that mourning the loss of a loved one is dosa, but it is, it's all about our lobha and the dosa that arises from the loss. Except, again, for those few rare moments of deep understanding and compassion (which can never be accompanied by unpleasant mental feeling, so must be so rare...) .... S: Again, well said. We're fortunate to have friends that we can share such reflections with here. I heard a passage from KK (to be uploaded soon) in which you were asking about killing when when we know there are in fact no beings. KS was stressing that there's really only one moment of life, one citta and without that, there's no life. We think we live among people wanting to kill, doing lots of things, but actually most the time now there's just living in darkness. We think about people and things when really there's no one at all, just the arising of citta which may be wholesome or unwholesome, depending on conditions. She was also stressing how a sotapanna cannot kill because of the understanding of namas and rupas as not self. How can there be killing if there are no beings in reality. A sotapanna has no idea of killing - only kamma can condition the last moment of life, the vipaka citta. We have an idea of a person or an accident of some kind killing another person, but in reality it's only kamma. It's really only thinking, a mirage, a conjuring trick, when we think we live among people. There is no one at all - only the arising of different cittas at this moment - seeing, hearing, thinking wisely or unwisely. Metta Sarah ====== Metta Sarah ==== #120852 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowing vipaka from kamma (transcript, kalkutta.2, India 2004) sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, butting into your discussion with Nina, here #120564 (ignore if all clear now). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > ( D: I understand you refer to sankhara as the second of the 12 links > chain, I however to sankhara khanda , as part of nama (/rupa) , > > being at the > 4th place, i.e. avijja -sankhara -vinnana - nama/rupa - etc... > ------ > N: I have to think this over, not quite understanding where sankhaarakkhandha comes in: naama/ruupa. ..... S: Dieter, sankhara as the 2nd 'link' refers to past kamma, kamma from previous lives which conditions birth and vipaka cittas in this life. This, of course, is past cetana which was past kamma patha. The vinnana in D.O. is this birth consciousness and subsequent vipaka cittas. The nama/rupa in D.O. refers to the cetasikas which accompany the birth consciousness and vipaka cittas and the rupas conditioned at the moment of birth. The khandas refer to all conditioned dhammas. Sankhara khandha includes all cetasikas apart from sanna and vedana which have their own khandhas. So, as Nina stressed, the context for a term is very important. Metta Sarah ====== > > > D:let me try some more details : there are 5 khandas, i.e. rupa, vedana , sanna , sankhara , vinnana > In the 'standard ' formula : avijja - sankhara- vinnana- nama/ rupa -( salayatana -passa -..etc. ), nama doesn't include consciousness > (like within the general definition of mind ). We find sankhara khanda at the 4th place together with vedana and sanna under the heading of nama. > In MN 9 it is said : 54. "And what is mentality-materiality, what is the origin of mentality-materiality, what is the cessation of mentality-materiality, what is the way leading to the cessation of mentality-materiality? Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention - these are called mentality." > > As feeling and perception are different khandas , sankhara khanda ( mental formations ) must be understood here as 'volition, contact and attention' ' > > P.A.Payutto's writes in his D.O. documentation http://buddhasociety.com/online-books/dependent-origination-p-a-payutto-4-4 > "4. Namarupa = Body and Mind:nama (name or mind): feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention, or, according to the Abhidhamma: the khandhas of feeling, perception and volitional impulses; and rupa (body or materiality): the four elements, earth, water, wind and fire and all forms dependent on them. " > > In respect to other formulars , besides the above source , Nyanatiloka's guide seems to be a good support to understand the D.O. treatment in Abhidhamma see e.g. chapter 48 : http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/Guide-through-the-Abhidhamma-Pitaka.\ pdf ) > > with Metta Dieter > > > > > > #120853 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) nilovg Dear Phil, Op 29-nov-2011, om 4:05 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > I wrote: > "Abhidhamma is not in the book" are your familiar words. > But I am not sure about this. Sometimes I think we are too eager to > move beyond the understanding of dhammas which must still be > theoretical. There are 19 cetasikas with every kusala moment. Until > there has been vipasanna-nana that knows nama from rupa, how > > could there possibly be distinguishing them in daily life except > by self thinking about it and lobha wanting it? If we allow > Abhidhamma to stay in the book on this topic (i.e study and discuss > as theory) isn't that better? Seeing, visible object, here to be > studied now, not in the book. > ------ N: I learnt this from Kh Sujin: Abhidhamma is not in the book. Seeing is Abhidhamma, visible object is Abhidhamma, they are paramattha dhammas, not just for reading, but they are there to be studied when they appear. This does not mean that all the different cittas, cetasikas, ruupas can be known and understood. But it is good to know that the Buddha taught them because they are realities of daily life. -------- > > > Ph: May I add an example? From CMA, p.37: "Though displeasure and > aversion always accompany each other, their qualities should be > distinguished. Displeasure ( domanassa) is the experience of > unpleasant feeling, aversion (patigha/dosa) is the mental attitude > of ill will or irritation.". > ------- N: It depends on sati and pa~n~naa whether they can be distinguished or not yet. The great lesson of the Abhidhamma: they are all anatta, also sati and pa`n~naa are anattaa. ------ Nina. #120854 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:14 pm Subject: Re: Looks like Buddhism sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Of course, 'when there is understanding' there is kusala at that moment. And at that moment it is clear - that is the nature of understanding - and there is no question then of 'fake.' Was there kusala before though? Will there be kusala afterwards? Is external behaviour necessarily a trusted source of data? Isn't this just getting lost in stories about continuities? .... Sarah: This thread may be past its 'sell by date' too. As I recall, I was simply and lightly just pointing out that when we worry about the worry beads or feel disappointed about a gift, there are bound to be many cittas about *me*. "Just like now" - is there disappointment in the post that has been adressed to us as opposed to appreciation of the other's kind thoughts? Many different dhammas, many different cittas as you point out - it all comes back to this moment every time. So if there is a 'getting lost in the story' now, panna can understand the thinking, the lobha, the ignorance now. ... > > What are your thoughts on 'resolving' to have consideration for others instead of *Me*? ... Sarah: When metta arises, there's no time for, no thought of any 'resolve'. When there is understanding of such metta, it just understands its nature - again, no idea of 'resolving to have more metta' or of being a 'better person'. ... >What are your thoughts about someone who might use the term 'fake' to refer to the need to stick close to the understanding of the moment and to the fact that many, many more moments will lack it? And to not be fooled by appearances - especially as things appear to the inner story-teller? ... Sarah: Again, it just comes down to the understanding at this moment - whatever the thoughts, whatever the speculation, the reality of thinking now is what can be directly known. I agree that there are 'cheating dhammas' arising very often and perhaps this is what you refer to. Any dhamma at all can be known now, including disappointment or dosa when the gift is not to our liking! Metta Sarah ==== #120855 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: 201 dhammas to be "directly known" sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > S: I think as Scott said, more than a matter of "language use". You > suggested above to Alex that khandhas were concepts in contrast to ayatanas, > dhatus and indriyas which were paramattha dhammas. I'm pointing out that just > as visible object is an ayatana or a dhatu (i.e a reality), so it is also a > khandha - rupa khandha. > ============================== > I believe this is entirely a matter of language use, and we differ on > that usage. ... S: A difference in usage reflecting a difference in understanding on this difficult point. ... > But I think I do understand the basis for your usage of 'rupakkhandha'. I > think you use it as a category name rather than a collection name. From > that perspective, one might say, as you do, that every visible object is > rupakkhandha. But one could instead say, and much more clearly, IMO, that every > visible object is rupa (or a kind of rupa), using 'rupa' as the category > word. ... S: Good point about 'category name'. I think there is a reason the Buddha used rupakkhandha in context rather than just rupa. ... > P. S. On another recent issue, I totally agree with you on not considering > "concensus" to be a great value.<....>There is no > need for concensus. .... S: I think that looking for "consensus" means one may well 'fudge' or 'blur' the differences which may be very important to explore, question and challenge. ... >What IS very useful, essential even, however, is clear > understanding of the perspectives of others. Without that understanding, no > decent conversation can ensue, and there is no real chance of learning from > others. ... S: True. Of course, we all feel the others misunderstand what we say and yet we fully understand what they are saying:-) Again, just dhammas - not 'them' and 'me'. Metta Sarah ===== #120856 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:26 pm Subject: A sotappan cant kill becuase he knows there are no beings. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > She was also stressing how a sotapanna cannot kill because of the understanding of namas and rupas as not self. How can there be killing if there are no beings in reality. A sotapanna has no idea of killing - only kamma can condition the last moment of life, the vipaka citta. >++++++\ Dear Sarh and Phil of course a sotapanna can still have sex even though he knows there are no beings. Robert #120857 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:26 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "On his direct understanding of dhammas, including Nibbana." Scott: *Next* came the concepts. Scott. #120858 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:31 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...direct understanding can only take place after Dhamma has been understood intellectually, and that this intellectual understanding is a prerequisite for direct discernment of dhammas..." Scott: Pariyatti is not intellectual understanding. R: "...You seem to think there is no correct understanding of Dhamma 'concepts' prior to direct experience of dhammas." Scott: Pa~n~naa does not have concepts as objects. 'Understanding' is a term for the function of pa~n~naa. Scott. #120859 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:33 pm Subject: Re: Looks like Buddhism scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Sarah: This thread may be past its 'sell by date' too..." Scott: Oh. Sorry. Scott. #120860 From: "philip" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) philofillet Hi Nina >This does not mean that all the different cittas, > cetasikas, ruupas can be known and understood. But it is good to know > that the Buddha taught them because they are realities of daily life. Ph; Yes. And I think another reason it is good and wise to study details that we will probably never understand directly is that we understand better how thick avijja is, and how profound the Buddha's understanding was. Some might say this fosters hopelessness, but no. It is the self that feels hopeless, we can understand that from the beginning. I now better understand why A. Sujin speaks of detachment from the beginning, it seemed nonsensical or absurd to me before. > > Ph: May I add an example? From CMA, p.37: "Though displeasure and > > aversion always accompany each other, their qualities should be > > distinguished. Displeasure ( domanassa) is the experience of > > unpleasant feeling, aversion (patigha/dosa) is the mental attitude > > of ill will or irritation.". > > > ------- > N: It depends on sati and pa~n~naa whether they can be distinguished > or not yet. Ph: I do appreciate A.Sujin's explanation that there must be the first vipassana-nana before cetasikas can be distinguished, but I shouldn't cling too tightly to that, it will just add to the dome of lobha, lobha that likes to feel little-in-understanding-but-actually-that-is-understanding. The great lesson of the Abhidhamma: they are all anatta, > also sati and pa`n~naa are anattaa. Ph: So many burdens are dropped, or at lease become lighter thanks to understanding anatta to whatever small degree we are able. And we are able. Phil #120861 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A sotappan cant kill becuase he knows there are no beings. upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and all) - In a message dated 11/29/2011 7:26:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@... writes: Dear Sarh and Phil of course a sotapanna can still have sex even though he knows there are no beings. -------------------------------------- Since there are only namas and rupas, would that be group sex?? ;-)) [Sorry, I just couldn't resist!!] ---------------------------------------- Robert ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #120862 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:00 am Subject: Re: kamma and this moment philofillet Hi Sarah > S: Thx Phil - especially as I know you had to break your 'vow' to return to write it:) Thanks for noting this. Actually it's relevant to recent discussions. The impulse to reach out to help someone meant overcoming resistance caused by pride, stinginess, protecting self-image (about not embarrasingly breaking a vow to stay away, yet again) and whatnot. I think of the post I wrote to Alex when I had been steaming with irritation towards him at the beginning of it and reaching out with friendliness by the end. Friendliness arising naturally due to conditions. Or not. Anatta. Phil #120863 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:59 am Subject: cetasika in daily life - moha moellerdieter Hi all, I continue with the last one of the 4 unwholesóme universals, first a general overview Abhidhamma: Ten defilements and unwholesome roots While the Sutta Pitaka does not offer a list of kilesa, the Abhidhamma Pitaka's Dhammasangani (Dhs. 1229ff.) and Vibhanga (Vbh. XII) as well as in the post-canonical Visuddhimagga (Vsm. XXII 49, 65) enumerate ten defilements (dasa kilesa-vatthÅ«ni) as follows: greed (lobha) hate (dosa) delusion (moha) conceit (mÄna) wrong views (micchÄdiá¹­á¹­hi) doubt (vicikicchÄ) torpor (thÄ«naṃ) restlessness (uddhaccaṃ) shamelessness (ahirikaṃ) recklessness (anottappaṃ)[9] The Vibhanga also includes an eightfold list (aá¹­á¹­ha kilesa-vatthÅ«ni) composed of the first eight of the above ten.[10] Throughout Pali literature, the first three kilesa in the above tenfold Abhidhamma list (lobha dosa moha) are known as the "unwholesome roots" (akusala-mÅ«la); and, their opposites (alobha adosa amoha) are the three "wholesome roots" (kusala-mÅ«la).[11] The presence of such a wholesome or unwholesome root during a mental, verbal or bodily action conditions future states of consciousness and associated mental factors (see Karma (Buddhism)).[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleshas_(Buddhism D: interesting to note that the cetasikas envy (issa), stinginess (macchariya) worry (kukucca) and sloth (thina) are left out from the list of the 14 unwholesome mental factors(akusal cetasikas /papajatti) Pali Text Society definition with sources: Moha Moha [fr. muh, see muyhati; cp. Sk. moha & Vedic mogha] stupidity, dullness of mind & soul, delusion, bewilderment, infatuation D iii.146, 175, 182, 214, 270; Vin iv.144, 145; Sn 56, 74, 160, 638, 847; Vbh 208, 341, 391, 402; Pug 16; Tikp 108, 122, 259. -- Defd as "dukkhe aññÄṇaÅ‹ etc., moha pamoha, sammoha, avijj' ogha etc.," by Nd2 99 & Vbh 362; as "muyhanti tena, sayaÅ‹ vÄ muyhati, muyhana -- mattaÅ‹ eva vÄ tan ti moho" and "cittassa andha -- bhÄva -- lakkhaṇo, aññÄṇalakkhaṇo vÄ" at Vism 468. -- Often coupled with rÄga & dosa as one of the 3 cardinal affects of citta, making a man unable to grasp the higher truths and to enter the Path: see under rÄga (& Nd2 p. 237, s. v. rÄga where the wide range of application of this set is to be seen). Cp. the 3 fires: rÄg -- aggi, dos -- aggi, moh -- aggi It 92; D iii.217 also rÄga -- kkhaya, dosaËš, mohaËš VbhA 31 sq. -- On combn with rÄga, lobha & dosa see dosa2 and lobha. -- On term see also Dhs trsl. §§ 33, 362, 441; Cpd 16, 18, 41, 113, 146. -- See further D i.80 (samoha -- cittaÅ‹); Nd1 15, 16 (with lobha & dosa); VvA 14; PvA 3. -- amoha absence of bewilderment Vbh 210 (+alobha, adosa; as the 3 kusala -- mÅ«lÄni: cp. mÅ«la 3), 402 (id., as kusala -- hetu). -- Cp. paËš, samËš. -- antara (personal) quality of bewilderment (lit. having m. inside) Sn 478 (taken by C. as "cause of m.," i. e. ËškÄraṇa, Ëšpaccaya SnA 411; cp. antara=kÄraṇa under antara I 2 b.). -- ussada quality of dullness Nd1 72, 413. -- kkhaya destruction of infatuation Vbh 73; VbhA 51. -- carita one whose habit is infatuation Nett 90 (+rÄgacarita & dosacarita). -- tama the darkness of bewilderment MA 1. -- dhamma anything that is bewildering or infatuating Sn 276. -- pÄruta covered or obstructed by delusion Pv iv.334. -- magga being on the road of infatuation Sn 347. -- salla the sting of bewilderment Nd1 59. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/moha.aspx moha (PÄli). ‘Delusion’, one of the three roots of evil (akuÅ›ala-mÅ«la), which, together with craving (lobha) and hatred (dvesÌ£a), leads to rebirth and suffering in cyclic existence (samÌ£sÄra). Moha is synonymous with ignorance (avidyÄ), which is the first link in the series of Dependent Origination (pratÄ«tya-samutpÄda) and which must be removed if suffering (duḥkha) is to cease. Most fundamentally, moha and avidyÄ relate to ignorance about the true nature of things as summarized in the Four Noble Truths. This includes ignorance of one's own nature and that of the world at large and manifests itself in the belief that phenomena are permanent and stable, and that a self or soul (Ätman) underlies personal identity. The way to cleanse the mind of these misconceptions is through the practice of the Eightfold Path, which destroys delusion and replaces it with insight (prajñÄ). D: in respect to distinguish micca diithi and moha , a brief extract from: http://books.google.de/books?id=Ork586jWfK4C&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=Buddhism+delusi\ on+moha&source=bl&ots=b64CBSdO2X&sig=dHz_rNkvONrKbuXAMo-sBEDiR2A&hl=de&ei=tkXTTo\ azN4P2sgbE07yRAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBzgK#v=onep\ age&q=Buddhism%20delusion%20moha&f=false Paul Fuller : The notion of ditthi in Theravada Buddhism .. A wrong view does propose a false proposition. However it is a tendency of views to become an object of greed and attachment that is of primary importance. This suggests that the Abhidhamma is interested in how views are held, not, essentially , what they propose. Rupert Gethin has suggested , that it is the fact that a view is an object of greed and attachment that the Theravada Abhidhamma wishes to stress. He compares the definitions given to delusion moha to that given for ditthi in the Dhammasangani . The best of terms describing ditthi in the Dhammasangani were given above with the formula beginning 'gone over to view , the thicket of view, a wilderness of view. In contrast , the list of terms in the Dhammasangani explaining moha is dominated by the notions of not knowing and not seeing. Ignorance and delusion obscure the true nature of things . The content of the proposition in emphasised . This is clearly different to the evil of terms that characterise micca ditthi , which I just discussed.These terms emphasise grasping, fixity and holding.Gethin secondly considers Buddhagosa's definition of micca ditthi and moha. Hence ditthi has the characteristic of inapproriate adherence (ayoniso adhinivesa) , its function is clinging (paramasa) , its manifestation is wrong-adherence (micca abhinivesa), is absence of desire to meet Noble Ones and the like (ariyariam adossana kamataadi) and it should be seen as the ultimate fault (paramam vajjam).In contrast , delusion has the characteristic of mental blindness (cittassa andabhava) or not knowing(annana), its function is not penetrating (assampativedha) or concealing the true nature of the object (dhamma-sabhava-cchandana); its basis is inapproriate bringing to mind ( ayoniso manasikara), it should be seen as the root of all that is unskilfull." D: following a comment Mahayana view of delusion : Bodhi (बोधि) is the PÄli and Sanskrit word for the "awakened" or "knowing" consciousness of a fully liberated yogi, generally translated into English as "enlightenment." It is an abstract noun formed from the verbal root budh (to awake, become aware, notice, know or understand), corresponding to the verbs bujjhati (PÄli) and bodhati or budhyate (Sanskrit). The term Bodhi is mostly used in Buddhist context.In early Buddhism, Bodhi carries a meaning synonymous to Nirvana, using only some different metaphors to describe the experience, which implied the extinction of raga (greed), dosa (hate), and moha (delusion). In the later school of Mahayana Buddhism, the status of Nirvana was downgraded, coming to refer only to the extinction of greed and hate, implying that delusion was still present in one who attained Nirvana, and that one needed to attain Bodhi to eradicate delusion.[2] The result is that according to Mahayana Buddhism, the Arahant attains only Nirvana, thus still being subject to delusion, while the Bodhisattva attains Bodhi. In Theravada Buddhism, Bodhi and Nirvana carry the same meaning, that of being freed from craving, hate and delusion. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Enlightenment_(concept) D: one example concerning disillusion .. extract But, Venerable Sir, what is the causing condition of mental purification? By what reason, do beings become mentally purified & released? The Buddha then explained: If, Mahali, this form, this feeling, this perception, this construction & this consciousness were exclusively pleasurable, immersed only in pleasure, soaked solely in satisfaction, and if it were not also quite soaked in suffering, beings would not become disgusted with it. But because form, feeling, perception, construction & consciousness is also pain, immersed in distress, soaked in agony, and it is not soaked only in pleasure, beings are disgusted with it. Being disgusted, they experience disillusion and through this disillusion, they are mentally purified! This, Mahali, is the causing condition for the mental purification of beings... By this reason, do beings become mentally purified and happily released!<...> Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikâya III 69-71 a brief essay see What is Moha (Ignorance)? - By Yogavacara Rahula Bhikkhu http://www.theravada-china.org/home-space-uid-337-do-blog-id-59.html D: last but not least , the famous story of Adam & Eve in Genesis is a beautiful simile about delusion and its concequences , although Buddhism doesn't accept the creator God and a beginning of delusion .. More in discussion , if any ;-) with Metta Dieter #120864 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 29-nov-2011, om 14:59 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > I continue with the last one of the 4 unwholesóme universals, first > a general overview > > Abhidhamma: Ten defilements and unwholesome roots > > While the Sutta Pitaka does not offer a list of kilesa, the > Abhidhamma Pitaka's Dhammasangani (Dhs. 1229ff.) and Vibhanga (Vbh. > XII) as well as in the post-canonical Visuddhimagga (Vsm. XXII 49, > 65) enumerate ten defilements (dasa kilesa-vatthÅ«ni) ------- N: Thank you for your collection of texts, you put in a lot of work. I will think of things to add. First of all, I came upon a remark by Phil, I like: Good to understand more and more how much ignorance there is and how dangerous. I heard on a recording Kh Sujin giving examples from the Jatakas to consider with yoniso manasikaara (wise attention) events of daily life. Jataka 66, Mudula.k.khana Jaataka. The Bodhisatta as a hermit succumbed to the beauty of the Queen but the Queen brought him back to reality. He repented. ================================ Wow! Dieter, what a terrific job you have done in starting us off on this! What I would like to learn about, among other matters, is more of the relation between moha and micca ditthi. My intuition on this is that the former is a condition for the latter, and perhaps also vice-versa. (In that latter regard, wrong views might serve to cloud the mind.) With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #120866 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha moellerdieter Dear Nina, thanks for your appreciation . It wasn't too much work (an essay would be ..) Please continue too add or comment whatever you see benefitial for the topic. While writing I had already one question in mind to ask you : why 10 Kilesas and 14 Cetasikas , both are unwholesome mental factors . (envy (issa), stinginess (macchariya) worry (kukucca) and sloth (thina) are left out ) ? Yes , ignorance is dark ..we need the light of wisdom ... I wonder sometimes how much is ignorance , i.e. not wanting to know, aside of not knowing.... The cetasika panna /amoha seems to be a quite interesting issue to talk about ... later .. with Metta Dieter you wrote: N: Thank you for your collection of texts, you put in a lot of work. I will think of things to add. First of all, I came upon a remark by Phil, I like: Good to understand more and more how much ignorance there is and how dangerous. I heard on a recording Kh Sujin giving examples from the Jatakas to consider with yoniso manasikaara (wise attention) events of daily life. Jataka 66, Mudula.k.khana Jaataka. The Bodhisatta as a hermit succumbed to the beauty of the Queen but the Queen brought him back to reality. He repented. Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: 'Wow! Dieter, what a terrific job you have done in starting us off on this! What I would like to learn about, among other matters, is more of the relation between moha and micca ditthi. My intuition on this is that the former is a condition for the latter, and perhaps also vice-versa. (In that latter regard, wrong views might serve to cloud the mind.) D: thanks , Howard ..you know how to motivate ;-) I assume that Buddhagosa treated the realtion of moha and micca ditthi in details , but let us assume Gethin got that right (.. Gethin secondly considers Buddhagosa's definition of micca ditthi and moha. Hence ditthi has the characteristic of inapproriate adherence (ayoniso adhinivesa..,snip.. in contrast , delusion has the characteristic of mental blindness (cittassa andabhava) or not knowing..) My intuition is similar : not without reason is the moha synonym 'avjja ' the first of the 12 D.O. links (as I see it moha , much later, marks the momentary aspect) and conditions volition /kamma formation .... but then recalling that avijja has its condition too (the 5 hindrances) , I wouldn't be surprised to meet a 'hen and egg' issue. Interesting to recall the most wellknown analogy of delusion , the story of (Adam and) Eve in Genesis , here micca ditthi lead to delusion (and with that the creation of the world of suffering ) , didn't it ? Nice food for contemplation ;-) B.T.W. you find some further details using the link of Fuller's book , there is far more to read than I quoted , though only parts of the work. with Metta Dieter #120868 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowing vipaka from kamma (transcript, kalkutta.2, India 2004) moellerdieter Dear Sarah , you wrote: 'S: Dieter, sankhara as the 2nd 'link' refers to past kamma, kamma from previous lives which conditions birth and vipaka cittas in this life. This, of course, is past cetana which was past kamma patha. The vinnana in D.O. is this birth consciousness and subsequent vipaka cittas. The nama/rupa in D.O. refers to the cetasikas which accompany the birth consciousness and vipaka cittas and the rupas conditioned at the moment of birth.' D: I think it is important to understand that the first two links are past , as Buddhagosa described it, but accumulated past incl. previous lives up to the present . There is no cut by birth and leaving both behind. Otherwise it would be impossible to abolish avijja , wouldn't it? . S: The khandas refer to all conditioned dhammas. Sankhara khandha includes all cetasikas apart from sanna and vedana which have their own khandhas. So, as Nina stressed, the context for a term is very important D: yes, my point is that sankhara khanda , as part of the nama khandas (4th place) , involves momentary volition (in respect to the 6 senses media) with Metta Dieter #120869 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 11/29/2011 11:59:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote: 'Wow! Dieter, what a terrific job you have done in starting us off on this! What I would like to learn about, among other matters, is more of the relation between moha and micca ditthi. My intuition on this is that the former is a condition for the latter, and perhaps also vice-versa. (In that latter regard, wrong views might serve to cloud the mind.) D: thanks , Howard ..you know how to motivate ;-) I assume that Buddhagosa treated the realtion of moha and micca ditthi in details , but let us assume Gethin got that right (.. Gethin secondly considers Buddhagosa's definition of micca ditthi and moha. Hence ditthi has the characteristic of inapproriate adherence (ayoniso adhinivesa..,snip.. in contrast , delusion has the characteristic of mental blindness (cittassa andabhava) or not knowing..) --------------------------------------------- HCW: The "inappropriate adherence" isn't clear to me. Is it the attachment that is inappropriate regardless of the object, and, if so, is that the meaning of micca ditthi? It seems to me that the view; i.e., what is believed, is what is micca. --------------------------------------------- My intuition is similar : not without reason is the moha synonym 'avjja ' the first of the 12 D.O. links (as I see it moha , much later, marks the momentary aspect) and conditions volition /kamma formation .... but then recalling that avijja has its condition too (the 5 hindrances) , I wouldn't be surprised to meet a 'hen and egg' issue. --------------------------------------------- HCW: Many instances of conditionality occur cyclically, in fact, "spirally". --------------------------------------------- Interesting to recall the most wellknown analogy of delusion , the story of (Adam and) Eve in Genesis , here micca ditthi lead to delusion (and with that the creation of the world of suffering ) , didn't it ? Nice food for contemplation ;-) --------------------------------------------- HCW: In that story, what is the micca ditthi and what the subsequent delusion? -------------------------------------------- B.T.W. you find some further details using the link of Fuller's book , there is far more to read than I quoted , though only parts of the work. with Metta Dieter ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #120870 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) philofillet Hi again Nina > > N: It depends on sati and pa~n~naa whether they can be distinguished > > or not yet. > > Ph: I do appreciate A.Sujin's explanation that there must be the first vipassana-nana before cetasikas can be distinguished, but I shouldn't cling too tightly to that. I will revise this, She has become my most respected Dhamma friend, I trust her explanations elsewhere, no reason to doubt her word here. Of course people may choose to believe that the first vipasanna-nana is elementary for them, nothing to do about that, it is the way of the world, thus the Buddha thought not to teach... Phil #120871 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > So sorry to hear about this terrible event. In some way I am thinking that if your friend had to go through this, that it was good that she was able to see you beforehand and have those moments with you. Maybe that is something positive for both of your paths. But I am very sorry for the pain and shock you are feeling, and hope for your friend's recovery. > .... > S: Thx Rob! We had had a lovely walk before hand in the countryside and talked all the way, not having seen each other for a long time. I think that some of the discussion may have been quite helpful for her such as on general topics like tolerance and patience with family members and so on. We never know when it'll be our last discussion with anyone. it's a reminder, to me, to reach out and help when and where we can. Yes, that is a good reminder, very important to remember at all times. When I realize all the things I do and worry about based on an illusion of permanence, it really seems ridiculous when you remind yourself that this life is very frail and short. I've been noticing that lately and at the moment that it is realized, it really changes your perspective. I'm glad to hear about the nice visit that you had beforehand. That is good to know. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #120872 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:12 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "On his direct understanding of dhammas, including Nibbana." > > Scott: *Next* came the concepts. I agree, but we are forced to trace backwards - to access his concepts and then experience what is understood intellectually. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #120873 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:14 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...direct understanding can only take place after Dhamma has been understood intellectually, and that this intellectual understanding is a prerequisite for direct discernment of dhammas..." > > Scott: Pariyatti is not intellectual understanding. > > R: "...You seem to think there is no correct understanding of Dhamma 'concepts' prior to direct experience of dhammas." > > Scott: Pa~n~naa does not have concepts as objects. 'Understanding' is a term for the function of pa~n~naa. Well that is all well and good, except you still don't explain how hearing Dhamma, wise reflection, etc., leads to direct understanding. The initial experience of Dhamma is conceptual, it is not direct when reading or thinking about it. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #120874 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > ...Of course people may choose to believe that the first vipasanna-nana is elementary for them, Who thinks that? Do you know anyone who thinks that vipassana of any kind is elementary? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - > ...nothing to do about that, it is the way of the world, thus the Buddha thought not to teach... #120875 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:57 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "I agree,..." Scott: With what? R: "...but we are forced to trace backwards - to access his concepts and then experience what is understood intellectually." Scott: With astronomically highly developed pa~n~naa the Buddha penetrates all dhammas to experience Nibbaana, teaches about the nature of the world, and all that, only to have you interpret the Dhamma to be 'access his concepts and then experience what is understood intellectually'? We do not agree, Rob. The nature of dhammas being what they are, the nature of Nibbaana being what it is, the way to enlightenment is still the impersonal, *non-intellectual* development of pa~n~naa. Scott. #120876 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) philofillet Hi Rob E > > ...Of course people may choose to believe that the first vipasanna-nana is elementary for them, > > Who thinks that? Do you know anyone who thinks that vipassana of any kind is elementary? Do you know nama from rupa? No? Good. I have read one person say that he does, you can speculate who. Phil p.s no further comment. #120877 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:58 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...you still don't explain how hearing Dhamma, wise reflection, etc., leads to direct understanding. The initial experience of Dhamma is conceptual, it is not direct when reading or thinking about it." Scott: I don't know how it does. It just does. And not by thinking. You still use the term 'experience' in idiosyncratic ways, by the way. Don't forget Dhamma is about dhammaa, not ideas. Scott. #120878 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:28 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Scott I don't wanna get caught up in this topic but yesterday I read you write panna cannot have concept as object. If you go back to the very beginning of the epic "Just checking re panna and concepts" thread I think you'll find the consensus (insert winky fellow) is that there are degrees of panna that can and do... Great to find these kind of topics that people on the same page can disagree about, I may be able to properly join a discussion someday, but for now don't/can't because it always must get pulled off the same page so soon and so often .... a reflection of my lack of patience. Anyone who thought you were the most impatient guy here should have had that misconception cleared out by now. I, sir, am the most intolerant of the Dhamma bigots!!!! Well, I have worthy rivals, but not you, sir. Phil #120879 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:08 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Rob E I was thinking about why I don't want to get involved in a discussion with someone I largely agree with but disagree with on specific details. Such as with Scott. I think one reason is I am aware that sometimes you (for example) might say "Phil said so too" or words to that effect, as you often do about Jon, for example. Please be aware of that. In fact, there is very little possibility that Jon agrees with you about Dhamma, as far as I can see, so suggesting that he does to back up your point in a discussion is kind of unfair. I know you don't do that intentionally, I am back to feeling affectionately about you, you are a good fellow. No sneaky courtroom tactics for you, you play your cards openly. But be aware of that. I wonder if there is a term for it, like the straw man and red herring. (Have to look up what the latter means.) Lining up paper allies? Anyways, go get exact quotes from people if possible and don't assume there has been agreement, god forbid that should happen with you!!!! (smiley man) Phil p.s I do find you make some good points about understanding the teaching conceptually before there can be direct understanding, but I think you put too much faith in it and think it works like magic. I used to think so too. Lay down a perfectly understood conceptual understanding over experience, and gradually there would be a sinking down through examined experience-in-the-light-of-perfect-conceptual-understanding and direct understanding of realities would be reached. That is a kind of belief in some kind of magic. The way conceptual understanding supports direct understanding must be much subtler than that, as all and everything to do with Dhamma must be much subtler than we like to think, we are like toddlers playing with Dhamma toys next to the towering wisdom of the great ones. #120880 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:10 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Phil, "I don't wanna get caught up in this topic but..." Scott: Too late, vow-breaker. Ph: "...yesterday I read you write panna cannot have concept as object. If you go back to the very beginning of the epic "Just checking re panna and concepts" thread I think you'll find the consensus (insert winky fellow) is that there are degrees of panna that can and do..." Scott: Who said that? Sounds like Ken O's thing... Scott. #120881 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:25 pm Subject: Nice one! philofillet Hi all Great line from SPD, p.70: "When citta experiences just hardness, there is no world of the road, the shoes or the stockings." Phil #120882 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:35 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Scott > Scott: Who said that? Sounds like Ken O's thing... Jon said so!!!! Seriously, I think there was agreement amoung several "advanced members of DSG" as Rob E might say that there is a degree of panna that can have concept as object. I started that "Just checking" thread because I had heard or read that there is and it can, so asked, and felt at the time that it was agreed upon by people whose understanding I trust in a way that satisfied my inquiry at the time. Phil #120883 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:54 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "Jon said so!!!!..." Scott: He's doing it again! Post #? Scott. #120884 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:04 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" rjkjp1 Dear Phil of course. For example when there is wise reflection on Dhamma panna is invariably present . Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > > Hi Scott > > > Scott: Who said that? Sounds like Ken O's thing... > > Jon said so!!!! Seriously, I think there was agreement amoung several "advanced members of DSG" as Rob E might say that there is a degree of panna that can have concept as object. I started that "Just checking" thread because I had heard or read that there is and it can, so asked, and felt at the time that it was agreed upon by people whose understanding I trust in a way that satisfied my inquiry at the time. > > Phil > #120885 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:12 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Dear Rob K., R: "of course. For example when there is wise reflection on Dhamma panna is invariably present ." Scott: What is the object? Scott. #120886 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:51 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Dear Rob K., > > R: "of course. For example when there is wise reflection on Dhamma panna is invariably present ." > > Scott: What is the object? > > Scott. > Dea Scott the object is concept(s) about Dhamma. robert #120887 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:53 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi Scotty. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "I agree,..." > > Scott: With what? Oh, c'mon, man. Duh - with what you said that I agreed with: that Buddha reached his understanding the way you said, and then the concepts came afterwards, like you said, bud. > R: "...but we are forced to trace backwards - to access his concepts and then experience what is understood intellectually." > > Scott: With astronomically highly developed pa~n~naa the Buddha penetrates all dhammas to experience Nibbaana, teaches about the nature of the world, and all that, only to have you interpret the Dhamma to be 'access his concepts and then experience what is understood intellectually'? > > We do not agree, Rob. Well, everybody has to start somewhere. I mean, we're not going to be the Buddha anytime soon, so what do you suggest? > The nature of dhammas being what they are, the nature of Nibbaana being what it is, the way to enlightenment is still the impersonal, *non-intellectual* development of pa~n~naa. Look, you're going to think this doesn't make sense, but I do agree with that. "With what?" asks Scott. "What you said" says Robert. "What did I say?" asks Scott. "Enlightenment develops through non-intellectual development of panna." That's what you said that I agree with. Scott says "No you don't. You said it develops through concepts." "No I did not say that. I said it starts with concepts, then it develops into direct experience." Scott asks "Why do you think it starts with concepts, but you agree it develops non-intellectually?" Rob says "I said that because the scriptures and everyone else says that you can't ever reach enlightenment without knowing the teaching of a Buddha." Scott says "But that knowledge is not intellectual." Rob says "I know but when you first hear the Dhamma it is conceptual, not direct, so it starts with concept whether you like it or not." Scott says "I don't agree." Rob says "Then you don't agree that the Dhamma is the source of the knowledge of dhammas. You think you can do it without knowing the Dhamma and that panna can develop without hearing the Buddha's teaching." Scott says "No that is not true." Rob says "Then how do you understand the words of the Dhamma without understanding it intellectually first?" Scott has no answer. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = #120888 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Knowing nama from rupa (transcript, India 2005, Bodhgaya, pt.1) epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > ...Of course people may choose to believe that the first vipasanna-nana is elementary for them, > > > > Who thinks that? Do you know anyone who thinks that vipassana of any kind is elementary? > > Do you know nama from rupa? No? Good. I have read one person say that he does, you can speculate who. I don't remember who that might be. I don't know, if one of our dsg leaders had experienced the first stage of insight, I wouldn't be shocked, but I'm sure they wouldn't make a personal claim either. It sure as heck ain't me! But I'm happy to have a clearer idea of the difference than I did before. That's good enough for now. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #120889 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:02 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...you still don't explain how hearing Dhamma, wise reflection, etc., leads to direct understanding. The initial experience of Dhamma is conceptual, it is not direct when reading or thinking about it." > > Scott: I don't know how it does. It just does. And not by thinking. You still use the term 'experience' in idiosyncratic ways, by the way. Don't forget Dhamma is about dhammaa, not ideas. Experience is not thinking, it is experiencing, and I don't use the word experience any more frequently than commentary or Nina does, so I don't know why you keep objecting to this simple word. The meaning of experiencing, by the way, is experiencing. It means something is experienced, like what namas do and what rupas don't. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #120890 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:19 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > I was thinking about why I don't want to get involved in a discussion with someone I largely agree with but disagree with on specific details. Such as with Scott. I think one reason is I am aware that sometimes you (for example) might say "Phil said so too" or words to that effect, as you often do about Jon, for example. Please be aware of that. If I occasionally find support in something that someone actually says, I'm not assuming they agree with me, just that they said what they said. > In fact, there is very little possibility that Jon agrees with you about Dhamma, as far as I can see, so suggesting that he does to back up your point in a discussion is kind of unfair. Not if the point is actually correct. If not, someone can correct the record, but I don't just make stuff up. > I know you don't do that intentionally, I don't think I do that at all. However, we do occasionally agree on certain things and there's no reason not to acknowledge it when it is the case. > I am back to feeling affectionately about you, you are a good fellow. No sneaky courtroom tactics for you, you play your cards openly. Well, that's nice. You seem a little condescending, but what the heck. > But be aware of that. Okay, if I ever make believe that someone agrees with me when they really don't, please let me know. Scott accuses me of this, but that's because he is committed to us disagreeing no matter what. > I wonder if there is a term for it, like the straw man and red herring. (Have to look up what the latter means.) Lining up paper allies? Well you just coined a term. But I don't think I try to make Jon or Scott or most others into allies. I do cite Sarah or Nina, and sometimes others when they say something that supports what I am saying. If you disagree with a specific point, I would take that on a case by case basis, rather than generalizing. I have cited K. Sujin as support for something I've said before too, but I do that on the merits, not to name-drop. > Anyways, go get exact quotes from people if possible and don't assume there has been agreement, god forbid that should happen with you!!!! (smiley man) I do my best to go by what is actually there. > p.s I do find you make some good points about understanding the teaching conceptually before there can be direct understanding, but I think you put too much faith in it and think it works like magic. No, I do not. When someone is arguing against something that I think is very clear, I highlight what I am saying to try to make it clear to them. That may make it seem that I am putting all my eggs in that basket, but I am just trying to communicate. I don't think anything happens magically. In fact, I'm more inclined to think things develop by gradual practice and organic development than by any kind of leap or magical transformation. Anyway, I think that impression of yours is incorrect. > I used to think so too. Lay down a perfectly understood conceptual understanding over experience, and gradually there would be a sinking down through examined experience-in-the-light-of-perfect-conceptual-understanding and direct understanding of realities would be reached. That is a kind of belief in some kind of magic. The way conceptual understanding supports direct understanding must be much subtler than that, as all and everything to do with Dhamma must be much subtler than we like to think, we are like toddlers playing with Dhamma toys next to the towering wisdom of the great ones. I don't have any great illusion of any kind of instant or magical progress. After several decades it's clear that it's going to be very gradual, have no fear. Thanks for your thoughts. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #120891 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:19 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > I was thinking about why I don't want to get involved in a discussion with someone I largely agree with but disagree with on specific details. Such as with Scott. I think one reason is I am aware that sometimes you (for example) might say "Phil said so too" or words to that effect, as you often do about Jon, for example. Please be aware of that. If I occasionally find support in something that someone actually says, I'm not assuming they agree with me, just that they said what they said. > In fact, there is very little possibility that Jon agrees with you about Dhamma, as far as I can see, so suggesting that he does to back up your point in a discussion is kind of unfair. Not if the point is actually correct. If not, someone can correct the record, but I don't just make stuff up. > I know you don't do that intentionally, I don't think I do that at all. However, we do occasionally agree on certain things and there's no reason not to acknowledge it when it is the case. > I am back to feeling affectionately about you, you are a good fellow. No sneaky courtroom tactics for you, you play your cards openly. Well, that's nice. You seem a little condescending, but what the heck. > But be aware of that. Okay, if I ever make believe that someone agrees with me when they really don't, please let me know. Scott accuses me of this, but that's because he is committed to us disagreeing no matter what. > I wonder if there is a term for it, like the straw man and red herring. (Have to look up what the latter means.) Lining up paper allies? Well you just coined a term. But I don't think I try to make Jon or Scott or most others into allies. I do cite Sarah or Nina, and sometimes others when they say something that supports what I am saying. If you disagree with a specific point, I would take that on a case by case basis, rather than generalizing. I have cited K. Sujin as support for something I've said before too, but I do that on the merits, not to name-drop. > Anyways, go get exact quotes from people if possible and don't assume there has been agreement, god forbid that should happen with you!!!! (smiley man) I do my best to go by what is actually there. > p.s I do find you make some good points about understanding the teaching conceptually before there can be direct understanding, but I think you put too much faith in it and think it works like magic. No, I do not. When someone is arguing against something that I think is very clear, I highlight what I am saying to try to make it clear to them. That may make it seem that I am putting all my eggs in that basket, but I am just trying to communicate. I don't think anything happens magically. In fact, I'm more inclined to think things develop by gradual practice and organic development than by any kind of leap or magical transformation. Anyway, I think that impression of yours is incorrect. > I used to think so too. Lay down a perfectly understood conceptual understanding over experience, and gradually there would be a sinking down through examined experience-in-the-light-of-perfect-conceptual-understanding and direct understanding of realities would be reached. That is a kind of belief in some kind of magic. The way conceptual understanding supports direct understanding must be much subtler than that, as all and everything to do with Dhamma must be much subtler than we like to think, we are like toddlers playing with Dhamma toys next to the towering wisdom of the great ones. I don't have any great illusion of any kind of instant or magical progress. After several decades it's clear that it's going to be very gradual, have no fear. Thanks for your thoughts. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #120892 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:42 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Rob K., R: "the object is concept(s) about Dhamma." Scott: The object is the content of thought? A continuity? When pa~n~naa arises and falls away with citta? Scott. #120893 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:44 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Scott has no answer." Scott: Scott. #120894 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:46 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Scott > Post #? For some weird reason I can't find the first post in the "Just checking re concepts and panna" thread which I am pretty sure I started to clarify this point, but a similar thread starts at #116911. Sarah explained to my satisfaction at the time. BTW, you mentionned Ken O, but he says concept can be object of satipatthana, right? I certainly don't think that is right. But there are degrees of sati and panna less rarefied than those that arise with satipatthana. Of course you are right to interrogate anyone who claims that there is a direct, predictable link between the kind of panna that understands concepts of dhamma (or just plain thinks about stuff while meditating etc) and the kind of panna that penetrates realities, I appreciate you doing it. In Japan we say "O-tsukaresama", which literally means "you must be tired" but basically means thanks for the hard work. Phil #120895 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:49 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "...but a similar thread starts at #116911. Sarah explained to my satisfaction at the time." Scott: Thanks, I'll check. Ph: "BTW, you mentionned Ken O, but he says concept can be object of satipatthana, right? I certainly don't think that is right. But there are degrees of sati and panna less rarefied than those that arise with satipatthana...." Scott: Well, it seems as if people are contradicting themselves. Scott. #120896 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:54 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Rob E (and Sarah) > Thanks for your thoughts. You too, nice to have had a friendly exchange with you. Sarah, you see, it happens. When people are fighting, posting a lot of stuff about metta probably doesn't help, it just irritated me at the time and felt like a kind of manipulation of Dhamma, to tell the truth! Moments of true friendliness happen, and are noted and appreciated in a subtle way at the time, and that conditions more of the same in the future. But there is mostly lobha for it at the time, and that conditions more of the same too, and therefore all the dosa when the friendliness breaks down, as it does and will again! No control over that. It's fascinating! Phil #120897 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:56 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Phil, Me: "Well, it seems as if people are contradicting themselves." Scott: Here's what Sarah said: ".... S: Yes, panna can have concepts as object, as in the example you mention. In the development of samatha, for example when the Buddha's virtues or the Dhamma are the objects, these are concepts." Scott: And yet Sarah has negated Ken O's view about the role of concepts, in satipa.t.thaana, over and over. I've missed something obviously. Scott. #120898 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:11 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi again, Sarah and all I wrote: > Moments of true friendliness happen, and are noted and appreciated in a subtle way at the time, and that conditions more of the same in the future. I think this has to be self-corrected. If I am to take A. Sujin at her word, which I do for now at least, the above is incorrect. There cannot be the awareness of characteristics of cetasika until there has been the first vipasanna-nana which knows the characteristic of nama as nama. I think this is a hugely important point, a real game changer, it negates the whole "Cetasikas in daily life" project, well, unless people are going to be constantly self-checking in the way I have here, seems unlikely. This is something we can discuss at KK, definitely. Phil #120899 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:44 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...Scott has no answer." > > Scott: > > Scott. > Scott. ? Robert #120900 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:09 am Subject: Not Agitated = Cool Calm! bhikkhu5 Friends: Non-Agitation through detached Release: The Blessed Buddha once said: How, friends, is there non-agitation through detached release? Regarding this, friends, the educated normal person, who is a friend of a Noble One and who is clever and well trained in his Dhamma, or who is a friend of a Great Man and is clever and well trained in his Dhamma, avoids regarding form as self, he avoids regarding self as having form, he avoids regarding form as inside any self, or any self as inside any form! Then inevitably his body form changes and decays. When this change and decay of his material form occurs, his mind does not become occupied or obsessed with this change of just a form. Therefore does no agitated mental state, arised from worry over this changed merely physical body form, remain obsessing his mind ... Because his mind is not obsessed, then he is neither frightened, nor distressed, nor anxious, and by this detached non-clinging his inner agitation is all stilled! He does not regard feeling as self ... perception as self ... mental constructions as self ... consciousness as self, nor the self as possessing consciousness, nor as consciousness as being inside any self, nor any the self as being 'inside' any consciousness ... When his consciousness momentarily changes and alters, then his mind does not become engaged with this fast change of consciousness. Therefore does no agitated mental state, born of concern over this changed consciousness, remain obsessing his mind! Because his mind is neither obsessed, nor upset, nor troubled, nor uneasy with this or any other change whatsoever, then this aloof and detached non-clinging still, calm and evaporate all his prior agitations! It is exactly in this way, friends, that there is non-agitation caused by non-clinging. Comment: If the 5 clusters of Clinging are no EGO, how can there ever be lost anything from such vacuum void! ;-) hihi: More about this freeing selfless anti-ego impersonality = No-self = Anattâ: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Anatta_No_Self.htm You can come as you like, but you pay as you go...! Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikâya XXII (7); [III 16-9] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 An Ocean of Dhamma! On The 5 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #120901 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! sarahprocter... Dear Nina (Dear 'Abby' Phil & all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: I hope you will give a report now and then. I cannot help this, > beyond control, but as soon as I wake up I think of this tragedy. .... S: I know.....conditioned thinking, always something to be concerned about. The first two or three days, I felt like hibernating. Hong Kong is like a small village in many ways and news passes round. I'm no longer avoiding friends and my usual routine. In fact, Phil, I'm now 'embracing' opportunities when aquaintances or friends come up to me/email/phone to share a little Dhamma each time. As we've discussed, it's a challenge to say something helpful and meaningful to people who've never had/shown any interest in the Dhamma before, but it's a good opportunity. Examples today - brief chats about kamma, about the shortness of life, momentary death, the uncontrollable nature of life, the unpredictability of experiences, caring for others, metta, doing one's best, then no thought of oneself, not being responsible for others (related back to kamma), what's important in life - not all the things we fuss about, but wisdom now only. Just small snippets with different people as they show their kindness and sympathy (and worry, of course). Now my cold's better, tomorrow I'll be visiting the ICU ward where my friend is and expect to meet some family members. Let's see if there's any chance to be of any assistance to my friend or any of the family. However life unfolds is OK - thinking of tragedies or any other dhammas can be understood now. Again, Phil, thanks for coming back and giving support - vows are just more momentary conditioned thinking! Metta Sarah ==== #120902 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:10 pm Subject: Re: The camp thing... sarahprocter... Hi Ann, Glad to hear you're feeling better. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "glenjohnann" wrote: > We are making some big changes - have just sold our house and are looking for something smaller in the same general area - either a condo, townhouse or duplex. That's keeping us busy! All of the loba and thinking about "our home" is arising in abundance, just to confirm again and again the extent to which we take these things as being so very important and "real". .... S: Yes, we get lost with lobha in the stories about *my home* all the time. There will be home dwelling and house building again and again and again in samsara until lobha as the cause of dukkha has really been fully understood and eradicated. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/113997 (posted by Han) 153. Anekajaati sa.msaara.m sandhaavissa.m anibbisa.m, Gahakaaraka.m gavesanto dukkhaa jaati punappuna.m. 154. Gahakaaraka di.t.thosi Puna geha.m na kaahasi; Sabbaa te phaasukaa bhaggaa Gahakuu.ta.m visa"nkhata.m; Visa"nkhaaragata.m citta.m Ta.nhaana.m khayamajjhagaa. Glossary: anekajaati + sa.msaara.m = innumerable births + in samsara sandhaavissa.m + anibbisa.m = wandering + cannot find gahakaaraka.m + gavesanto = house-builder + looking for dukkhaa + jaati + punappuna.m = dukkha + born + again and again gahakaaraka + di.t.thosi = house-builder + seen puna + geha.m + na + kaahasi = again + house + not + build sabbaa + phaasukaa + bhaggaa = all + rafters + broken gahakuu.ta.m + visa"nkhata.m = roof-top (ridge-pole) + destroyed visa"nkhaara + gata.m citta.m = having destroyed + mind has reached ta.nhaana.m khayamajjhagaa = end of craving. English translation: Verse 153: I, who have been seeking the builder of this house (body), failing to attain Enlightenment which would enable me to find him, have wandered through innumerable births in samsara. To be born again and again is, indeed, dukkha! Verse 154: Oh house-builder! You are seen, you shall build no house (for me) again. All your rafters are broken, your roof-tree is destroyed. My mind has reached the unconditioned (i.e., Nibbana); the end of craving (Arahatta Phala) has been attained. (translated by Daw Mya Tin) ***** Metta Sarah ==== #120904 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The camp thing... moellerdieter Dear Sarah , all, (I deleted the previous post , because it didn't show up as intented ..) concerning our beloved topic , I stumbled upon following distinction recently (stated by Pali scholar Prof Gombrich), nothing really new but a nice scheme .. : ceto vimutti to abolish passion ( raga)/ greed (lobha ) concentration (samadhi) one pointedness of mind (cittass ekagatta) calming (samatha ) Jhana etc. (ecstatic states) panna vimutti to abolish ignorance (avijja)/delusion (moha) insight (panna) awareness (sati ) intuition (vipassana) seeing reality (yatha bhuta-dassana) Though I think there will be often mixtures between the 2 approaches, recalling the scheme , may be possibly of help in some discussions to understand the view of the 'other camp' better. with Metta Dieter #120905 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! nilovg Dear Sarah, thank you for giving examples of helpful chats with people who do not know about Buddhism. Some may have more interest later on, we do not know. Once Christine gave us many comforting texts about death and I think of Jaataka 354, a whole family including a servant slave, who daily contemplated death and when a dear family member died, nobody cried. I found that one especially impressive. Nina. Op 30-nov-2011, om 9:57 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > Examples today - brief chats about kamma, about the shortness of > life, momentary death, the uncontrollable nature of life, the > unpredictability of experiences, caring for others, metta, doing > one's best, then no thought of oneself, not being responsible for > others (related back to kamma), what's important in life - not all > the things we fuss about, but wisdom now only. > > Just small snippets with different people as they show their > kindness and sympathy (and worry, of course). #120906 From: "philip" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! philofillet Hi Sarah, Nina, all > > Examples today - brief chats about kamma, about the shortness of life, momentary death, the uncontrollable nature of life, the unpredictability of experiences, caring for others, metta, doing one's best, then no thought of oneself, not being responsible for others (related back to kamma), what's important in life - not all the things we fuss about, but wisdom now only. Ph: I liked when you talked to tgat kid and helped him understand tgat whatever it was he wanted somuch at the time wouldn't be satisfactory for long. We can't inject dusenchantment into others and our own is only fleeting, but tgat's an impirtant aspect. I heard A. Sujin sayung something kind of subtle about all the things we hunger after, we've had them before, countless times, tge vipaka proves tgat in some way, I forget. Useless cittas, hoping to hear her talk about that some more... We can't force disenchantment, but I think if there isn't a wee bit more showing up a wee but more often, and sticking. around a wee bit longer the Dhamma is not getting through... Phil #120907 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! sarahprocter... Dear Nina, & all > Once Christine gave us many comforting texts about death and I think > of Jaataka 354, a whole family including a servant slave, who daily > contemplated death and when a dear family member died, nobody cried. > I found that one especially impressive. .... S: Yes, I referred to this Jataka in my first message when I wrote: "We often say we don't know what kamma will bring what results at anytime and I've had a long day of reflecting on kamma. on the Uraga Jataka (#103906) which we often refer to and all the other helpful messages that have been written over the years on kamma, upekkha, mourning and so on." As I sati in the hospital, answering questions, not knowing whether my friend was alive or dead, unable to contact her family, I felt inspired by this Jataka: "The youth fell down dead. The Bodhisatta on seeing him fall, left his oxen and came to him, and finding that he was dead, he took him up and laid him at the foot of a certain tree, and covering him up with a cloak, he neither wept nor lamented. He said, "That which is subject to dissolution is dissolved, and that which is subject to death is dead. All compound existences are transitory and liable to death." And recognising the transitory nature of all things he went on with his ploughing. " Life goes on - we are bound to grieve over and over again for our losses, but appreciating how useless, how self-centred our grief and regrets are can be very encouraging: "Man quits his mortal frame, when joy in life is past, E'en as a snake is wont its worn out slough to cast. No friend's lament can touch the ashes of the dead: Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread." "So very ordinary", I hear K.Sujin saying. Whatever hardships we experience through the senses - it's all just vipaka. The thinking, the dosa - just accumulating more difficulties which just accumulates leading to more akusala kamma and more hardships by way of vipaka. Metta Sarah ==== #120908 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:50 pm Subject: Re: Looks like Buddhism sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Sarah: This thread may be past its 'sell by date' too..." > > Scott: Oh. Sorry. .... Sarah: Nothing to be sorry about! I was just attempting to suggest in advance of what I was about to write that it was likely to be rather stale repetition as I was out of new ingredients for the thread. In other words, a kind of 'sorry' in advance. Metta Sarah ==== #120909 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 12:05 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& Phil), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Scott: Here's what Sarah said: > > ".... > S: Yes, panna can have concepts as object, as in the example you mention. In the development of samatha, for example when the Buddha's virtues or the Dhamma are the objects, these are concepts." > > Scott: And yet Sarah has negated Ken O's view about the role of concepts, in satipa.t.thaana, over and over. I've missed something obviously. ... Sarah: No contradiction. In the first quote, concepts are the object of panna in the development of samatha (and of most jhanas too). Also, concepts are always the object of panna when the understanding of the path is at the level of pariyatti, not patipatti. When we (or the teachings) refer to satipatthana, it is patipatti, direct understanding of realities that is being referred to. Without pariyatti, conceptual understanding, there can never be patipatti or satipatthana. Another way of saying it is that without suta-maya panna and cinta-maya panna, there cannot be bhavana-maya panna. Or when the texts refer to the 3 rounds of understanding of the Noble Truths, without sacca nana, very firm intellectual understanding of the Truths, there cannot be satipatthana or 'knowledge of the task' kicca nana: As Nina referred to K.Sujin as saying: #120680 "With regard to the first phase, she said that there should be the firm intellectual understanding of the first noble Truth, and that means understanding that there is dhamma at this moment, that everything that appears is dhamma. When we listen to the Dhamma and consider what we hear the intellectual understanding of realities, that is, the first phase, sacca ñåùa, gradually develops and then it can condition the arising of satipaììhåna. This means that the second phase, knowledge of the task, kicca ñåùa, begins to develop. The practice, paìipatti, is actually knowledge of the task that is to be performed, kicca ñåùa." Metta Sarah ===== #120911 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 1:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha nilovg Dear Dieter. Years ago Kom also brought up this matter, and I searched in messages, see below. There are nine groups of defilements and not all akusala cetasikas are in each group. Each group just shows certain aspects, such as the aasavas, the hindrances. Kilesa or defilement is also used in a wider sense; including all akusala cetasikas, but here as a group only specific akusala cetasikas, ten, are classified. They are impure and defile the associated dhammas. Now see below. Kom discussed this first in India. Op 29-nov-2011, om 17:00 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > While writing I had already one question in mind to ask you : why > 10 Kilesas and 14 Cetasikas , both are unwholesome mental factors . > (envy (issa), stinginess (macchariya) worry (kukucca) and sloth > (thina) are left out ) ? ------- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > op 30-12-2001 16:34 schreef Kom Tukovinit op tikmok@...: > >>> K. Jaran and A. Supi was discussing about > >> Kilesa, and why > >>> only 10 akusala cetasikas are kilesas, and the > >> other 4 are > >>> not. The answer, I think you also wrote in > >> Cetasikas, is > >>> each Kilesa defiles the mind, where as the > >> other four defile > >>> the mental factors. At that point, I was asking him > >>> questions about the other groupings of > >> defilements including > >>> Asava, etc. > >> > >>Nina: Dear Kom, thank you for bringing up these points. > >> As to the 10 kilesas, I > >> leant that they defile the dhammas that are > >> conascent with them. Thus, in > >> the case of sloth that is listed but not torpor: > >> when there is sloth, torpor > >> is always conascent with it, it is defiled by it. > >> Regret (not listed as > >> kilesa) is defiled by dosa conascent with it and > >> also by the other kilesas > >> which (not all of them) are conascent with it. > > > >K: Thanks for explaining these points further. I would like to > > confirm what I understand you to say. > > 1) Torpor is defiled by sloth and other conascent kilesas? > > 2) Regret is defiled by dosa and other conascent kilesas? > > > >N: I looked up my notes, A.Sujin dealt with them last time I was in > Bgk. She > said: > < akusala to follow. Dosa is kilesa and it conditions other cetasikas, > such as > jealousy and avarice to follow. Sloth conditions torpor to follow it.>> > As to the word follow, we do not think of time: this first, then that. > The > defilements that arise together with the other conascent cetasikas make > them > impure. . And see also the explanation given in the Visuddhimagga ("thus called because they are themselves defiled, and because they defile the mental factors associated with them"), quoted in 'Buddhist Dictionary'. ------ Nina. #120912 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 1:13 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob K., > > R: "the object is concept(s) about Dhamma." > > Scott: The object is the content of thought? A continuity? When pa~n~naa arises and falls away with citta? > > Scott. > Dear Scott, umm yes. Is there any doubt? Concepts can be object of citta, that in fact billions and trillions of cittas arise and pass away while repeatedly taking a concept as object. robert #120913 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 1:27 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Sarah Regarding: S: "As Nina referred to K.Sujin as saying: #120680 "With regard to the first phase, she said that there should be the firm intellectual understanding of the first noble Truth, and that means understanding that there is dhamma at this moment, that everything that appears is dhamma. When we listen to the Dhamma and consider what we hear the intellectual understanding of realities, that is, the first phase, sacca~naa.naa, gradually develops and then it can condition the arising of satipaa.t.thaana. This means that the second phase, knowledge of the task, kicca~naa.na, begins to develop. The practice, pa.tipatti, is actually knowledge of the task that is to be performed, kicca~naa.na." Scott: Here are a few quotes from U.P. I'll compare and contrast in another post. Message #35887 Sarah: "...Pariyatti does not refer to the quantity of book study or recollection of terms and details. It refers to the understanding arising now...So there has to be pariyatti which knows present dhammas before further direct understanding can be developed, precisely and clearly knowing its objects. Otherwise, all we do is to accumulate more thinking and book knowledge..." Message #37467 Sarah: "...So we all agree that expertise in the scriptures does not in itself lead to satipatthana and whilst reciting, reading or considering, the cittas may be kusala or akusala...In addition, we all agree that wrong view can slip in anytime, especially if one has an idea that by reading the text at any time will of itself lead to satipatthana..." Message #45138 Sukin: "...Pariyatti is not mere 'knowledge of Dhamma'. So when one reads the Dhamma, there can be moments of pariyatti or there can be none. The object of the citta at that moment is `concept', different from when it is patipatti, where the object is a characteristic of a reality appearing through one of the six doorways..." Message #49886 Sukin: "...Pariyatti is a level of correct understanding with `concept' as object. This can range from a correct intellectual understanding of the worldling about dhammas arising now in daily life, to the level of the Buddha when he is teaching his disciples. The reference in all these cases is primarily to `panna cetasika'..." Message #50695 Nina: "...The first level is pariyatti, the study of the theory about realities. When right understanding of the realities that appear and that arise and fall away has become more firmly established, it is the condition for the arising of sati that studies realities with awareness..." Message #53183 Kh. Sujin: "...Patipatti is different from pariyatti. When there is only pariyatti, theoretical understanding, and not patipatti, one may doubt what level of understanding one has..." Sukin: "...Through the study one knows that everything is dhamma, but sati has not been aware of all realities. Therefore, through theoretical understanding, understanding of the level of pariyatti, we cannot really understand that everything is dhamma. Only pa~n~naa of the level of patipatti, of the practice, can really understand this..." Scott: In subtle ways there *may not* be 'consensus.' Parsing out 'intellectual understanding' and considering it alone is definitely wrong. I'd like an explanation as to how pa~n~naa, supposedly at the 'level of pariyatti' takes concept as object. Scott. #120914 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 1:29 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Dear Rob K., R: "umm yes. Is there any doubt? Concepts can be object of citta, that in fact billions and trillions of cittas arise and pass away while repeatedly taking a concept as object." Scott: Sorry, I was not clear. How is concept an object of pa~n~naa? Pariyatti is said to be so because of the presence of p~n~naa. It is not just thinking or memorizing. Scott. #120915 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 2:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" nilovg Dear Scott, Op 30-nov-2011, om 15:27 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > Scott: In subtle ways there *may not* be 'consensus.' Parsing out > 'intellectual understanding' and considering it alone is definitely > wrong. I'd like an explanation as to how pa~n~naa, supposedly at > the 'level of pariyatti' takes concept as object. ------ N: I think that the borderline is not so sharp. Also at the pariyatti level the object can be a reality. Even now, when I think about seeing, just the experience of visible object, not thinking of shape and form, is seeing not the object? And is seeing not a reality? We can distinguish having as object of understanding that is not yet clear, direct understanding, a reality, and directly understanding a reality. Also, there may be a moment of 'studying' a present reality and then followed by thinking. Hard to tell, but awareness can just begin and is very weak. But as you know, I would rather avoid conceptual, conceptual thinking, etc. I do not see much in it. It seems a lot of speculation. Nina. #120916 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 2:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! nilovg Dear Sarah, thank you for quoting the Uraga sutta, and Kh Sujin's remark, very good, but not always easy to apply when things happen. I put your whole message in my file, then it is there when I need it! Nina. Op 30-nov-2011, om 13:04 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > "Man quits his mortal frame, when joy in life is past, > E'en as a snake is wont its worn out slough to cast. > No friend's lament can touch the ashes of the dead: > Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread." > > "So very ordinary", I hear K.Sujin saying. > #120917 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 4:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: --------------------------------------------- HCW: The "inappropriate adherence" isn't clear to me. Is it the attachment that is inappropriate regardless of the object, and, if so, is that the meaning of micca ditthi? It seems to me that the view; i.e., what is believed, is what is micca. --------------------------------------------- D: if micca means 'wrong' then micca ditthi is the counterpart of samma ditthi , i.e. right view /right understanding. As view is ditthi , it is not said that 'what is believed 'is micca. Fuller is refering to the Dhammasangani as well as to Buddhagosa's definition of micca ditthi and moha. I think we need to look into the VisM first for more details.. . HCW: Many instances of conditionality occur cyclically, in fact, "spirally D: thinking about the structure of the brain and its nerves , I can imagine ;-) (D: Interesting to recall the most wellknown analogy of delusion , the story of (Adam and) Eve in Genesis , here micca ditthi lead to delusion (and with that the creation of the world of suffering ) , didn't it ? Nice food for contemplation ;-) --------------------------------------------- HCW: In that story, what is the micca ditthi and what the subsequent delusion? D: good question .. one may say the non adherence to the very first commandment (you shall not eat from..) lead to the possibility to be seduced by the snake (I thought about ahirika and anottappa ) .. so the delusion (moha in connection with lobha ) worked , hence clinging, becoming and birth ( within samsara, the world of suffering) One may of course wonder about the why of a the commandment , which alone made the 'sin' possible and consider that as a souce of delusion .. Coming back to 'My intuition on this is that the former is a condition for the latter, and perhaps also vice-versa. (In that latter regard, wrong views might serve to cloud the mind.) Whether right or wrong- samma ditthi or micca ditthi - we see the world - this All of senses- according to our understanding /view , hence it is the forerunner position of thinking ,speech , bodily action, livelihood ( kamma ) and this sequence of the Noble Path is not by chance... I think your first intuition is right .. with Metta Dieter #120918 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 5:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha truth_aerator Hello Howard, Dieter, all, >HCW: The "inappropriate adherence" isn't clear to me. >======================================================= Views are aspect of clinging. They always come with "consciousness rooted in lobha". In Dependent origination, views are upadana (clinging) link that is conditioned by craving (tanha). The difference between miccha and samma ditthi is like difference between lobha and alobha. Ignorance is link #1. Clinging is link #9. With best wishes, Alex #120919 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 5:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "I think that the borderline is not so sharp..." Scott: I agree. I do so because 'the borderline' is not sharply defined. This is because there is an ongoing, recursive interaction between pa~n~naa at the level of pariyatti, pa~n~naa at the level of pa.tipati, and pa~n~naa at the level of pativedha *and* the sequence of objects taken by consascent citta at any given time. It might be better said that there is no actual 'border' in reality. N: "...Also at the pariyatti level the object can be a reality. Even now, when I think about seeing, just the experience of visible object, not thinking of shape and form, is seeing not the object? And is seeing not a reality?" Scott: This is the sort of statement wherein the ambiguity I'm trying to sort out is very clear. Pariyatti is now said by you to have both concepts *and* realities as object. At one time it seems that it is only realities, at another only concepts, and now, at another time, it can be both. Seeing is a reality. I'm not convinced that seeing *as a reality* is the object when one thinks about seeing, or thinks about the experience of visible object, or thinks about shape and form. Seeing *might* be the object, to be concrete about it, if one has one's eyes open and is 'seeing' while one thinks about seeing; but even this isn't a given. It might be concept of seeing. Or what if one has one's eyes closed? Or what if memories of things seen is 'the object?' This is not clear. N: "...We can distinguish having as object of understanding that is not yet clear, direct understanding, a reality, and directly understanding a reality..." Scott: Is that 'object that is not yet clear' a concept, a reality, both? N: "...Also, there may be a moment of 'studying' a present reality and then followed by thinking. Hard to tell, but awareness can just begin and is very weak..." Scott: This 'moment of studying a present reality' - is it pa~n~naa that 'studies?' N: "...But as you know, I would rather avoid conceptual, conceptual thinking, etc. I do not see much in it. It seems a lot of speculation..." Scott: While respecting this sentiment, I hardly see how one can satifactorily sort through this question without considering the actual differences (and similarities?) between concept and reality, and the fact of 'conceptual thinking.' Without this consideration, no clarification about pariyatti can be made. I would think that clarifying these aspects of Dhamma would help prevent speculation. Scott. #120920 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 5:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cdl - grief moellerdieter Dear Connie, you wrote: 'thought about you the other day when I was reading some of the Sutta Nipata; Jarasutta: < People grieve from selfishness, perpetual cares kill them, this (world) is full of disappointment; seeing this, let one not live in a house. > Then, tonight I was just looking in the Guide Through the Abhidhamma Pitaka pdf and wondered again whether you had given the grief/dosa connection any more thought. << Kammically unwholesome (akusala) states are rooted either in greed, hatred, or delusion (lobha, dosa, moha). (22–29) Greedy consciousness may be accompanied either by joy or by indifference, combined with wrong views or not, premeditated or not. Hence we get eight classes of greedy consciousness. (30–31) Hateful consciousness, which always is accompanied by sadness, may be premeditated or not. Hence we get two classes of delusive consciousness. (32–33) Delusion consciousness, which always is accompanied by indifference, may be accompanied either by scepticism (vicikicchaa), or merely by restlessness (uddhacca). Hence, we get two classes of delusive consciousness. >> D: thanks for your thoughts and useful quotation for consideration. I try to get more familar with (30-31) ;-) : Is sadness, e.g. when a loved one dies , always accompanied by hate ? I think it is easier to understand when we use a broader term for dosa, like adversion , basically I (moha) do not want this event (dosa) . Kamma means intention , no intention of such event , but the state of mind is akusala.. and when we not paying attention , the chance not to create new unwholesome action (akusala kamma ) is missed , further bad fruits to be expected . So the awareness of the such mind state is of great importance Do you agree with me ? C:Where I live, a lot of hunters believe the deer or whatever actually offer themselves up to them as a kind of sacrifice & that there’s a kind of spiritual honour and joy there for both the animal and the hunter so there is no akusala involved in the killing (or suicide) D: well, we live in a tough world in which less -not to talk about least -suffering means much. Recently I watched in TV a report from a cattle breeder, who proclaimed the 'happy food' , because he took care for a natural surrounding , i.e. in contrast to mass husbandry and secured a rather stressfree butchering . That makes more sense to me than to whitewash hunting . But that is a topic with many aspects.. with Metta Dieter #120921 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 5:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 11/30/2011 1:14:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Howard, Dieter, all, >HCW: The "inappropriate adherence" isn't clear to me. >======================================================= Views are aspect of clinging. They always come with "consciousness rooted in lobha". ------------------------------------------------- Clinging to a view is certainly rooted in lobha, but one can have an incorrect view/opinion without clinging to it. It can simply be an error in understanding or judgement, a belief that is rather loosely, even indifferently, held. ----------------------------------------------- In Dependent origination, views are upadana (clinging) link that is conditioned by craving (tanha). The difference between miccha and samma ditthi is like difference between lobha and alobha. Ignorance is link #1. Clinging is link #9. With best wishes, Alex =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #120922 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 6:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" nilovg Dear Scott, Op 30-nov-2011, om 19:16 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > Without this consideration, no clarification about pariyatti can > be made. I would think that clarifying these aspects of Dhamma > would help prevent speculation. ----- N: Thank you for your thoughts. I have to think things over and cannot react at once, Nina. #120923 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 7:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "Thank you for your thoughts. I have to think things over and cannot react at once," Scott: No rush. I'll look forward to your reactions. Scott. #120924 From: "Christine" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 7:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > thank you for quoting the Uraga sutta, and Kh Sujin's remark, very > good, but not always easy to apply when things happen. I put your > whole message in my file, then it is there when I need it! > Nina. > Op 30-nov-2011, om 13:04 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > > > "Man quits his mortal frame, when joy in life is past, > > E'en as a snake is wont its worn out slough to cast. > > No friend's lament can touch the ashes of the dead: > > Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread." > > > > "So very ordinary", I hear K.Sujin saying. > > Hello Nina, Sarah, all, This is the whole Jataka: No. 354. URAGA-JÂTAKA. [162] "Man quits his mortal frame," etc. This story the Master, while dwelling at Jetavana, told concerning a landowner whose son had died. The introductory story is just the same as that of the man who lost both his wife and father. Here too the Master in the same way went to the man's house, and after saluting him as he was seated, asked him saying, "Pray, Sir, are you grieving?" And on his replying, "Yes, Reverend Sir, ever since my son's death I grieve," he said, "Sir, verily that which is subject to dissolution is dissolved, and that which is subject to destruction is destroyed 1, and this happens not to one man only, nor in one village merely, but in countless spheres, and in the three modes of existence, there is no creature that is not subject to death, nor is there any existing thing that is capable of abiding in the same condition. All beings are subject to p. 108 death, and all compounds are subject to dissolution. But sages of old, when they lost a son, said, "That which is subject to destruction is destroyed," and grieved not." And hereupon at the man's request he related a story of the past. ________________________________________ Once upon a time when Brahmadatta was reigning in Benares, the Bodhisatta was born in a brahmin household, in a village outside the gates of Benares, and rearing a family he supported them by field labour. He had two children, a son and a daughter. When the son was grown up, the father brought a wife home for him from a family of equal rank with his own. Thus with a female slave they composed a household of six: the Bodhisatta and his wife, the son and daughter, the daughter-in-law and the female slave. They lived happily and affectionately together. The Bodhisatta thus admonished the other five; "According as ye have received, give alms, observe holy days, keep the moral law, dwell on the thought of death, be mindful of your mortal state. For in the case of beings like ourselves, death is certain, life uncertain: all existing things are transitory and subject to decay. Therefore take heed to your ways day and night." They readily accepted his teaching and dwelt earnestly on the thought of death. Now one day the Bodhisatta went with his son to plough his field. [163] The son gathered together the rubbish and set fire to it. Not far from where he was, lived a snake in an anthill. The smoke hurt the snake's eyes. Coming out from his hole in a rage, it thought, "This is all due to that fellow," and fastening upon him with its four teeth it bit him. The youth fell down dead. The Bodhisatta on seeing him fall, left his oxen and came to him, and finding that he was dead, he took him up and laid him at the foot of a certain tree, and covering him up with a cloak, he neither wept nor lamented. He said, "That which is subject to dissolution is dissolved, and that which is subject to death is dead. All compound existences are transitory and liable to death." And recognizing the transitory nature of things he went on with his ploughing. Seeing a neighbour pass close by the field, he asked, "Friend, are you going home?" And on his answering "Yes," he said, "Please then to go to our house and say to the mistress, "You are not to-day as formerly to bring food for two, but to bring it for one only. And hitherto the female slave alone has brought the food, but to-day all four of you are to put on clean garments, and to come with perfumes and flowers in your hands." "All right," he said, and went and spoke these very words to the brahmin's wife. She asked, "By whom, Sir, was this message given?" "By the brahmin, lady," he replied. p. 109 Then she understood that her son was dead. But she did not so much as tremble. Thus showing perfect self-control, and wearing white garments and with perfumes and flowers in her hand, she bade them bring food, and accompanied the other members of the family to the field. But no one of them all either shed a tear or made lamentation. The Bodhisatta, still sitting in the shade where the youth lay, ate his food. And when his meal was finished, they all took up fire-wood and lifting the body on to the funeral pile, they made offerings of perfumes and flowers, and then set fire to it. But not a single tear was shed by any one. All were dwelling on the thought of death. Such was the efficacy of their virtue that the throne of Sakka manifested signs of heat. [164] Sakka said, "Who, I wonder, is anxious to bring me down from my throne?" And on reflection he discovered that the heat was due to the force of virtue existing in these people, and being highly pleased he said, "I must go to them and utter a loud cry of exultation like the roaring of a lion, and immediately afterwards fill their dwelling place with the seven treasures." And going there in haste he stood by the side of the funeral pyre and said, "What are you doing?" "We are burning the body of a man, my lord." "It is no man that you are burning," he said. "Methinks you are roasting the flesh of some beast that you have slain." "Not so, my lord," they said. "It is merely the body of a man that we are burning." Then he said, "It must have been some enemy." The Bodhisatta said, "It is our own true son, and no enemy," "Then he could not have been dear as a son to you." "He was very dear, my lord." "Then why do you not weep?" Then the Bodhisatta, to explain the reason why he did not weep, uttered the first stanza:— Man quits his mortal frame, when joy in life is past, E'en as a snake is wont its worn out slough to cast. No friend's lament can touch the ashes of the dead: Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread. [165] Sakka on hearing the words of the Bodhisatta, asked the brahmin's wife, "How, lady, did the dead man stand to you?" "I sheltered him ten months in my womb, and suckled him at my breast, and directed the movements of his hands and feet, and he was my grown up son, my lord." "Granted, lady, that a father from the nature of a man may not weep, a mother's heart surely is tender. Why then do you not weep?" And to explain why she did not weep, she uttered a couple of stanzas:— p. 110 Uncalled he hither came, unbidden soon to go; E'en as he came, he went. What cause is here for woe? No friend's lament can touch the ashes of the dead: Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread. On hearing the words of the brahmin's wife, Sakka asked the sister: "Lady, what was the dead man to you?" "He was my brother, my lord." "Lady, sisters surely are loving towards their brothers. Why do you not weep?" But she to explain the reason why she did not weep, repeated a couple of stanzas:— Though I should fast and weep, how would it profit me? My kith and kin alas! would more unhappy be. [166] No friend's lament can touch the ashes of the dead: Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread. Sakka on hearing the words of the sister, asked his wife: "Lady, what was he to you?" "He was my husband, my lord." "Women surely, when a husband dies, as widows are helpless. Why do you not weep?" But she to explain the reason why she did not weep, uttered two stanzas:— As children cry in vain to grasp the moon above, So mortals idly mourn the loss of those they love. No friend's lament can touch the ashes of the dead: Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread. [167] Sakka on hearing the words of the wife, asked the handmaid, saying, "Woman, what was he to you?" "He was my master, my lord." "No doubt you must have been abused and beaten and oppressed by him and therefore, thinking he is happily dead, you weep not." "Speak not so, my lord. This does not suit his case. My young master was full of long-suffering and love and pity for me, and was as a foster child to me." "Then why do you not weep?" And she to explain why she did not weep, uttered a couple of stanzas:— A broken pot of earth, ah! who can piece again? So too to mourn the dead is nought but labour vain. No friend's lament can touch the ashes of the dead: Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread. p. 111 Sakka after hearing what they all had to say, was greatly pleased and said, "Ye have carefully dwelt on the thought of death. Henceforth ye are not to labour with your own hands. I am Sakka, king of heaven. I will create the seven treasures in countless abundance in your house. [168] Ye are to give alms, to keep the moral law, to observe holy days, and to take heed to your ways." And thus admonishing them, he filled their house with countless wealth, and so parted from them. ________________________________________ The Master having finished his exposition of the Law, declared the Truths and identified the Birth:—At the conclusion of the Truths the landowner attained the fruit of the First Path:—" At that time Khujjuttarâ was the female slave, Uppalavaṇṇâ the daughter, Râhula the son, Khemâ the mother, and I myself was the brahmin." ________________________________________ Footnotes 107:1 Compare the story of Epictetus as given by Bacon, Advancement of Learning, i. 8. The philosopher one day saw a woman weeping for a broken pitcher, and next day saw another woman weeping over her dead son. Whereupon he said, "Heri vidi fragilem frangi, hodie vidi mortalem mori." http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j3/j3055.htm with metta Chris #120925 From: A T Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 8:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha truth_aerator Hello Howard, all, >------------------------------------------------- >HCW:Clinging to a view is certainly rooted in lobha, but one can have >an incorrect view/opinion without clinging to it. It can simply be >an >error in understanding or judgement, a belief that is rather >loosely, >>even indifferently, held. >----------------------------------------------- All views depend on clinging, even if a little clinging. "Truth" is not an objective category that all can see and never have alternative opinions about. Out of all the countless facts, why does one choose this rather than that POV? It is my belief that one defends what one wants, ie: clings to (be it matter, mind, pleasure, pain, self, nothingness, etc). As ditthi-samuytta says, it is due to clinging and adherence to 5 aggregates that various views arise. "Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by others, One who is Such — among the self-fettered — wouldn't further claim to be true or even false. Having seen well in advance that arrow where generations are fastened & hung — 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' — there's nothing of the TathÄgata fastened." - AN 4.24 KÄḷakÄrÄma Sutta The arahant doesn't follow views (na diá¹­á¹­hisÄri) and isn't tied even to wisdom/knowledge (napi ñÄṇabandhu) Snp4.13 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.13.than.html With best wishes, Alex #120926 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 8:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 11/30/2011 4:12:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Howard, all, >------------------------------------------------- >HCW:Clinging to a view is certainly rooted in lobha, but one can have >an incorrect view/opinion without clinging to it. It can simply be >an >error in understanding or judgement, a belief that is rather >loosely, >>even indifferently, held. >----------------------------------------------- All views depend on clinging, even if a little clinging. "Truth" is not an objective category that all can see and never have alternative opinions about. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: I believe that you wrote My apologies for that clinging of mine. LOL! I also am of the opinion that there is no self within the aggregates. Yet more apologies for the clinging there! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------- Out of all the countless facts, why does one choose this rather than that POV? ------------------------------------------------- HCW: All sorts of reasons. ------------------------------------------------ It is my belief that one defends what one wants, ie: clings to (be it matter, mind, pleasure, pain, self, nothingness, etc). As ditthi-samuytta says, it is due to clinging and adherence to 5 aggregates that various views arise. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: That's often so, but not always. There can be clinging to disbeliefs as well. And there can be clinging to belief-neutrality! ------------------------------------------------- "Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by others, One who is Such — among the self-fettered — wouldn't further claim to be true or even false. Having seen well in advance that arrow where generations are fastened & hung — 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' — there's nothing of the TathÄgata fastened." - AN 4.24 KÄḷakÄrÄma Sutta The arahant doesn't follow views (na diá¹­á¹­hisÄri) and isn't tied even to wisdom/knowledge (napi ñÄṇabandhu) Snp4.13 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.13.than.html With best wishes, Alex =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #120927 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 10:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha truth_aerator Hi Howard, It is possible to cling to Dhamma teachings. "They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html One can still cling to Dhamma at Anagami stage: "then â€" through this very dhamma-passion, this very dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five of the fetters â€" he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html >A:Out of all the countless facts, why does one choose this rather >than that POV? >----------------------------------------------- >HCW: All sorts of reasons. >================================== One chooses the reasons that one *likes* the most. Ditthi come only with certain lobha-mula-cittas. With best wishes, Alex #120928 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 10:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 11/30/2011 6:12:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, It is possible to cling to Dhamma teachings. "They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html One can still cling to Dhamma at Anagami stage: "then â€" through this very dhamma-passion, this very dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away of the first five of the fetters â€" he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html >A:Out of all the countless facts, why does one choose this rather >than that POV? >----------------------------------------------- >HCW: All sorts of reasons. >================================== One chooses the reasons that one *likes* the most. ------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Or that makes the most sense to one, or, on occasion, that is actually correct! ;-) In any case, truth (and dispassion) are protected when one can distinguish between believing and knowing. -------------------------------------------------------- Ditthi come only with certain lobha-mula-cittas. ------------------------------------------------------ HCW: I disagree. Report me to the Dhamma Police! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------ With best wishes, Alex ================================= With metta, Howard "But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth." "If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth. "If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. (From the Canki Sutta) #120929 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 12:59 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Phil (120805) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > Hi Jon > ... > Fortunately there were somehow conditions for seeing through the trap of being a regular metta meditator, and earning pleasant moods (and yes, in truth, some short term avoiding of causing unpleasant moments for others) at the cost of accumulating wrong view. I'm sure there are some people who manage to "generate metta" right through their adult years, and old age, and are lovely people, but then die without having developed right understanding at all, tightly trapped in their identity as a lovely person, and what about the next life, and countless lifes to come? > =============== J: Yes, and then there's the question of whether the 'generated' metta is in fact true metta. It's easy to think about people who are not present with what appear to be kusala mind-states, especially if one is doing it with the idea that the activity is kusala by nature (a big mistake, that). However, unless metta has been developed 'in real life' as it were, and the panna that knows kusala from (subtle) akusala has also been developed, the mental states arising when 'metta' is 'generated' are unlikely to be kusala but will surely be taken for that. Jon #120930 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 1:03 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta", "samsara", "rise and fall of citta" jonoabb Hi Scott (and Alex) (120820) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Dear Jon, > > J: "...I think Alex understands my statement. He goes on to say that we should not mix up the two ways of talking. That is a very pertinent observation." > > Scott: Yes, of course very pertinent, but I'll wait to see if the words are understood by the shape of the next posts. Alex *may* be getting this straight after all this time - or not. In another thread I read that anicca and anatta are concepts... > =============== J: I sense that Alex is giving this all a lot of careful consideration. However, old accumulations die hard, so we should not be surprised if there are some relapses along the way ;-)). Jon #120931 From: "philip" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 1:15 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Scott > Scott: In subtle ways there *may not* be 'consensus.' Parsing out 'intellectual understanding' and considering it alone is definitely wrong. I'd like an explanation as to how pa~n~naa, supposedly at the 'level of pariyatti' takes concept as object. Ph: I'm not sure why it is necessary to pin down an exact understanding of what pariyatti means (wouldn't that inevitably be a concept that is understood by panna, BTW) but since I am interested these days in what panna can and can't know directly, let me add some thoughts that may or may not be relevant to what you are getting at. I opened SPD at random, as I am wont to do, and nicely landed right on this: "After the rebirth-consciousness has fallen away, the same kamma is the condition for the arising of the next vipaaka-cittas, which perform the function of life-continuum (bhavanga.)" We can't understand this directly, but we agree on it as useful to know about. Can't we say that it can only be a concept of how realities work? There is no possibility of pariyatti that is studying the characteristics of those realities. So this is pariyatti that is intellectual understanding, or even book knowledge. Now, maybe we can say that "panna works its way" through different aspects of pariyatti where the intellectual understanding matures into a more direct studying of characteristics. Seeing and visible object is usually mentionned as the example of realities that can be studied here and now. We have read about the process and understood it intellectually, for example, no way to know that seeing is vipaka, the result of a kamma, except by understanding that intellectually, as a concept. But as for seeing as nama that knows cognizes visible object, we can begin to study that more and more as a reality. I remmeber when we Skyped and at that time I was dubious about satipatthana arising without trying to have it, and you said something about moments where there is some sense of sati arising without trying for it, just a few moments of that now and then. So it is, I find, with studying the charactersitics of seeing, a lot of thinking about it, but now and then moments of studying that is not about trying and not about thinking, and then quickly thinking thinking thinking. So that could be a level of pariyatti or an aspect of pariyatti that is no longer about intellectual understanding. And between those extremes (of understanding rebith consciousness and the bhavanga that follows intellectualy and understanding seeing by occasionally studying the characteristics) many levels or aspects of pariyatti that panna works its way through, if we don't interfere. For example, these days I am interested in having heard A. Sujin saying that there cannot be meaningful distinguishining of cetasikas until nama is known as nama. And yet I read in SPD that there can be awareness of the characteristic of the lobha that arises so soon after seeing, and I feel that is true. An apparent contradiction (lobha is a cetasika, after all) or an indication that this is all a lot more subtle and complex than kind be pinned down by saying "characteristics of cetasikas cannot be known until after the first vipassana nana." Panna is working its way, no matter what A. Sujin or anyone else here says. I think the main thing is that we are not following some wrong practice of intentionally trying to capture direct understanding of realities, though of course there are many moments of that. Anyways, a few thoughts that may or may not have been relevant. I'm just going to send this without re-reading to see if it makes sense. Phil #120932 From: "philip" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 1:21 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi again Rob E > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > You too, I thought I should add that I think I was unfair in the way I characterized your posts and posting style since I don't read them very carefully. (I don't read *any* long posts very carefully, the same attention span deficit, perhaps, that makes you say you have trouble reading a whole book these days, me too, always jumping from one thing to another, but since yours rarely contain textual references they earn even less attention) And it was going too far to say that Jon would never agree with you about Dhamma. In a big picture way, no, but in details, sure, why not. Phil #120933 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 1:27 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Scott (120821) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Jon, > > J: "Thanks for asking me to clarify. I should perhaps have made it clear that I was speaking in purely conventional terms: resolving to be a 'better' spouse/person, etc by being conventionally more considerate/attentive/sympathetic. I'm sure we've all done this at times throughout our lives and seen the difference that it can bring." > > Scott: How does this differ from a 'vow' (which, I recall being shown, is to no effect)? I don't know about your experience, but the difference, as you put it, can be mixed. I just thought you were skating close to making a 'practice' recommendation. > =============== J: There was no recommendation, 'practice' or otherwise, intended. Simply an appeal to common (conventional) experience (using that word in its non-paramattha sense ;-)). > =============== If not, you were leaving an opening for being understood to have done so, by those so inclined... > =============== J: Apparently so! :-)) > =============== > J: "I was trying to illustrate just the opposite: that where there is the keeping in mind, albeit intermittently and imperfectly, of the advantage/benefit to others of improved conduct on our part, then when a relevant situation occurs there is a chance of a different response than the usual one. All very conventional." > > Scott: And I appreciate the clarification. When there is so much obvious confusion regarding the difference between describing things in ultimate terms and describing things in conventional terms, I found the conventionally worded description of 'resolving to be a 'better' spouse/person, etc by being conventionally more considerate/attentive/sympathetic' to be fraught with ambiguity, not to mention potential for misunderstanding. > =============== J: Will stick to the strictly paramattha in future ;-)) > =============== > For one with a less clear grasp of the meaning of conventional phraseology this could very well be an example of 'practice.' What is the effect of such a 'resolution' supposed to be? How does resolving to be a better person differ from sitting to produce sati? > =============== J: This question doesn't really arise, since there was no recommendation involved in the reference to resolving to be a better person. But it may be an interesting one to consider anyway. If we take as an example the case of the person who has never heard the teachings, it can be seen that making a resolution of the kind mentioned would be unlikely to involve any wrong view or wrong practice. Simply a resolution to 'do better next time'. Jon #120934 From: "philip" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 1:31 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) philofillet Hi Jon > I'm sure there are some people who manage to "generate metta" right through their adult years, and old age, and are lovely people, but then die without having developed right understanding at all, tightly trapped in their identity as a lovely person, and what about the next life, and countless lifes to come? > > =============== > > J: Yes, and then there's the question of whether the 'generated' metta is in fact true metta. Ph: Oh it's not, most certainly not. Lobha seeking comfort in living in a world where everyone is nice to each other, and most especially in which we are nice to people, and harmless, that feels so Buddhist, and indeed in a sense the kind of really soft spoken and earnest people you might me at Buddhist events (I used to meet them at new-agey kind of events in Canada years ago) *do* go through life without hurting people, and they sure as hell don't kill mosquitoes as recklessly as I did this summer. I don't think there are many moments of true metta arising amoung all that lobha, but who knows. The metta that is interesting is the metta that arises out of the blue. For example, today is my Monday, and I will be in a foul mood at the beginning of my shift. If my first student is one of the students who irritates me, the lesson might start badly, with my barely concealing my irritation. But then metta will often arise, there will be a sudden, unpredictable (even though I am predicting it, thus lobha will be involved too) arising of a friendliness for that fellow human being sitting there, dealing with the same problems, more or less, as we all are etc) Some of that will be lobha and mana that don't want a lesson to go badly, but there will be metta. My job is amazingly good for noting how metta comes and goes on its own, since it is a service job and needy people are always in my face, right in my face! > > It's easy to think about people who are not present with what appear to be kusala mind-states, especially if one is doing it with the idea that the activity is kusala by nature (a big mistake, that). Ph: Big mistake. I used to say harmless mistake, this kind of attachment to being a good person could lead to more sila and that would make conditions for understanding to develop, but that was wrong. Anyone who listens to the KK talks from this year will hear a lot of wrong view from me, but so be it, that wasn't me then and it isn't me now. > However, unless metta has been developed 'in real life' as it were, and the panna that knows kusala from (subtle) akusala has also been developed, the mental states arising when 'metta' is 'generated' are unlikely to be kusala but will surely be taken for that. Ph: Yes, metta in the trenches of daily life, that's what's really interesting. Phil #120935 From: "colette_aube" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 10:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! colette_aube 120675 GOT IT, when I get a chance at a computer, my roommates aren't home for a few minutes so I jumped on the computer to check up on things. I WILL GET TO IT THANKS NINA --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Colette, > read message: 120675 kamma and this moment kamma and this moment > sarah abbott > sarahprocter... Nov 24, 2011 > 8:38 am > Nina. > Op 25-nov-2011, om 17:28 heeft colette_aube het volgende geschreven: > > > Hi Sarah, > > > > What is all this about? What has happened to you since I have been > > away? > > > > #120936 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 5:58 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Dear Rob K., > > R: "umm yes. Is there any doubt? Concepts can be object of citta, that in fact billions and trillions of cittas arise and pass away while repeatedly taking a concept as object." > > Scott: Sorry, I was not clear. How is concept an object of pa~n~naa? Pariyatti is said to be so because of the presence of p~n~naa. It is not just thinking or memorizing. > > Scott. > Dear scott, Yes right, when there is panna and there is thinking about Dhamma that is pariyatti. The object at that time is concept. When there is direct knowing of dhammas it is patipatti, a higher level of panna. Think of when you read about someone going to hell becuase of bad kamma in the texts. If one understands that properly there is panna of some (perhpas very minor) degree. Someone else might read it and think is was metaphorical or simply dismiss it, no panna. Both objects were concepts but in the first case panna was present. , in the second wrongview. Or someone might reD it like reading anewspaper with no panna, but not wrongview, just lobha or ignorqnce. Robert Robert #120937 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 6:19 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Scott > > > Scott: In subtle ways there *may not* be 'consensus.' Parsing out 'intellectual understanding' and considering it alone is definitely wrong. I'd like an explanation as to how pa~n~naa, supposedly at the 'level of pariyatti' takes concept as object. > > Dear Scott panna is merely an element, a cetasika that arises a various times like any other element. Could I ask if you accept/understand that when there is thinking about ideas/concepts that lobha might be present, or dosa? I hoep you say yes. Then perhaps you can see that it is exactly the same at the times panna is present when thinking.. Robert #120938 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 8:04 am Subject: Serene is Equanimity! bhikkhu5 Friends: Equanimity of the Mind, Serenity & Beyond! The Blessed Buddha once explained: And what then, Bhikkhus, is this simple indifference of the flesh? There are these five strings of sense-pleasure. What five? Visible forms, which can be experienced by the eye ... Hearable sounds, which can be experienced by the ear ... Smellable odours, which can be experienced by the nose ... Tastable flavours, which can be experienced by the tongue ... Touchable objects, which can be experienced by the body ... That all are attractive, captivating, desirable, irresistible, lovely, charming, tempting, pleasing, sensually enticing, seductive, alluring, and tantalizing! These are the 5 strings of sense-pleasure. The indifference that arises from these 5 strings of sense-pleasure when bored, is simply indifference of the flesh... And what, Bhikkhus, is the equanimity, which is not of this world? With the leaving behind of both pleasure and pain, & with the prior fading away of both joy & sorrow, one enters & dwells in the 4th jhâna absorption, which is an entirely stilled mental state of utter awareness, purified by the equanimity of neither-pain-nor-pleasure. This is called the equanimity, which is not of this world! Finally, what is serenity beyond the equanimity, which is not of this world? When a bhikkhu, whose mental fermentations are eliminated, reviews his calmed mind, which is liberated from all lust, freed from all hatred, and released from uncertainty, then there arises a transcendental serenity... This is the serenity beyond that equanimity, which is not of this world! <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikâya. Book IV [235-7] section 36:11 On Feeling: Vedanâ. Joys beyond this world ... http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #120939 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 7:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" nilovg Dear Phil, Op 1-dec-2011, om 3:15 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > For example, these days I am interested in having heard A. Sujin > saying that there cannot be meaningful distinguishining of > cetasikas until nama is known as nama. And yet I read in SPD that > there can be awareness of the characteristic of the lobha that > arises so soon after seeing, and I feel that is true. An apparent > contradiction (lobha is a cetasika, after all) or an indication > that this is all a lot more subtle and complex than kind be pinned > down by saying "characteristics of cetasikas cannot be known until > after the first vipassana nana." Panna is working its way, no > matter what A. Sujin or anyone else here says. ------- N: I feel exactly the same what you say about pariyatti, and will come back to it in my answer to Scott. I like your post very much. Now this point above: my first post to dsg (long ago) was about this subject. I took dosa as an example, saying that it was not possible to know its characteristic. I was then rightly corrected and we came to the conclusion that certainly, there can be a beginning of knowing the characteristic of dosa. We can attend to its characteristic even before the first stage of insight. ------ Nina. #120940 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 7:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! sarahprocter... Dear Nina (& Christine), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > thank you for quoting the Uraga sutta, and Kh Sujin's remark, very > good, but not always easy to apply when things happen. I put your > whole message in my file, then it is there when I need it! .... S: As we are always reminded, we face little tests all day - tests of understanding, tests of patience, tests of all kinds of kusala. When we face greater tests, it's time for all that accumulated understanding and patience to arise, to 'face' what kamma has in store at such a time. Life is so unpredictable, we fear we'll not be able to manage or 'apply' the wise words when we have serious challenges, but, like all other dhammas, we may be surprised at the strength and confidence in understanding at such times, 'just like now'! I was fully recovered from my cold this morning, so had determined that I would visit my friend in hospital and do what I could, facing whatever was in store for me as far as she was concerned, unknown family member reactions, a re-visit to the hospital itself. As it turned out, her husband called me and invited me to travel with him and their teenage daugher, out from England.My friend's condition has improved quite a lot in the last couple of days - there are now some reactions, such as partial eye-opening and slight hand pressure - so it was all very positive. I was able to talk quite a bit to the daughter and give an example of holding Sharon's hand and talking to her about her favourite walks and so, even though there's no visible response. Not the occasion for Dhamma or for plugging in a KS dhamma discussion, though I did make just the occasional comment to her husband and daughter that might be useful. Afterwards, her husband thanked me for joining them and it was all a great relief for me. However, just dhammas, no people at all, whether there are pleasant or unpleasant responses, sense experiences, relief or shock and so on. The test has to be now, 'begin again'! Metta Sarah p.s Thx Chris for posting the full Jataka. How are your family doing? ========= #120941 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 7:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! nilovg Dear Christine, Thank you for quoting the whole Jataka. I put it in my file. Nina. Op 30-nov-2011, om 21:41 heeft Christine het volgende geschreven: > Hello Nina, Sarah, all, > > This is the whole Jataka: #120942 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 7:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! nilovg Dear Sarah, I am very glad to read your report about Sharon, and it is good she has some responses. I am sure she heard you talking to her. It is amazing how some people do recover. As you say (but we forget) just dhammas, no people. Nina. Op 1-dec-2011, om 9:18 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > My friend's condition has improved quite a lot in the last couple > of days - there are now some reactions, such as partial eye-opening > and slight hand pressure - so it was all very positive. I was able > to talk quite a bit to the daughter and give an example of holding > Sharon's hand and talking to her about her favourite walks and so, > even though there's no visible response. Not the occasion for > Dhamma or for plugging in a KS dhamma discussion, though I did make > just the occasional comment to her husband and daughter that might > be useful. > > Afterwards, her husband thanked me for joining them and it was all > a great relief for me. However, just dhammas, no people at all, > whether there are pleasant or unpleasant responses, sense > experiences, relief or shock and so on. #120943 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 7:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha nilovg Hi Howard, you wrote: What I would like to learn about, among other matters, is more of the relation between moha and micca ditthi. My intuition on this is that the former is a condition for the latter, and perhaps also vice-versa. (In that latter regard, wrong views might serve to cloud the mind.) ------ N: There were already several discussions about this subject. I shall try to add something. When there is wrong view there is also moha, and thus they condition one another by conascence-condition. Moha does not know reality, it is dullness, it is dark. It does not have a specific view about reality. Wrong view is a kind of holding on to an opinion, a distorted view about realities. It twists them, misinterpretes them. When it arises it accompanies lobha-muulacitta. ------- > H: The "inappropriate adherence" isn't clear to me. Is it the > attachment > that is inappropriate regardless of the object, and, if so, is that > the > meaning of micca ditthi? It seems to me that the view; i.e., what > is believed, > is what is micca. ------- N: An example may make it clearer. There is touching of hardness and there is a firm belief that hardness stays on, that it is permanent. Hardness is a reality that arises and falls away, but micchaa di.t.thi sees it wrongly. There is also clinging with wrong view with regard to all kinds of ideas, such as: there is no kamma, no vipaaka. There is a great variety of wrong view. ------- H: Clinging to a view is certainly rooted in lobha, but one can have an incorrect view/opinion without clinging to it. It can simply be an error in understanding or judgement, a belief that is rather loosely, even indifferently, held. ------ N: It is still connected with lobha, but the feeling may be indifferent. Of the eight types of lobha-muulacittas, four are associated with wrong view and of these four two are accompanied by pleasant feeling and two by indifferent feeling. It certainly is an error in understanding to believe that dhammas are permanent or self. ------ Nina. #120944 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 8:16 pm Subject: 'Right concepts' jonoabb Hi Rob E (120827) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > [RE:] How then does right understanding relate to the information that is given by suttas and Abhidhamma? Isn't such writing conceptual material, and thus aren't there concepts being understood and known that leads to the right understanding that is based on hearing Dhamma? And if right understanding is also developed by "wise consideration" what is it that is being "wisely considered?" If the Dhamma is being thought about and clarified intellectually, isn't it the concepts that have been communicated by the Dhamma that are being "wisely considered?" If not, how do "Dhamma concepts" from sutta, Abhidhamma, commentary, discussion, consideration, etc. develop into right understanding? > =============== J: Regarding "[H]ow do 'Dhamma concepts' from sutta, Abhidhamma, etc. develop into right understanding?". There is no such thing as concepts that develop into right understanding. There is only right understanding that develops. Sure, concepts have a role, in the sense that they are the 'language' of thoughts and speech. But that's as far as it goes. So while the essential factor of 'hearing the teachings' happens, if it occurs, through the medium of concepts, the concepts themselves do not carry meaning. They are conventional modes of expression. > =============== > > J: Concepts do not 'create right understanding for dhammas'. Right understanding is conditioned by hearing the teachings, understanding what has been heard, and wisely reflecting on what is thus understood. > > [RE:] Well if you are "wisely refecting" on what is thus understood, isn't what is "thus understood" the concepts that have been understood from reading, hearing, discussing, etc.? What else is there? > =============== J: It's a matter of concepts expressing the increased understanding, rather than concepts being understood by the individual (or by understanding). Understanding grows organically if the right growing conditions are in place. > =============== > [RE:] Certainly if I hear about individual dhammas arising and understand it, that is a concept at that point which I have understood. If that then conditions an ability for an individual dhamma to be recognized when it arises, I can understand your saying that what has "thus been understood" has developed into something that is direct, not conceptual. But isn't there a long period of pariyatti in which the link between initial understanding and direct discernment is not immediate, but comes gradually by way of understanding the concepts more precisely, more clearly and in more detail? Isn't that a lot of the process of right understanding prior to the onset of the stages of direct insight? > =============== J: Yes, but 'understanding the concepts more precisely' is a shorthand way of referring to the increase in understanding. (And btw, as we've discussed many times before, there's more it than merely understanding the concepts.) > =============== > > J: Perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'one must have a correct concept'. As far as I can see, the correctness of any thinking is a function of the understanding that accompanies the thinking. > > [RE:] Well I could have a wrong understanding of right concept, for instance, I could wrongly think that "individual dhammas" means that there are little actual things that rise up, are suspended in space for me to discern, and then fall away again, like little ping-pong balls. > =============== J: Then it wouldn't be a 'right concept' in the first place. There can be no 'right concept' (e.g., 'Concept A') in abstraction; only as the object of thinking with right understanding. > =============== > [RE:] I'm sure there is a tendency to turn dhammas into all kinds of images, rather that understanding them correctly. Or I could have a wrong understanding of a wrong concept. I could think that dhammas are permanent and don't fall away completely, but that one dhamma morphs into the next one and becomes the next dhamma. So that would be wrong understanding, but would also be a concept that is wrong no matter how I understand it. What is the "content" of right understanding? > =============== J: There is no specific "content" of right understanding. When the understanding has concept as object, there is no set category of those concepts. > =============== > [RE:] Is it something totally removed from the content that has been understood? This is still confusing. If you could give an example of right understanding that is apart from the concept understood, eg, "dhammas arise and fall away one at a time," that would be helpful. > =============== J: Not sure I understand your question here. Right understanding is a nama, so it must have an object, and that object will be either a dhamma or a concept. So I don't see how there could be "understanding that is apart from the concept understood". (And as I say, it's not really a case of a concept ('Concept A') being understood.) > =============== > [RE:] I can understand this, but when you say how "they" are understood by the receiver, you are still talking about understanding "those concepts" correctly. That is my only point - that right understanding of Dhamma is initially right understanding of the concepts communicated by the Dhamma. If that's not correct, then I am still confused. > =============== J: Yes, speaking conventionally, we can say that intellectual right understanding is right understanding of the concepts communicated by the Dhamma. But concepts are created by the consciousness of which they are the object. So consciousness with right understanding creates its own concept of the Dhamma. > =============== > [RE:] If the concepts as expressed in the Dhamma are correct, ... > =============== J: Only truths can be correct. Of course, truths are expressed by means of concepts. But only speaking conventionally can concepts be said to be 'correct'. > =============== > [RE:] ... then the understanding of them can be correct or incorrect, but if the understanding is correct, it will be correct understanding of a correct concept, as other sources -- not of the Dhamma -- could very well be communicating incorrect concepts that would never be correct no matter how well they were understood, such as the totally wrong concept "dhammas are permanent and never fall away." > =============== J: The concept is 'wrong' because it represents the expression of wrong understanding. Jon #120945 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 1, 2011 11:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 12/1/2011 1:59:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@... writes: Yes right, when there is panna and there is thinking about Dhamma that is pariyatti. The object at that time is concept. When there is direct knowing of dhammas it is patipatti, a higher level of panna. ================================== Thank you for this! It is rare to see such a precise definition. It is *very* clear!! With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #120946 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 12:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha upasaka_howard Thank you, Nina! :-) In a message dated 12/1/2011 3:54:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote: What I would like to learn about, among other matters, is more of the relation between moha and micca ditthi. My intuition on this is that the former is a condition for the latter, and perhaps also vice-versa. (In that latter regard, wrong views might serve to cloud the mind.) ------ N: There were already several discussions about this subject. I shall try to add something. ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #120947 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 1:40 am Subject: Re: 'Right concepts' scottduncan2 Dear Jon, J: "...But concepts are created by the consciousness of which they are the object. So consciousness with right understanding creates its own concept of the Dhamma..." Scott: Can you clarify the above? Specifically, this seems to suggest that consciousness - citta with pa~n~naa - creates it's own object ('concept of the Dhamma') within the same moment of it's arising. Scott. #120948 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 1:58 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Dear Rob K., R: "Yes right, when there is panna and there is thinking about Dhamma that is pariyatti. The object at that time is concept. When there is direct knowing of dhammas it is patipatti, a higher level of panna..." Scott: What is your understanding of 'thinking?' You alluded to 'trillions' of moments of citta earlier. I imagine 'concept' to be a sort of 'mental continuity' but not the object of a single moment of consciousness. Hence, 'citta with pa~n~naa having concept as object' would be a series of cittas. Or something like that. Scott. #120949 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 3:58 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Dear Rob K., R: "panna is merely an element, a cetasika that arises a various times like any other element..." Scott: I'm with you here. R: "Could I ask if you accept/understand that when there is thinking about ideas/concepts that lobha might be present, or dosa?..." Scott: Yes. R: "...Then perhaps you can see that it is exactly the same at the times panna is present when thinking." Scott: I do. Thinking with pa~n~naa. A series of kusala dhammaa? I'm just looking to clarify how 'concept' is the object, given the fact that it has no characteristic, is 'content' of a series of cittas which are conventionally said to be 'thinking' - that is, is 'thoughts.' And stuff like that there. Scott. #120950 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 4:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: 'Years ago Kom also brought up this matter, and I searched in messages, see below. There are nine groups of defilements and not all akusala cetasikas are in each group. Each group just shows certain aspects, such as the aasavas, the hindrances. Kilesa or defilement is also used in a wider sense; including all akusala cetasikas, but here as a group only specific akusala cetasikas, ten, are classified. They are impure and defile the associated dhammas. Now see below. Kom discussed this first in India. snip... And see also the explanation given in the Visuddhimagga ("thus called because they are themselves defiled, and because they defile the mental factors associated with them"), quoted in 'Buddhist Dictionary' D: thanks for your answer, Nina . I admit that I need spoonfeeding here so please let me start with the end of your message ( ;-) kilesa: 'defilements', are mind-defiling, unwholesome qualities. Vis.M. XXII, 49, 65: "There are 10 defilements, thus called because they are themselves defiled, and because they defile the mental factors associated with them. They are: (1) greed (lobha), (2) hate (dosa), (3) delusion (moha), (4) conceit (mÄna), (5) speculative views (diá¹­á¹­hi), (6) skeptical doubt (vicikicchÄ ), (7) mental torpor (thÄ«na), (8) restlessness (uddhacca); (9) shamelessness (ahirika ), (10) lack of moral dread or unconscientiousness (anottappa)." For 1-3, s. mÅ«la; 4, s. mÄna; 5, s. diá¹­á¹­hi; 6-8, s. nÄ«varaṇa; 9 and 10, s. ahirika -anottappa.The ten are explained in Dhs. 1229f and enumerated in Vibh. XII. No classification of the k. is found in the Suttas , though the term occurs quite often in them. For the related term, upakkilesa (q.v.; 'impurities') different lists are given - (App.). D: noting : defilements (in German :Befleckungen) dict: " noun of 'to make something dirty or no longer pure, especially something that people consider important or holy " , so far clear : they make the mental factors dirty or no longer pure" . Compilation of the ten within Abhidhamma Dhammasangani and Vibhanga , no clasification within the suttas As you already mentioned : Nyanatiloka quotes Buddhagosa: " There are 10 defilements, thus called because they are themselves defiled, and because they defile the mental factors associated with them." A strange passage : 'defilements that are themselves defiled... ' makes no sense to me .. (what ) does it for you ? with Metta Dieter #120951 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 8:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! glenjohnann Dear Sarah (and Nina) Thank you for letting us know about your visit to the hospital. Very good that you are feeling over your cold and have been able to "face", as you say, whatever you found there, both in terms of Sharon's progress and her family. No doubt you were of great assistance. It is wonderful that you were able to show Sharon's daughter how you could talk with her, holding her hand and communicating through touch and voice. We never know what she was able to receive even though there was no visible reaction. It was perhaps of some comfort to Sharon and certainly would have been to her family. Sounds as if there has been progress in her condition - it takes a while for channels to open up again. Do take care of yourself. You too have been through a great shock. Yes, even that is "just like now" when it comes down to it. Ann --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Nina (& Christine), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > > Dear Sarah, > > thank you for quoting the Uraga sutta, and Kh Sujin's remark, very > > good, but not always easy to apply when things happen. I put your > > whole message in my file, then it is there when I need it! > .... > S: As we are always reminded, we face little tests all day - tests of understanding, tests of patience, tests of all kinds of kusala. When we face greater tests, it's time for all that accumulated understanding and patience to arise, to 'face' what kamma has in store at such a time. > > Life is so unpredictable, we fear we'll not be able to manage or 'apply' the wise words when we have serious challenges, but, like all other dhammas, we may be surprised at the strength and confidence in understanding at such times, 'just like now'! > > I was fully recovered from my cold this morning, so had determined that I would visit my friend in hospital and do what I could, facing whatever was in store for me as far as she was concerned, unknown family member reactions, a re-visit to the hospital itself. > > As it turned out, her husband called me and invited me to travel with him and their teenage daugher, out from England.My friend's condition has improved quite a lot in the last couple of days - there are now some reactions, such as partial eye-opening and slight hand pressure - so it was all very positive. I was able to talk quite a bit to the daughter and give an example of holding Sharon's hand and talking to her about her favourite walks and so, even though there's no visible response. Not the occasion for Dhamma or for plugging in a KS dhamma discussion, though I did make just the occasional comment to her husband and daughter that might be useful. > > Afterwards, her husband thanked me for joining them and it was all a great relief for me. However, just dhammas, no people at all, whether there are pleasant or unpleasant responses, sense experiences, relief or shock and so on. > > The test has to be now, 'begin again'! > > Metta > > Sarah > p.s Thx Chris for posting the full Jataka. How are your family doing? > ========= > #120952 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 8:39 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Hey Phil, Ph: "I'm not sure why it is necessary to pin down an exact understanding of what pariyatti means (wouldn't that inevitably be a concept that is understood by panna, BTW..." Scott: Oh, just because I'm interested. And it's 'Dhamma study.' Ph: "...I opened SPD at random, as I am wont to do, and nicely landed right on this: 'After the rebirth-consciousness has fallen away, the same kamma is the condition for the arising of the next vipaaka-cittas, which perform the function of life-continuum (bhavanga.)' We can't understand this directly, but we agree on it as useful to know about. Can't we say that it can only be a concept of how realities work?..." Scott: Well, so yeah, it's a verbal description referring to realities. I'm finding a need for clarification because I've never experienced a bhavanga-citta. I've just read about them. It makes sense and I get the theory and I guess I accept it, so whose to say that this is all a function of pa~n~naa? Rob K. might say it would be in this case. Ph: "...There is no possibility of pariyatti that is studying the characteristics of those realities. So this is pariyatti that is intellectual understanding, or even book knowledge. Now, maybe we can say that 'panna works its way' through different aspects of pariyatti where the intellectual understanding matures into a more direct studying of characteristics..." Scott: This last statement - 'intellectual understanding matures into a more direct studying of characteristics' - seems wrong to me. Unless you are referring simply to the development of pa~n~naa. I don't think that intellectual understanding 'changes' or 'morphs' or 'matures' because it's merely the content of thought being referred to here - and this can't turn into a mental factor. That's too sci-fi. Jon said a few interesting things earlier: "... So while the essential factor of 'hearing the teachings' happens, if it occurs, through the medium of concepts, the concepts themselves do not carry meaning. They are conventional modes of expression..." "...Concepts do not 'create right understanding for dhammas'. Right understanding is conditioned by hearing the teachings, understanding what has been heard, and wisely reflecting on what is thus understood..." "...'understanding the concepts more precisely' is a shorthand way of referring to the increase in understanding..." "...There is no specific 'content' of right understanding. When the understanding has concept as object, there is no set category of those concepts..." Scott: To me, this shows that pa~n~naa is not identical to it's object, does not somehow consist of it's object, is not 'full of concepts' itself, and like that. Further, these statements seem to suggest a primacy to pa~n~naa in relation to concepts - can we say 'thoughts about Dhamma?' The central role goes to pa~n~naa and it's development and strength, and secondarily comes the conceptual content of thought. What isn't clear to me is the way in which all of this works. And again, just because it interests me to know more about how 'thoughts' and 'thinking' and 'understanding' interact. A lot is said about visible object I guess because it is so ubiquitous, but if thought isn't ubiquitous I don't know what is. Ph: "...I find, with studying the charactersitics of seeing, a lot of thinking about it, but now and then moments of studying that is not about trying and not about thinking, and then quickly thinking thinking thinking. So that could be a level of pariyatti or an aspect of pariyatti that is no longer about intellectual understanding..." Scott: Yeah, I don't know. If we limit the use of the term 'understanding' to refer to the specific function and characteristic of pa~n~naa, and if, as is being said, pa~n~naa can take thought, words read or heard - (concept) - as object, then pa~n~naa 'understands' concepts but this is, in fact *non-intellectual* from the start (since it's pa~n~naa, dig?). Scott. #120953 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 9:02 am Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) scottduncan2 Jon, J: "...If we take as an example the case of the person who has never heard the teachings, it can be seen that making a resolution of the kind mentioned would be unlikely to involve any wrong view or wrong practice. Simply a resolution to 'do better next time'." Scott: Fair enough to your elided points and to the above, I'd add, 'for all the good it will do...' Scott. #120954 From: "philip" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 1:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Nina > Now this point above: my first post to dsg (long ago) was about this > subject. I took dosa as an example, saying that it was not possible > to know its characteristic. I was then rightly corrected and we came > to the conclusion that certainly, there can be a beginning of knowing > the characteristic of dosa. We can attend to its characteristic even > before the first stage of insight. Ph: Re dosa, yes, I suppose so, though - again - in this case it is particularly subtle in that dosa and domanassa arise together. From your Cetasikas:" Dosa and domanassa always arise together. It is difficult to distinguish between these two realities, but they are different cetasikas. Domanassa is feeling, it experiences the taste of the undesireable object. Dosa is not feeling, it has a different characteristic. Dosa does not like the object which is experienced. There are many degrees of dosa, it can be a slight aversion, anger or hate. But in any case dosa does not want the object and domanassa feels unhappy. We know so little about the different realities which arise. We may have a backache. Is it painful bodily feeilng which appears, or is it the characteristic of domanassa which accompanies dosa mula citta?" Or is it dosa? So subtle and complex. Yes, as you said before, it depends on sati and panna to what degree this will be distinguished, and it does me no good to cling to what I heard from A.Sujin, but I do appreciate having heard her stress knowing nama as nama, the reality which experiences. So I guess what will happen for me for the next little while at least is there will be reflection on cetasikas as nama rather than nama as cetasikas, there will be a coming back again and again to consideration of nama as nama and not so much sorting out of cetasikas. But there may be such sorting out happening, if it happens. I don't want to force the issue. As A.Sujin says, it will be my dosa, my lobha, unless the understanding develops naturally. In the past I would have said "so what, my dosa, my lobha, of course, we are not ariyans here" but now I have more confidence about detachment from the beginning, and the importance of patient progress towards the eradicating of wrong view of self. En bref, rather than knowing the characteristic of dosa, knowing the characteristic of nama that experiences. But perhaps knowing the characteristic of dosa, who knows? Thanks Nina. Phil #120955 From: "philip" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 1:34 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Scott (Rob K, all) > Ph: "I'm not sure why it is necessary to pin down an exact understanding of what pariyatti means (wouldn't that inevitably be a concept that is understood by panna, BTW..." > > Scott: Oh, just because I'm interested. And it's 'Dhamma study.' Ph: Sure. But interesting to note that it will be a concept of a concept rather than a concept of a reality. Though of course realities are at work in "pariyatti." I read Rob K's clear explanation of pariyatti/patipatti, thinking vs direct experience and that is fine with me even though I think it might be more subtle than that, possibly there are ways that panna "studies" characteristics of realities that are between thinking about them and direct experience of them. Or maybe there aren't. Whatever. The fact is that understanding does "work its way", no matter how much of a DSG cliche that has become. So I am not personally so interested in "pariyatti" and "patipatti", I guess they become vital when meditators become insistent about this and that. > Ph: "...I opened SPD at random, as I am wont to do, and nicely landed right on this: 'After the rebirth-consciousness has fallen away, the same kamma is the condition for the arising of the next vipaaka-cittas, which perform the function of life-continuum (bhavanga.)' We can't understand this directly, but we agree on it as useful to know about. Can't we say that it can only be a concept of how realities work?..." > > Scott: Well, so yeah, it's a verbal description referring to realities. I'm finding a need for clarification because I've never experienced a bhavanga-citta. I've just read about them. It makes sense and I get the theory and I guess I accept it, so whose to say that this is all a function of pa~n~naa? Rob K. might say it would be in this case. Ph: Maybe bhavanga is too extreme an example, so unlikely to be directly experienced, but how about what I just posted about to Nina, knowing dosa from domanassa. Certainly more realizable. Reading about the different characteristics etc in Vism or wherever else, at that point perhaps there can be panna that at that moment looks up from the book (so to speak) and considers the present realities (or with, for example, more likely at the time of reading about Dhamma lobha and pleasant mental feeling.) So panna with concept and panna that more directly considers the realities is/are working together in some very subtle way, possibly, I guess. And of course huge globs of lobha moha ditthi et al are slopping all over it, messing it up again and again. Very messy situation, reading about deep Dhamma, we should always read Dhamma on easily launderable apolhstery. (go ahead, *you* spell them!) > Ph: "...There is no possibility of pariyatti that is studying the characteristics of those realities. So this is pariyatti that is intellectual understanding, or even book knowledge. Now, maybe we can say that 'panna works its way' through different aspects of pariyatti where the intellectual understanding matures into a more direct studying of characteristics..." > > Scott: This last statement - 'intellectual understanding matures into a more direct studying of characteristics' - seems wrong to me. Unless you are referring simply to the development of pa~n~naa. I don't think that intellectual understanding 'changes' or 'morphs' or 'matures' because it's merely the content of thought being referred to here - and this can't turn into a mental factor. That's too sci-fi. Ph: Yes, I agree. Maybe it's something to do with n.d.s.c, which I don't understand at all. The blips of intellectual understanding are involved in the soup of all kinds of conditions, perhaps or probably in a very important way, all working together for moments of grokking. (Sci-fi reference I'm sure you get, I'm reading it now, on recommendation from my bro.) I'll leave it there. Have to wash the sofa cover. Phil #120956 From: "philip" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 1:39 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi again all > Ph: Yes, I agree. Maybe it's something to do with n.d.s.c, which I don't understand at all. The blips of intellectual understanding are involved in the soup of all kinds of conditions, perhaps or probably in a very important way, all working together for moments of grokking. (Sci-fi reference I'm sure you get, I'm reading it now, on recommendation from my bro.) Since this might be an important point, I should clarify that "grok" is a word invented in a sci-fi novel to refer to a Martian's penetrative understanding. So insert "direct understanding" above. Phil #120957 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 2:03 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Dear Rob K., > > R: "panna is merely an element, a cetasika that arises a various times like any other element..." > > Scott: I'm with you here. > > R: "Could I ask if you accept/understand that when there is thinking about ideas/concepts that lobha might be present, or dosa?..." > > Scott: Yes. > > R: "...Then perhaps you can see that it is exactly the same at the times panna is present when thinking." > > Scott: I do. Thinking with pa~n~naa. A series of kusala dhammaa? I'm just looking to clarify how 'concept' is the object, given the fact that it has no characteristic, is 'content' of a series of cittas which are conventionally said to be 'thinking' - that is, is 'thoughts.' And stuff like that there. I may be totally off base -- and I'm sure you'll let me know -- but it seems to me that what you are asking -- a very important question -- is: Does panna only know the reality of dhammas, or is it also capable of understanding the status of concept, eg, the content of thought? Rob K. spoke of many cittas arising in order to know a concept, taking it as object. If panna is wisdom, perhaps it has the strange duty of knowing the content of that which is not paramatha, but which has relevance to knowing dhammas. Just a confused thought... Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #120958 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 10:04 am Subject: Radical Release! bhikkhu5 Friends: Detaching Release from all Internal & External: The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, desire and lust for any form, for any feeling, for any perception, for any construction & for any consciousness is a corruption of the mind! Desire and lust for the earth element: All that is Solid... Desire and lust for the water element: All that is Fluid... Desire and lust for the fire element: All that is Hot... Desire and lust for the air element: All that is Moving... Desire and lust for the space element: All that is 3-Dimensional and Desire and lust for the consciousness element: All sense awareness itself, is a corruption of the mind! When a Bhikkhu has overcome and left all behind these mental corruptions, his mind seeks for inward withdrawal… A mind prepared and enhanced by such renunciation becomes wieldy, fit, focused and open for those subtle mental states, that are to be realized only by direct experience and assured knowledge... On the 5 clusters of clinging and the 4 elements: http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/II/The_5_Clusters_of_Clinging.htm http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/IV/What_is_Solidity.htm Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikâya SN 27:9-10 III 234 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Radical Release! #120959 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 6:52 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > >> > R: "...Then perhaps you can see that it is exactly the same at the times panna is present when thinking." > > Scott: I do. Thinking with pa~n~naa. A series of kusala dhammaa? I'm just looking to clarify how 'concept' is the object, given the fact that it has no characteristic, is 'content' of a series of cittas which are conventionally said to be 'thinking' - that is, is 'thoughts.' And stuff like that there. > > Scott. > dear Scott, I couldnt find the original reference, i tyhink in commenatry to abhidhammthasangaha but ven Nyanponika summarises: ""In Abhidhamma the apparently simple act, for example, of seeing a rose, is in reality a very complex process composed of different phases, each con-sisting of numerous smaller combinations of conscious processes (citta-vãthi) which again are made up of several single moments of consciousness (cittakkhaõa) following each other in a definite sequence of diverse functions. Among these phases there is one that connects the present perception of a rose with a previous one, and there is another that attaches to the present perception the name "rose", remembered from previous experience. Not only in relation to similar experiences in a relatively distant past, but also between those infinitesimally brief single phases and successive processes the connecting function of rudimentary "memory" must be assumed to operate, because each phase and each lesser successive state has to "remember" the previous one — a process called by the later Abhidhammikas "grasping the past" (atãta-ggahana). Finally, the individual contributions of all those different perceptual processes have to be remembered and co-ordinated in order to form the final and complete perception of a rose. ""endquote And we know from the Commentaries that in a fingersnap billions of cittas arise and pass away. So during a long period of thinking about Dhamma (for example) there will be trilluions and gazillions of process of cittas arising and passing away. Some of those, depending on accumulations of understanding, might be associated with panna. Of course during this train of thought - which might last many seconds- sense door process will be occuring , countless bhavanga cittas coming in, and many many many moments with lobha or avijja. But also some proesses associated with panna . . Why do I say there must be so many moments with lobha even when thinking about Dhamma? it is because of the vast accumulation of lobha, like a flood. Panna is also accumulated but not so much, so usually it will only arise intermittedly (no rule, no way to count ).. Robert #120960 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 8:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha nilovg Dear Dieter Op 1-dec-2011, om 18:46 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > As you already mentioned : Nyanatiloka quotes Buddhagosa: " There > are 10 defilements, thus called because they are themselves > defiled, and because they defile the mental factors associated with > them." > > A strange passage : 'defilements that are themselves defiled... ' > makes no sense to me .. (what ) does it for you ? ----- N: These ten defilements, kilesas, are dirty, impure, and they also make the accompanying dhammas impure. Dung is dirty and when you touch it with your hands, also your hands become dirty. ------ Nina. #120961 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 8:29 pm Subject: Re: Khandhas and samsara (was, A lovely dream ...) jonoabb Hi Scott --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Jon, > > J: "...If we take as an example the case of the person who has never heard the teachings, it can be seen that making a resolution of the kind mentioned would be unlikely to involve any wrong view or wrong practice. Simply a resolution to 'do better next time'." > > Scott: Fair enough to your elided points and to the above, I'd add, 'for all the good it will do...' > =============== J: There could be some kusala involved. For example, consideration for others, intermixed with the inevitable thinking of oneself (and so akusala). But to the extent that kusala is involved, 'good' will follow. (And this is not the kind of kusala that requires exposure to the teachings to be appreciated.) Jon #120962 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 8:35 pm Subject: Re: 'Right concepts' jonoabb Hi Scott --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Dear Jon, > > J: "...But concepts are created by the consciousness of which they are the object. So consciousness with right understanding creates its own concept of the Dhamma..." > > Scott: Can you clarify the above? Specifically, this seems to suggest that consciousness - citta with pa~n~naa - creates it's own object ('concept of the Dhamma') within the same moment of it's arising. > =============== J: Yes, I guess it does suggest that. But as to how that may occur (the 'mechanics'), I'm afraid I have no idea :-)). (But then that also goes for the mechanics of much of what we discuss here.) Any particular sticking points you'd like to raise? Jon #120963 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 8:51 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" jonoabb Hi Ann (and Alex) (120843) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "glenjohnann" wrote: > > Hi Johothan, Alex and others > ... > > > J: As I understand the Theravada texts, 'anatta' is a characteristic, or quality, of dhammas. It becomes known to panna as the understanding of dhammas (insight) is developed. > > > > > > So to answer your question, there is no dhamma called 'anatta'. > > > > > > But neither is anatta a concept, since it is an aspect of dhammas. > > > > > > The same would presumably apply as regards the 3 sub-moments of citta. > > > > > > =============== > > J: Regarding that last paragraph, on further reflection I think I would like to put it a little differently, as follows: > > > > There is no dhamma called "samsara". I understand "samsara" to refer to the fact that rebirth continues endlessly, as reflected in the DO formulation (anuloma section), unless enlightenment is attained. > > > > So, as with the other expressions you have asked about, it is an aspect of dhammas that comes to be known with the development of insight. > > > Interesting topic. I will just think aloud here for a bit. > > I can see anatta as a characteristic or quality of all dhammas. However, until dhammas are directly understood by panna as having the characteristic of anatta, then anatta is for the one not having yet understood this characteristic, a concept. True, it is a gradual development of panna that understands anatta. > > Nor is anatta a dhamma. I like your statement (above) that "is it an aspect of dhammas that comes to be known with the development of insight." Can we say that until it becomes known with the development of insight, it is but a concept? > =============== J: Thanks for coming in here. Yes, for the unenlightened person, except for those moments insight -- if any -- where the characteristic of anatta is seen by panna, anatta is only a concept. But if we take Alex's question to refer to anatta *as spoken of by the Buddha*, then I think it's fair to say that anatta is an aspect of the way things really are. Jon PS Glad to hear of the progress in your health issue. #120964 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 2, 2011 9:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" nilovg Dear Scott, You have a point. First of all a similar case we discussed with Kh Sujin. The sa"nkhaara nimitta. Realities arise and fall away so fast and when one is aware of seeing, it is actually the sign or nimitta of seeing that is known. Seeing has fallen away but the nimitta of it remains. We asked Kh Sujin: is nimitta a concept? At first she did not answer, just: that is only a word. It is now! N: this taught me that there is a danger to be fixed on words, like the word concept, or: asking, is it a concept? Then we forget to attend to this moment. We discussed further: I asked how we can be aware of a nimitta. She said that it is a concept *of* a reality. We can just be aware of the characteristics that appear and do not have to think of nimitta at all. N: Thus, when discussing about concept we have to remember that there are many kinds of concepts and that the concept of a reality is not just any kind of concept. She said: it is now. And why do we remind each other all the time of the present reality? Because there are characteristics appearing that can be known through the six doors, one at a time. Mostly we are absorbed in thinking of a hand or a thing we touch, or the sound of this or that, but sometimes, without trying or wanting to be aware, just one reality can present itself through one doorway at a time. Then followed by many moments of thinking. Kh Sujin explained that it is important to know the difference between moments of sati and moments without sati. It has to be very natural, as she stressed. < Many levels or aspects of pariyatti that panna works its way through, if we don't interfere.>, as Phil wrote. We have to learn what the objects of satipa.t.thaana are, what sati of satipa.t.thaana is, and if well understood there can be conditions to study with awareness characteristics of realities. Indeed, pa~n~naa develops from pariyatti to pa.tipatti, but we cannot say with mathematical precision: now this is pariyatti and this is already a beginning of pa.tipatti. It also depends on the individual, it is not all black and white. Pariyatti is just a word and we do not have to think of it all the time, or think: is this a concept of a reality or a reality? ------- > N: "...Also at the pariyatti level the object can be a reality. > Even now, when I think about seeing, just the experience of visible > object, not thinking of shape and form, is seeing not the object? > And is seeing not a reality?" > Scott: This is the sort of statement wherein the ambiguity I'm trying to sort out is very clear. Pariyatti is now said by you to have both concepts *and* realities as object. At one time it seems that it is only realities, at another only concepts, and now, at another time, it can be both. ------ N: Yes, both. Because there is a gradual development. Phil: intellectual understanding matures into a more direct studying of characteristics' . That is how I feel it. -------- > > S: Seeing is a reality. I'm not convinced that seeing *as a > reality* is the object when one thinks about seeing, or thinks > about the experience of visible object, or thinks about shape and > form. > ------ N: Hard to pinpoint it all. There is not thinking of seeing all the time. Very slowly there may be a little more understanding. ------ > > Scott: Is that 'object that is not yet clear' a concept, a reality, > both? > ----- N: I do not know, I cannot lay my finger on it. -------- > > N: "...Also, there may be a moment of 'studying' a present reality > and then followed by thinking. Hard to tell, but awareness can just > begin and is very weak..." > > Scott: This 'moment of studying a present reality' - is it pa~n~naa > that 'studies?' > ------ N: It has to be. Studying in order to gain more understanding. > > > N: "...But as you know, I would rather avoid conceptual, conceptual > thinking, etc. I do not see much in it. It seems a lot of > speculation..." > > Scott: While respecting this sentiment, I hardly see how one can > satifactorily sort through this question without considering the > actual differences (and similarities?) between concept and reality, > and the fact of 'conceptual thinking.' Without this consideration, > no clarification about pariyatti can be made. I would think that > clarifying these aspects of Dhamma would help prevent speculation. > ------ N: Mathematical precision is not possible in this field. Precise, logical definitions will not take us very far. Each person has to find out for himself, one has to develop one's 'own understanding', as Kh Sujin said. One has to listen, to consider a lot, and this can condition direct awareness and understanding, but we do not know when, as Kh Sujin said. She also remarked that nowhere in the teachings many details are given as to the development of insight in stages, because it is a personal matter (paccatta.m). What she stressed: the objects of understanding are the same, but understanding develops, becomes deeper. The objects are the characteristics of naama and ruupa as they present themselves one at a time through the six doorways. ------ Nina. #120965 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Dec 3, 2011 3:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha moellerdieter Dear Nina , (all), you wrote: As you already mentioned : Nyanatiloka quotes Buddhagosa: " There > are 10 defilements, thus called because they are themselves > defiled, and because they defile the mental factors associated with > them."> D: A strange passage : 'defilements that are themselves defiled... ' > makes no sense to me .. (what ) does it for you ? ----- N: These ten defilements, kilesas, are dirty, impure, and they also make the accompanying dhammas impure. Dung is dirty and when you touch it with your hands, also your hands become dirty. ------ D: that is the trouble with dirt, Nina what I meant is: The quoted sentence : ' There are 10 defilements, thus called because they are themselves defiled ', is , what we call in common German 'doppelt gemoppelt ' , English ' tautology' ( pleonasm ?, plain repetition). There is no defilement in defilement. and " they defile the mental factors associated with them." defile what is already 'dirty ' , i.e. the 10 of the 14 akusala mental factors? Assumed correct translation from Pali , three possibilities: - my lack to understand what has been said correctly - fault of expression in Pali, - ( a bit speculative but not at all unikely , that) a subtle hint was given , to indicate that the 10 kilesas are tautological in respect to 10 of the group of cetasikas... i.e. a new unnessary classification of what had been already specified . my vote for the latter ;-) with Metta Dieter #120966 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sat Dec 3, 2011 6:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! colette_aube Hi Sarah, glad to hear that you are well. Yes, you raise the lament that I often have concerning my knees when it's cold or raining, or my hips, or my teeth, we are just growing older and our bodies are decaying. VERY GOOD SUTTA. At the end of the Sutta I saw my past when I lived in New Orleans. I had difficulty, then, trying to reason why so many people had parades, had celebrations, etc. when a person died. I have never been invited to a wedding, nor have I ever attended a wedding, yet I have always been invited to funerals. Eventually, while in New Orleans, I came to the conclusion that we, the people having the parade and/or party, that we are celebrating the joy the person must be experiencing through their release from this turmoil we call life, the suffering that we endure by living. Thank you for sharing that with me! toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Colette, > > Nice to see you again! > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > > > What is all this about? What has happened to you since I have been away? > .... > S: Just more dhammas in samsara, 'just like now'! > ... > >Could you point me to the message number where I can begin catching up on this major point of focus that people have had. I would believe that there are a lot of PEARLS OF WISDOM from readers and from the Dharma, held in this string during this moment of STRESS for you and the readers here. > .... > S: Nina gave you the start of the thread. Thank you so much for your concern. > .... > > > > I hope everything is okay now and that you are not in any danger or ill health > ... > S: I'm fine, thank you - there is always danger and ill health, bolders of aging and death rolling in. Did you see the sutta Christine posted? > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.025.than.html > > I'll leave the Republicans out of this discussion - same dhammas, same problems, same aging and death rolling in regardless of ones' political views!! > > Metta > > Sarah > ====== > #120967 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Dec 3, 2011 10:00 am Subject: Not Clinging! bhikkhu5 Friends: Completely Comprehending and Leaving All! At Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said this: Bhikkhus, without directly knowing and completely comprehending The All, without being disgusted with it and leaving it all behind, one is incapable of irreversibly eliminating any suffering... Without directly knowing & completely comprehending the eye, forms, ear, sounds, nose, smells, tongue, tastes, body, touches, mind, ideas and all metal states, any consciousness all forms of contact and whatever kind of feeling arised caused by such sense-contacts, without becoming disgusted with it, without relinquishing it all, and without letting it all go, one is incapable of eradicating any suffering irreversibly... This, friends, is that All, which without directly knowing, without completely comprehending, without being disgusted by and without leaving, one remains incapable of eliminating all suffering... Comments: The radical rationality of the Buddha-Dhamma here shines forth, wiping all empty babble away! Since what is suffering? The five Clusters of Clinging are suffering! Body, Feeling, Perception, Construction & Consciousness and thus also the 6 senses, their 6 objects, and the 6 kinds of consciousnesses, their 6 kinds of contact, and their 6 kinds of feeling are all suffering... Why is all that suffering? Because all that is inherently impermanent and thus always lost, decaying, and vanishing by itself right where it arised... Clinging is an intense form of Craving. Craving is the Cause of Suffering! <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikâya. Book IV [17-8] The 6 senses 35. Thread on Complete Comprehension: Parijânâna Sutta (26) http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * <...> #120968 From: KC Date: Sat Dec 3, 2011 7:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" ashkenn2k Dear Nina and Scott Nimitta can be concepts or the signs that characteristics the meaning of dhamma. The understanding is to penetrate the meaning of the characteristics and not attending to the nimittas of characteristics. But without nimitta, we cannot know the characteristics of dhamma. Our understanding must start at nimitta until we can penetrate the meaning of dhamma directly. From KC On 2 Dec, 2011, at 6:54 PM, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Scott, > You have a point. > First of all a similar case we discussed with Kh Sujin. The > sa"nkhaara nimitta. Realities arise and fall away so fast and when > one is aware of seeing, it is actually the sign or nimitta of seeing > that is known. Seeing has fallen away but the nimitta of it remains. > We asked Kh Sujin: is nimitta a concept? At first she did not answer, > just: that is only a word. It is now! > N: this taught me that there is a danger to be fixed on words, like > the word concept, or: asking, is it a concept? Then we forget to > attend to this moment. > We discussed further: I asked how we can be aware of a nimitta. She > said that it is a concept *of* a reality. We can just be aware of the > characteristics that appear and do not have to think of nimitta at all. > N: Thus, when discussing about concept we have to remember that there > are many kinds of concepts and that the concept of a reality is not > just any kind of concept. > She said: it is now. And why do we remind each other all the time of > the present reality? Because there are characteristics appearing that > can be known through the six doors, one at a time. Mostly we are > absorbed in thinking of a hand or a thing we touch, or the sound of > this or that, but sometimes, without trying or wanting to be aware, > just one reality can present itself through one doorway at a time. > Then followed by many moments of thinking. Kh Sujin explained that it > is important to know the difference between moments of sati and > moments without sati. It has to be very natural, as she stressed. > < Many levels or aspects of pariyatti that panna works its way > through, if we don't interfere.>, as Phil wrote. > We have to learn what the objects of satipa.t.thaana are, what sati > of satipa.t.thaana is, and if well understood there can be conditions > to study with awareness characteristics of realities. Indeed, > pa~n~naa develops from pariyatti to pa.tipatti, but we cannot say > with mathematical precision: now this is pariyatti and this is > already a beginning of pa.tipatti. It also depends on the individual, > it is not all black and white. Pariyatti is just a word and we do not > have to think of it all the time, or think: is this a concept of a > reality or a reality? > ------- > > N: "...Also at the pariyatti level the object can be a reality. > > Even now, when I think about seeing, just the experience of visible > > object, not thinking of shape and form, is seeing not the object? > > And is seeing not a reality?" > > > Scott: This is the sort of statement wherein the ambiguity I'm trying > to sort out is very clear. Pariyatti is now said by you to have both > concepts *and* realities as object. At one time it seems that it is > only realities, at another only concepts, and now, at another time, > it can be both. > ------ > N: Yes, both. Because there is a gradual development. Phil: > intellectual understanding matures into a more direct studying of > characteristics' . That is how I feel it. > -------- > > > > S: Seeing is a reality. I'm not convinced that seeing *as a > > reality* is the object when one thinks about seeing, or thinks > > about the experience of visible object, or thinks about shape and > > form. > > > ------ > N: Hard to pinpoint it all. There is not thinking of seeing all the > time. Very slowly there may be a little more understanding. > ------ > > > > Scott: Is that 'object that is not yet clear' a concept, a reality, > > both? > > > ----- > N: I do not know, I cannot lay my finger on it. > -------- > > > > N: "...Also, there may be a moment of 'studying' a present reality > > and then followed by thinking. Hard to tell, but awareness can just > > begin and is very weak..." > > > > Scott: This 'moment of studying a present reality' - is it pa~n~naa > > that 'studies?' > > > ------ > N: It has to be. Studying in order to gain more understanding. > > > > > > N: "...But as you know, I would rather avoid conceptual, conceptual > > thinking, etc. I do not see much in it. It seems a lot of > > speculation..." > > > > Scott: While respecting this sentiment, I hardly see how one can > > satifactorily sort through this question without considering the > > actual differences (and similarities?) between concept and reality, > > and the fact of 'conceptual thinking.' Without this consideration, > > no clarification about pariyatti can be made. I would think that > > clarifying these aspects of Dhamma would help prevent speculation. > > > ------ > N: Mathematical precision is not possible in this field. Precise, > logical definitions will not take us very far. Each person has to > find out for himself, one has to develop one's 'own understanding', > as Kh Sujin said. One has to listen, to consider a lot, and this can > condition direct awareness and understanding, but we do not know > when, as Kh Sujin said. She also remarked that nowhere in the > teachings many details are given as to the development of insight in > stages, because it is a personal matter (paccatta.m). What she > stressed: the objects of understanding are the same, but > understanding develops, becomes deeper. The objects are the > characteristics of naama and ruupa as they present themselves one at > a time through the six doorways. > ------ > Nina. > > > > #120969 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 3, 2011 7:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 2-dec-2011, om 17:54 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > > D: that is the trouble with dirt, Nina > > what I meant is: > The quoted sentence : ' There are 10 defilements, thus called > because they are themselves defiled ', > > is , what we call in common German 'doppelt gemoppelt ' , English ' > tautology' ( pleonasm ?, plain repetition). > There is no defilement in defilement. > > and > " they defile the mental factors associated with them." > > defile what is already 'dirty ' , i.e. the 10 of the 14 akusala > mental factors? > > Assumed correct translation from Pali , three possibilities: > - my lack to understand what has been said correctly > - fault of expression in Pali, > - ( a bit speculative but not at all unikely , that) a subtle hint > was given , to indicate that the 10 kilesas are tautological in > respect to 10 of the group of cetasikas... i.e. a new unnessary > classification of what had been already specified . > > my vote for the latter ;-) > ------- N: Perhaps an example may help. There are the universals, cetasikas accompanying each citta, such as contact, sa~n~naa, concentration, and these are in themselves not akusala cetasikas. However, when they are accompanied by akusala cetasikas, by the kilesas, they become akusala, impure (schmutzig). Thus, this shows that conascent dhammas condition one another. You were perhaps thinking of the ten kilesas only and wondering how they could make each other impure. But we have to consider the akusala citta and all other accompanying dhammas, not only the dhammas that are in themselves akusala. Does this help? Nina. > #120970 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 3, 2011 7:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" nilovg Dear Ken O, Thank you for your addition. The subject of nimitta is difficult and we have to consider different meanings in different contexts. I am just thinking of sa"nkhaara nimitta. Only nibbaana is animitta. Nina. Op 3-dec-2011, om 9:43 heeft KC het volgende geschreven: > Nimitta can be concepts or the signs that characteristics the > meaning of dhamma. > > The understanding is to penetrate the meaning of the > characteristics and not attending to the nimittas of > characteristics. But without nimitta, we cannot know the > characteristics of dhamma. Our understanding must start at nimitta > until we can penetrate the meaning of dhamma directly. #120971 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 3, 2011 10:02 pm Subject: Re: Vism. XIV 34, 35, 36 philofillet Hi all I've been studying rupa here and there and feel inclined to focus on it for awhile so will repost Larry and Nina's Vism study. Nina, you posted relevant passages that you translated from the sub-commentary, is that right? I will go and see if I can find it... Phil > "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV > > [THE MATERIALITY AGGREGATE] > > 34. Herein, all kinds of states whatsoever that have the characteristic > of 'being molested' (ruppana) by cold, etc., taken all together should > be understood as the materiality (ruupa) aggregate. > > 1. That is of one kind with the characteristic of 'being molested'. > > 2. It is also of two kinds when classed as (a) primary entity (bhuuta) > and (b) derived [by clinging] (upaadaaya). > > 35. Herein (a) "primary materiality" is of four kinds as the earth > element, water element, fire element, and air element. Their > characteristic, function, and manifestation have been given under the > definition of the four elements (Ch. XI, 87, 93); but as to the > proximate cause, each has the other three as its proximate cause. [444] > > 36. (b) "Derived materiality" is of twenty-four kinds as eye, ear, nose, > tongue, body, visible datum, sound, odour, flavour (13), feminity > faculty, masculinity faculty, life faculty, heart-basis; bodily > intimation,verbal intimation; space element; lightness of matter, > malleability of matter, wieldiness of matter, growth of matter, > continuity of matter, ageing of matter, impermanence of matter, and > physical nutriment. > ------------------------- > (13) 'Tangible data are omitted from this list because, not being > derived matter, they are included in the primaries' (Pm.442). They are > described as consisting of three of the four primaries, excluding the > water (cohesion) element. 'What is the materiality of the great > primaries? It is the tangible-data base and the water-element' > (Dhs.663). For the whole list see Dhs. 596, in which (N.B) the > heart-base does not appear. See also note 32 Ch. XV, n.15. > #120972 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 3, 2011 10:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism. XIV 34, 35, 36 philofillet Hi all Here is a section from Ch 11 that Larry also posted: Phil > 35. Herein (a) "primary materiality" is of four kinds as the earth > element, water element, fire element, and air element. Their > characteristic, function, and manifestation have been given under the > definition of the four elements (Ch. XI, 87, 93); but as to the > proximate cause, each has the other three as its proximate cause. [444] > ---------------------------- > > Ch. XI 87. 1. Herein, one who gives his attention to them [elements] "as > to word meaning" should do so separetly and generally thus: [separately] > it is earth (pathavii) because it is spread out (pattha.ta); it flows > (appoti) or it glides (aapiyati) or it satisfies (appaayati), thus it is > water (aapo); it heats (tejati), thus it is fire (tejo); it blows > (vaayati), thus it is air vaayo). But without differentiation they are > elements (dhaatu) beacuse of bearing (dhaara.na) their own > characteristics, because of grasping (aadaana) suffering, and because of > sorting out (aadhaana) suffering (see Ch. XV, 19). (29) This is how they > should be given attention as to word meaning. > > (29) ' "Because of bearing their own characteristics": these are not > like the Primordial Elements (pakati--Skr. prakrti) and the self (attaa) > imagined by the theorists, which are non-existent as to individual > essence. On the contrary these do bear their own characteristics, which > is why they are elements' (pm. 359). Capitals have been used here and > elsewhere though Indian alphabets do not justify it. "Appaayati" 'to > satisfy' is not in P.T.S. Dict.; see VbhA.p. > > Ch. XI 93. 4. "As to characteristic", etc.: he should advert to the > four elements in this way: 'The earth element--what are its > characteristic, function, manifestation?, [defining them in this way]: > The earth element has the characteristic of hardness. Its function is to > act as a foundation. It is manifested as receiving. The water element > has the characteristic of trickling. Its function is to intensify. It is > manifested as holding together. The fire element has the characteristic > of heat. Its function is to mature (maintain). It is manifested as a > continued supply of softnss. The air element has the characteristic of > distending. Its fuction is to cause motion. It is manifested as > conveying. (37) This is how they should be given attention by > characteristic, and so on. [366] > > (37) "Abhiniihara"--'conveying': not in this sense in P.T.S. Dict. ' > "Conveying" is acting as cause for the successive arising at adjacent > locations (desantaruppatti) of the conglomeration of elements > (bhuuta-sa.nghaata)' (Pm.363). Elsewhere Pm. (p.359) says of the air > element: ' "It blows" (par.87): it is stirred; the meaning is that the > conglomeration of elements is made to move (go) by its action as cause > for successive arising at adjacent locations (points)', and 'Propelling > (samabbhaahana) is the act of causing the successive arising at adjacent > locations of material groups (ruupa-kalaapa)' (p.362). > #120973 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 3, 2011 10:17 pm Subject: Re: Vis. 34 and Tiika philofillet Hi again Here is 34 and Tiika. I will throw this all up here and see what comes of it. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Vis. 34. Herein, all kinds of states whatsoever that have the characteristic > of 'being molested' (ruppana) by cold, etc., taken all together should > be understood as the materiality (ruupa) aggregate. > 1. That is of one kind with the characteristic of 'being molested'. > 2. It is also of two kinds when classed as (a) primary entity (bhuuta) > and (b) derived [by clinging] (upaadaaya). > > Pali Vis. 34: tattha ya.m ki~nci siitaadiihi ruppanalakkha.na.m > dhammajaata.m, sabba.m ta.m ekato katvaa ruupakkhandhoti veditabba.m. > tadeta.m ruppanalakkha.nena ekavidhampi bhuutopaadaayabhedato duvidha.m. > > Tiika: > 34. Tatthaati tesu pa~ncasu khandhesu. Ya.m ki~nciiti > anavasesapariyaadaana.m. > As to the word, herein, this means, in the five aggregates. As to the > expression, whatsoever, this means an all-inclusive treatment. > ..... (grammatical explanation of the expression ya.m ki~nci, what so ever.) > Siitaadiihiiti siitu.nhajighacchaapipaasaadiihi. Hetu-atthe ceta.m > kara.navacana.m. > (Molested) by cold etc. , this means by cold, heat, hunger, thirst, etc. > This is the instrumental case with the meaning of cause. .... > > Bhuutopaadaayabhedatoti ettha tadadhiinavuttitaaya bhavati ettha > upaadaayaruupanti bhuuta.m. > As to the expression, with regard to the classification as principal > elements and derived elements, here, the latter proceed by the condition of > dependence on them (principle elements), and thus they have become derived > (by clinging). > ....... > English: > As to the word, herein, this means, in the five aggregates. As to the > expression, whatsoever, this means an all-inclusive treatment. > ..... (grammatical explanation of the expression ya.m ki~nci, what so ever.) > (Molested) by cold etc. , this means by cold, heat, hunger, thirst, etc. > This is the instrumental case with the meaning of cause. .... > As to the expression, with regard to the classification as principal > elements and derived elements, here, the latter proceed by the condition of > dependence on them (principle elements), and thus they have become derived > (by clinging). > ....... > #120974 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 12:02 am Subject: Re: Vis. 34 and Tiika philofillet Hi again Re primary and derived rupa: > > 2. It is also of two kinds when classed as (a) primary entity (bhuuta) > > and (b) derived [by clinging] (upaadaaya). > > Tiika: > > > > As to the expression, with regard to the classification as principal > > elements and derived elements, here, the latter proceed by the condition of > > dependence on them (principle elements), and thus they have become derived > > (by clinging). Primary rupa are produced only by temperature if they are exterior - trees, rocks, but primary rupa of the body can be produced by kamma, citta, temperature...and nutriment, is that right? Anf the derived rupa are produced (derived) through clinging. I don't understand this tonight, sleepy. I found some good simile somewhere for relationship between derived and primary. Can't find it now... Later Phil #120975 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 12:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vis. 34 and Tiika nilovg Dear Phil, appreciating your interest. Op 3-dec-2011, om 14:02 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Primary rupa are produced only by temperature if they are exterior > - trees, rocks, but primary rupa of the body can be produced by > kamma, citta, temperature...and nutriment, is that right? ----- N; Yes, by four factors, but we have to differentiate what kinds by what factors. The sense organs by kamma, not by the other factors. ------- > Ph: Anf the derived rupa are produced (derived) through clinging. I > don't understand this tonight, sleepy. I found some good simile > somewhere for relationship between derived and primary. ----- N:Through clinging, figurative. The derived ruupas (upaadaa, or the gerund upaadaaya) cannot arise without the four great elements, they are dependent on them, 'take hold of them', 'grasp' them. Of course ruupas do not cling. ------ Nina. #120976 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 1:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vis. 34 and Tiika nilovg Dear Phil, Op 3-dec-2011, om 12:17 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > (Molested) by cold etc. , this means by cold, heat, hunger, thirst, > etc. > > This is the instrumental case with the meaning of cause. .... --------- N: If there were no ruupas of the body, we would not be subject to cold, heat, etc. There is a word association: ruupa and ruppana. ----- Nina. #120977 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 1:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote; N: Perhaps an example may help. There are the universals, cetasikas accompanying each citta, such as contact, sa~n~naa, concentration, and these are in themselves not akusala cetasikas. D: Let me try again: I understand: among the Cetasikas there are 13 variable factors ( 7 Universals , 6 Occasionals) and 25 Beautiful mental factors besides ´ the 14 akusala Cetasikas. Which may or may not accompany the citta. N:However, when they are accompanied by akusa cetasikas, by the kilesas, they become akusala, impure (schmutzig). Thus, this shows that conascent dhammas condition one another. D: The 14 unwholesome Cetasikas , when accompanying the citta, will pollute it , correct? If so, why kilesas? N: D:You were perhaps thinking of the ten kilesas only and wondering how they could make each other impure. But we have to consider the akusala citta and all other accompanying dhammas, not only the dhammas that are in themselves akusala. Does this help? D: not really ;-) It is not clear to me in which way the 10 kilesas are different in function/ nature from the 10 unwholesome cetasikas , of which they are identical by name (?) ... so far the kilesas appear to me as an unnecessary new classification ...(tautological) with Metta Dieter #120978 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 2:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "You have a point..." Scott: Situated on the top of my head - ha ha. N: "...First of all a similar case we discussed with Kh Sujin. The sa"nkhaara nimitta. Realities arise and fall away so fast...but the nimitta of it remains." Scott: To clarify, I had thought thus far that nimitta differs from concept. Kh Sujin: "...that is only a word. It is now!" N: "...there is a danger to be fixed on words, like the word concept, or: asking, is it a concept? Then we forget to attend to this moment..." Scott: I'd suggest that there is a difference between thinking about and considering things (not just 'words' but meaning of words in relation to realities) and getting 'fixed on words.' I don't consider clarifying what is 'concept' and what is 'nimitta' to be getting 'fixed on words.' Yes, it is in the moment that things occur, but there must be thinking and discussing, otherwise what are we doing on the list? I'm trying to get clear on what is the object of pa~n~naa at the level of pariyatti. This is said to be more than just 'intellectual' and so, what is it that makes it so? Pa~n~naa, I would say, and what does pa~n~naa 'understand?' That is the question. Not a good one? N: "...We discussed further: I asked how we can be aware of a nimitta. She said that it is a concept *of* a reality. We can just be aware of the characteristics that appear and do not have to think of nimitta at all..." Scott: I had heard it said a number of times that nimitta or a reality that had just fallen away is *not* concept, or differs from just concept, so this seems contradictory. I may have misunderstood. Do you see 'nimitta' to be 'concept?' What of 'nimitta' as 'shadow of a reality' - does this equal 'concept?' I'd read 'shadow of a reality' to be closer to the reality than being an actual 'concept.' Does 'shadow of a reality' mean 'concept?' (In other words, is pa~n~natti a synonym for nimitta?) N: "Thus, when discussing about concept we have to remember that there are many kinds of concepts and that the concept of a reality is not just any kind of concept. She said: it is now. And why do we remind each other all the time of the present reality? Because there are characteristics appearing that can be known through the six doors, one at a time..." Scott: And these are *not* concepts. These are realities. Or is it being said now that these are concepts? N: "...Mostly we are absorbed in thinking of a hand or a thing we touch, or the sound of this or that, but sometimes, without trying or wanting to be aware, just one reality can present itself through one doorway at a time. Then followed by many moments of thinking..." Scott: Again, is the 'one reality' a concept? If it is nimitta, and if 'nimitta' is now said to be synonymous with 'concept' (or, as is said, concept of a reality) then this seems to be saying something new (probably for me, but whatever). N: "...Kh Sujin explained that it is important to know the difference between moments of sati and moments without sati. It has to be very natural, as she stressed...We have to learn what the objects of satipa.t.thaana are, what sati of satipa.t.thaana is, and if well understood there can be conditions to study with awareness characteristics of realities..." Scott: This 'knowing' is natural, in the moment, and not a function of thinking. I get that. Satipa.t.thaana does not take concepts as objects, as I've been understanding. Is this now being amended? Are you saying that sati is aware of 'conceptual characteristics' now too? Is there a 'pariyatti' leve of satipa.t.thaana? N: "Indeed, pa~n~naa develops from pariyatti to pa.tipatti, but we cannot say with mathematical precision: now this is pariyatti and this is already a beginning of pa.tipatti. It also depends on the individual, it is not all black and white. Pariyatti is just a word and we do not have to think of it all the time, or think: is this a concept of a reality or a reality?" Scott: Okay, yes. I see that you may not consider my attempts at clarification to be useful. While the above sentiments are true, they don't satisfy as an explanation. I've already suggested elsewhere that I *don't* think that the borders between pariyatti and pa.tipatti are present in actuality - I've said this is an ongoing and recursive sort of thing. So we agree and that is not what I'm considering. In particular, while I know pariyatti is 'just a word' I don't think saying so at this time is satisfactory if there are some things to clarify. If one doesn't know something, one can say, 'I don't know' instead of starting to minimize the question by doing the zen-thing of 'its just words.' It is being said that pariyatti is so due to the presence of pa~n~naa, from time to time - that it's not just reading or thinking about stuff. It is being said on the one hand that pa~n~naa takes concepts as object, and on the other that one should ignore concepts because they are 'just words.' A bit confusing for me. N: "Mathematical precision is not possible in this field. Precise, logical definitions will not take us very far. Each person has to find out for himself, one has to develop one's 'own understanding', as Kh Sujin said. One has to listen, to consider a lot, and this can condition direct awareness and understanding, but we do not know when, as Kh Sujin said. She also remarked that nowhere in the teachings many details are given as to the development of insight in stages, because it is a personal matter (paccatta.m). What she stressed: the objects of understanding are the same, but understanding develops, becomes deeper. The objects are the characteristics of naama and ruupa as they present themselves one at a time through the six doorways." Scott: So, is it that 'nowhere in the teaching' we can find the answer to what is concept, what is nimitta, which of these is object for pa~n~naa at the level of pariyatti? Yeah, and while I appreciate the discussion, it seems to me that 'I don't know' - which might be the answer in this case - is not being expressed, rather is being replaced by 'it's a personal matter.' What is Abhidhamma if not 'mathematical precision,' for example? And I know it is not mathematics. If the question as to what sort of concept is taken by pa~n~naa, given that this is correct, has no answer then fine, then that is the answer. Do you consider the sorts of things I am considering in this thread to fall outside of the realm of 'considering a lot?' Scott. #120979 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 3:24 am Subject: Re: 'Right concepts' scottduncan2 Jon, Me: "...Specifically, this seems to suggest that consciousness - citta with pa~n~naa - creates it's own object ('concept of the Dhamma') within the same moment of it's arising." J: "Yes, I guess it does suggest that. But as to how that may occur (the 'mechanics'), I'm afraid I have no idea :-)). (But then that also goes for the mechanics of much of what we discuss here.) Any particular sticking points you'd like to raise?" Scott: Well, one would be whether or not my attempts to clarify this sort of thing at all fall outside of the limits of what is to be discussed on the list. A related one might be whether 'the mechanics' of things are not to be discussed. I do appreciate 'I have no idea' as an answer though. When I have no idea, I try to get one and I call that discussion. Otherwise, if you think that citta with pa~n~naa and concept of the Dhamma all arise at the same time, then fine. Sounds good to me. If 'creates it's own object' is imprecise, I wouldn't mind hearing about it. I say it that way, by the way, because concepts are not realities, are time-freed and all that, and so 'created' by mind. Scott. #120980 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 4:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Scott, Nina, all Scott wrote that he thought nimitta differs from concept. I've wondered whether to post about this or not, but I have heard A Sujin say that it is concept (India 2004) and later that it isn't. Whether this is an indication of the subtlety of it or that her own understanding is or was still developing on that point I don't know. There is an interesting talk in an airport departure lounge in India 2005, when people ask insistently about it and she shows a hint of irritation ( she does that on occasion, I like that, no fake niceness all the time.) On another occasion Sarah points out that she is talking a lot about knowing nimitta of characteristics of realities rather than chararacteristics of realties has she always had in the past, and A Sujin says "now it is time to speak of nimitta" or words to tht effect, a bit of a dodgy answer, in my opinion. I think her own understanding eas/is develiping on the point, so it could be that it is too subtle to be explained explicitly in the texts to give Scott tge very precise explanation he is looking for. Maybe. Phil #120981 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 4:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Dear KC (Nina, Jon, Sarah), KC: "Nimitta can be concepts or the signs that characteristics the meaning of dhamma." Scott: This isn't clear. Do you mean: Nimitta are either concepts or they are 'signs' related to the actual dhamma that has just fallen away (and its characteristics)? KC: "The understanding is to penetrate the meaning of the characteristics and not attending to the nimittas of characteristics. But without nimitta, we cannot know the characteristics of dhamma. Our understanding must start at nimitta until we can penetrate the meaning of dhamma directly." Scott: Is 'the meaning of characteristics' a reference to concepts? How do you differentiate 'nimitta' and 'concepts?' Or do you? Nina now seems to be suggesting that nimitta and pa~n~natti are identical. Nina, Jon, and Sarah have disagreed with you in various way in relation to your ideas about the place of concepts in satipa.t.thaana, but, frankly, it is all getting rather muddied on the list these days regarding this whole thing. Scott. #120982 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 4:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "...She also remarked that nowhere in the teachings many details are given as to the development of insight in stages, because it is a personal matter (paccatta.m). What she stressed: the objects of understanding are the same, but understanding develops, becomes deeper. The objects are the characteristics of naama and ruupa as they present themselves one at a time through the six doorways." Scott: This suggests that pa~n~naa is pa~n~naa and functions in the same way naturally throughout all the stages of it's development. While the objects taken, the rate, order and whatnot might be paccata.m, surely this can't mean that pa~n~natti is one thing for one and another thing for another; or that nimitta and pa~n~natti are either the same thing or different things depending on the 'person.' Nor can it mean that there is *no* precision necessary since it's all up to the individual. If this all *can't* be known because it isn't explained anywhere, then fine. If it *is* clarified somewhere, a consensus based on getting it straight would be a good result of ongoing discussions. So far it seems muddier than clearer. Scott. #120983 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 4:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Phil, Ph: "Scott wrote that he thought nimitta differs from concept...I have heard A Sujin say that it is concept (India 2004) and later that it isn't...On another occasion Sarah points out that she is talking a lot about knowing nimitta of characteristics of realities rather than characteristics of realties as she always had in the past...it could be that it is too subtle to be explained explicitly in the texts to give Scott the very precise explanation he is looking for. Maybe." Scott: Yeah. If it is not clear to anyone, then let's say so and start from what is clear. If there is clarity to be had let's try to find it. Scott. #120984 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 7:01 am Subject: Nimitta upasaka_howard Hi, all - It seem to me that a nimitta is the sign or mark produced by sa~n~na when operating on an object of consciousness. This would be a sort of proto-concept, an elementary, sense-datum that is mind-produced from the object, and is akin the "the percept" of Psychology. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #120985 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 9:29 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Scot > Scott: Yeah. If it is not clear to anyone, then let's say so and start from what is clear. If there is clarity to be had let's try to find it. Ph : Wouldn't "let's start from what is clear" mean that an element of thinking-correctly-about-it will be a prerequisite for the fleeting moment of seeing visible object (for example) so that the concept of what seeing is is given some kind of holy place in the process. Maybe just accepting that since nama and rupa rise and fall away so quickly, whatever appears cannot be a single dhamma, so it is that shadow of reality, whatever it is, let's just become more familiar with it gradullay, let's let sati and panna do their thing, let's not get in the way? Obviously I am not anti-intellectual about Dhamma, but maye there are times wanting to be precise on each and every pount can get in the way? Maybe? Phil #120986 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 9:37 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi again Correction: > Ph : Wouldn't "let's start from what is clear" mean that an element of thinking-correctly-about-it will be a prerequisite for the fleeting moment of seeing visible object (for example) > Should be "prerequisite for awareness of the fleeting etc..." I'll also add that having heard a very good teacher Sayadaw U Silananda (always hard to believe he had anything to do with the slow-mo fork lifters) say that the reality is technically speaking no longer present but for sake of satipatthana we say it is still present helped make it clear that A Sujin is not alone in speaking of nimitta in this way. Phil #120987 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 10:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Phil, Ph : Wouldn't 'let's start from what is clear' mean that an element of thinking-correctly-about-it will be a prerequisite for the fleeting moment of seeing visible object (for example) so that the concept of what seeing is is given some kind of holy place in the process..." Scott: No, I hardly think so, but to each his or her own, right? Hearing and considering the Dhamma are said around here to serve as conditions for pa~n~naa. I certainly do not have a concrete, 'practice'-oriented notion that by discussing stuff on the list I'm going to 'set conditions' on purpose or any such nonsense. Neither do I have any of the above mentioned notions about concepts having some sort of 'holy place' anywhere. No, I'm like, 'If we don't know, really, the difference between nimitta and pa~n~natti, then let's say we don't know and be done with it.' If, on the other hand, it is know, then let's show it - it might be in the texts or whatever. Ph: "..Maybe just accepting that since nama and rupa rise and fall away so quickly, whatever appears cannot be a single dhamma, so it is that shadow of reality, whatever it is, let's just become more familiar with it gradually, let's let sati and panna do their thing, let's not get in the way? Obviously I am not anti-intellectual about Dhamma, but maybe there are times wanting to be precise on each and every pount can get in the way? Maybe?" Scott: Again, to each his or her own. If it can be said that Alex asks good and reasonable questions (which I doubt) then the things I am wondering about are certainly (in my own opinion) of at least the same calibre. The list is for discussing the Dhamma. If I have a question, and if that question has an answer, then I think it is reasonable to pursue it since it *is* discussion. Getting 'precise' on a discussion list is hardly a problem, as far as I'm concerned, since it is not a 'practice' - it's just discussing the Dhamma; nor is it some 'holy activity' - it's just discussing. There is no 'lett[ing] sati and pa~n~naa do their thing' since they do (or don't) anyway. If the question has no answer, or is an 'imponderable' or whatever, then let it be said and we can be done with it. Until then, I'm interested. Many different things are being said about nimitta and pa~n~natti and the objects of pa~n~naa at the level of pariyatti. I'd like to know more. End of story. See? Later, man. Scott. #120988 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 10:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Scott > If the question has no answer, or is an 'imponderable' or whatever, then let it be said and we can be done with it. Until then, I'm interested. Many different things are being said about nimitta and pa~n~natti and the objects of pa~n~naa at the level of pariyatti. I'd like to know more. End of story. See? Later, man. > That's cool, I was kinda asking those questions to myself anyways, I used to (and maybe will again) get irritated (not that you are) by iconsistencies in the way A. Sujin explained nimitta, you are talking about a wider topic than that anyways.. Phil #120989 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 11:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Hey Phil, Ph: "That's cool, I was kinda asking those questions to myself anyways, I used to (and maybe will again) get irritated (not that you are) by iconsistencies in the way A. Sujin explained nimitta, you are talking about a wider topic than that anyways.." Scott: Oh no, I certainly don't feel 'irritated' - I'm very interested to study and discuss this in the way one does on a discussion list. Very cool. There seem to be inconsistencies - I'm into sorting them out in the interest of better understanding. We're being told that pa~n~naa is somehow in the mix, and that it's a 'personal' thing when it is so, who can say that my pursuit of knowledge is messed up? What is not cool is the notion that discussing on a list is somehow and mysteriously part of a byzantine sort of practice wherein it wrecks something precious to ask the wrong question or something. Or when it gets into 'pa~n~naa and sati are like personal and so we don't need to discuss certain terms' when terms have been discussed by others at other times with no apparent problem attached. Scott. #120990 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 11:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vis. 34 and Tiika philofillet Hi Nina, all > > (Molested) by cold etc. , this means by cold, heat, hunger, thirst, > > etc. > > > This is the instrumental case with the meaning of cause. .... > --------- > N: If there were no ruupas of the body, we would not be subject to > cold, heat, etc. > There is a word association: ruupa and ruppana. > I add this from Expositor (p.392, Tan) about another aspect of the primary rupa which I hadn't thought about, their role in providing sense of continuity (if I understand correctly): "The 'great essentials' or 'phenomena' are so-called for such reasons as the manifestation of their greatness. For they are called "'great essentials' [or primaries] ecause of the manifestation of their greatness, because of the illusory resemblances they show in phenomena, the immensity of their maintenance (parihaaro), the immentsity of their metapmorpheses, their vast elementality. Of these terms the first means that they are manifested as vast in a continuity that is 'grasped at'...." I think there is a derived rupa (one of the aspects of rupa rather than rupa that has characteristic to be studied) that is "continuity", right? Does this mean that contributes to the distorted percept of permanence/continuity, kind of working together with sanna, so to speak. (Though it can't be said rupa has a function..) Thanks, Nina. Whenever you have time. Phil #120991 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 11:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vis. 34 and Tiika philofillet Hi Nina > > Ph: And the derived rupa are produced (derived) through clinging. I > > don't understand this tonight, sleepy. I found some good simile > > somewhere for relationship between derived and primary. > ----- > N:Through clinging, figurative. The derived ruupas (upaadaa, or the > gerund upaadaaya) cannot arise without the four great elements, they > are dependent on them, 'take hold of them', 'grasp' them. Of course > ruupas do not cling. Ph: Thanks, that is clearer now. Phil #120992 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 11:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" philofillet Hi Scott > What is not cool is the notion that discussing on a list is somehow and mysteriously part of a byzantine sort of practice wherein it wrecks something precious to ask the wrong question or something. Or when it gets into 'pa~n~naa and sati are like personal and so we don't need to discuss certain terms' when terms have been discussed by others at other times with no apparent problem attached. Ph: I see what you mean. But you know, my and my baby panna, it's gonna be a doctor some day, don't touch it, it's mine, working its way to look after me... I appreciate your sticking to this point, and pointing our hidden aspects of "practice" in the way we approach studying Dhamma. I won't deny that I see it as a practice, and that every time I open a Dhamma book there is some ditthi that the reading is working to add to conditions in some way, natch I think it helps...so I like your reminders. Phil #120993 From: "connie" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 11:17 am Subject: Re: Nimitta nichiconn dear Howard, All, chasing some bookish stuff on nimitta beginning with a Note in the back of Points of Controversy. peace, connie ==== Note #8, on Nimitta / Pts of Controversy, pp387-388 (X.3, $4, p.246) Nimitta is derived by some from ni+maa, to limit; and is defined as 'that which limits its own fruit (effect)': attano phala.m niminaateeti {ee??c}(Abhidhaanappadiipikaa-suuci). According to this definition it denotes a causal factor, limiting, determining, conditioning, characterizing, etc., its own effect*. Hence anything entering into a causal relation, by which its effect is signified, marked, or characterized, is a nimitta. An object, image, or concept which, on being meditated upon, induces samaadhi (Jhaana) is a nimitta (see the states specified in Compendium, p.54). False opinion (di.t.thi) engendered by hallucination concerning impermanence -- in other words, a perverted view of things as permanent -- is a nimitta (ibid., p.217). This functions either as a *cause* of 'will-to-live,' or as a *sign* of worldliness. Emancipation from this nimitta is termed animittavimokkha (ibid., p.216). Again, sexual characteristics are comprised under four heads: linga, nimitta, aakappa, kutta, nimitta, standing for outward characteristics, male or female (Bud.Psy.Eth., $$633, 634). Later exegeses, deriving the word from the root mih, to pour out, are probably derivations d'occasion. Now in this argument (X.3) the opponent confuses the na nimitta[-gaahii] -- 'does not grasp at the general [or sex] characters of the object seen, heard, etc.' -- of the quotation with animitta, a synonym, like 'emptiness' (su~n~nataa) of Nibbaana. He judges that the Path-graduate, when he is not -nimitta-grasping, is grasping the a-nimitta or signless (Nibbaana), instead of exercising self-control in presence of alluring features in external objects, whether these be attractive human beings or what not. According to the Commentary the expression cited, 'does not grasp at, etc.,' refers 'not to the moment of visual or other sense-consciousness, but to the javana-kkha.na, or moment of apperception; hence even in the wordly course of things it is inconclusive.' This is made clearer in the following discourse (X.4), where ethical matters are stated to lie outside the range of sense-consciousness as such. ==== Controverted Points. X.3 That one may develop the Path while enjoying the fivefold cognitions of sense. X.4 That the five kinds of sense-consciousness are good and bad (have positive moral quality). (in Guide thru Abhi. pdf pp98-99, #99-101) ==== *n1: Cf. p.226, n1 VIII.9 - That physical actions [involved in bodily and vocal intimations] preceding from god or bad thoughts amount to a moral act of karma. (pp221-226 Pts. Contro.) {p96 Guide Abhi pdf, #82} p225-6: [38] And again: 'There are, bhikkhus, three modes of volitional acts of body, four modes of volitional acts of speech, and three modes of volitional acts of mind, all of which amount to immoral deeds, bringing forth ill and entailing it as a result. And there are a like number of modes of volitional acts of body, speech, and mind amounting to moral [karma], bringing forth and entailing happiness as result'. {1} {1} We cannot trace this passage (cf. Compendium, pp145-6). The Burmese translator adds a note: 'The Theravaadin takes kaaya, vacii, mano, when compounded with kamma, to denote merely a means (nimitta), and kamma by itself to denote volition (cetanaa). But the opponent takes each compound to mean a moral act (of deed, word, or thought).' Hereby we see how certain purely *un*moral actions involved in gestures and speech, proceeding from moral thoughts, came to be regarded as also moral. {skipping Compendium pp145-6}c. ==== Compendium, p54. The kasi.na-object selected and meditated upon is termed 'the mark for preparation' (parikamma-nimitta). When, after being contemplated, it is depicted to the imagination, the image, which is the exact copy of the original with all its original faults (kasi.na-dosa's), and is represented to the mind as a vivid reality, as if it were seen by the eye, is termed 'the mark for upholding.' {uggaha-nimitta} The concentration of thought practised on both these classes of nimitta's, percept and image, is termed 'preliminary concentration' {parikamma-samaadhi}; and we have seen that concentration is the power of individualizing (ekaggataa) developed by practice. By this preliminary concentration, the image, when it is turned into a concept (pa~n~natti), is divested of its reality and its faults, and becomes a sublimated copy, an abstract, yet still an individual. This conceptualized image, or after-image, which can no longer be depicted to sense or imagination as a concrete individual, is now termed 'mark-equivalent' (pa.tibhaaga nimitta). On the realization of this last class of nimitta, the five Hindrances to progress (niivara.naa) are inhibited, whereupon the preliminary develops into concentration, 'intermediate concentration' {upacaara-samaadhi}. We shall revert to the inhibition of the Hindrances when we come to deal with jhaana. == Compendium pp216-7. $9. Of Emancipation Here, the contemplation of No-Soul{2}, as letting go the firm belief in a soul{3}, is a channel of emancipation, called the 'contemplation of Emptiness.' Again, the contemplation of Impermanence, as letting go the sign of hallucination {4} [is a channel of emancipation], called the 'contemplation of the Signless,' and the contemplation of Ill, as letting go that 'hankering-after' which is craving, [is a channel of emancipation] called the 'contemplation of the "Not-Hankered-after"'. *skipping notes 2 & 3.c {4} Vipallaasa. There are three kinds of vipallaasa -- namely, sa~n~naa-vipallaasa (erroneous perception), citta-vipallaasa (erroneous ideas), and di.t.thi-vipallaasa (erroneous views), by which people regard impermanent things as permanent (anicce niccan ti). And these three vipallaasas are called nimitta, 'sign.' Hallucination is itself the 'sign.' Hence the Path receives three names according to the course taken by 'Insight leading to Emergence': -- namely, when that Insight discerns [things] as without soul, the Path is called 'Empty-release' {1}; when it discerns [things] as impermanent, the Path is called 'Signless-release': when it discerns things as evil, the Path is called 'Not-hankered-after-release.' The Fruit likewise receives these three names according to those three ways of coming into the Path along the avenues of the Path. However, in the process of attaining full fruition, it is only the means -- namely, insight by which respective 'fruits' arise to those exercising insight after the manner above described -- that gives the names, 'Empty-release,' etc. Nevertheless, the fact of the [common] object {2}, and of common essential properites, causes this triad of names to be applied equally to all everywhere. {3} So far for the section on emancipation. *{skipping notes for p.217}c ==== Bud. Psy. Ethics 633-4: itthindriya.m / fem. & purisindriya.m / masc. faculties. skipping all but some of n3/633: Literally the indriya.m -- the faculty, potentiality of the female. Under "appearance", which the Cy (321) rules to be here the import of linga.m (= sa.n.thaana.m, cf. Mil. 133-4), he indicates the physical proportions ...... Characteristics (nimitta.m) are that by which she is recognizable (sa~njaanana.m), both external bodily marks (snip) and modes of dressing. Under "occupation" (kutta.m = kiriyaa) there is an allusion to girls' distinctive amusements - (snip). Under "deportment", the "undemonstrativeness" (avisada.m) in women's walking ...(snip, etc)...snip, snip ... This "indriya" is discernible, not by the eye, but by the mind (mano). ==== ps. whatever 'apperception' means! #120994 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 12:10 pm Subject: Re: Nimitta scottduncan2 Howard, H: "It seem to me that a nimitta is the sign or mark produced by sa~n~na when operating on an object of consciousness. This would be a sort of proto-concept, an elementary, sense-datum that is mind-produced from the object, and is akin the 'the percept' of Psychology." Scott: The problem here is that you are suggesting that nimitta and sa~n~naa are identical. San~n~naa has characteristic and function of it's own, and that is marking etc. - and I know you do not agree with this - whereas nimitta seems to refer to something else altogether. I don't equate Abhidhamma with 'Psychology' nor do think that mixing things is particularly helpful. The Dhamma is not like any modern stuff (although 'percept' is like 19th century psychology) and one can't mix apples and oranges. Scott. #120995 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 12:55 pm Subject: Re: Nimitta scottduncan2 connie, Thanks. Just to condense and cause clarity to appear: "...Nimitta...to limit; and is defined as 'that which limits its own fruit (effect)'...it denotes a causal factor, limiting, determining, conditioning, characterizing, etc., its own effect*..." Scott: These are the hallmarks of a dhamma - a reality. "...An object, image,or concept which, on being meditated upon, induces samaadhi (Jhaana) is a nimitta...." Scott: This seems to refer to concept. "...False opinion (di.t.thi) engendered by hallucination concerning impermanence -- in other words, a perverted view of things as permanent -- is a nimitta..." Scott: This seems to refer to the content of thought - unless 'di.t.thi' is a mental factor. "...According to the Commentary the expression cited, 'does not grasp at, etc.,' refers 'not to the moment of visual or other sense consciousness, but to the javana-kkha.na, or moment of apperception; hence even in the wordly course of things it is inconclusive.'..." "...'The Theravaadin takes kaaya, vacii, mano, when compounded with kamma, to denote merely a means (nimitta), and kamma by itself to denote volition (cetanaa)..." Scott: Interesting. A 'means' seems to involve realities in (to use a controversial word) 'process.' "...The concentration of thought practised on both these classes of nimitta's, percept and image, is termed 'preliminary concentration' {parikamma-samaadhi}..." Scott: Nimitta as 'percept' and 'image' - more like realities. "...the image, when it is turned into a concept (pa~n~natti), is divested of its reality and its faults, and becomes a sublimated copy, an abstract, yet still an individual. This conceptualized image, or after-image, which can no longer be depicted to sense or imagination as a concrete individual, is now termed 'mark-equivalent' (pa.tibhaaga nimitta)..." Scott: This is like the 'shadow of realities' discussed before. "...Characteristics (nimitta.m) are that by which she is recognizable (sa~njaanana.m), both external bodily marks (snip) and modes of dressing..." Scott: More like concept - a woman is thought about and construed. Initial conclusion: Obviously 'nimitta' has many different meanings. Scott. #120996 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 1:47 pm Subject: Re: Nimitta philofillet Hi Connie and Scott (and Howard) Great teamwork! That is now the clearest peesentation I have seen of the various meanings of nimitta. My panna will suckle happliy. Phil #120997 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 2:16 pm Subject: The GOOD :-) bhikkhu5 Friends: The GOOD! Good is the arising of Insight. Good is the avoidance of all Evil. Good are friends, when a need arises. Good is the state of the accomplished. Good is a prior righteous life, when old. Good is it, to leave behind all Suffering. Good is contentment with just what one has. Good is being a Father, a Mother, and a Bhikkhu. Good is the stored merit well done at the moment of death. Good is faith, when firmly established, & unshakable by doubt. Yeah! http://What-Buddha-Said.net/Canon/Sutta/KN/Dhammapada.Verse_331_333.story.ht m Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Samâhita _/\_ * http://What-Buddha-Said.net #120998 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 3:39 pm Subject: Re: 'Right concepts' epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Jon, > > Me: "...Specifically, this seems to suggest that consciousness - citta with pa~n~naa - creates it's own object ('concept of the Dhamma') within the same moment of it's arising." > > J: "Yes, I guess it does suggest that. But as to how that may occur (the 'mechanics'), I'm afraid I have no idea :-)). (But then that also goes for the mechanics of much of what we discuss here.) Any particular sticking points you'd like to raise?" > > Scott: Well, one would be whether or not my attempts to clarify this sort of thing at all fall outside of the limits of what is to be discussed on the list. A related one might be whether 'the mechanics' of things are not to be discussed. I do appreciate 'I have no idea' as an answer though. When I have no idea, I try to get one and I call that discussion. > > Otherwise, if you think that citta with pa~n~naa and concept of the Dhamma all arise at the same time, then fine. Sounds good to me. If 'creates it's own object' is imprecise, I wouldn't mind hearing about it. I say it that way, by the way, because concepts are not realities, are time-freed and all that, and so 'created' by mind. This is obviously a subject that's interested me for a long time, and it makes sense that it's confusing, since concept is so central in our lives and yet is considered to be the height of illusion. I think to answer the question of how the "good concepts" can arise with panna, it would make sense to understand the relationship of citta to concept in the first place. How does concept actually get created? What mental factors are responsible? What is the actual moment-to-moment relationship of arising cittas to the concepts that are entertained? What in fact is "thinking" in technical terms? I think we talk about all of these things very loosely and I'd like to know where to look to understand what the nature of this illusory creation really is. Is there a place where pannati is discussed in a concise and systematic way? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #120999 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 4, 2011 3:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" epsteinrob Hi Phil, Scott and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Scott, Nina, all > > Scott wrote that he thought nimitta differs from concept. I've wondered whether to post about this or not, but I have heard A Sujin say that it is concept (India 2004) and later that it isn't. Whether this is an indication of the subtlety of it or that her own understanding is or was still developing on that point I don't know. There is an interesting talk in an airport departure lounge in India 2005, when people ask insistently about it and she shows a hint of irritation ( she does that on occasion, I like that, no fake niceness all the time.) On another occasion Sarah points out that she is talking a lot about knowing nimitta of characteristics of realities rather than chararacteristics of realties has she always had in the past, and A Sujin says "now it is time to speak of nimitta" or words to tht effect, a bit of a dodgy answer, in my opinion. I think her own understanding eas/is develiping on the point, so it could be that it is too subtle to be explained explicitly in the texts to give Scott tge very precise explanation he is looking for. Maybe. Nimitta seems to always refer to some kind of image, from the nimitta that appear in jhana to the use of nimitta as an imperfect seeing of dhammas. Concept is often used to refer to verbal understandings that gloss over the actual seeing of dhammas, such as "car" or "person." When we see a "car" or "person" we are seeing a concept, but when we see a nimitta it is often an imprecise or distorted view of something that is real. So it is said that dhammas arise so fast we can't see them, but we can see the actuality of the dhamma reflected in its nimitta when our understanding is strong enough. In that context, K. Sujin has said on tape and reported by others that it doesn't matter whether you are seeing nimitta or dhamma if the seein is correct; the dhammas involved can be understood correctly even if they aren't being seen in "real-time." So an advanced nimitta can be an approximation or delayed correct view of real dhammas for those who can't see them as they occur but have correct understanding. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = =