#121400 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:39 pm Subject: Re: kamma and this moment sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, Great stuff....look f/w to more snippets... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > KH: Thanks for your interest. I have invented something that I think there will be some demand for – when people find out what it is. The trouble is getting my invention patented, manufactured and marketed. .... S: A "Wrong View Zapper"? An alarm bell that rings everytime an atta-belief arises? Or some device to scare off the long-boarders intruding in your space? Plenty of demand your way, but you wouldn't be so mean! Give us clues along the way.... ... > > Internet forums warn about unscrupulous "let us help you with your invention" companies, and so I was very careful in choosing the right industrial designer. And, you guessed it, I got ripped off. > > The new people I am with seem much more trustworthy, but I am still worried about over servicing. It does seem to be standard practice in the business world. .... S: Wouldn't know..... I did read the other day about a high school student in the States, an arts student, who came up with a bright idea of a "phantom pain" device after seeing the difficulties of one limbless relative. She was put in touch with the science department of the local uni and they helped her find reliable industrial designers etc. Now she's CEO of a company manufacturing the devices, aged about 17. ... > As for Dhamma reminders, they arrived none too soon at 3 o'clock this morning. After pacing the floor unable to sleep, I was tempted to try some sort of formal wise-consideration to help me stop worrying and get back to sleep. But then I remembered: belief in the efficacy of formal practice is wrong view and one of the ten fetters. What was I thinking! .... S: You could have tried the 'Worry Beads'!! Just passing dhammas of no consequence as you realised. At least you have space to pace! ... > > The need for a formal practice – the need to do something about dhammas – is conditioned by clinging to results. And, of course, by belief in a self that would experience those results. > > It doesn't matter one iota whether our worldly plans succeed or fail. Either way there are only dhammas. > > It also occurred to me that worldly plans were child's play compared to dhammas. Unsuccessful plans can hang around for years before they fail, whereas the presently arisen dhamma-arammana is doomed to instant destruction. And that is the only reality I will ever know. ... S: All very true and helpful to hear your reflections. As you say, in the end, what does it matter whether the worldly plans succeed or not? Death can occur at any moment now. ... > > As it happened I went straight back to sleep, but let's not give formal practice any credit for that! :-) ... S: Whatever helps..... The breathing or visualizing can be like taking an anxiety pill - nothing to do with the Dhamma, but can be good medicine! ... > PS: I have bought one of those Wi Fi things, so being at my mother's place – as I am now – is no longer an excuse for not posting. ... S: Oh good, about time! You can give us more updates about the new business venture with the worries and dhamma reminders and also tell us about your mother, the caring, the dhamma points and so on.... As you say, no excuses now! Metta Sarah ====== #121401 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! sarahprocter... Hi Colette, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > > S: As soon as the last moment of experience of this life falls away, it is followed by the first moment of experience of the next life. > > colette: EXACTLY. I clearly recall that there was NO SEPARATION BETWEEN CONSCIOUSNESSES. I have a memory of going to bed the night before the accident then I remember the actuality of a different reality. Then, wham, I wake up, about a month later, in the hospital. .... S: This is what I'm hoping will happen to my friend in the coma. No memory of the events, so it seems like it was a kind of death, but actually, whether now or in a coma, in or out of consciousness (conventionally speaking), there are cittas (moments of consciousness) arising and falling away all the time. They are still all the cittas of the life in the human realm, but there is a kind of death, the death of citta, at every single moment. Even though there's no recollection of that time, even though the eyes were closed and it seemed there was no consciousness, there's still some experiencing through the senses and lots of mind-door activity. Like a baby in the womb - no recollection later, but still sense and mind-door activity. Metta Sarah p.s Nina and all, I visited my friend for the last time today before our trip. A tiny bit more alertness during the physical therapy, especially when they 'stood' her up on a board - eyes open, a little swallowing, a little coughing. Hints of recognition. Lots of opportunities for metta and karuna and wise reflection. We just do what we can to help in these circumstances - really, just dhammas and it's all down to kamma! ===== #121402 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > There has been some dispute about what external satipatthana means in Buddhist circles. Is there an agreed-upon understanding of it here? I would be interested to know whether it involves one's own external rupas, or whether it is related to other people, as some have interpreted. ... S: Just one more point to add to Nina's - when satipatthana develops, there's more understanding of dhammas, more understanding that there are no people, so less and less idea of 'one's own' or 'other people's' - just realities which are experienced and can be known. Metta Sarah ===== #121403 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:01 pm Subject: Re: Three jokes sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: >...Sarah's yoga (I guess she is pretty seriously about it, she goes on trips to meet her teachers) probably contributes in some way to her patient energy here, but understanding Dhamma has gotta be best. So that's what I want to discuss here, thanks. .... S: Just a clarification about "Sarah's yoga"! I like to do quite a lot of exercise because I live in a tiny space and sit around a lot the rest of the time. For me, yoga is a kind of exercise I've always liked a lot. I do strong, physical yoga. It's like the swimming, tai chi or hiking for me - a kind of medicine that helps keep the every-ageing body fit. I can't do much hiking these days because of my hip injury. I don't think it has anything to do with developing "patient energy", but I did read an article the other day about a strong correlation that has been found between physical exercise and memory, so thought of you! So much comes down to past kamma and accumulations for kusala/akusala now. As you say "Understanding Dhamma has gotta be best"!! Metta Sarah ==== #121404 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:45 am Subject: Re: Patthana chanting. philofillet Hi Robert Glorious!! And the brief summaries are so clear. For example, the sense objects helping cittas to arise, like the invalid pulling himself up by a stick or string, what a helpful way to understand object condition. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear all, > These two youtubes are of a monk chanting Patthana, conditional relations (the 24 paccaya), the last book of the Abhidhamma > I am the farang giving the English summaries. > The place is the Dhamma Study and Support Foundation (main teacher Sujin Boriharnwanaket) in bangkok. > > http://youtu.be/eYOwrUMqwvU > > http://youtu.be/tG6dx-dFmDQ > #121405 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:16 am Subject: Re: Patthana chanting. philofillet Hi again Robert I wrote: -- For example, the sense objects helping cittas to arise, like the invalid pulling himself up by a stick or string, what a helpful way to understand object condition. Re this metaphor, seeing consciousness or other panca vinnanas are quite weak, thus the metaphor fits. However javana cittas which can be strong (which A Sujin prefers rather than saying unprompted) , is that right? Thanks. Phil #121406 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:29 am Subject: Re: Three jokes philofillet Hi Sarah > > So much comes down to past kamma and accumulations for kusala/akusala now. As you say "Understanding Dhamma has gotta be best"!! > Right, I thought about this after recommending a nutritious diet, yoga etc to Lukas. The cittas behind the conventional action of eating healthy food or exercising rise and fall beyond anyone's control so recommending such behaviour is as naive (?) as recommending metta. I guess, maybe it's different... Phil #121407 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 16-dec-2011, om 10:48 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > Nina and all, I visited my friend for the last time today before > our trip. A tiny bit more alertness during the physical therapy, > especially when they 'stood' her up on a board - eyes open, a > little swallowing, a little coughing. Hints of recognition. Lots of > opportunities for metta and karuna and wise reflection. We just do > what we can to help in these circumstances - really, just dhammas > and it's all down to kamma! ------ N: I have been thinking of Sharon, discussed with Lodewijk that you must have had a difficult week. And leaving now when she is in such a condition and you cannot help her any longer. But the signs you describe sound rather good. I said to Lodewijk that you would take it all in the Dhamma way. Thanks for the nice card and photo, is the swimmingpool in Bgk or Hongkong? ------ Nina. #121408 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness moellerdieter Dear Nina, D: Question: when we include metta in adosa cetasika , why not > karuna and mudita? ------ N: Because they have different characteristics. D: yes , however my idea was : all three are covered by adosa . Adosa is the opposite of dosa (aversion,rejection, hate ) , the best term , which I can think of, is 'love' in the sense of our Christian culture. This meaning of love includes kindness, compassion and empathy , even equanimity , altogether understood as heavenly abode (Brahma Vihara). N: They do not arise with every sobhana citta, like adosa. D:then we need to define adosa in another way in order to distinguish it from the group of the 2 illimitable cetasikas (appamana) , i.e. karuna and mudita . (You may agree : in order to understand the 52 cetasikas in daily life, we need to identify its characteristics and get a clou about the grouping) N: Karu.na cetasika has as object a person who suffers, and one wants to alleviate suffering. Like Sarah visiting her friend in hospital. D: yes.. N: But karu.na and mettaa alternate. She wants to help with selfless affection and then mettaa may arise. We have to consider realities moment by moment. D: that is possible , yes ... in some situations a tough action out of compassion may be the order... the kindness eventually hidden N: Mudita: you rejoice in someone else's prosperity or wellbeing. No jealousy. D: yes.. but my problem is the understanding of the sub classification under the 3 main groups ( 13 ethically variable factors , 14 unwholesome mental factors,25 beautiful (wholesome) factors ). For example: why is metta not mentioned under the group of illimitable cetasikas. Why is shamelessness an universal (unwholesome) cetasika and conceit an occasional ... and right speech under the 3 cetasikas of abstinence (virati)...is there any detailed explanation by the commentaries? with Metta Dieter #121409 From: "Lukas" Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:08 am Subject: Re: How to develop right understanding? szmicio Hi Phil, > > L: The recent few days, I feel agitation about some matters. > > Ph: Who doesn't have agitation? Only the arahant. But I know what you mean. There is some agitation that stands out, a general sense of anxiety about life. But maybe you are talking about a more specific anxiety, like addictions or something. L: No I meant, attraction to a girl. > But we are born to have agitation. The khandas are a disease we are born with, most people who don't know Dhamma seek all kinds of ways to moderate or improve the condition of the khandas. L: I like this very much. Improving the state of khandhas. > Ph: My winter vacation starts next week. Let's try to set up a Skype talk! L: Yes wonderful. We need to just fix a date and an hour. > So if you still have that lifestyle you described before of getting up late and smoking a bunch of cigarettes and drinking a lot of coffee (I love it!) and having those beers later, that might interfere with positive conditions for understanding. L: I am not doing it anymore, since 2 months. Just coffee. Best wishes Lukas #121410 From: "Lukas" Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:27 am Subject: Re: Patthana chanting. szmicio Dear Robert, Very Good and inspiring. best wishes Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear all, > These two youtubes are of a monk chanting Patthana, conditional relations (the 24 paccaya), the last book of the Abhidhamma > I am the farang giving the English summaries. > The place is the Dhamma Study and Support Foundation (main teacher Sujin Boriharnwanaket) in bangkok. > > http://youtu.be/eYOwrUMqwvU > > http://youtu.be/tG6dx-dFmDQ > #121411 From: "Lukas" Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:34 am Subject: Re: Patthana chanting. szmicio Dear Robert, Could you say what is chanted? I want to look into those part of Pathana. Best wishes Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Robert, > Very Good and inspiring. > > best wishes > Lukas > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > These two youtubes are of a monk chanting Patthana, conditional relations (the 24 paccaya), the last book of the Abhidhamma > > I am the farang giving the English summaries. > > The place is the Dhamma Study and Support Foundation (main teacher Sujin Boriharnwanaket) in bangkok. > > > > http://youtu.be/eYOwrUMqwvU > > > > http://youtu.be/tG6dx-dFmDQ > > > #121412 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthana chanting. nilovg Dear Rob K, Thank you very much, this is a wonderful idea. I have some trouble navigating, when I want to stop and start again the next day from that point. Nina. Op 16-dec-2011, om 10:23 heeft rjkjp1 het volgende geschreven: > Dear all, > These two youtubes are of a monk chanting Patthana, conditional > relations (the 24 paccaya), the last book of the Abhidhamma #121413 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthana chanting. rjkjp1 Dear Nina one way is too check the slier at bottom of video and see what time it says. then when u restart slide it along to that time. Lukas Not sure of right name, Nina can tell u i think Phil, not my writing , it was by a monk so your guess is as good as mine. thanks everyone for nice comments robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob K, > Thank you very much, this is a wonderful idea. I have some trouble > navigating, when I want to stop and start again the next day from > that point. > Nina. > Op 16-dec-2011, om 10:23 heeft rjkjp1 het volgende geschreven: > > > Dear all, > > These two youtubes are of a monk chanting Patthana, conditional > > relations (the 24 paccaya), the last book of the Abhidhamma > > > > #121414 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:05 pm Subject: Re: How to develop right understanding? philofillet Hi Lukas Ph: But maybe you are talking about a more specific anxiety, like addictions or something. > L: No I meant, attraction to a girl. Ph: Well, that is not going to end any day soon! But I think one day when our understanding deepens we'll start to get tired of that, conditions for being attracted to people (sexually or otherwise) will be used up. Just dhammas. A whole lot of fret and worry for a little phassa! Well, on the other hand, it can be emotionally healthy to have a girlfriend/wife. Can't live without them, can't live with them, that's an old joke in English. > > But we are born to have agitation. The khandas are a disease we are born with, most people who don't know Dhamma seek all kinds of ways to moderate or improve the condition of the khandas. > > L: I like this very much. Improving the state of khandhas. Ph: I think it's important. Of course when I said "adjust the room temperatuire" I didn't mean the actual temperature, but the emotional conditions we like to have: love, respect, friendship, all kinds of emotional comfort. Self does all sorts of manoeuvring to get it. > > Ph: My winter vacation starts next week. Let's try to set up a Skype talk! > > L: Yes wonderful. We need to just fix a date and an hour. Ph; I'll contact you off list next week to set something up. > > > So if you still have that lifestyle you described before of getting up late and smoking a bunch of cigarettes and drinking a lot of coffee (I love it!) and having those beers later, that might interfere with positive conditions for understanding. > > L: I am not doing it anymore, since 2 months. Just coffee. > Ph: That's great. If you cut that stuff out of your life at such a young age, it will be to your advantage, both in terms of conventional health and conditions for understanding, I think. I miss marijuana more than alcohol, ah, for just a joint. But then I think about the Buddha, is my opinion of his Dhamma so low that I would be happy about ignoring his advice on intoxicants? But who knows, there is no way to say whether I will go back to drugs and alcohol. Conditions beyond my control. Phil Phil #121415 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma and this moment, just like now! colette_aube Hi Sarah, Again, you mistaken my wording and statement. I CLEARLY REMEMBER A SEPARATE REALITY. In fact, when I came home from the hospital my parents had me immediately attend high school so that I would not lose my Junior yr. and could graduate on schedule. I realized, as I recooperated and went to class, I realized that THERE WAS/IS A STRONG POSSIBILITY THAT THIS IS NOT THE WORLD THAT I WAS IN BEFORE MY ACCIDENT. EVERYTHING is the same, however, the people were totally different. I was so shocked by realizing this potential reality that I refused to talk about the NDE. EVERYBODY WANTED ME TO TALK ABOUT IT, they were all so interested, so inquisitive, as if they were looking at a TABLIOD publication on the shelf at the check out counter in a grocery store selling vegetables. I RECOILED, withdrew, from the ugliness of having to actually deal with that reality. A reality that I could not explain nor did I understand it. I have CLEAR MEMORIES of that day, in 1978. I am still shocked by it's clarity. I have to admit that I am continually going to maintain a conscious relationship with "something" (see ANIMISM, see also Kabbalah, see also SHINTO, see also YOGACARA, Nyingma, etc.) Noumena or NAMA is RUPA in that consciousness. It truly is a MIND ONLY CONSCIOUSNESS. I have studied this since 1980. I have found that, at first I thought it was my own mind playing tricks on me, but after deeper study on this specific potential, I conclude that the reality is far too deeper and cannot nearly be explained by some bullshit from the king of masturbation, the cocaine addict Sigmund FRAUD from the Vienne School. While Carl Gustav Jung begins to touch on the complexities, I never had enough time, back in the mid 1980s to actually delve deep into THE COLLECTED WORKS OF C.G.JUNG (bollingen series XX, Princeton U.Press) From what little I've had the time and opportunity to study of ABHIDHARMA I can easily say that I'll stick with BUDDHISM until I can be confident enough with it as I became with Kabbalah, in the 1990s. Personally, I love the Buddhist calm EXPERTISE in these matters. Take, for instance, the intensity of the DZOGCHEN meditation practice. To buddhist monks, this practice is already a known reality that they have spent a long time documenting, the procedure, the effects on the individual, the effects on the EXTERIOR WORLD of the individual, etc. Sure, there may be things that they have not yet documented well enough to be totally confident in knowing CAUSE & EFFECT but when they run into such strange things it does not change their bodies "condition" i.e. blood pressure, heart rate, etc. They have a continual focus and are very SINGLE MINDED, which is a foundational requirement for PROPER MEDITATIONS. I believe that I have surpassed all the material that I spent the first six years copying and studying at/from the library. Now I've gotta start copying/printing more IN-DEPTH material that I sometimes run into and that can be very helpful to me. IMO. I checked out a few books from the CHICAGO PUBLIC LIBRARY. They know that I do not read the books continuously front from cover to cover. I take my time EXPERIENCING EACH CHAPTER. The last book that I checked out was on INTERLIBRARY LOAN from the SKOKIE LIBRARY. They put a restriction on the book that I could not renew checking it out. So, I could only have the book once and then it was to be returned to Skokie IL after my time had expired. Now, if the book was my book, as I had a library of "grimoires" in Western Hermetics, Golden Dawn, Illuminati, Ordo Templi Orientus, etc. but that was back in the 80s and 90s when I had nothing other to do and wasn't gonna spend my time crying about being excluded from society by the omnipotent MIDDLE CLASS and their gang psychology. These "esoteric practices" and "esoteric theories" are more real to me than reality is real. As I told members of Western Hermetic societies when I first found the internet back in 2004, working this stuff is like a drug to me, I am so addicted to it because I KNOW THAT IT REALLY DOES WORK, so I can't get enough of it. Even when I was living up on Beacon near NEW CHINA TOWN in Chicago, the Buddhist monks saw me practicing the Western traditions because I, on several occasions saw the saffron robes of the monks as the walked in the neighborhood ca. 1990s. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Colette, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette_aube" wrote: > > > > Hi Sarah, > > > > > S: As soon as the last moment of experience of this life falls away, it is followed by the first moment of experience of the next life. <....> #121416 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:46 am Subject: Rejoicing Joy! bhikkhu5 Friends: Unselfish Joy! How to Rejoice in Other's Success: Mutual Joy (Mudit�) is developed by seeing that: If only happy at one's own success, such egoistic Joy is rare and limited! If happy at all other's success also, this Joy is more frequent & even infinite! By observing that: It starts with basic sympathy, develops into acceptance, genuine approval, & appreciation. It culminates in rejoicing altruistic gladness by directing mind to initiation, much cultivation and boundless expansion of Mutual Joy! By knowing that: Mutual Joy is the proximate cause of sweet, fully satisfied contentment! Lack of mutual joy is therefore the proximate cause of discontentment! Mutual Joy instantly eliminates acidic jealousy, grudge and green envy! Mutual Joy is an infinite, truly divine, elevating and sublime mental state! Mutual Joy is 1 of the 4 mental states of the Brahma-devas (Brahmavih�ra ) The Blessed Buddha pointed out: If it were impossible to cultivate this Good, I would not tell you to do so! Buddhaghosa : See how this worthy being is very Happy! How fine! How excellent! How sweet! Let there be Happiness. Let there be open Freedom. Let there be Peace. Let there be Bliss from cultivating this. Let there be Understanding of this mental state of Mutual Joy ! <...> Mudit�: The Buddha's Teaching on Unselfish Joy: BPS Wheel Publication No. 170 4 essays by Nyanaponika Thera, Natasha Jackson, C.F. Knight, and L.R. Oates http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Wheels/wh170.pdf Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <...> #121417 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthana chanting. philofillet Hi Rob K, Nina, anyone who knows Abhidhamma. > not my writing , it was by a monk so your guess is as good as mine. I have heard or read that metaphor somewhere, of the hospital patient pulling himself up by the rope pulley, turning himself over, but I can't remember the context. Can we say that vipaka citta that is seeing consciousness (for example) lacks its own vitality and that in order to appear it needs to be conditioned by visible object like the hostpital patient is pulled up by the rope, it is weak, for example it can't prooduce rupa. But javana cittas that follow have their own vitality, are stronger, can produce rupa and bring other results. I don't like to form my own pet theories about Dhamma, but if this sounds anything like correct understanding of Abhidhamma, please tell me, or correct my misunderstanding. As usual, no hurry, thanks. Phil #121418 From: "connie" Date: Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:49 pm Subject: Re: Patthana chanting. nichiconn dear Phil, Vism revisited: Text Vis.: For just as a weak man both gets up and stands by hanging on to (aalambitvaa) a stick or rope, so states of consciousness and consciousness-concomitants always arise and are present contingent upon visible data, etc., as their object (aaramma.na = aalambana). Therefore all states that are objects of consciousness and consciousness-concomitants should be understood as object condition. ---------------------- N: The Tiika emphasizes that it is not possible that citta and cetasikas arise without experiencing an object. The Tiika then refers to the Pa.t.thanaa text which enumerates the oject-condition as ninefold (Conditional Relations, Investigation Chapter, p. 142-146). As object-condition kusala dhamma can condition kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma and indeterminate dhamma (avyaakata, being kiriya, vipaaka, ruupa or nibbaana), and so on for the object that is akusala or indeterminate which can condition kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma and indeterminate dhamma. < end quote > connie > I have heard or read that metaphor somewhere, of the hospital patient pulling himself up by the rope pulley, turning himself over, but I can't remember the context. > > > Phil > #121419 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:30 am Subject: Re: Patthana chanting. philofillet Hi Connie Thanks, appreciated. Source identified, and pet theory extricated before it wormed too deep. Phil #121420 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthana chanting. nilovg Dear Phil, Op 17-dec-2011, om 12:12 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I have heard or read that metaphor somewhere, of the hospital > patient pulling himself up by the rope pulley, turning himself > over, but I can't remember the context. ------ N: Yes, I remember too. I think it is in Survey. Just now I go over the whole text revising it. When I see it I tell you. Nina. #121421 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How to develop right understanding? nilovg Dear Phil and Lukas, Would you make notes and share your dhamma talk with us? Nina Op 17-dec-2011, om 12:05 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Ph: My winter vacation starts next week. Let's try to set up a > Skype talk! #121422 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 16-dec-2011, om 18:13 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > > D: Question: when we include metta in adosa cetasika , why not > > karuna and mudita? > ------ > N: Because they have different characteristics. > > D: yes , however my idea was : all three are covered by adosa . > Adosa is the opposite of dosa (aversion,rejection, hate ) , the > best term , which I can think of, is 'love' in the sense of our > Christian culture. > This meaning of love includes kindness, compassion and empathy , > even equanimity , altogether understood as heavenly abode (Brahma > Vihara). > ----- N: The Abhidhamma is very precise. It defines realities as they arise at the moment. Not in a general conventional way, such as you said above: love includes compassion etc. This is more like a situation. ------- > > D:then we need to define adosa in another way in order to > distinguish it from the group of the 2 illimitable cetasikas > (appamana) , i.e. karuna and mudita . (You may agree : in order to > understand the 52 cetasikas in daily life, we need to identify its > characteristics and get a clou about the grouping) > > N: Karu.na cetasika has as object a person who suffers, and one > wants to alleviate suffering. Like Sarah visiting her friend in > hospital. > > D: yes.. > > N: But karu.na and mettaa alternate. She wants to help with > selfless affection and then mettaa may arise. We have to consider > realities moment by moment. > > D: that is possible , yes ... in some situations a tough action out > of compassion may be the order... the kindness eventually hidden > > N: Mudita: you rejoice in someone else's prosperity or wellbeing. > No jealousy. > > D: yes.. but my problem is the understanding of the sub > classification under the 3 main groups ( 13 ethically variable > factors , 14 unwholesome mental factors,25 beautiful (wholesome) > factors ). > For example: why is metta not mentioned under the group of > illimitable cetasikas. > ------ N: I see your point, you may wonder: is metta not a Brahma vihara? It is. But when classifying cetasikas their nature is considered. Metta is adosa cetasika and it arises with each sobhana citta. -------- > > D: Why is shamelessness an universal (unwholesome) cetasika > ----- N: Because it arises with each akusala citta, but usually we are ignorant of its characteristic. ------- > D: and conceit an occasional ... > ---- N: Conceit, when it arises, does so accompanying lobha-muula-citta, but there is not conceit each time lobha-muulacitta arises. ------ > D: and right speech under the 3 cetasikas of abstinence > (virati)...is there any detailed explanation by the commentaries? > ------ N: It is virati cetasika. When you abstain from wrong speech there is this virati cetasika called right speech. The Expositor and the Visuddhimagga (see CH XIV) give details. -------- Nina > #121423 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sun Dec 18, 2011 7:27 am Subject: Re: Patthana chanting. colette_aube Hi Connie, this is for Nina and the group, but you put it out there for me to partake of, THANK YOU. > N: The Tiika emphasizes that it is not possible that citta and cetasikas arise without experiencing an object. HOW SO? I can play this either way. Why is it dependent for "citta and cetasika" to contact RUPA before arising or if not contacting RUPA then not arising? In that case it appears as though the chemist is telling the chemicals how to react, and thus, having delusions of grandeur, megalomania, etc. It may look good and sound good on paper, in two dimensional form but living, but suffering, but people, are not two dimensional thigs. IF YOU ARE GOING TO PLACE RUPA AS BEING TWO DIMENSIONAL THEN THAT MEANS NAMA OR NOUMENAL, AND THAT MEANS THAT YOU ARE MOCKING THE STUDENTS THAT YOU LECTURE TO. Nama CANNOT HAVE FORM! From my understanding and opinion and realization, RUPA can be permited the chance to enter the mind, to intermingle with NAMA and with NOUMENA, BUT, as the group SUPERTRAMP sang in the song "DREAMER", "can you put your hands in your head, oh no." When nama has FORM the the doctrine of NAME & FORM, in the Buddhist context and suttas, is lost. It has no value since the objective of the concept of NAME & FORM is to show the mind that by affixing some label to it is not worthy of life and existence. WOW I must admit that this meditation that I'm pursueing is amazing because it is created in coordination with the Buddhist doctrines. Supertramp posed the question of sticking your hands in your head, why not take what is in your head and project it outwards to MANIFESTATION of RUPA? toodles, colette #121424 From: "connie" Date: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:45 am Subject: Re: Patthana chanting. nichiconn dear colette, wrote: > > Nama CANNOT HAVE FORM! > True! Don't you find the terms "name" for nama and "form" for rupa somewhat misleading? For instance: how the cittas must follow each other in a certain order / set fashion or 'form' as dictated by the laws of nature / niyama; and how given combinations of cetasikas that invariably arise together to 'form' distinct categories / types of citta. peace, connie #121425 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:03 pm Subject: Re: three jokes scottduncan2 Rob E., Computer back, caught up with this: R: "Below you can see that Connie says she'd like to see me talk about the jhana factors, etc.; then Scott says it's nonsense: c: '...Otherwise, I'd like to see you bring it on and talk about the jhana factors and jhana cittas and all that groovy-cool stuff. Just please, 'strive for precision in your speech'. Scott: Agreed. No precision at all. Just nonsense. I'll have to get my stupid computer fixed now. Bye.' R: "Here, I am complaining about what they said: 'All the stuff about jhana is nonsense, no precision? All the things that Buddha said about development of the jhanas is imprecise nonsense? On what basis are you saying that?...'" Scott: Well, no wonder the precision is lacking - if this total misreading of my comments by you wasn't disingenuous on purpose. Do you actually read me to be suggesting that jhaana is 'nonsense?' Tch, tch, tch. Just so that it's clear: What western meditators on the internet say about their 'practise' - including the jhaanas - is complete and utter nonsense. Western 'practitioners' have no clue what they are talking about, nor clearly do they have a clue about what they are doing. Reading discussions between western 'practitioners,' such as the aborted one under scrutiny, demonstrates this fact. A whole jargon and style of communication about it has become stylized and is enjoyed by all who engage in it. A bunch of mutually supportive, and entirely meaningless words about mind-games. Just to be clear. Jhaana is not in question. Man, a guy leaves the list for a few days and look what happens... Scott. #121426 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:39 pm Subject: Re: Patthana chanting. colette_aube Dear Connie, YOU GOT IT! Screw this ORDER. What good is ORDER when the main result of ORDER are robots like Agent 86, Maxwell Smart. And robots like that (the sky is falling the sky is falling, specifically created by PUBLISHERS to serve the needs of a publisher through their advertising abilities, see SANDWHICH BOARD), are only as good as a DURACELL used by MORPHEUS in the movie THE MATRIX. Yes, name and form is totally a misleading doctrine, but without the doctrine of NAME AND FORM then the neophytes would have no idea at all. They could not meditate without first partaking of a GUIDED MEDITATION. I don't really have time since I'm using another person's computer at my home, I'm upstairs out of my prison the basement. LOL Your concept of CATEGORIZATION, is RIGHT ON. Great progression because I am VERY IGNORANT of CETASIKAS, et al. tooldes, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear colette, > > wrote: > > > > Nama CANNOT HAVE FORM! > > > > True! Don't you find the terms "name" for nama and "form" for rupa somewhat misleading? For instance: how the cittas must follow each other in a certain order / set fashion or 'form' as dictated by the laws of nature / niyama; and how given combinations of cetasikas that invariably arise together to 'form' distinct categories / types of citta. > > peace, > connie > #121427 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:35 am Subject: Crucial Circumstance! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Essential Foundation of Mental Purity! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these Four Foundations of Awareness. What four? When a Bhikkhu keenly contemplates: 1: Any Body just as a transient Form... 2: Any Feeling just as a passing Sensation... 3: Any Mind just as a momentary Mood... 4: Any Phenomena just as a flickering Mental State... while always acutely aware & clearly comprehending, he thereby removes any urge, envy, jealousy, frustration and discontent rooted in this world... These are the Four Foundations of Awareness... <...> Source of reference (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nik�ya. Book [V: 173-4] 47 The Foundations of Awareness: 24 Simple.. Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <...> #121428 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Focussing. Was:three jokes epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > There has been some dispute about what external satipatthana means in Buddhist circles. Is there an agreed-upon understanding of it here? I would be interested to know whether it involves one's own external rupas, or whether it is related to other people, as some have interpreted. > ... > S: Just one more point to add to Nina's - > > when satipatthana develops, there's more understanding of dhammas, more understanding that there are no people, so less and less idea of 'one's own' or 'other people's' - just realities which are experienced and can be known. I could see how all cittas could seem to have equal non-association with an individual self for a Buddha who is able to see others minds as clearly as his own, but for the average person some objects of citta will be apparent, and others [those of other people] remain opaque. I guess in satipatthana we would see "other people" as rupas, since others are only experienced through sensory experiences. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121429 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:44 pm Subject: Re: three jokes epsteinrob Hi Scott. So glad you're back. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Computer back, caught up with this: > > R: "Below you can see that Connie says she'd like to see me talk about the jhana factors, etc.; then Scott says it's nonsense: > > c: '...Otherwise, I'd like to see you bring it on and talk about the jhana factors and jhana cittas and all that groovy-cool stuff. Just please, 'strive for precision in your speech'. Scott: Agreed. No precision at all. Just nonsense. I'll have to get my stupid computer fixed now. Bye.' > > R: "Here, I am complaining about what they said: > 'All the stuff about jhana is nonsense, no precision? All the things that Buddha said about development of the jhanas is imprecise nonsense? On what basis are you saying that?...'" > > Scott: Well, no wonder the precision is lacking - if this total misreading of my comments by you wasn't disingenuous on purpose. Do you actually read me to be suggesting that jhaana is 'nonsense?' Tch, tch, tch. > > Just so that it's clear: What western meditators on the internet say about their 'practise' - including the jhaanas - is complete and utter nonsense. Western 'practitioners' have no clue what they are talking about, nor clearly do they have a clue about what they are doing. Reading discussions between western 'practitioners,' such as the aborted one under scrutiny, demonstrates this fact. A whole jargon and style of communication about it has become stylized and is enjoyed by all who engage in it. A bunch of mutually supportive, and entirely meaningless words about mind-games. Just to be clear. What is your basis for saying any of this? You don't discuss anything anyone has actually said. You just make assertions and generalize over and over again, presumably for your own sense of self-satisfaction. It's just loose talk and is more obviously nonsensical than anything you are supposedly critiquing without lifting a finger. Nonsense - useless talk about nonsense and useless talk. A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. > Man, a guy leaves the list for a few days and look what happens... The more things change, the more they stay the same. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121430 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:38 pm Subject: The superimposed 2 (read TWO!) bodies!!! bhikkhu5 Friends: SAME THING, but (too) MANY NAMES! In any "Person" is superimposed 2 (read TWO!) bodies: 1 physical body (form) of matter. (Partly visible)... + 1 mental body (form) of consciousness. (Invisible)... What the: Neurophysiologist calls the "Phantom limb/body": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2LwnaUA-k http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb Philosopher of Mind calls the "Self Model": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFjY1fAcESs Any well versed Theravada Buddhist knows as the "Mental Body" (Mano Kaya)! These are the exact same 1! thing: Consciousness embedded in a Form (n�ma-r�pa <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <...> #121431 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:39 pm Subject: Pulling oneself up. nilovg Dear Phil, here is the text, in the Perfections, Ch 4, Renunciation: < We read that the Bodhisatta in one of his former lives considered the true nature of his akusala, he knew that it often arose. He realized how difficult it was to give up clinging to the sense objects. We read in the Commentary to the “Susíma Jåtaka”(no. 411) that the Bodhisatta considered the citta which had to strive after the giving up of clinging to sense objects, to visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object: “The Bodhisatta considered: a sick person cannot turn himself over by his own strength. The hospital nurse has to attach a string so that he can pull himself up, and he should exhort him with the words, “come, pull this string so that you can turn yourself over.” When he pulls that string he can turn himself over and experiences bodily wellbeing, but he does not find mental ease, be it even slight. This situation is the same as when beings are inflamed because of their defilements: they cannot uplift themselves and turn away from defilements by means of happiness arising from solitude.” If there is no clinging to the sense objects, one will have true calm, there will be happiness arising from solitude; one is tranquil and free from clinging to the sense objects. However, in order to become uplifted and turn away from defilements, to become free from clinging, to depart from sensepleasures, we need the assistance of the perfections we have accumulated. Only in that way can we renounce the sense pleasures.> ------ Nina. #121432 From: "philip" Date: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:43 pm Subject: Re: Pulling oneself up. philofillet Hi Nina Thank you, yes, this is the passage I was thinking of, though it turns out it was not related to the metaphor in the passage read by Robert in that video. > "The Bodhisatta considered: a sick person cannot turn himself over by > his own strength. The hospital nurse has to attach a string so that > he can pull himself up, and he should exhort him with the words, > "come, pull this string so that you can turn yourself over.� When he > pulls that string he can turn himself over and experiences bodily > wellbeing, but he does not find mental ease, be it even slight. This > situation is the same as when beings are inflamed because of their > defilements: Ph: This reminds me of the leper who get some pleasure out of causterizing his wounds, we are as deluded as he, because of the vipalassas we don't see the annica, asubha and dukkha of our various pleasures. Well, there are conditions for us to reflect on that, because of having heard the Dhamma. >they cannot uplift themselves and turn away from > defilements by means of happiness arising from solitude.� Ph: We can't do that, only panna and other kusala factors rising together can do that. There is so much attachment involved in the happiness we get from Dhamma, but there can be moments of satipatthana, very possible. Phil > > If there is no clinging to the sense objects, one will have true > calm, there will be happiness arising from solitude; one is tranquil > and free from clinging to the sense objects. However, in order to > become uplifted and turn away from defilements, to become free from > clinging, to depart from sensepleasures, we need the assistance of > the perfections we have accumulated. Only in that way can we renounce > the sense pleasures.> > > ------ > Nina. > > > > > #121433 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:12 am Subject: Re: three jokes scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "What is your basis for saying any of this?..." Scott: Your disingenuous attribution that I consider jhaana to be nonsense. Hopefully I've cleared that up for you. Scott. #121434 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project moellerdieter Dear Nina, all, I think that the table below is easier to understand than the form used before , possibly the translation too depending on investigation. The explanations of the 52 may save time to go through the factors . Why there is an extra table of sankhara khanda necessary , isn't yet clear to me (leaving aside sanna and vedana cetasika) . with Metta Dieter INTRODUCING BUDDHIST ABHIDHAMMA, by U KYAW MIN, I. C. S. (Retd.) http://www.palikanon.com/english/intro-abhidhamma/appendix_ii.htm 　 APPENDIX II - Cetasika FIFTY-TWO KINDS OF CETASIKA Mental properties are of 52 kinds: (a) the Seven Common Properties (sabbacitta), so called on account of being common to all classes of consciousness, viz.: 1. phassa (contact) 2. vedanÄ (feeling) 3. saÃ±Ã±Ä (perception) 4. cetanÄ (volition) 5. ekaggatÄ (concentration of mind) 6. jÄ«vita (psychic life) 7. manasikÄra (attention). (b) The six Particulars (pakinnakÄ), so called because they invariably enter into composition with consciousness, viz.: 1. vitakka (initial application) 2. vicÄra (sustained application) 3. viriya (effort) 4. pÄ«ti (pleasurable interest) 5. chanda (desire-to-do) 6. adhimokka (deciding). The above thirteen kinds (a) and (b) are called Mixtures (vimissaka), or better, as rendered by Shwe Zan Aung "Un-morals", as they are common to both moral and immoral consciousness in composition. (c) the fourteen Immorals (papajÄti), viz.: l. lobha (greed) 2. dosa (hate) 3. moha (dullness) 4. ditthi (error) 5. mÄna (conceit) 6. issÄ (envy) 7. macchariya (selfishness) 8. kukkucca (worry) 9. ahirika (shamelessness) 10. anottappa (recklessness) 11. uddhacca (distraction) 12. thÄ«na (sloth) 13. middha (torpor) 14. vicikicchÄ (scepticism) (d) The twenty-five Morals (kalayanajatika) viz.: 1. alobha (generous) 2. adosa (amity) 3. amoha (reason) 4. saddhÄ (faith) 5. sati (mindfulness) 6. hiri (modesty) 7. ottappa (discretion) 8. tatramajjihattatÄ (balance of mind) 9. kÄya-passaddhi (composure of mental properties) 10. citta-passaddhi (composure of mind) 11. kÄya-lahutÄ (buoyancy of mental properties) 12. citta-lahutÄ (buoyancy of mind) 13. kÄya-mudutÄ (pliancy of mental properties) 14. citta-mudutÄ (pliancy of mind) 15. kÄya-kammaññatÄ (adaptability of mental properties) 16. citta-kammaññatÄ (adaptability of mind) 17. kÄya-pÄguññatÄ (proficiency of mental properties) 18. citta-pÄguññatÄ (proficiency of mind) 19. kÄya’ujukatÄ (rectitude of mental properties) 20. citta’ujukatÄ (rectitude of mind) The following three are called the Three Abstinences (viratiyo) 21. sammÄvÄcÄ (right speech) 22. sammÄkammanto (right action) 23. samma-ÄjÄ«vo (right livelihood) The last two are called the two Illimitables or appamaññÄ. 24. karunÄ (pity) 25. muditÄ (appreciation) 1. Phassa means contact, and contact means the faculty of pressing the object (arammana), so as to cause the agreeable or disagreeable sap (so to speak) to come out. So it is the main principle or prime mover of the mental properties in the uprising. If the sap cannot be squeezed out, then all objects (arammana) will be of no use. 2. VedanÄ means feeling, or the faculty of tasting the sapid flavour thus squeezed out by the phassa. All creatures are sunk in this vedanÄ. 3. SaÃ±Ã±Ä means perception, or the act of perceiving. All creatures become wise through this perception, if they perceive things with sufficient clearness in accordance with their own-ways, custom, creed, and so forth. 4. CetanÄ means volition or the faculty of determining the activities of the mental concomitants so as to bring them into harmony. In the common speech of the world we are accustomed to say of one who supervises a piece of work that he is the performer or author of the work. We usually say: "Oh, this work was done by so-and-so", or "This is such and such a person’s great work". It is somewhat the same in connection with the ethical aspects of things. The volition (cetana) is called the doer (kamma), as it determines the activities of the mental concomitant, or supervises all the actions of body, of speech, and of mind. As every kind of prosperity in this life is the outcome of the exertions put forth in work performed with body, with speech and with mind, so also the issues of new life or existence are the results of the volition (asynchronous volition is the name given to it in the Patthana, and it is known by the name of Kamma in the actions of body, speech and mind) performed in previous existences. Earth, water, mountains, trees, grass and so forth, are all born of Utu, the element of warmth and they may quite properly be called the children or the issue of the warmth element. So also all living creatures may be called the children or the issue of volition, or what is called kamma-dhatu, as they are all born through Kamma. 5. EkaggatÄ means concentration of mind. It is also called Right Concentration (samÄdhi). It becomes prominent in the jhÄna-samapatti the attainment of the supernormal modes of mind called JhÄna. 6. JÄ«vita means the life of mental phenomena. It is pre-eminent in preserving the continuance of mental phenomena. 7. ManasikÄra means attention. Its function is to bring the desired object into view of consciousness. These seven factors are called sabbacitta, Universal Properties, as they always enter into the composition of all consciousness. 8. Vitakka means the initial application of mind. Its function is to direct the mind towards the object of research. It is also called Sankappa (aspiration), which is of two kinds, viz., SammÄsankappa or Right Aspiration, Micchasankappa or Wrong Aspiration. 9. VicÄra means sustained application. Its function is to concentrate upon objects. 10. Viriya means effort of mind in actions. It is of two kinds, right effort and wrong effort. 11. PÄ«ti means pleasurable interest of mind or buoyancy of mind or the bulkiness of mind. 12. Chanda mean desire to do, such as desire to go, desire to say, desire to speak, and so forth. 13. Adhimokkha means decisions, or literally, apartness of mind for the object, that is, it is intended to connote the freedom of mind from the wavering state between the two courses: "Is it?" or "Is it not?". These last six mental properties are not common to all classes of consciousness, but severally enter into their composition. Hence they are called Pakinnaka or Particulars. They make thirteen if they are added to the Common Properties, and both, taken together are called vimissaka (mixtures) as they enter into composition both with moral and immoral consciousness. 14. Lobha ethically means greed, but psychically it means agglutination of mind with objects. It is sometimes called TanhÄ (craving), sometimes AbhijjhÄ (covetousness) sometimes KÄma (lust) and sometimes Raga (sensual passion). 15. Dosa in its ethical sense is hate, but psychically it means the violent striking of mind at the object. It has two other names, i.e. patigha (repugnance, anger), and vyÄpÄda (ill-will). 16. Moha means dullness or lack of understanding in philosophical matters. It is also called avijjhÄ (ignorance), annana (not knowing) and adassana (not-seeing.) The above three just mentioned are called the three akusala-mula, or the three main immoral roots, as they are the sources of all immoralities. 17. Ditthi means error or wrong seeing in matters of philosophy. It takes impermanence for permanence, and non-soul for soul, and moral activities for immoral ones; or it denies that there are any results of action, and so forth. 18. MÄna means Conceit or wrong estimation. It wrongly imagines the name-and-form (nÄma-rÅ«pa) to be an "I", and estimates it as noble or ignoble according to the caste, creed, or family, and so on, to which the person belongs. 19. IssÄ means envy, or disapprobation, or lack of appreciation, or absence of inclination to congratulate others upon their success in life. It also means a disposition to find fault with others. 20. Macchariya means selfishness, illiberality, or unwillingness to share with others. 21. Kukkucca means worry, anxiety, or undue anxiousness for what has been done wrongly, or for right actions that have been left undone. There are two wrongs in the world, namely, doing sinful deeds and failing to do meritorious deeds. There are also two ways of representing thus "I have done sinful acts", or "I have left undone meritorious acts, such as charity, virtue, and so forth." "A fool always invents plans after all is over", runs the saying. So worry is of two kinds, with regard to forgetfulness and with regard to viciousness, to sins of omission and sins of commission. 22. Ahirika means shamelessness. When a sinful a is about to be committed, no feeling of shame, such as "I will be corrupted if I do this", or "Some people and Devas may know this of me", arise in him who is shameless. 23. Anottappa means utter recklessness as regards such consequences, as Attan-uvadabhaya (fear of self-accusations like: "I have been foolish; I have done wrong", and so forth,) Paranuvadabhaya (fear of accusations by others): Dandabhaya (fear of punishments in the present life inflicted by the rulers:) Apayabhaya (fear of punishments to be suffered in the realms of misery). 24. Udhacca means distraction as regards an object. 25. ThÄ«na means slothfulness of mind, that is, the dullness of the mind’s consciousness of an object. 26. Middha means slothfulness of mental properties, that is, the dimness of the faculties of each of the mental properties, such as contact, feeling and so forth. 27. VicikicchÄ means perplexity, that is, not believing what ought to be believed. The above fourteen kinds are called papajÄti or akusala-dhamma; in fact, they are real immoralities. 28. Alobha means disinterestedness of mind as regards an object. It is also called nekkhamadhatu (element of abnegation or renunciation) and anabhijha (liberality). 29. Adosa, or amity in its ethical sense means inclination of mind in the direction of its object, or purity of mind. It is also called avyÄpÄda (peace of mind), and mettÄ (loving-kindness). 30. Amoha means knowing things as they are. It is also called ñÄna (wisdom), paÃ±Ã±Ä (insight), vijjha (knowledge), sammÄ-ditthi (right view), paññindriya (reason). These three are called the three kalaya-mulas or the three Main Moral Roots as they are the sources of all moralities. 31. SaddhÄ means faith in what ought to be believed. This is also called pasada (transparency). 32. Sati means constant mindfulness in good things so as not to forget them. It is also called dharana (Retention), and utthana (readiness). 33. Hiri means modesty which can notes hesitation in doing sinful acts through shame of being known to do them. 34. Ottappa means discretion which can notes hesitation in doing sinful deeds through fear of self accusation, of accusation by others, or of punishments in spheres of misery (apayabhaya). 35. TatramaijhattatÄ is balance of mind, that is to say, that mode of mind which neither cleaves to an object nor repulses it. This is called upekkha-brahma-vihara (equanimity of the Sublime Abode) in the category of brahma-vihara; and upekkhasambojjhanga (equanimity that pertains to the factors of Enlightenment) in the bojjhanga. 36. KÄya-passaddhi means composure of mental properties. 37. Citta-passaddhi means composure of mind. By composure it is meant that the mental properties are set at rest and become cool, as they are free from the three Immoral (papadhamma) which cause annoyance in doing good deeds. 38. KÄya-lahutÄ means buoyancy of mental properties. 39. Citta-lahutÄ means buoyancy of mind. By buoyancy it is meant that the mental properties become light, as they are free from the Immoral which weigh against them in the doing of good deeds. It should be explained in the same manner as the rest. 40 KÄya mudutÄ means pliancy of mental properties. 41. Citta-mudutÄ means pliancy of mind. 42. KÄya-kammaññatÄ means fitness of work of mental properties. 43. Citta-kammaññatÄ means the fitness of the mind for work. 44. KÄya-pÄguññatÄ means proficiency of mental properties. 45. Citta-pÄguññatÄ means proficiency of mind. Proficiency here means skilfulness. 46. KÄya’ujukatÄ means rectitude of mental properties. 47. Citta-’ujukatÄ means rectitude of mind. 48. SammÄ-vÄcÄ means Right Speech, that is abstinence from the fourfold sinful modes of speech i.e. lying, slandering, abusive language and idle talk. 49. SammÄ-kammanto means Right Action, that is abstinence from the threefold sinful acts, i.e. killing, stealing, and unchastity. 50. SammÄ-ÄjÄ«va means Right Livelihood. These three sammÄ-vÄcÄ, samm-kammanto and sammÄ-ÄjÄ«vo are called the Triple Abstinences. 51. KarunÄ means pity, sympathy, compassion or wishing to help those who are in distress. 52. MuditÄ means appreciation of, or congratulation upon or delight in, the success of others. These two are respectively called karuna-brahma-vihara and mudita-brahma-vihara. They are also called appamaÃ±Ã±Ä (Illimitables) according to the definition "Appamanesu sattesu bhava ti appa-maññÄ," that is: "appamaÃ±Ã±Ä is so called because it exists without limit among living beings." NibbÄna may be classified into three kinds, viz.: First NibbÄna, Second NibbÄna and Third NibbÄna. Freeing or deliverance from the plane of misery is the first NibbÄna. Freeing or deliverance from the plane of kamaloka is the second NibbÄna. Freeing or deliverance from the planes of RÅ«paloka and ArÅ«pa-loka is the Third NibbÄna. Consciousness one, Mental properties fifty-two, NibbÄna one, altogether make up fifty-four Mental Phenomena. Thus the twenty eight material phenomena and 54 mental phenomena make up 82 ultimate things which are called Ultimate Facts. On the other hand, Self, Soul, Creature, Person and so forth, are Conventional Facts. See the Table II. Mental-States (sankhÄra kkhandha) Table II - Mental-States (sankhÄra kkhandha) 　 Mental states are of 50 kinds (cetasika), namely:(*1) 　 11 Common (aññasamÄna)(*2) (a) 5 universals (sabbacitta) (in every consciousness): Consciousness-impression (phassa) Volition (cetanÄ) (mental) vitality (jÄ«vita) One-pointedness (samÄdhi) Attention (manasikÄra) (b) 6 particulars (pakinnakÄ) (not in every consciousness) thought-conception (vitakka) discursive thinking (vicÄra) determination (adhimokkha) effort (viriya) enthusiasm (joy) (pÄ«ti) intention (chanda) 25 Lofty, pure (sobhana) (a) primary (in every lofty consciousness) Confidence (saddhÄ) Mindfulness (sati) Moral shame (hiri) Moral dread (ottappa) Generous (alobha) Hatelessness (adosa) Equanimity (tatramajjhattatÄ) Tranquillity of mental factors (kÄya-passaddhi) Tranquillity of consciousness (citta-passaddhi) Agility or lightness of mental factors (kÄya-lahutÄ) Agility or lightness of consciousness (citta-lahutÄ) Elasticity of mental factors (kÄya-mudutÄ) Elasticity of consciousness (citta-mudutÄ) Adaptability of mental factors (kÄya-kammaññatÄ) Adaptability of consciousness (citta-kammaññatÄ) Proficiency of mental factors (kÄya-pÄguññatÄ) Proficiency of consciousness (citta-pÄguññatÄ) Uprightness of mental factors (kÄya’ujukatÄ) Uprightness of consciousness (citta’ujukatÄ) (b) 6 secondary 3 Abstinences (viratiyo):(*3) Right bodily action (sammÄkammanto) Right speech (sammÄvÄcÄ) Right livelihood (samma-ÄjÄ«vo) 2 Boundless states (appamaññÄ): Compassion (karunÄ) Altruistic joy (muditÄ) 1 Faculty of wisdom (paññindriya): Non-delusion (amoha) = wisdom (paññÄ) 14 Unwholesome (akusala) (a) 4 primary (in every unwholesome consciousness) Delusion (moha) Lack of moral shame (ahirika) Lack of moral dread (anottappa) Restlessness (uddhacca) (b) 10 secondary (not in every unwholesome consciousness) 4 Hate rooted: Hatred (dosa) Envy (issÄ) Stinginess (macchariya) Worry (kukkucca) Furthermore: Greed (lobha) View, insight (wrong) (ditthi) Conceit, pride (mÄna) Sloth (thÄ«na) Torpor (middha) Scepticism (vicikicchÄ) (*1) The given sequence is based on the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha. (*2) The moral quality of this 11 mental states depends whether they arise with a wholesome, unwholesome or neutral consciousness. (*3) The 3 abstinences and 2 boundless states, also envy, stinginess, worry, pride, sloth and torpor, are considered as 'inconstant' (aniyata), that means they occur with the accompanied consciousness only occasionally and than only one at the time. 　 　 　 　 #121435 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 2:15 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Sarah: "...The only way to really understand what pariyatti is, is by understanding more about the realities now. Then no doubt." Scott: You seem to suggest that pariyatti is to be understood by 'processes' that are *not* pariyatti. If you don't already tire of considering this, could you clarify? Here is a quote from the Paramatthadiipanii naama Udaana.t.thakathaa - The Udaana Commentary; a discussion of the terms 'eva.m' and 'suta,m' used by Aananda: "...And in proclaiming this utterance of eva.m, elucidating the paying of methodical attention in the manner already stated, he elucidates the fact that such things had been carefully considered by him in his mind; that they had been well pierced by (right view). For the Dhamma of the texts, when carefully considered in the mind after the manner of 'In this case it is morality that is talked of, in this case concentration, in this case insight - to such an extent are there sequential teachings here and so on, when pierced by thoroughly investigating - after the manner of 'Such is form; to such extent there is form' (cp DA 462 or D ii 35) and so forth - things formed and formless; spoken of in this place and that, by way of (right) view either consisting of reflection upon, and approval of, Dhamma accompanied by hearsay and the consideration of reasons, or else reckoned as full understanding of the known, is one bringing happiness and well-being to oneself and others. In proclaiming this utterance suta.m, elucidating his link with hearing, he elucidates 'Abundant are the things heard by me; learned by heart, verbally familiarised' (cp M i 213 etc.). For texts are (all) subject to application of the ear. In the complete fulfillment of the meaning and formulation of the Dhamma as a result of its being well proclaimed, he generates regard (concerning same), by saying that the one not hearing, with due regard, Dhamma with its meaning and formulation completely fulfilled becomes one completely excluded from its benefit, that Dhamma is to be heard with care..." Scott: In the above, I find 'texts are (all) subject to application of the ear' to be most interesting. Reading is thus equated with hearing, if I'm not mistaken. Scott. #121436 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 3:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Dear Dieter, The table is very good. This is from the same person who translated the Dhammasangani, which is excellent, better than PTS. When realities are classified as khandha, it is as you say: sankhaarakkhandha are fifty cetasikas. Nina. Op 18-dec-2011, om 15:33 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > INTRODUCING BUDDHIST ABHIDHAMMA, > > by U KYAW MIN, I. C. S. (Retd.) #121437 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 3:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness scottduncan2 Dieter, (Nina), D: "Question: when we include metta in adosa cetasika, why not karuna and mudita?" N: "Because they have different characteristics..." Scott: It would seem that you are hampered by seeing D.O. as a rigid, fixed, and literal step-by-step 'process' and that you are considering higher-order concepts (see your ideas about 'tanha' for example) thereby missing the point that each mental factor is itself delimited has it's own characteristic and function. Dhammasa"nga.ni sets out to describe the characteristics of each mental factor. These are described in terms of each mental factor arising in a moment, conascent with citta. The phrase, 'What on that occasion' (Katamo tasmi.m samaye) precedes each description. This refers to the momentary arising of a given mental factor. In the Udaana Commentary, 'samaya' (occasion) is clarified: "...And, in this connection, samaya is conjunction (samavaayo) since the co-operative activity (of this and that cause), when juxtaposed, is occasioned (sameti), is met with (samaagacchati), by way of those individuals who are the containers thereof; samaya is time (kalo), since it is herein that a being, or a thing having an own nature, is occasioned (sameti), or thereby runs in parallel (sa.mgacchati) with (the submoments of) arising (and so one) or with co-nascents and so forth - for although non-real (abhuuto), in the sense that there is (really) merely the occurrence of dhammas, time is depicted, through conformity with that established by a mere thought-construct, as the locus of that occurrence of dhammas, and as though it were the activity associated with them; samaya is collection (samuuho), since it is the course (ayana.m), occurrence, persistence, either equally (sama.m) or jointly (saha), of constituent parts, as with a collective (samudaayo), for the joint persistence of constituent parts is itself a collection (samuuho); samaya is root-cause (hetu) since, when there is a meeting of remaining conditions, fruition comes - arises, occurs, on account of this - as with origination (samudayo);..." Scott. #121438 From: "philip" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 3:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project philofillet -Hi Nina > The table is very good. This is from the same person who translated > the Dhammasangani, which is excellent, better than PTS. I read the first description of the cetasikas (phassa) and thought it looked very strange, phassa squeezing the sap out of the object? Much too juicy for me, I'll phass. Phil #121439 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness moellerdieter Dear Sarah, Howard and Nina, sorry for being slow with answering.. just this issue again ( for the benefit of clarity though it may seen as stubbornness .. ) you wrote : Howard and Nina also already explained in response to our other thread on D.O. that moha and avijja are synonyms). D: when we consider the use in D.O. ,the term avijja , first place of the links , refers to 'not knowing the 4 Noble Truths', whereas moha to delusion, which is usually connected with the other 2 unwholesome roots as part of tanha. Though they are synonym in a certain way, we can distinguish them. (see quotations below) By that we avoid self reference like avijja conditions avijja , which confuses D.O. and its relation to cetasikas. Moha (delusion) cetasika is part of the khandas and root condition of tanha . The khandas are conditioned by aviija( not knowing) -sankhara. I wonder whether I have to put it into my file of unsettled issues. ;-) with Metta Dieter P.T.S: " 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." I could not get the definition of avijja , probably due to missing fonts.. "I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. There he addressed the monks, "Monks!" "Yes, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises. "Clear knowing is the leader in the attainment of skillful qualities, followed by conscience & concern. In a knowledgeable person, immersed in clear knowing, right view arises. In one of right view, right resolve arises. In one of right resolve, right speech... In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration arises." S.N.45.1 (i.e. the Noble Path, ) "And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance." S.N.12.2 #121440 From: "connie" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:09 am Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" nichiconn Dear Scott, re: a discussion of the terms 'eva.m' and 'suta,m' used by Aananda: > and 'reading = hearing'; see also Path of Discrimination, Treatise I. Chapter 1 "Understanding of applying the ear is knowledge of what consists in the heard (learnt)" is called "book learning" in the Introductory Note. early on, you'll be sent (among other places) to: Book of Analysis 768: Therein what is 'wisdom by means of thinking'? (The wisdom) In the spheres of work invented by ingenuity or in the spheres of craft invented by ingenuity or in the branches of science invented by ingenuity or (knowledge that) action is one's own possession or (knowledge that) in conformity with truth matter is impermanent; feeling; :P: perception; :P: mental concomitants; :P: or consciousness is impermanent; that which is similar, in conformity, ability (to comprehend), view, choice, opinion, seeing, ability to apprehend (these) states, is acquired without hearing form others. This is called wisdom by means of thinking. {P = Is impermanent.} Therein what is 'wisdom by means of hearing'? {...same as above... to:} is acquired by hearing from others. This is called wisdom by means of hearing. All the wisdom of one who has attained, is, wisdom by means of development. connie #121441 From: "connie" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:25 am Subject: Re: Patthana chanting. nichiconn dear colette, wrote: > What good is ORDER when the main result of ORDER are robots like Agent 86, Maxwell Smart. On the other hand, without knowing about the Order of Samsara, we wouldn't learn about the tools for Escape & our situation would truly be hopeless! Good to know you still have the basement! Stay warm, connie #121442 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter (and Sarah & Nina) - In a message dated 12/18/2011 12:53:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: By that we avoid self reference like avijja conditions avijja , which confuses D.O. and its relation to cetasikas. =============================== One instance of avijja conditions future instances of avijja. Avijja, is not a lasting thing and not a single thing, but like all conditioned phenomena, comes and goes in varying forms and degrees. And, until the deep-seated inclination towards avijja is uprooted, varying instances of it come again and again, and again. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121443 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:06 am Subject: Re: How to develop right understanding? szmicio Dear Phil, > > L: No I meant, attraction to a girl. > > Ph: Well, that is not going to end any day soon! But I think one day when our understanding deepens we'll start to get tired of that, conditions for being attracted to people (sexually or otherwise) will be used up. L: Well, not sexually at all. This is more the feeling of attraction to a nice girl. personality and all nimitta, anupancana(? I mean minor appearances). Best wishes Lukas P.s By the way I found out that I have a lot of attachment to a views of not having a girl or wife. #121444 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Dear Phil, Weird, I had no time to look more closely. Nina. Op 18-dec-2011, om 17:08 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I read the first description of the cetasikas (phassa) and thought > it looked very strange, phassa squeezing the sap out of the object? > Much too juicy for me, I'll phass. #121445 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:35 am Subject: Re: three jokes epsteinrob Hi Scottie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "What is your basis for saying any of this?..." > > Scott: Your disingenuous attribution that I consider jhaana to be nonsense. Hopefully I've cleared that up for you. That was not what my question was about, it was about your basis for saying that meditators don't know what they're talking about, etc., etc., not about what you did or didn't think about jhana. But nice move answering something else since you have no evidence of any kind for what I was talking about, and it is just spouting your toxic, prejudiced, unwarranted, unintelligent opinion about meditation and what meditators talk about. Anyway, 'nuff on that. As to what you think I said about what you think, which was not disingenous, but taken that way by you for your own reasons, I was saying -- rightly I think -- that you think it is "nonsense" when we folk talk about jhana and all that; and I also think it's accurate that you think it's "nonsense" that jhana and related issues that we sometimes like to talk about have anything to do with our path or our life as modern householders. That is what I meant, not that you think "jhana itself" is nonsense. I'm sure that when jhana comes up in the right context for you, eg, for the ancient followers who already knew jhana well; or, eg, for one on the path of insight who naturally has jhana cittas and jhana factors arise because of conditions, that you do not consider it nonsense, but in the context that you remarked to Connie's remark, yes, you would think that in that context it was nonsense. Do you think that is not accurate? Thanks for clarifying, your friend in Dhamma, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #121446 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:21 am Subject: Re: three jokes scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "Hi Scottie..." Scott. #121447 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:12 am Subject: Mixed cause => Mixed Effect! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Effect caused by Action is delayed as a Sown Seed! The Blessed Buddha once explained: Regarding the effects of actions, Ananda, as to the person here who avoids all killing of any living being, who avoids all stealing of what is not given, who avoids any misconduct in sensual pleasures, who avoids all false speech, divisive speech, aggressive speech, and all idle & empty gossip, who is neither envious, nor jealous, is good-willed, and who is of right view, yet who at the breakup of the body, right after death, is reborn in a state of deprivation, a dreadful destination, in the painful purgatory, or even in one of the hells: Either earlier, prior to this, such one also did evil actions to be felt as painful, or later, after this - such one did evil actions to be felt as pain, or at moment of death such one entered into & maintained wrong views! Because of one or more of these, right after death, such one is reborn in a bad state of deprivation, a dreadful destination, in the painful purgatory, or even in the hells. But since such one also - here & now - has been one who avoids all killing of any living being, who avoids taking anything what is not given, who avoids all wrong misconduct in sensual pleasures, who avoids all false speech, divisive speech, aggressive speech, & all idle & empty gossip, who is neither envious, nor jealous, who is of good will, & who holds right views, such one will experience the pleasant results of that good behaviour, either here and now, or in the next rebirth, or in some subsequent later existence... Comments: Behaviour (kamma) is almost always mixed: Sometimes good, sometimes bad! The later effects are therefore also mixed: Sometimes pleasure, often pain... Good begets good & dilutes+delays evil. Evil begets evil & dilutes+delays good! An illustration of the delayed, overlapping & interfering result of mixed kamma: <...> Source: The Moderate speeches of the Buddha: The great speech on Action. MN 136 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=25072X Full Text: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.136.nymo.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <....> #121448 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Dear Phil, Op 18-dec-2011, om 17:08 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > I read the first description of the cetasikas (phassa) and thought > it looked very strange, phassa squeezing the sap out of the object? > Much too juicy for me, I'll phass. ------- N: I quote again: 1. Phassa means contact, and contact means the faculty of pressing the object (arammana), so as to cause the agreeable or disagreeable sap (so to speak) to come out. So it is the main principle or prime mover of the mental properties in the uprising. If the sap cannot be squeezed out, then all objects (arammana) will be of no use. 2. VedanÄ means feeling, or the faculty of tasting the sapid flavour thus squeezed out by the phassa. All creatures are sunk in this vedanÄ. -------- N: First of all, I was mistaken, this list is by U Kyaw Min, and the translation of the Dhammasangani is by U Kyaw Khine, different authors. As to phassa, we have to see this in the context of: phassa conditions vedanaa. Vedanaa tastes the flavour of an object. This is all figurative. That is why U Kyaw Min wanted to explain phassa as pressing the object, and he adds, 'so to speak'. Figuratively. Even contact is figurative, there is no physical contact. It is difficult to explain cetasikas without using figurative language. -------- Nina. #121449 From: "philip" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project philofillet Hi Nina > N: First of all, I was mistaken, this list is by U Kyaw Min, and the > translation of the Dhammasangani is by U Kyaw Khine, I'm finding it difficult to understand Atth without Dhs, I think I will have to splurge on Dhs. > As to phassa, we have to see this in the context of: phassa > conditions vedanaa. Vedanaa tastes the flavour of an object. This is > all figurative. That is why U Kyaw Min wanted to explain phassa as > pressing the object, and he adds, 'so to speak'. Figuratively. Even > contact is figurative, there is no physical contact. It is difficult > to explain cetasikas without using figurative language. > Ph: Well, you are being generous I think, Nina. The imagery he used would lead anyone who didn't know better to believe phassa means physical contact, he was too colourful in his writing. I like your books because all the stirring imagery is in canonical and coomentarial quotations, you don't impose your own metaphors and theories. I think original thinking is a curse when it comes to Dhamma, and any strikingly original metaphor we use should be put under firm scrutiny by our Dhamma friends. Pet theories should be lined up against the wall and shot, if they can remain on their feet, great. Please be tough whenever you see me or anyone else trying to show off pet theories. Thank you! Phil #121450 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Dear Phil, I am not sure that the author took it from a commentary or a subcommentary. People in Myanmar usually are very good at Abhidhamma, so, I would rather be careful when critizising. Perhaps Han could help out. Nina. Op 19-dec-2011, om 10:37 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > The imagery he used would lead anyone who didn't know better to > believe phassa means physical contact, he was too colourful in his > writing. #121451 From: "philip" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:57 pm Subject: Re: How to develop right understanding? philofillet Hi Lukas > > > L: No I meant, attraction to a girl. > > > > Ph: Well, that is not going to end any day soon! But I think one day when our understanding deepens we'll start to get tired of that, conditions for being attracted to people (sexually or otherwise) will be used up. > > L: Well, not sexually at all. This is more the feeling of attraction to a nice girl. personality and all nimitta, anupancana(? I mean minor appearances). Ph: This is a fascinating topic. Today I thought about this post while teaching a very lively student who seemed to be flirting with me by leaning forward to show off her breasts, biting her lip, just really so many details to get sucked in by. I have taught her all year, really helped her a lot so I refused to end the year by getting "busted" by her (i.e be caught glancibg at her breasts.) Not easy, but easier tganks to your post. It was certainly clear to ne tgat tge "hiri and otappa" involved were not kusala, mostly wanting to protect my self image and feel good about myself as virtuous person, perhaps some kusala monents as well, sincere friendliness. I could go on and on about this, Lukas. In any case unless you have rare accumulations it will go on and on. > By the way I found out that I have a lot of attachment to a views of not having a girl or wife. Ph: Well for sure, another aspect of playing bhikkhu. But some people truly do have such an accumulation. Sometimes I think I do, but I doubt it. These days my wife and I our as cozy as ever in our unconventional way. I was happy about getting amicably divorced but it doesn't seem likely to happen, for better or worse. Lobha finds so many obvious and subtle reasons to have a companion in life...and trying to go against them in an unnatural way would just create new and different kinds of akusala, probably... Phil #121452 From: "philip" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project philofillet Hi Nina > I am not sure that the author took it from a commentary or a > subcommentary. Ph: Do you mean you are not sure he didn't take it from a commentary? If he did, it is valid and I apologize. People in Myanmar usually are very good at Abhidhamma, > so, I would rather be careful when critizising. Ph: That's true, thank you for pointing that out, a lot of recklessness of that sort for me these days, can't be changed in short order but reminders from respected friends help, thanks. Phil #121453 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Dear Phil, I do not know! I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Nina Op 19-dec-2011, om 11:07 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > Ph: Do you mean you are not sure he didn't take it from a > commentary? If he did, it is valid and I apologize. #121454 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness nilovg Dear Dieter (and Scott) See below, what Scott explains. Op 18-dec-2011, om 17:06 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > Dhammasa"nga.ni sets out to describe the characteristics of each > mental factor. These are described in terms of each mental factor > arising in a moment, conascent with citta. The phrase, 'What on > that occasion' (Katamo tasmi.m samaye) precedes each description. > This refers to the momentary arising of a given mental factor. -------- N: There does not have to be a problem with moha and avijjaa. Avijjaa is just the same cetasika as moha. We often see that in different contexts different terms for the same reality are used. As you say, when the three akusala roots are mentioned, moha is used for ignorance, and it is ignorance of realities, paramattha dhamms, also including ignorance of the four noble Truths. ------ Nina. #121455 From: "philip" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project philofillet Hi again Nina > 2. VedanÄ means feeling, or the faculty of tasting the sapid flavour > thus squeezed out by the phassa. All creatures are sunk in this Re the above, by coincidence I just read on faculty condition in your book. Vedaba as faculty (exerting leadership, great control over the conditioned dhammas) is very interesting, as you write in the book "even though we are in pleasant surroundings, we cannot rejoice when we suffer pain." And then "According to the Visudhimagga, (XIV,128) pain makes the associated dhammas 'wither' and pleasant bodily feeling 'intensifies' the associated dhammas." We are so vulnerable to tge faculty conditiob power of feeling. I guess it is that second dart. The Buddha got a rock splinter hammed into his foot, and there was pain, but bo aversion. Not for us. But at the time of intense pain there may be rememvering of Dhamma for us so that we are not completely submerged in tge akusala response to pain. I wonder if it can be said that as panna develops, vedana loses some of its power as faculty condition. (Pet theory warning... ) No need to respond, Nina, I am just killung tine in a coffee shop, sorry for tge excessive posting.... Phil #121456 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Dear Phil, Op 19-dec-2011, om 12:03 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > But at the time of intense pain there may be rememvering of Dhamma > for us so that we are not completely submerged in tge akusala > response to pain. ------- N: I mentioned this to KH Sujin when I had a terrible stomach pain in India. Guess what she answered: "It is still your pain". Good cold shower! ------- > > Ph: I wonder if it can be said that as panna develops, vedana loses > some of its power as faculty condition. (Pet theory warning... ) ------ N: The arahat is not overcome by vedanaa, but still, vedanaa is a leader in its own field. ----- Nina. #121457 From: "philip" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project philofillet Hi Nina > N: I mentioned this to KH Sujin when I had a terrible stomach pain in > India. Guess what she answered: "It is still your pain". > Good cold shower! It could be said to be a warm shower too, I think, lobha for unserstanding Dhamma mixed in with the actual understanding of Dhamma. One of those uncontrollable cheap hotel showers with the cold and warm mixed in! > > Ph: I wonder if it can be said that as panna develops, vedana loses > > some of its power as faculty condition. (Pet theory warning... ) > ------ > N: The arahat is not overcome by vedanaa, but still, vedanaa is a > leader in its own field. Ph: By the way, I am wondering why patisandhi citta is said to be faculty condition for accompanying cetasikas and rupa produced by kamma ( p.93 of your "Conditionality of Life") but it is not in the list of indriyas on p.91. You write "since it is the first citta in life it is too weak to produce ruupa" so how is it strong enough to be faculty condition? Phil #121458 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness moellerdieter Dear Nina, all, you wrote: N: There does not have to be a problem with moha and avijjaa. Avijjaa is just the same cetasika as moha. We often see that in different contexts different terms for the same reality are used. As you say, when the three akusala roots are mentioned, moha is used for ignorance, and it is ignorance of realities, paramattha dhamms, also including ignorance of the four noble Truths. D: I think it is it better to let the issue rest for now .. Buddhagosa's placement of avijja and sankhara into the past /previous life is disputed , as you know . Possibly we may discuss it again as a new topic . Of higher importance is of course how the chain can be broken and for that the vedana - tanha link is significant . The extract below presents that quite nicely .. at least I.M.H.O. .. with Metta Dieter http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk212b.htm Vipassana research study BASED ON a VRI Research article, Sayagyi U Ba Khin Journal-VRI "....In other words, the origin of each link depends upon the preceding one. As long as this chain of twelve causal relations operates, the wheel of becoming (bhava-cakka) keeps turning, bringing nothing but suffering. This process of cause and effect is called anuloma-paticcasamuppada (the Law of Dependent Origination in forward order). Every link of anuloma results in misery (dukkha), as a result of avijja which is at the base of every link. Thus the process of anuloma clarifies the first two Noble Truths, dukkha-sacca (suffering), and samudaya-sacca (its origination and multiplication). We have to emerge from this bhava-cakka of dukkha. Explaining how to do so, the Buddha said that when any one of the links of the chain is broken, the wheel of becoming comes to an end, resulting in the cessation of suffering. This is called patiloma-paticcasamuppada (the Law of Dependent Origination in reverse order) which clarifies the third and fourth Noble Truths, nirodha-sacca (the cessation of suffering), and nirodha-gamini- patipada-sacca (the path that leads to the cessation of suffering). How can that be achieved? Which link of the chain can be broken? Through deep insight, the Buddha discovered that the crucial link is vedana. In the anuloma-paticcasamuppada, he says "vedana-paccaya tanha'' (with the base of sensation, craving and aversion arise). Vedana is the cause of tanha, which gives rise to dukkha. In order to remove the cause of dukkha or tanha; therefore, one must not allow vedana to connect with tanha; in other words, one must practise Vipassana meditation at this juncture so that avijja becomes vijja or panna (wisdom). One has to observe vedana, to experience and to comprehend the truth of its arising and passing away, i.e., anicca. Through Vipassana (the observation of the reality 'as it is'), as one experiences vedana properly, one comes out of the delusion of nicca-sanna (perception of permanence) by the development of anicca-bodha or anicca-vijja (the wisdom of impermanence) towards vedana. This is practised by observing with equanimity, the arising and passing away of vedana. With aniccabodha, the habit pattern of the mind changes. Instead of the earlier pattern of vedana-paccaya tanha, through anicca-vijja it becomes vedana paccaya panna (with the base of sensation wisdom arises). As panna becomes stronger and stronger, naturally the sanna and with it tanha, becomes weaker and weaker. The process of the multiplication of suffering with the base of avijja then becomes the process of the cessation of suffering, with vijja as the base. As this process continues, a time comes where there is the complete cessation of vedana as well as tanha: "vedana-nirodha tanha nirodho" (with the cessation of sensation, craving and aversion cease). This state of emancipation is a state beyond mind-matter ; where both vedana and sanna cease. One can experience this for a few seconds, minutes, hours, or days when according to one's own capacity, one becomes established in nirodha-samapatti by practising Vipassana. After the period of nirodha-samapatti (the attainment of cessation), when one comes back to the sensual field of mind-matter, one again experiences vedana. But now the whole habit pattern of the mind has been changed, and continued observation leads to the stage where one does not generate aversion or craving at all because the anusaya kilesa and the asava (the deep-rooted mental impurities) are eradicated. In this way by the breaking of one link, vedana, the whole process is shattered and the wheel of repeated existence is broken completely. If we want to advance on the path of liberation, we have to work at the level of vedana because it is here that the rotation of the wheel of misery can be arrested. With vedana starts the turning of the bhava-cakka (wheel of becoming), leading (because of avijja) to vedana-paccaya tanha which causes suffering. This is the path which ignorant persons (puthujjana) follow, since they react to vedana and generate tanha. And from here also the Dhamma-cakka, (wheel of Dhamma) or the wheel of cessation of suffering (dukkha-nirodha-gamini-patipada) can start to rotate, leading to vedana-nirodha, tanha-nirodho: the end of craving, as a result of anicca-vijja or panna, leading to the cessation of suffering. This is the path which wise persons (sapanna) follow by not reacting to vedana, because they have developed anicca-bodha by the practice of Vipassana. Many of the contemporaries of the Buddha held the view that craving causes suffering and that to remove suffering one has to abstain from the objects of craving. In order to develop detachment, the Buddha tackled the problem in a different way. Having learned to examine the depths of his own mind, he realized that between the external object and the mental reflex of craving is a missing link: vedana (sensation). Whenever we encounter an object through the five physical senses or the mind, a sensation arises; and based on the sensation, tanha arises. If the sensation is pleasant we crave to prolong it, and if it is unpleasant we crave to be rid of it. It is in the chain of Dependent Origination that the Buddha expressed his profound discovery #121459 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:33 am Subject: Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness nichiconn dear Dieter, Nirodha-samapatti !! Who is capable of that? Throw away the article quoted below and go back to something like Vism ch 17 instead. connie > http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk212b.htm Vipassana research study BASED ON a VRI Research article, Sayagyi U Ba Khin Journal-VRI <...cut..> << This state of emancipation is a state beyond mind-matter ; where both vedana and sanna cease. One can experience this for a few seconds, minutes, hours, or days when according to one's own capacity, one becomes established in nirodha-samapatti by practising Vipassana. After the period of nirodha-samapatti (the attainment of cessation), when one comes back to the sensual field of mind-matter, one again experiences vedana. But now the whole habit pattern of the mind has been changed, and continued observation leads to the stage where one does not generate aversion or craving at all because the anusaya kilesa and the asava (the deep-rooted mental impurities) are eradicated. In this way by the breaking of one link, vedana, the whole process is shattered and the wheel of repeated existence is broken completely. >> #121460 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter (and Nina) - In a message dated 12/19/2011 7:09:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Many of the contemporaries of the Buddha held the view that craving causes suffering and that to remove suffering one has to abstain from the objects of craving. In order to develop detachment, the Buddha tackled the problem in a different way. Having learned to examine the depths of his own mind, he realized that between the external object and the mental reflex of craving is a missing link: vedana (sensation). Whenever we encounter an object through the five physical senses or the mind, a sensation arises; and based on the sensation, tanha arises. If the sensation is pleasant we crave to prolong it, and if it is unpleasant we crave to be rid of it. It is in the chain of Dependent Origination that the Buddha expressed his profound discovery ================================= IMO, Sayagyi U Ba Khin and Goenka after him misunderstand what vedana is. They identify it with bodily sensations (that may be pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral). But such sensations are body-door rupas, not namas, and particularly not instances of vedana. Every instance of vedana is a mental operation that experiences (or "feels" or "tastes") the current object of consciousness as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121461 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness nichiconn dear Howard, re: <....> sensations are body-door rupas, not namas, c: rupas are unfeeling. it sounds like you're confusing the physical basis with the experience. connie #121462 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness moellerdieter Hi Howard and Connie,all, you wrote : (quote 'Many of the contemporaries of the Buddha held the view that craving causes suffering and that to remove suffering one has to abstain from the objects of craving. In order to develop detachment, the Buddha tackled the problem in a different way. Having learned to examine the depths of his own mind, he realized that between the external object and the mental reflex of craving is a missing link: vedana (sensation). Whenever we encounter an object through the five physical senses or the mind, a sensation arises; and based on the sensation, tanha arises. If the sensation is pleasant we crave to prolong it, and if it is unpleasant we crave to be rid of it. It is in the chain of Dependent Origination that the Buddha expressed his profound discovery) HCW: IMO, Sayagyi U Ba Khin and Goenka after him misunderstand what vedana is. They identify it with bodily sensations (that may be pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral). D: why ? "whenever we encounter an object through through the five physical senses or the mind " ( i.e.passa ) " a sensation arises; and based on the sensation, tanha arises" that is correct: passa -vedana - tanha HCW: But such sensations are body-door rupas, not namas, and particularly not instances of vedana. D: well, all 6 senses are mentioned ( ' or mind ' ) . Passa conditions Vedana : that is indeed the sensation or feeling which arises with contact. Vedana, the quality of the sensation (pleasant ..etc) , is nama ( otherwise there would be a contradiction with Vedana Khanda) . We are not talking about the mind door (passa). At the door the 5 physical senses are indeed provided by the 5 organs , but its transformation into 'Empfindung' (German for sensation , feeling , etc.), is nama . As I understand , each time the quality pleasant or unpleasant is strong , i.e. emotion, an urge (tanha /thirst) arises ..with the known consequences. It is possible to note an emotion (usually emotional people are advised to take a deep breath then before acting..) . This vedana -tanha link can be observed as one can prove by one's own experience. It needs skill of sati ..ideally with a fair foundation of (maha)satipatthana , but that (Vipassana ) can be gradually developed . Certainly very worthwhile to practise, in particular for the benefit of dispassion and detachment. with Metta Dieter #121463 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness nichiconn dear Dieter > Vedana, the quality of the sensation (pleasant ..etc) , is nama ( otherwise there would be a contradiction with Vedana Khanda) . > We are not talking about the mind door (passa). At the door the 5 physical senses are indeed provided by the 5 organs , but its transformation into 'Empfindung' (German for sensation , feeling , etc.), is nama . > there is an arising of feeling... it is not transformed from anything else but is just what it is, from it's own conditions... not starting out as one thing and becoming a new thing. feeling arises and ceases as feeling. connie #121464 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness moellerdieter Dear Connie, you wrote: there is an arising of feeling... it is not transformed from anything else but is just what it is, from it's own conditions... not starting out as one thing and becoming a new thing. feeling arises and ceases as feeling. D: agreed, Connie (leaving neurological aspects aside) .. I am pleasantly surprised that above is all to what you object in my posting.. ;-) with Metta Dieter #121465 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 12/19/2011 9:46:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: dear Howard, re: <....> sensations are body-door rupas, not namas, c: rupas are unfeeling. it sounds like you're confusing the physical basis with the experience. connie ================================ Just the opposite, Connie. Of course rupas are unfeeling! But feeling rupas as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral is a mental operation, a nama - specifically vedana. It is Goenka who is conflating the two. Vedana is a kind of knowing, What it knows (as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral) are rupas that What vedana applies to are objects of consciousness, including such body-door rupas as pressures, stings, warmth, and so on. A stinging, for example, felt by vedana as unpleasant, is the sort of thing that Goenka calls "vedana" - and I disagree with him. My perspective is that a stinging is a rupa. The knowing of it as object is body-door vi~n~nana, and feeling it as unpleasant is body-door vedana. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121466 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:20 am Subject: Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness nichiconn dear Howard, > Vedana is a kind of knowing, What it knows (as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral) are rupas that What vedana applies to are objects of consciousness, including such body-door rupas as pressures, stings, warmth, and so on. A stinging, for example, felt by vedana as unpleasant, is the sort of thing that Goenka calls "vedana" - and I disagree with him. My perspective is that a stinging is a rupa. The knowing of it as object is body-door vi~n~nana, and feeling it as unpleasant is body-door vedana. ======== Something's wrong with the way that paragraph came thru. So you're not using 'sensation' to mean 'feeling / vedana'. OK. Ye olde 'see this sight' & 'sight sees' kind of confusion. Aaarrgghh! I guess you're also not talking about the objects of the other 4 physical senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue) but only the tangible rupas of earth, fire and air that the physical body consciousness can be aware of. I think the texts say those must be either painful or pleasant - but is it contact or feeling? Or both? :) connie (I'm debating with myself here: is stinging is a combination of the three or just fire? Leaning towards the combo, heavy on the fire...) #121467 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:21 am Subject: What Stops all Sadness? bhikkhu5 Friends: What Stops all Sadness & Frustration? Where does all mental melancholy and blue depression cease without a trace? When, with the fading away & stilling of all directed thought & any sustained thinking, one enters and remains in the second jh�na absorption of assured unification of mind, merged with pleasure and joy, born of this well anchored & fixed concentration: It is right there that all mental frustration & sadness cease without a trace remaining... Therefore do beings reborn at the radiant deva level, never feel any mental sorrow, misery or sadness, since they are continuously absorbed in this subtle 2nd jh�na concentration... Thus they move their body of beaming light joyously around at the speed of a thought! They are literally feeding on this pure Joy! Continuously enveloped in enraptured and exalted ecstatic bliss! <....> Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nik�ya. Book V 213-4 The Abilities section 48. Thread on The Irregular Order: Uppatika 40 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 Sam�hita _/\_ * <...> #121468 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:38 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Connie - > > In a message dated 12/19/2011 9:46:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > nichicon@... writes: > > dear Howard, > re: <....> sensations are body-door rupas, not namas, > > c: rupas are unfeeling. it sounds like you're confusing the physical > basis with the experience. > connie > ================================ > Just the opposite, Connie. Of course rupas are unfeeling! But feeling > rupas as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral is a mental > operation, a nama - specifically vedana. It is Goenka who is conflating the two. > Vedana is a kind of knowing, What it knows (as pleasant, unpleasant, > or affectively neutral) are rupas that What vedana applies to are objects of > consciousness, including such body-door rupas as pressures, stings, > warmth, and so on. A stinging, for example, felt by vedana as unpleasant, is the > sort of thing that Goenka calls "vedana" - and I disagree with him. My > perspective is that a stinging is a rupa. The knowing of it as object is > body-door vi~n~nana, and feeling it as unpleasant is body-door vedana. I think this is a very good, clear explanation, breaking down what the rupa is, and what the attendant basic namas are that "process" the rupa in the first steps of being conscious of the object - first there is contact, then there is the basic reaction as to whether it is liked or disliked, ie, pleasant/unpleasant. This basic mechanism, contacting the rupa and the basic reaction to it is the basis for everything else that happens afterwards. It's also in the direction of that basic clarity as to what is rupa and what is nama that leads to basic insight. It is fascinating that someone as sophisticated and famous as Goenka could conflate these processes, if indeed he is doing so. I am not sure, however, whether "stinging" is a pure rupa, or whether something has to be conscious in order to sting. For instance, if I bang my head against a door, the hardness that is contacted is the insensate rupa, but is the pain, the sensation, a rupa? It is of the body itself rather than of the hardness and it seems to me to feel pain as opposed to hardness means that contact has already occurred. Likewise with stinging - stinging is a sensation isn't it? It's not yet vedana, it's not a reaction, but it is of the sensation, not of the object that causes the stinging. If I see a bright light, the light is a rupa, but the seeing is a nama isn't it? And if the light is too bright and causes pain, then the brightness is a quality of the rupa, but the pain is a nama, yes? This confuses me. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #121469 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:43 am Subject: Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness epsteinrob Hi Connie, and Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear Howard, > > > Vedana is a kind of knowing, What it knows (as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral) are rupas that What vedana applies to are objects of consciousness, including such body-door rupas as pressures, stings, warmth, and so on. A stinging, for example, felt by vedana as unpleasant, is the sort of thing that Goenka calls "vedana" - and I disagree with him. My perspective is that a stinging is a rupa. The knowing of it as object is body-door vi~n~nana, and feeling it as unpleasant is body-door vedana. > ======== > > Something's wrong with the way that paragraph came thru. > So you're not using 'sensation' to mean 'feeling / vedana'. OK. Ye olde 'see this sight' & 'sight sees' kind of confusion. Aaarrgghh! > I guess you're also not talking about the objects of the other 4 physical senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue) but only the tangible rupas of earth, fire and air that the physical body consciousness can be aware of. I think the texts say those must be either painful or pleasant - but is it contact or feeling? Or both? > :) > connie > > (I'm debating with myself here: is stinging is a combination of the three or just fire? Leaning towards the combo, heavy on the fire...) Leaving aside the elements, which I'm not knowledgeable enough to deal with right now, the question that's bothering me in all this is whether a sensation is a rupa or a nama. I understand that the object of a sensation is a rupa, the light, the hardness, the smell, the sound, that is experienced, but what is the physical feeling of it? If I touch a piece of wood, the "hardness" that is felt is a rupa. But is the sensation of the hardness part of the rupa? It seems to me that to feel something there has to be consciousness, and that would involve a nama. Can you help me sort this out? Thanks, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #121470 From: "philip" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:32 am Subject: Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness philofillet Hi Rob E >If I touch a piece of wood, the "hardness" that is felt is a rupa. But is the sensation of the hardness part of the rupa? It seems to me that to feel something there has to be consciousness, and that would involve a nama. Can you help me sort this out? Ph: Hardness is a rupa, the sensation that is vedana is a nama, the vedana is one of the cetasikas that performs a function in the knowing of the object that is the hardness, the rupa. Through the body sense door, there can be either pleasant or unpleasant feeling, no neutral feeling, though it might seem to be neutral. This seems pretty straight forward, in theory at least, but if you choose to go the experiential "find out for yourself" route rather than patiently growing into the understanding as taught by the Ariyans there will be infinite opportunities for confusion and wrong understanding. You have an opportunity to choose between the way the Ariyans explain it, and the way guys on the internet explain it based on their experience, you are free to choose at any point! Phil #121471 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 12/19/2011 3:20:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: dear Howard, > Vedana is a kind of knowing, What it knows (as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral) are rupas that What vedana applies to are objects of consciousness, including such body-door rupas as pressures, stings, warmth, and so on. A stinging, for example, felt by vedana as unpleasant, is the sort of thing that Goenka calls "vedana" - and I disagree with him. My perspective is that a stinging is a rupa. The knowing of it as object is body-door vi~n~nana, and feeling it as unpleasant is body-door vedana. ======== Something's wrong with the way that paragraph came thru. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, you're right. A sentence got cut off in doing a rewrite. ------------------------------------------------ So you're not using 'sensation' to mean 'feeling / vedana'. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: That's right! -------------------------------------------- OK. Ye olde 'see this sight' & 'sight sees' kind of confusion. Aaarrgghh! ---------------------------------------------- HCW: ;-) I tend to use 'seeing' for eye-door consciousness, and 'sight' for what is seen (i.e., visible object). ----------------------------------------------- I guess you're also not talking about the objects of the other 4 physical senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue) but only the tangible rupas of earth, fire and air that the physical body consciousness can be aware of. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, when I say "sensation" I usually mean a body-door rupa, but of course vedana operates on objects of all sorts - via all 6 doors. ----------------------------------------------- I think the texts say those must be either painful or pleasant - but is it contact or feeling? Or both? :) connie (I'm debating with myself here: is stinging is a combination of the three or just fire? Leaning towards the combo, heavy on the fire...) ------------------------------------------------ HCW: Mmm, mainly fire is my subjective take, but there seems to also be some earth-element influence in the form of "sharp hardness". (There doesn't seem to me to be much of air involved, if any.) ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121472 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 12/19/2011 6:38:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Connie - > > In a message dated 12/19/2011 9:46:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > nichicon@... writes: > > dear Howard, > re: <....> sensations are body-door rupas, not namas, > > c: rupas are unfeeling. it sounds like you're confusing the physical > basis with the experience. > connie > ================================ > Just the opposite, Connie. Of course rupas are unfeeling! But feeling > rupas as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral is a mental > operation, a nama - specifically vedana. It is Goenka who is conflating the two. > Vedana is a kind of knowing, What it knows (as pleasant, unpleasant, > or affectively neutral) are rupas that What vedana applies to are objects of > consciousness, including such body-door rupas as pressures, stings, > warmth, and so on. A stinging, for example, felt by vedana as unpleasant, is the > sort of thing that Goenka calls "vedana" - and I disagree with him. My > perspective is that a stinging is a rupa. The knowing of it as object is > body-door vi~n~nana, and feeling it as unpleasant is body-door vedana. I think this is a very good, clear explanation, breaking down what the rupa is, and what the attendant basic namas are that "process" the rupa in the first steps of being conscious of the object - first there is contact, then there is the basic reaction as to whether it is liked or disliked, ie, pleasant/unpleasant. This basic mechanism, contacting the rupa and the basic reaction to it is the basis for everything else that happens afterwards. It's also in the direction of that basic clarity as to what is rupa and what is nama that leads to basic insight. It is fascinating that someone as sophisticated and famous as Goenka could conflate these processes, if indeed he is doing so. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: It seems to me that he does. ----------------------------------------------- I am not sure, however, whether "stinging" is a pure rupa, or whether something has to be conscious in order to sting. ------------------------------------------------ HCW: The word 'stinging' is ambiguous, I think, sometimes referring to the rupa (or group of rupas) felt as painful, but sometimes incorporating the activity of feeling it as painful - a rupa/nama combo, and hence concept. -------------------------------------------------- For instance, if I bang my head against a door, the hardness that is contacted is the insensate rupa, but is the pain, the sensation, a rupa? --------------------------------------------------- HCW: The pain is the affective evaluating of the sensation, i.e., vedana operating on it, whereas the sensation itself is just body-door rupa. ---------------------------------------------------- It is of the body itself rather than of the hardness and it seems to me to feel pain as opposed to hardness means that contact has already occurred. --------------------------------------------------- HCW: The vedana that feels the hardness as painful must accompany the knowing (i.e, the "vi~n~nanizing") of it, it seems to me. ----------------------------------------------------- > Likewise with stinging - stinging is a sensation isn't it? It's not yet vedana, it's not a reaction, but it is of the sensation, not of the object that causes the stinging. ------------------------------------------------------------------ HCW: I don't think of vedana as a reaction. It is an effective evaluating of the object as the object is known. The reaction of liking or disliking is sankhara that comes afterwards. ------------------------------------------------------------------- > If I see a bright light, the light is a rupa, but the seeing is a nama isn't it? ---------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, the bright light that is seen is an eye-door rupa, and the seeing of it is nama. Likewise, the stinging is a body-door rupa (or a group of such), known by body-door consciousness and felt as painful by concomitant body-door vedana. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > And if the light is too bright and causes pain, then the brightness is a quality of the rupa, but the pain is a nama, yes? ---------------------------------------------------------- HCW: The brightness is a quality of the rupa. If the light is too bright, there results a rapid constriction of the iris. It is that rapid movement, a body-door (air-element) rupa, that is then taken as object by vi~n~nana and is felt as painful by vedana, a nama. (The visible object, i.e., the bright light, is not what is felt as painful.) ------------------------------------------------------------- This confuses me. --------------------------------------------------------- HCW: It isn't easy, and I'm not certain as to the correctness of what I'm writing about it. ---------------------------------------------------------- Best, Rob E. ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121473 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Connie) - In a message dated 12/19/2011 6:43:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, epsteinrob@... writes: Hi Connie, and Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear Howard, > > > Vedana is a kind of knowing, What it knows (as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral) are rupas that What vedana applies to are objects of consciousness, including such body-door rupas as pressures, stings, warmth, and so on. A stinging, for example, felt by vedana as unpleasant, is the sort of thing that Goenka calls "vedana" - and I disagree with him. My perspective is that a stinging is a rupa. The knowing of it as object is body-door vi~n~nana, and feeling it as unpleasant is body-door vedana. > ======== > > Something's wrong with the way that paragraph came thru. > So you're not using 'sensation' to mean 'feeling / vedana'. OK. Ye olde 'see this sight' & 'sight sees' kind of confusion. Aaarrgghh! > I guess you're also not talking about the objects of the other 4 physical senses (eye, ear, nose, tongue) but only the tangible rupas of earth, fire and air that the physical body consciousness can be aware of. I think the texts say those must be either painful or pleasant - but is it contact or feeling? Or both? > :) > connie > > (I'm debating with myself here: is stinging is a combination of the three or just fire? Leaning towards the combo, heavy on the fire...) Leaving aside the elements, which I'm not knowledgeable enough to deal with right now, the question that's bothering me in all this is whether a sensation is a rupa or a nama. I understand that the object of a sensation is a rupa, the light, the hardness, the smell, the sound, that is experienced, but what is the physical feeling of it? --------------------------------------------- HCW: A felt, i.e., experienced, warmth is a body-door sensation, a heard sound is an ear-door sensation, and so on. We use the term sensation for a rupa that is object of consciousness, most especially a body-door rupa. Probably we'd do best to avoid use of the word 'sensation' (unless describing a pop entertainer LOL!) ------------------------------------------------- If I touch a piece of wood, the "hardness" that is felt is a rupa. But is the sensation of the hardness part of the rupa? ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: A hardness sensation is any instance of hardness, any hardness rupa, that is object of consciousness. Whenever a body-door rupa is object of consciousness, it is called "a sensation," but it is still a rupa. An ache in your back does not know anything, and, so, it is not nama - it is rupa. ------------------------------------------------------ It seems to me that to feel something there has to be consciousness, and that would involve a nama. Can you help me sort this out? ------------------------------------------------------- HCW: It is rupa. We call it a sensation when it is an object of consciousness. The knowing of it is nama, but it is rupa. -------------------------------------------------------- Thanks, Rob E. ===================================== I'll add one thing: I don't always write "IMO" or "as I view the matter," in the foregoing, but please know that I mean that. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121474 From: "connie" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:38 pm Subject: Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness nichiconn Hi Guys, I think the term "sensation" is going to remain problematic. Some will think of it as 'the stimulus' and some will think of it as 'the reaction'. Also, do we "feel" happiness the same way we "feel" heat or is that hot "feeling" actually 'perceived'? connie #121475 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and Robert) - In a message dated 12/19/2011 9:39:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: Hi Guys, I think the term "sensation" is going to remain problematic. Some will think of it as 'the stimulus' and some will think of it as 'the reaction'. Also, do we "feel" happiness the same way we "feel" heat or is that hot "feeling" actually 'perceived'? ------------------------------------------------ HCW: The word 'feel' has a variety of meanings. Quite ambiguous!! Fortunately, reality is not! ;-) ----------------------------------------------- connie ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121476 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:55 pm Subject: Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness scottduncan2 Howard, HCW: "The word 'feel' has a variety of meanings. Quite ambiguous!! Fortunately, reality is not!..." Scott: Do you mean: 'Reality is not ambiguous'? If so, what is that supposed to mean? Scott. #121477 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:45 pm Subject: Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > >If I touch a piece of wood, the "hardness" that is felt is a rupa. But is the sensation of the hardness part of the rupa? It seems to me that to feel something there has to be consciousness, and that would involve a nama. Can you help me sort this out? > > Ph: Hardness is a rupa, the sensation that is vedana is a nama, the vedana is one of the cetasikas that performs a function in the knowing of the object that is the hardness, the rupa. What you are saying here is what is at issue. I am not sure that sensation and the perception of sensation as pleasant or unpleasant should be seen as the same thing. It's not just on the internet, but there is a lot of confusion about the translation of vedana as "feeling," since in English feeling can mean either an emotional response or a sensory impression, and I don't think vedana is necessarily either. Vedana is the basic reaction that something is pleasant or unpleasant, or where applicable, neutral. Doing a search of the Visudhimagga and the Dhammasangani it seems that sensations themselves are seen as either pleasant or unpleasant, but if so then the meaning is more obvious than I have taken it to be, as many sensations are pleasant to one person and unpleasant to someone else. > Through the body sense door, there can be either pleasant or unpleasant feeling, no neutral feeling, though it might seem to be neutral. But there is neutral feeling in other levels of vedana. > This seems pretty straight forward, in theory at least, but if you choose to go the experiential "find out for yourself" route rather than patiently growing into the understanding as taught by the Ariyans there will be infinite opportunities for confusion and wrong understanding. You have an opportunity to choose between the way the Ariyans explain it, and the way guys on the internet explain it based on their experience, you are free to choose at any point! This is not at issue - not necessary to make a speech about your preference for forms of study. What is at issue is whether sensations themselves are rupas, or whether the object of sensation is separate from the sensation; and whether vedana refers to the sensation or the perception of the sensations. I am not interested in what Goenka says about this, so no worry about this. I am interested in what the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries say to define this issue correctly. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121478 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > The brightness is a quality of the rupa. If the light is too bright, > there results a rapid constriction of the iris. It is that rapid movement, a > body-door (air-element) rupa, that is then taken as object by vi~n~nana > and is felt as painful by vedana, a nama. (The visible object, i.e., the > bright light, is not what is felt as painful.) > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > This confuses me. > --------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > It isn't easy, and I'm not certain as to the correctness of what I'm > writing about it. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Well it's enjoyable to investigate these things, especially when they are uncertain. :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #121479 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------ > > It seems to me that to feel something there has to be consciousness, and > that would involve a nama. Can you help me sort this out? > ------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > It is rupa. We call it a sensation when it is an object of > consciousness. The knowing of it is nama, but it is rupa. > -------------------------------------------------------- This is helpful, thanks! > ===================================== > I'll add one thing: I don't always write "IMO" or "as I view the > matter," in the foregoing, but please know that I mean that. And here I was just beginning to get a sense of certainty! ;-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121480 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness epsteinrob Hi Connie and Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Connie (and Robert) - > > In a message dated 12/19/2011 9:39:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > nichicon@... writes: > > Hi Guys, > I think the term "sensation" is going to remain problematic. Some will > think of it as 'the stimulus' and some will think of it as 'the reaction'. > Also, do we "feel" happiness the same way we "feel" heat or is that hot > "feeling" actually 'perceived'? > ------------------------------------------------ > HCW: > The word 'feel' has a variety of meanings. Quite ambiguous!! > Fortunately, reality is not! ;-) > ----------------------------------------------- Well one thing I think we can start with - vedana is not the full "emotional" meaning of "feeling," as emotions are part of formations, beyond vedana. But after that - confusing. Feeling as in just feeling a physical touch or seeing a bright light - that is not vedana, because it is just the raw act of perception, not the "pleasant or unpleasant" aspect of it. So vedana at least is one step beyond this, perceiving or, as Howard put it, evaluating that this is a sensation that feels good or bad. Generally speaking, if you feel a stabbing sensation it will be felt as unpleasant, and if you take a dip in a warm bath it will be felt as pleasant, but this could also be subjective, eg, cats don't like baths. To make it more complicated, there is also mental vedana, where a certain thought could be seen as pleasant or unpleasant, not just rupas. So it looks like vedana really is the perception or evaluation of the object as pleasant or unpleasant. I personally think of it as a basic "reaction" to the object, though Howard doesn't like that. I don't see it as an emotion, but something more basic, but in the realm of "like/don't like." Here is a discussion that is at least interesting, if not conclusive, from http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/teachings/d-veda.htm "When there is contact, there is feeling. When there is any form of consciousness - even of the bhavanga variety discussed earlier in viññana - there is feeling. On a basic level there are three kinds of feeling: pleasant, unpleasant and neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant. We will use the term 'neutral' for this last form although it is not entirely accurate [more on this below]. According to its nature, feeling can be more specifically divided into five: • bodily pleasant feeling • bodily unpleasant feeling • mentally pleasant feeling • mentally unpleasant feeling • balanced or neutral Feeling is the common translation but we should first make clear the distinction between vedana and emotion. Usually when we ask: "how are you feeling?" we mean: "what is your emotion?" Feeling is sense based, it arises from phassa (sense-impression). As an extension of feeling, or in relation to vedana, we can talk of 'sensation' but need to see that where there are degrees of sensation there are no degrees of vedana . Pleasant feeling is pleasant - otherwise it is either unpleasant or neutral. We might qualify sensation, as the result of contact, as being mildly pleasant, very pleasant, etc. but pleasure and pain (both sensations) are not the same as pleasant-feeling and unpleasant-feeling, although they are obviously intimately related. Looking back at phassa we recall that it is not about literal physical touch but about sense-impression. However, this is actually the condition (paccaya) for "sensation degrees." The 'external bases' vary - the intensity of light, volume of sound, etc. and the 'personal bases' (ayatana) vary - the sound may be intense but the ear is half-deaf - and so accordingly do sensations vary." Further discussion is on the site... Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #121481 From: "colette_aube" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:17 pm Subject: Re: Patthana chanting. colette_aube Hi connie, NO OFFENSE INTENDED, take it with a grain of salt, because I'm going to get "salty" here. "...the Order of Samsara,..." WTF! I have never accepted the delusion that places an "order" upon society, upon humanity. When you ascribe an "ORDER" to the reality of "suffering", well, shit, that's nothing more than the ramblings of a MASOCHIST in one of THE MARQUISE de SADE's books. Having "suicidal tendencies", then, puts the individual behind that wise and benevolent preacher Jim Jones and his PEOPLE'S TEMPLE. With that as your video, then ya might as well put MURRAY HEAD on as your audio playing ONE NIGHT IN BANGKOK. Or maybe Jim Jones isn't good enough, maybe we have to go to some of the wisest and most generous and kind (benevolent), I guess we'll have to go with POL POT. ORDER is a delusion. It is like comfort food on a cold and rainy day. ORDER is actually, negative to the universe where CHAOS is the rule of thumb. Not even organized religion dares to venture into SPACE since they know that their meal ticket is only of value as long as they stay locked in prison, behind the walls of the town that allows them to rule over them and take their money, take their lives, etc. (see Castle Walls which OBSCUR freedom from the prisoner enslaved behind the prison walls or Castle Walls, why not suggest a MUNICIPALITY or a city, or even a nation, Iran and North Koreo know which side of the earth is theirs and which side is another person's, don't they?) It's getting late and I'm still under the influence of the meditation I was experiencing when I thought to come up and see about doing a little more work. Now I find that I can't do the work because the meditation was there first before the thoughts of work. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear colette, > > wrote: > > What good is ORDER when the main result of ORDER are robots like Agent 86, Maxwell Smart. > > On the other hand, without knowing about the Order of Samsara, we wouldn't learn about the tools for Escape & our situation would truly be hopeless! > > Good to know you still have the basement! Stay warm, > connie > #121482 From: "philip" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:03 pm Subject: Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness philofillet Hi Rob E (Robbie?) > What you are saying here is what is at issue. I am not sure that sensation and the perception of sensation as pleasant or unpleasant should be seen as the same thing. It's not just on the internet, but there is a lot of confusion about the translation of vedana as "feeling," since in English feeling can mean either an emotional response or a sensory impression, and I don't think vedana is necessarily either. Vedana is the basic reaction that something is pleasant or unpleasant, or where applicable, neutral. Atthasaalini, p.54: "All these three kinds are termed 'feeling' because the taste of an object of sense is experienced or enjoyed. Among them, pleasure has tge characteristic of experiencing a desirable object of sense; pain, an undesirable object..." A lot of issues are settled by accepting that we don't know better than Buddhagosa, but that is a difficult realization for people to arrive at, it seems. I'm outta this thread. Phil Phil > Doing a search of the Visudhimagga and the Dhammasangani it seems that sensations themselves are seen as either pleasant or unpleasant, but if so then the meaning is more obvious than I have taken it to be, as many sensations are pleasant to one person and unpleasant to someone else. > > > Through the body sense door, there can be either pleasant or unpleasant feeling, no neutral feeling, though it might seem to be neutral. > > But there is neutral feeling in other levels of vedana. > > > This seems pretty straight forward, in theory at least, but if you choose to go the experiential "find out for yourself" route rather than patiently growing into the understanding as taught by the Ariyans there will be infinite opportunities for confusion and wrong understanding. You have an opportunity to choose between the way the Ariyans explain it, and the way guys on the internet explain it based on their experience, you are free to choose at any point! > > This is not at issue - not necessary to make a speech about your preference for forms of study. What is at issue is whether sensations themselves are rupas, or whether the object of sensation is separate from the sensation; and whether vedana refers to the sensation or the perception of the sensations. I am not interested in what Goenka says about this, so no worry about this. I am interested in what the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries say to define this issue correctly. > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = = > #121483 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:07 pm Subject: Re: Cetasika in daily life -project szmicio Dear Nina, Phil, > > Ph: I wonder if it can be said that as panna develops, vedana loses > > some of its power as faculty condition. (Pet theory warning... ) > ------ > N: The arahat is not overcome by vedanaa, but still, vedanaa is a > leader in its own field. > ----- L: He reacts with kiriya. No matter what kind of reaction it is. Best wishes Lukas #121484 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness szmicio Dear Nina and all, > > Dhammasa"nga.ni sets out to describe the characteristics of each > > mental factor. These are described in terms of each mental factor > > arising in a moment, conascent with citta. The phrase, 'What on > > that occasion' (Katamo tasmi.m samaye) precedes each description. > > This refers to the momentary arising of a given mental factor. > L: This phrase 'What on that occassion' ('Katamo tasmi.m samaye') precedes description of each cetasika? What is the meaning of it used there? Does it refers, that there needs to be proper moment for each cetasika to arise. Like 'Only when there is occasion for lobha to arise, then... the characteristics can be known..etc.'? Best wishes Lukas #121485 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:16 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E Now that we're in Sydney for the Christmas break I have time to reply to some long-outstanding messages (like this one which dates from our previous visit!). (118759) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > HI Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: This to me is really a kind of faith in the efficacy of 'practice', or the idea that by undertaking certain activities, with the 'sincere' aim of following the path, kusala cittas will eventually prevail over the (currently more numerous) akusala ones. > > [RE:] That is exactly right. It also takes faith to take the contrasting position - that the path arises by itself with no conventional practices or efforts. That is not evidenced by anything other than faith that it will occur, and one's sense that the logic of the commentaries that promote this view make sense and are correct. > =============== J: The 'contrasting position' you refer to needs to be properly understood. It is this: That the path is developed by virtue of the arising of previously accumulated awareness/insight, and that arising is made possible by having heard the teachings and having kept in mind the teachings as properly understood. That keeping in mind of the teachings includes an appreciation of the fact that what has been heard and understood relates to the very moment of such reflecting or keeping in mind (without this it is just intellectual knowledge/book study) So the 'faith' involved here is confidence in the necessity and importance of hearing and reflecting on the teachings, and confidence in the power of previously developed satipatthana to develop further regardless of all the akusala tendencies that have also been developed. Faith in the 'efficacy of practice', however, seems to involve 'faith' of a quite different kind. As we have already agreed, efficacy of practice is the idea that by undertaking certain specified activities with the 'sincere' aim of developing the path, the (initially) akusala cittas will, during the course of the practice, be supplanted by kusala ones. I cannot see any 'cause and result' connection in this, since neither the activity being undertaken, nor having the aim of developing the path, is kusala per se. It's more a matter of believing that awareness/insight will happen because it is thought the Buddha said it would. (Of course, you will see it differently.) > =============== > [RE:] My faith in practice is based on what the Buddha actually said, not what I think he said. > =============== J: Well the fact is that everyone's view is thought to be 'based on what the Buddha actually said' ;-)) In fact, however, it's a matter of one *interpretation* of what the Buddha actually said being preferred over another, based on whatever consideration. (As I see it, it's just not possible to put forward a description of the development of the path by citing passages from the suttas alone, without supplementary explanation and elucidation.) > =============== > [RE:] If Buddha were to say directly to you today, "Strive with all your might; practice without cease as if your hair were on fire," which are only slight paraphrases of what he said, and very close, you would be obliged to say to him, "That is wrong. One shouldn't practice in that way, because the path factors only develop gradually without any control." The only way you can reconcile the "no-practice/no-effort" view with that of the Buddha is to interpret what he says as having the opposite meaning of the actual words, and I don't know what justification there is for doing that. > =============== J: Unfortunately paraphrases tend to reflect the bias/views of the person doing the paraphrasing ;-)). Obviously I don't think, and have never suggested, that anything contained in the suttas is wrong! I am of course well aware of the Buddha's many pronouncements on striving, etc. And I see no inconsistency between understanding 'striving' as the kusala factor viriya (on the one hand) and the understanding that the path factors develop gradually over time, without any control (on the other). Jon #121486 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:24 pm Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna jonoabb Hi Rob E (118759) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > HI Jon. > ... > =============== > > [RE:] When Buddha says that the 4th jhana is the *culmination* of both equanimity *and satipatthana,* which I quoted and cited to you and which you seem to have mysteriously snipped instead of addressing, you don't accept the statement, you say it's not true, and somehow you interpret it that this is not what the Buddha meant. > =============== J: In case there's any suggestion of a motive to my 'mysterious' snipping of your passage ( ;-)) ), I'm setting it out again at the end of this message. > =============== > [RE:] But it *is* what he said, and there's little room for claiming that he meant something completely different. > =============== J: You read the description of the factor of right concentration as saying that "the 4th jhana is the *culmination* of both equanimity *and satipatthana,*". How are we to understand this? A reading of "jhana as the culmination of satipatthana" seems to suggest that it's satipatthana that leads to 4th jhana (rather than jhana leading to satipatthana, which is the view usually espoused). (Also, as I've pointed out before, a passage beginning with "There is the case where …" is not meant to be an exhaustive description of whatever is being instanced.) > =============== > > [J:] Trying to induce kusala to arise in place of akusala by directing attention in certain ways is a different notion altogether. > > [RE:] It is a notion promoted, lauded and instructed in great explicit detail by the Buddha in sutta. > =============== J: There's no express mention in the texts of a practice, as a means of developing the path, of trying to induce kusala to arise in place of akusala by directing attention in certain ways. So again, this would be an *interpretation* on your part. > =============== > [RE:] It's important to know that there is no self that has any control over the arising of kusala, ... > =============== J: Not only is there no self that has any control over the arising of kusala, there is no control period over the arising of kusala. If all dhammas are conditioned, then the very idea of there being such a thing as control is a non-starter. Unless your understanding of control differs from mine :-)) As we've discussed in another thread, there can be the *appearance of* control in the sense that if a person has developed a quality to the stage of it's being a faculty or power, that quality can arise upon a resolution that it should do so. In the suttas this is likened to doing something as easily as a healthy man is able to bend his arm. It 'works' so long as things are going as usual. But it's not meant to suggest control in the absolute sense. > =============== > [RE:] ... but we should not confuse that with the Buddha's instructions on meditation. > =============== J: I don't see anything in the Buddha's teachings that equates to current day ideas of 'instructions on meditation'. That would require a particular interpretation of the actual words of the suttas. Jon From the Mahasatipatthana Sutta (DN 22) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html "And what is right concentration? "There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. "With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. "With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' "With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. "This is called right concentration." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/118241 #121487 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:28 pm Subject: Re: no jhanas= no right knowledge. AN10.103 & AN5.51 jonoabb Hi Alex (118896) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Jon, all, > > >J: There is no such thing in the texts as insight that is 'based >on >suppression of the hindrances'. > >======= > > > [A:] "In a person of right concentration, right knowledge. In a person of right knowledge, right release." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.103.than.html > > Please note: No possibility is given for right knowledge without right concentration (which is defined as 4 Jhanas which suppress the defilements). > =============== J: When you say that right concentration is defined as the 4 jhanas, you are referring to Right Concentration as a factor of the NEP. As I explained in a recent post to Rob E, the meaning given in the commentarial literature is that the mental factor of concentration accompanying the moment of path consciousness is of the intensity of jhana. It does not mean that the development of mundane jhana is a necessary part of the development of the path. > =============== > [A:] No possibility for wisdom without suppresion of 5 defilements (AN5.51) > =============== J: The sutta you've just quoted (AN 5.51) does not say there's no possibility for wisdom without the suppression of the 5 hindrances. It describes the hindrances as things that "overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment" and states that when a person is "without strength and weak in discernment" he cannot attain enlightenment. Nothing surprising there. Enlightenment cannot occur at a time when panna (discernment) is weak. If panna is weak and the akusala tendencies are strong, then the akusala tendencies will tend to override the panna, and panna will arise only infrequently. However, the Satipatthana Sutta clearly indicates that the hindrances can be the object of awareness (see sutta extract below). This could only occur if awareness takes as its object a currently arising hindrance (i.e., if both the hindrance and awareness are arising, alternately, at the same time). Of course, if panna is weak and the hindrances strong, the development of panna will be slow and difficult. But that's the way things are and there's no point in pretending otherwise. Jon From the Satipatthana Sutta (Soma Thera transl) ************************ "And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in mental objects? "Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances. "How, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances? "Here, O bhikkhus, when sensuality is present, a bhikkhu knows with understanding: 'I have sensuality,' ... ************************ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html #121488 From: "philip" Date: Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:47 pm Subject: Study break philofillet Hi all I've come to realize that studying Atthasalini without Dhammasangani is going to be too difficult, so I've ordered the latter. I'll be taking a break to study them both, and will return with any questions later. By the way, is everyone familiar with biblio.com? I had no idea about it. Amazon.com had Dhs listed as used only for over $100, but biblio.com has it for &29 or something like that, the recommended Khine edition. Happy holidays to you all. Lucas, I'll e-mail you in a couple of days to set up a Skype. Phil #121489 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 12/19/2011 11:55:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Howard, HCW: "The word 'feel' has a variety of meanings. Quite ambiguous!! Fortunately, reality is not!..." Scott: Do you mean: 'Reality is not ambiguous'? If so, what is that supposed to mean? ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, reality is not ambiguous. By this I mean that there is a foundation of truth - an objective, actual way things are, not arbitrary and up for grabs, but to be found beyond our opinions and perspectives and formulations and conceptualizations. To further rephrase: This was my synoptic way of saying that there us a touchstone of actuality to the way things are that, while ultimately opaque to reason, is transparently clear to lokuttara pa~n~na. ----------------------------------------------- Scott. ================================= With metta, Howard "Suppose there were a pool of water — clear, limpid, and unsullied. A man with good eyesight standing there on the bank would see shells, gravel, & pebbles, and also shoals of fish swimming about and resting. Why is that? Because of the unsullied nature of the water. In the same way, that a monk with an unsullied mind would know his own benefit, the benefit of others, the benefit of both; that he would realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge & vision: Such a thing is possible. Why is that? Because of the unsullied nature of his mind." (From the Udakarahaka Sutta) #121490 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness scottduncan2 Howard, HCW: "...This was my synoptic way of saying that there us a touchstone of actuality to the way things are that, while ultimately opaque to reason, is transparently clear to lokuttara pa~n~na." Scott: Oh. Why do you isolate 'lokuttara pa~n~naa?' Is there a reason you don't mention the prior development of pa~n~naa which takes objects other than Nibbaana? Scott. #121491 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 12/20/2011 8:14:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Howard, HCW: "...This was my synoptic way of saying that there us a touchstone of actuality to the way things are that, while ultimately opaque to reason, is transparently clear to lokuttara pa~n~na." Scott: Oh. Why do you isolate 'lokuttara pa~n~naa?' Is there a reason you don't mention the prior development of pa~n~naa which takes objects other than Nibbaana? ---------------------------------------------- HCW: I agree that it would have been better to write just 'pa~n~na'. ----------------------------------------------- Scott. =========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121492 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness scottduncan2 Howard, HCW: "I agree that it would have been better to write just 'pa~n~na'." Scott: I don't know about 'better.' Isolating 'lokuttara pa~n~naa' conforms with your belief that the only reality is Nibbaana. I suggest that you worded it as you did as a way of making this point, albeit obliquely. Is this not how you see things? Scott. #121493 From: "connie" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:11 am Subject: Re: Patthana chanting. nichiconn dear colette, i was thinking, for instance, about how the jhaana factors enable seemingly simple but truly amazingly complex things like walking (or really, pretty much anything). beautiful, isn't it? connie #121494 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness moellerdieter Hi Scott, you wrote: (D: "Question: when we include metta in adosa cetasika, why not karuna and mudita?" N: "Because they have different characteristics...") Scott: It would seem that you are hampered by seeing D.O. as a rigid, fixed, and literal step-by-step 'process' and that you are considering higher-order concepts (see your ideas about 'tanha' for example) thereby missing the point that each mental factor is itself delimited has it's own characteristic and function. D: I have explained my understanding to Nina ..in particular the question about the system of classifying the cetasikas under a special group. The list of cetasikas by Ukyaw Min , I recently posted , is easier to understand, don't you think so? Your take of my message isn't clear to me , what higher order of tanha? Tanha as the orgination of suffering is of (second) highest order. Sorry, I miss to get your point incl. quotation.. with Metta Dieter #121495 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness moellerdieter Dear Sarah, you wrote: 'S: Here, upekkha is equanimity, the (always) beautiful mental factor, arising with every wholesome citta (those with pleasant and neutral feeling). Karuna and mudita don't arise with every wholesome citta. The 4 brahma-viharas are metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha, but metta has already been included in adosa and upekkha has already also been included under the universal beautiful mental factors. D: Karuna and mudita don't arise with every wholesome citta ..: what does that mean in daily life? .. > D: Question: when we include metta in adosa cetasika , why not karuna and mudita? .... S: As Nina explained, they are separate mental factors with their own particular characteristics. D: yes, different characteristic , but as I mentioned : dosa as hate has its opposite (adosa) in love, which covers the 3 respectively four. S: (Howard and Nina also already explained in response to our other thread on D.O. that moha and avijja are synonyms). D: in D.O. avijja refers to 'not knowing the four Noble Truths ', whereas we find moha/delusion under tanha ( or as a cetasika under sankhara khanda) Hence the former is different insofar as it is broader than moha which refers only to the second Noble Truth. ... > S:Many, many opportunities during the day, like now! > > > D: when the heart is open .. ;-) .... S: i.e. when the characteristic of metta is understood - no thought or concern for oneself at such times at all. If there's an attempt to develop metta, it's back to *me* and *my metta* again. D: I think that depends .. e.g. to contemplate the Metta Sutta may be of support for such development . Not turning a blind eye to other people's suffering ..not excluding one's own ('charity begins at home' ) etc.. You may recall that the Buddha used to open the heart/mind of his first time listeners before speaking of the Noble Truths. with Metta Dieter #121496 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:34 am Subject: Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness scottduncan2 Dieter, D: "...The list of cetasikas by Ukyaw Min , I recently posted , is easier to understand, don't you think so? Your take of my message isn't clear to me , what higher order of tanha? Tanha as the orgination of suffering is of (second) highest order." Scott: I'll try to be even more clear, Dieter: You can't see the trees for the forest. If this guy's list works for you, then fine. You are overly concerned with systems and lists, while failing to appreciate that each single cetasika has it's own unique characteristic and function. Tanha is lobha cetasika, Dieter. Lobha is a mental factor - a mental factor with unique characteristic and function arising with certain moments of consciousness. You are so caught up in some sort of rigid, global ideas about 'D.O.' that you fail to appreciate that all of the factors described therein are the very mental factors the lists of which, rather than the functions and characteristics, you find yourself ruminating about. 'Craving' is not some sort of globalistic, nebulous, quasi-permanent mind-state. It is a mental factor which arises *in the moment*. Rather than gloss over a quote with which you don't agree, claiming to not understand, why not at least consider it and demonstrate your points of disagreement. Here, for your consideration, is the quote: In the Udaana Commentary, 'samaya' (occasion) is clarified: "...And, in this connection, samaya is conjunction (samavaayo) since the co-operative activity (of this and that cause), when juxtaposed, is occasioned (sameti), is met with (samaagacchati), by way of those individuals who are the containers thereof; samaya is time (kalo), since it is herein that a being, or a thing having an own nature, is occasioned (sameti), or thereby runs in parallel (sa.mgacchati) with (the submoments of) arising (and so one) or with co-nascents and so forth - for although non-real (abhuuto), in the sense that there is (really) merely the occurrence of dhammas, time is depicted, through conformity with that established by a mere thought-construct, as the locus of that occurrence of dhammas, and as though it were the activity associated with them; samaya is collection (samuuho), since it is the course (ayana.m), occurrence, persistence, either equally (sama.m) or jointly (saha), of constituent parts, as with a collective (samudaayo), for the joint persistence of constituent parts is itself a collection (samuuho); samaya is root-cause (hetu) since, when there is a meeting of remaining conditions, fruition comes - arises, occurs, on account of this - as with origination (samudayo);..." Scott. #121497 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:05 am Subject: Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness epsteinrob Hi Phil [Phillie? - I guess we're all going overboard...] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E (Robbie?) :-) I never did answer to Robbie, although I've been called Rob and a lot of other things. ;-) No problem though! > > What you are saying here is what is at issue. I am not sure that sensation and the perception of sensation as pleasant or unpleasant should be seen as the same thing. It's not just on the internet, but there is a lot of confusion about the translation of vedana as "feeling," since in English feeling can mean either an emotional response or a sensory impression, and I don't think vedana is necessarily either. Vedana is the basic reaction that something is pleasant or unpleasant, or where applicable, neutral. > > Atthasaalini, p.54: "All these three kinds are termed 'feeling' because the taste of an object of sense is experienced or enjoyed. Among them, pleasure has the characteristic of experiencing a desirable object of sense; pain, an undesirable object..." > > A lot of issues are settled by accepting that we don't know better than Buddhaghosa, but that is a difficult realization for people to arrive at, it seems. I'm outta this thread. Well, though you are "out of this thread" I will comment anyway, just in case anyone reads it. :-) I'm not trying to have a contest with Buddhaghosa, although you seem to want to start a fight between us. I accept Buddhaghosa's authority. Even what he says leaves a lot of room for further specification of whether the object itself is unpleasant, or whether the experiencing of it is unpleasant. Note that B. says "...the taste of an object of sense is experienced or enjoyed..." The "or" there is interesting - it means the taste can be merely experienced but not enjoyed? That must be "neutral feeling" if it is just experienced. If it is enjoyed, that means that there is enjoyment in response to the object; that seems to me to be a nama. Anyway, you can see why it is still confusing if you bother to look at it more closely. If you don't want to bother, hey bro', it's no skin offa my rupas. Do whatever you please. But to make your usual persnickety comment that "A lot of issues are settled by accepting that we don't know better than Buddhaghosa, but that is a difficult realization for people to arrive at, it seems." Your quote was appreciated - it's actually helpful. The comment is not appreciated because it's negative and testy as usual. Why don't you just try enjoying it when someone other than yourself and your pre-approved pals is trying to sincerely investigate these issues, instead of being nasty about it? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #121498 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:19 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > I am of course well aware of the Buddha's many pronouncements on striving, etc. And I see no inconsistency between understanding 'striving' as the kusala factor viriya (on the one hand) and the understanding that the path factors develop gradually over time, without any control (on the other). I'd just like to focus on the above statement, which I think is the crux of everything else in the exchange, and maybe of everything we talk about in general. I don't see any inconsistency between the Buddha's pronouncements on striving and the understanding of path factors arising with no control either. All that we disagree about is whether there is efficacy in purposeful sitting practice, or related practices, ie, meditation as a whole. Buddha did not just acknowledge the arising of viriya when he spoke of striving. He said it as an admonition - something that he was telling people to *do.* That is where the confusion lies. If you propose that he did not mean for people to *act* on his admonitions to "strive," then you are in effect saying that he was promoting wrong view, because his language has communicated to many, many Buddhists that they should follow his instructions and do something about it, not just promote right understanding through understanding Dhamma, but to practice "as if their hair was on fire." I know you do not believe that Buddha promoted wrong view in any way, but that is the conclusion for him speaking this way, if this is not what he meant. Otherwise there would be *no* confusion. If Buddha had said, "Striving will arise in the form of viriya and this will lead to development of the path factors" no one would try to practice and no one would be confused. It *is* the Buddha's own words that are causing the conflict or confusion, because you don't want to take them literally. A much more simple explanation of Buddha's talking this way is that such talk would indeed motivate people to practice meditation, and that this practice in turn would promote the development of satipatthana. In the above formulation there is still no control. It comes directly from the Dhamma to the meditator. Buddha says "strive" ----> Followers "strive" through meditation practice [and other means, eg, Dhamma study] ----> satipatthana develops. There is no control, no self-view, no separate volition apart from what is promoted by the Buddha's own words of Dhamma. So I don't see this as a conflict either. It makes sense of the Buddha's words, just as the analysis of dhammas then makes sense of how the process actually works from moment to moment for a more advanced understanding of what is really happening. I apologize for any seeming attributions towards you personally. I'm only talking that way to make the logical case for what I am saying as clear as possible. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #121499 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness nilovg Dear Scott and Dieter, I add a little more on samaya below. A quote from my Vis. study Ch XIV. Op 20-dec-2011, om 19:34 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > .And, in this connection, samaya is conjunction (samavaayo) since > the co-operative activity (of this and that cause), when > juxtaposed, is occasioned (sameti), is met with (samaagacchati), by > way of those individuals who are the containers thereof; samaya is > time (kalo), since it is herein that a being, or a thing having an > own nature, is occasioned (sameti), or thereby runs in parallel > (sa.mgacchati) with (the submoments of) arising (and so one) or > with co-nascents and so forth - for although non-real (abhuuto), in > the sense that there is > (really) merely the occurrence of dhammas, time is depicted, > through conformity with that established by a mere thought- > construct, as the locus of that occurrence of dhammas, and as > though it were the activity associated with them; samaya is > collection (samuuho), since it is the course (ayana.m), occurrence, > persistence, either equally (sama.m) or jointly (saha), of > constituent parts, as with a collective (samudaayo), for the joint > persistence of constituent parts is itself a collection (samuuho); > samaya is root-cause (hetu) since, when there is a meeting of > remaining conditions, fruition comes - arises, occurs, on account > of this - as with origination (samudayo);..." --------- N: The Dhammasanga.nii, when dealing with the first type of kusala citta, states: and then it enumerates the many cetasikas that assist the citta. The “Expositor” (p. 76 etc.) explains numerous meanings of samaya, such as: time or occasion, concurrence of causes, moment. It explains that the should be classed as the one moment in the sense of occasion, they form the occasion for the production of merit. It states: It shows the extreme shortness of the time in the occurrence of kusala citta and it points out . It stresses that advice has been given that we should have strenuousness and earnestness in pa.tivedha, realization of the truth, since this is very difficult: Samaya can also mean group, and this shows the simultaneous occurrence of many dhammas. The kusala citta is accompanied by many cetasikas, each performing their own function. By samaya is shown the concurrence of conditions, the mutual contribution towards the production of a common result. The Expositor explains with regard to samaya as condition: When we learn about all the different factors that are necessary conditions for the arising of one moment of kusala citta with paññaa we are reminded that kusala citta does not belong to us and that it falls away immediately. Kusala citta is very rare and even more so kusala citta with paññaa. We have accumulated a great amount of akusala and thus there are conditions for its arising very often. This is a pungent reminder to develop all kinds of kusala for which there is an opportunity. **** Nina. #121500 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "I add a little more on samaya below. A quote from my Vis. study Ch XIV..." Scott: Very clear, thank you. Scott. #121501 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 12/20/2011 12:09:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Howard, HCW: "I agree that it would have been better to write just 'pa~n~na'." Scott: I don't know about 'better.' Isolating 'lokuttara pa~n~naa' conforms with your belief that the only reality is Nibbaana. I suggest that you worded it as you did as a way of making this point, albeit obliquely. ----------------------------------------------- HCW: I was in fact not trying to make such a point! Moreover, I do not deny the existence of various, distinguishable phenomena. I deny just their separate existence. Within a river, the whirlpools, rapids, falls, etc are not separable from the river, but to see only the river without seeing these is to have an incomplete view. ---------------------------------------------- Is this not how you see things? ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Scott, if there was anything in what I wrote that you agree with, it was an opportunity for you to say so. But, as usual, you look only for possible differences of view and an opportunity to dispute and to score points. --------------------------------------------- Scott. ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121502 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness scottduncan2 Howard, HCW: "Scott, if there was anything in what I wrote that you agree with, it was an opportunity for you to say so. But, as usual, you look only for possible differences of view and an opportunity to dispute and to score points." Scott: That's just silly, Howard. It is simply difficult to comprehend how you, seeing things as you do, can even comment on any particular mental factor as delimited in the Abhidhamma, at all when you have stated repeatedly that none of these mental factors have any reality. I don't see how one can *not* point this out to you each time you think you are 'agreeing' with someone. In your carefully worded statement before, you certainly did use the term 'lokuttara' deliberately. You always try to be precise - in an obfuscatory fashion - ha ha. Try this one: Do you consider pa~n~naa - whether lokuttara or mundane - to be a reality? Don't discuss if you don't want to, but don't whine about it. Scott. #121503 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Just as an editorial aside: N: "...This is a *pungent* reminder to develop all kinds of kusala for which there is an opportunity." Scott: Less odiferous and more apt might be the word 'poignant.' Ha ha. Scott. #121504 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:07 am Subject: Re: Just checking re concepts and panna epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: You read the description of the factor of right concentration as saying that "the 4th jhana is the *culmination* of both equanimity *and satipatthana,*". How are we to understand this? A reading of "jhana as the culmination of satipatthana" seems to suggest that it's satipatthana that leads to 4th jhana (rather than jhana leading to satipatthana, which is the view usually espoused). That is not the sense of the passage that I quoted, and the verse you have below seems to be from another post or another translation. It does not say what the sutta in question said, and so I can't repeat it easily. The way the passage was written, it was a clear sense that in reaching the 4th jhana, it both included and represented the culmination of equanimity and mindfulness, and that the jhana pathway led to this. I guess I'll have to find it again. > J: There's no express mention in the texts of a practice, as a means of developing the path, of trying to induce kusala to arise in place of akusala by directing attention in certain ways. So again, this would be an *interpretation* on your part. I don't think it's an interpretation to follow a close description and say that what is being described is what is being described. If Buddha were to say "There is the case where a flute student practices the flute for 4 hours a day and in doing so achieves great skill on the flute," it would be obvious that he was saying that the practice was what led to the skill. It is the same with the many suttas that spell out the detailed pathway of practice that leads to development of satipatthana. It would not start with "There is the case where a monk sits down at the root of a tree," etc., if that was just a coincidence. Everything he describes is part of the practice. "There is the case where..." is in fact spelling out the case in which this takes place, not just giving a random example of what someone could do if they happened to like sitting cross-legged. It's not an interpretation to say "I'm going to do what the Buddha said." If you ask me to go buy eggs and I return with eggs, it would be silly for someone to say "Ah! But you did not follow Jon's real instuctions, for he said to buy eggs and you did buy eggs. What he really meant was *not* to buy eggs. Your saying that buying eggs is buying eggs is an interpretation. That is not a fair reading to say that is an interpretation. .... > J: Not only is there no self that has any control over the arising of kusala, there is no control period over the arising of kusala. If all dhammas are conditioned, then the very idea of there being such a thing as control is a non-starter. Unless your understanding of control differs from mine :-)) I've never said there was any other form of control. But there is practice, and it may lead to certain results. It's not control but it's logic. If I drop a glass and it hits the ground it will shatter. It's not control, it's just cause and effect. > As we've discussed in another thread, there can be the *appearance of* control in the sense that if a person has developed a quality to the stage of it's being a faculty or power, that quality can arise upon a resolution that it should do so. In the suttas this is likened to doing something as easily as a healthy man is able to bend his arm. It 'works' so long as things are going as usual. But it's not meant to suggest control in the absolute sense. Well I wonder what kind of conditional control that is? If there is some control, or a sense of some ability to do something more or less easily, then there is something that is done and can be done. Practice is just practice. It only yields the results that it can at a given time, nothing more, but also nothing less. ..... > J: I don't see anything in the Buddha's teachings that equates to current day ideas of 'instructions on meditation'. That would require a particular interpretation of the actual words of the suttas Again, if I am playing the notes that Beethoven wrote, I am playing Beethoven. That's not an interpretation. If I do what the words of Buddha say, that is not an interpretation. If you want to make the case that the plain meaning is not correct, because of historical context or whatever other factors, *that* is the interpretation, and it's up to you to make the case that the Buddha's words don't mean what we would understand them to say without any deviation from the words themselves. If Buddha says "this is how one practices to develop x" it is not an interpretation to practice that way to develop x. It's an interpretation to say "that's not what the Buddha meant us to do" when it is what he said to do. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121505 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 12/20/2011 3:56:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Howard, HCW: "Scott, if there was anything in what I wrote that you agree with, it was an opportunity for you to say so. But, as usual, you look only for possible differences of view and an opportunity to dispute and to score points." Scott: That's just silly, Howard. -------------------------------------------- HCW: No, it isn't. --------------------------------------------- It is simply difficult to comprehend how you, seeing things as you do, can even comment on any particular mental factor as delimited in the Abhidhamma, at all when you have stated repeatedly that none of these mental factors have any reality. ---------------------------------------------- HCW: Okay, Scott, so you have difficulty comprehending it. ------------------------------------------ I don't see how one can *not* point this out to you each time you think you are 'agreeing' with someone. ------------------------------------------- HCW: I will not engage in that sort of conversation. ------------------------------------------ In your carefully worded statement before, you certainly did use the term 'lokuttara' deliberately. -------------------------------------------- HCW: No, Scott, I simply used it incorrectly. --------------------------------------------- You always try to be precise - in an obfuscatory fashion - ha ha. --------------------------------------------- HCW: Ha, ha. -------------------------------------------- Try this one: Do you consider pa~n~naa - whether lokuttara or mundane - to be a reality? Don't discuss if you don't want to, but don't whine about it. --------------------------------------------- HCW: Pardon me? I won't whine or even discuss. You are just plain rude. -------------------------------------------- Scott. ============================= With metta, Howard P. S. Please do not follow up on this. #121506 From: "colette_aube" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:06 am Subject: Re: Patthana chanting. colette_aube Hi connie, no problems, but there are people out there are cannot exist without RITUAL, the robotic behavior of doing the same thing over and over and over, because that's the only reason that humanity was created. Life only exists to glorify the omnipotence of CIRCULAR LOGIC. And to properly glorify the power and authority of CIRCULAR LOGIC they deny the existence of a JHANNA and the impossibility or hallucination of a jhanna factor or jhannic consciousness. The concept of Jhanna must be discredited and ignored so that RITUAL and ROUTINE can be glorified properly. Why did FRED FLINSTONE and BARNEY RUBBLE join "the Lodge"? Why did Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton join "the Lodge"? They did it, they joined, because that is ROUTINE and that is RITUAL behavior that they believe will bring STATUS to their existence. The cartoon characters of Flinstone/Rubble or Kramden/Norton WOULD NOT BE ART IF THEY WERE NOT IMITATING LIFE and the fact that this or that alleged "Lodge" is packed with robots that only join the gang, the mob, the union, the fraternity/sorority, etc, so that they can obtain MONEY & Status i.e. they want their neighbors in the suburban prison system to glofify them. Although my example is of a Western perception of reality that these mass produced robots have, it still applies DIRECTLY to the concepts that the Buddha and the Nyingma and the Madhyamika,..., use to make their points. In this case the point would be SUNYATA and ANATTA, et al, but that's besides the point. LOL. Even deeper, we can clearly see that there is no difference between WESTERN and EASTERN existence. We are both plagued by the same SUFFERING. There is no space between us, no distance seperating us, we are both in the same spot, physically, at the same time, and that means a SINGULARITY i.e.MIND-BODY-SPIRIT. Thanx for the reply and acceptance. MERRY CHRISTMAS. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear colette, > i was thinking, for instance, about how the jhaana factors enable seemingly simple but truly amazingly complex things like walking (or really, pretty much anything). beautiful, isn't it? > connie > #121507 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 10:10 am Subject: Hug the Cosmos! bhikkhu5 Friends: Infinite is All-Embracing Kindness! The Blessed Buddha once said: Embrace the Cosmos! Bhikkhus and Friends: There are these four infinite & divine mental states: The Bhikkhu pervades all beings with all-embracing friendliness ... The Bhikkhu encompass all beings with universal and endless pity ... The Bhikkhu permeates all beings with infinite and mutual joy ... The Bhikkhu suffuses all beings with unlimited equanimity ... First in one direction, then the second, then the third, and to the fourth, above, below, all around, in every location, uniting himself with all beings, he pervades the entire universe with an all-embracing pure friendliness, with all-embracing compassion and pity, with all-embracing mutual and altruistic joy, with an all-embracing imperturbable equanimity, using a refined mind, which is made great, vast, profound, infinite, immeasurable, released from all hate, anger, irritation, opposition and stubbornness... Source: DN33 Because of hate, overwhelmed and obsessed by hate, one lives by doing evil deeds, speaking evil words, and thinking evil thoughts... While doing this one neither really understands one's own welfare, nor the welfare of others, nor the welfare of both... If, however, this hate is overcome and subdued, then one lives while doing good deeds, speaking kind words, and thinking advantageous thoughts... Therefore while doing this good one really knows what is for one's own present & future welfare, for the welfare of others, and to the welfare of both oneself and all other beings... Source: AN 3:55 <...> Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu SamÄhita _/\_ * <...> #121508 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:38 pm Subject: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Everyone. From AN 4.35: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.035.than.html "He thinks any thought he wants to think, and doesn't think any thought he doesn't want to think. He wills any resolve he wants to will, and doesn't will any resolve he doesn't want to will. He has attained mastery of the mind with regard to the pathways of thought." "He attains — whenever he wants, without strain, without difficulty — the four jhanas that are heightened mental states, pleasant abidings in the here-&-now." What do you all think about this? It describes a condition in which there seems to be volitional control, although we would all agree that Buddha would not attribute this to a self. How do you understand this passage? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = #121509 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:13 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants kenhowardau Hi Robert E, Thanks for the question: ------ > RE: Hi Everyone.<. . .> "He thinks any thought he wants to think, and doesn't think any thought he doesn't want to think. He wills any resolve he wants to will, and doesn't will any resolve he doesn't want to will. He has attained mastery of the mind with regard to the pathways of thought." "He attains — whenever he wants, without strain, without difficulty — the four jhanas that are heightened mental states, pleasant abidings in the here-&-now." What do you all think about this? It describes a condition in which there seems to be volitional control, although we would all agree that Buddha would not attribute this to a self. How do you understand this passage? --------- KH: I understand it the same way I understand every other passage in the Pali canon. It is a description of conditioned reality. Just like the present reality, the one described in the quote arises dependent on conditions, functions dependent on conditions, and ceases dependent on conditions. There is no control! I suspect the particular reality being described was a bala, which is what Jon was talking about in a message earlier today. Ken H #121510 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:26 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > Thanks for the question: > > ------ > > RE: Hi Everyone.<. . .> "He thinks any thought he wants to think, and doesn't think any thought he > doesn't want to think. He wills any resolve he wants to will, and doesn't will > any resolve he doesn't want to will. He has attained mastery of the mind with > regard to the pathways of thought." > > "He attains — whenever he wants, without strain, without difficulty — the four > jhanas that are heightened mental states, pleasant abidings in the here-&-now." > > What do you all think about this? It describes a condition in which there seems > to be volitional control, although we would all agree that Buddha would not > attribute this to a self. How do you understand this passage? > --------- > > KH: I understand it the same way I understand every other passage in the Pali canon. It is a description of conditioned reality. > > Just like the present reality, the one described in the quote arises dependent on conditions, functions dependent on conditions, and ceases dependent on conditions. There is no control! > > I suspect the particular reality being described was a bala, which is what Jon was talking about in a message earlier today. I would tend to agree with you, that it is a description of someone in whom these states have reached the point of becoming powers. And I agree there is no control, and that everything arises according to conditions. It just seems strange to me that for someone teaching no self and no control there is so much emphasis here on someone who can do things at will, turn them on and off, etc. I wonder why such 'control' would be extolled in this way instead of stressing 'no control?' Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121511 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:16 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------- <. . .> >> KH: It is a description of conditioned reality. <. . .> >> > RE: I would tend to agree with you, that it is a description of someone in whom these states have reached the point of becoming powers. -------- KH: What if it referred to just a conditioned reality - just the powers and no someone? Would you agree with that? -------------- > RE: And I agree there is no control, and that everything arises according to conditions. It just seems strange to me that for someone teaching no self and no control there is so much emphasis here on someone who can do things at will, turn them on and off, etc. I wonder why such 'control' would be extolled in this way instead of stressing 'no control?' ------------ KH: Whenever the Buddha used the word `someone' (or similar word) in his teaching he was referring to conditioned reality - the five khandhas. There are no exceptions to that rule. There are no occasions in satipathana (the teaching of the Buddha) where a sentient being is referred to. Ken H #121512 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:52 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > ------- > <. . .> > >> KH: It is a description of conditioned reality. <. . .> > >> > > > RE: I would tend to agree with you, that it is a description of someone in whom these states have reached the point of becoming powers. > -------- > > KH: What if it referred to just a conditioned reality - just the powers and no someone? Would you agree with that? Yes, of course. That's not really the problem that I am grappling with. > -------------- > > RE: And I agree there is no > control, and that everything arises according to conditions. It just seems > strange to me that for someone teaching no self and no control there is so much > emphasis here on someone who can do things at will, turn them on and off, etc. > I wonder why such 'control' would be extolled in this way instead of stressing > 'no control?' > ------------ > > KH: Whenever the Buddha used the word `someone' (or similar word) in his teaching he was referring to conditioned reality - the five khandhas. > > There are no exceptions to that rule. There are no occasions in satipathana (the teaching of the Buddha) where a sentient being is referred to. I agree, but that is still not the point. The point is: why talk as if there is someone who has all this control, when that is not the case? Why go on about how easy it is for "this person" to do "whatever he wants," "when he wants," when talking that way must be misleading? What, my question is, is the point of presenting the powers that way? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #121513 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:25 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------------ <. . .> > RE: The point is: why talk as if there is someone who has all this control, when that is not the case? Why go on about how easy it is for "this person" to do "whatever he wants," "when he wants," when talking that way must be misleading? > What, my question is, is the point of presenting the powers that way? ------------ KH: Doesn't the Buddha present all conventional-language suttas that way? He never says a monk has no control. That would be mixing conventional language with Abhidhamma language. So I don't find this quote particularly confusing. It teaches the same thing as all the others – there are only the presently arisen dhammas, no abiding self. Ken H #121514 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:45 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "What do you all think about this? It describes a condition in which there seems to be volitional control, although we would all agree that Buddha would not attribute this to a self. How do you understand this passage?" Scott: Ken is correct. This is about highly developed pa~n~naa. Not a person who can do amazing stuff; that's your daydream. Now, don't freak out, just think about things for a bit. If you were to read the whole sutta, the Buddha ends up showing that the 'one of great wisdom' is himself. Read the whole thing. Context, Rob. Even you have to admit that none of us are the Buddha. You'd love to think that this excerpt confirms your meditator agenda. And, for the millionth time, this is about the strength and development of pa~n~naa - not a person. The suttas are written in conventional language. Now, here comes a bit of directness: This is your downfall: You absolutely can't move beyond the conventional. You are so literal-minded that you seem unable to comprehend anything beyond the conventional. This, I would suggest to you - not that it's a moral problem or a personal flaw of yours in any way - is a function of the strength of pa~n~naa. And that's all it is. I simply don't get caught up in the dilemma that you cannot seem to extricate yourself from. What is the difference? I imagine that it all comes down to the impersonal and relative strength of pa~n~naa - *not* to that which we refer to as 'you' or 'me.' There is no doubt that we see things totally differently. I, of course, am correct, while you are totally wrong. Ha ha. How is this explained? Pa~n~naa, of course. Here's the PTS translation;(note the Paa.li for certain key words, and ask yourself: Do I really know what these terms refer to? - remember, you are reading a translation into English and are hopelessly mired in literal-mindedness, prone to a concrete and wrong-headed, superficial conventionality): "Herein, Brahmin, we have a man given up to the welfare of many folk. By him are many folk established in the Ariyan method (Naaya), to wit: in what is if a lovely nature, in what is of a profitable nature. To whatsoever train of thought (sankappa) he wishes to apply himself, to that train of thought he applies himself: to whatever train of thought he desires not to apply himself, to that train of thought he applies not himself. Whatever intention (vitakka) he wishes to intend, he does so or not as he wishes. Thus he is the master of the mind (ceto-vasippatto) in the ways of thought. Also, he is one who attains at will (nikaama-labhi), without difficulty and without trouble the four musings which belong to the higher thought (abhicetasikaana.m), which even in this life are blissful to abide in. Also, by destruction of the aasavas, in this very life thoroughly comprehending it of himself, he realizes the heart's release by wisdom, and attaining abides within." Scott: Do you really know what 'naaya' is? Do you really know what 'sankappa' is? Do you really know what 'vitakka' is (and 'intention' seems misleading as a translation, doesn't it?)? Do you really know what 'nikaama-labhi' means? I'm not saying I do (yet) but you are a long way from even knowing what this sutta is really saying, if you are being honest with yourself. Try at least distancing yourself from your belief in 'practise' to see what is actually going on. Scott. #121515 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:11 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "What do you all think about this? It describes a condition in which there seems to be volitional control, although we would all agree that Buddha would not attribute this to a self. How do you understand this passage?" > > Scott: Ken is correct. This is about highly developed pa~n~naa. Not a person who can do amazing stuff; that's your daydream. It may be my daydream, but here it is the Buddha's language. Of course, you give him a lot of credit for meaning what you say when he says what he means, and that's great; but I would point out that it's not me that said all the self-based-sounding things here. > Now, don't freak out, just think about things for a bit. Duh...okay, I thought about it. I would like sometime for someone to just acknowledge that the language here and such language is not just conventional, but sounds like it is very directly promoting the powers of the advanced person, and the fact that it turns out that the Buddha is the most excellent example of this description is neither here nor there. Of course we are not of the same station as the Buddha, but if there is no control there is no control, even for the Buddha. > If you were to read the whole sutta, the Buddha ends up showing that the 'one of great wisdom' is himself. Read the whole thing. Context, Rob. Even you have to admit that none of us are the Buddha. Right, and neither is the Buddha - just enlightened cittas darting about in the night... > You'd love to think that this excerpt confirms your meditator agenda. I would? I guess you are being omniscient again. I just hate it when you abuse your psychic powers to tell what I am thinking before I'm even aware of it. Thanks for sharing. > And, for the millionth time, this is about the strength and development of pa~n~naa - not a person. The suttas are written in conventional language. > > Now, here comes a bit of directness: > > This is your downfall: You absolutely can't move beyond the conventional. > > You are so literal-minded that you seem unable to comprehend anything beyond the conventional. This, I would suggest to you - not that it's a moral problem or a personal flaw of yours in any way - is a function of the strength of pa~n~naa. And that's all it is. > > I simply don't get caught up in the dilemma that you cannot seem to extricate yourself from. What is the difference? I imagine that it all comes down to the impersonal and relative strength of pa~n~naa - *not* to that which we refer to as 'you' or 'me.' There is no doubt that we see things totally differently. I, of course, am correct, while you are totally wrong. Ha ha. How is this explained? Pa~n~naa, of course. Well, I don't doubt that the powers noted in the sutta are impersonal. But calling the Buddha's language conventional does not at all answer the question as to why he is so intent on enthusiastically lauding the *control* and willfulness of the exercise of those powers. You dismiss this as being caught up in the conventional. I tend to look at what is actually there, which is easy to ignore if one, like yourself, is a committed dogmatist. So you just merrily translate all the tone, intent and meaning that you find into your own terms. It's kind of a cheat to do that, instead of trying to glean why the Buddha says things the way he does. I think there's meaning in his meaning, and so I'd rather have the dilemma than a glib happiness in ignoring his words, tone and intent for a convenient translation into ultimate terms. > Here's the PTS translation;(note the Paa.li for certain key words, and ask yourself: Do I really know what these terms refer to? - remember, you are reading a translation into English and are hopelessly mired in literal-mindedness, prone to a concrete and wrong-headed, superficial conventionality): I just believe in what is true, and that starts from what is there, not from what you imagine or translate. I'm not mired in literalness. I just think it's dangerous to run away from the literal before it is understood. I realize that's not a problem for you, since you don't believe in the meaning of the words, just the meaning of what you think they mean. And of course you especially enjoy the triumph of proudly telling others they are stupid, a truly enlightened pleasure. > "Herein, Brahmin, we have a man given up to the welfare of many folk. By him are many folk established in the Ariyan method (Naaya), to wit: in what is if a lovely nature, in what is of a profitable nature. To whatsoever train of thought (sankappa) he wishes to apply himself, to that train of thought he applies himself: to whatever train of thought he desires not to apply himself, to that train of thought he applies not himself. Whatever intention (vitakka) he wishes to intend, he does so or not as he wishes. Thus he is the master of the mind (ceto-vasippatto) in the ways of thought. Also, he is one who attains at will (nikaama-labhi), without difficulty and without trouble the four musings which belong to the higher thought (abhicetasikaana.m), which even in this life are blissful to abide in. Also, by destruction of the aasavas, in this very life thoroughly comprehending it of himself, he realizes the heart's release by wisdom, and attaining abides within." > > Scott: Do you really know what 'naaya' is? Do you really know what 'sankappa' is? Do you really know what 'vitakka' is (and 'intention' seems misleading as a translation, doesn't it?)? Yes it is. > Do you really know what 'nikaama-labhi' means? I'm not saying I do (yet) but you are a long way from even knowing what this sutta is really saying, if you are being honest with yourself. Try at least distancing yourself from your belief in 'practise' to see what is actually going on. Yeah, I'm not too sure about this translation, but you are right that the terms involved are worth investigating. However, I wish that in a post where I don't mention practice but am pretty clear about what I am talking about, that you don't go back to the same crap that you are constantly accusing me of, and deal with the issue at hand. It's stultifying to what could otherwise be a worthwhile investigation. That aside, your other comments are appreciated. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121516 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness nilovg Dear Scott, Thanks for correcting my English. Please do so always. I got 'pungent' from Lodewijk, but he is not sure. In my old fashioned Oxford Dict. poignant seems almost the same. All greetings from Lodewijk who is on his way to the plastic surgeon (his hands). As to your quote from Itivuttaka co., the English is really difficult reading, and this must be the case also for Dieter who is German speaking. Can you help us, paraphrasing these sentences? Nina. Op 20-dec-2011, om 22:30 heeft scottduncan2 het volgende geschreven: > Scott: Less odiferous and more apt might be the word 'poignant. #121517 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:25 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > 'S: Here, upekkha is equanimity, the (always) beautiful mental factor, arising with every wholesome citta (those with pleasant and neutral feeling). Karuna and mudita don't arise with every wholesome citta. The 4 brahma-viharas are metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha, but metta has already been included in adosa and upekkha has already also been included under the universal beautiful mental factors. > > > D: Karuna and mudita don't arise with every wholesome citta ..: what does that mean in daily life? .... S: It means that whileupekkha (equanimity) arises druing the day whenever the citta is kusala (wholesome) and metta arises whenever there is a thought about another being/other beings with wholesome cittas, karuna and mudita only arise when there are particular opportunities. Karuna only arises when there is wholesome thought about the suffering of another being/other beings (only ever accompanied by neutral or pleasant feeling) and mudita only arises when there is wholesome thought with joy in another's/others' success or pleasant experience, such as when we "anumodana", being glad of another's good deeds/wise understanding, for example. When we hear a colleague has got a promotion or rejoice in someone's kusala vipaka in other daily events, there can be mudita. ... > > D: Question: when we include metta in adosa cetasika , why not karuna and mudita? > .... > S: As Nina explained, they are separate mental factors with their own particular characteristics. > > D: yes, different characteristic , but as I mentioned : dosa as hate has its opposite (adosa) in love, which covers the 3 respectively four. .... S: We can discuss these cetasikas in more detail when we get to them in your study corner. Adosa (non-aversion) includes metta, but not the other brahma viharas. it arises with all sobhana (beautiful cittas). There is adosa arising now with moments of understanding, even though people are not the object. I wouldn't use "love' as the translation. .... > D: in D.O. avijja refers to 'not knowing the four Noble Truths ', whereas we find moha/delusion under tanha ( or as a cetasika under sankhara khanda) Hence the former is different insofar as it is broader than moha which refers only to the second Noble Truth. ... S: Avijja/moha - not understanding, the opposite of vijja/panna - understanding. Moha does not come "under tanha" - they are distinct cetasikas. Yes both avijja/moha and tanha/lobha are included in sankhara khandha. Just different names are used in different contexts, that's all. ignorance of what is wholesome now. Whenever any akusala cittas arise, they are accompanied by moha/avijja. ... > > D: when the heart is open .. ;-) > .... > S: i.e. when the characteristic of metta is understood - no thought or concern for oneself at such times at all. If there's an attempt to develop metta, it's back to *me* and *my metta* again. > > > D: I think that depends .. e.g. to contemplate the Metta Sutta may be of support for such development . Not turning a blind eye to other people's > suffering ..not excluding one's own ('charity begins at home' ) etc.. .... S: The brahma viharas always have others' interest/needs in mind, never one's own. When it is concern for one's own suffering, it's attachment. We're all experts at this kind of concern without any prompting from the wise! .... > You may recall that the Buddha used to open the heart/mind of his first time listeners before speaking of the Noble Truths. .... S: Not by encouraging any concern for their own selfish interest, but through the development of understanding and detachment. Metta Sarah ==== #121518 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" sarahprocter... Hi Phil, part 2 of my reply to #121303 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Ph: Indeed. In passing, a big question. Does kusala such as metta accumulate when there is not awareness of it. Can it be said that it accumulates, but unless there is awareness of it, it doesn't develop...or something like that? .... S: Someone may, by nature, have accumulations for a lot of metta, even though there is no understanding. We know this is true - some people we meet are naturally very kind. At such moments of kindness, the tendency accumulates, but as you say, if there is no awareness, no understanding, there is no bhavana, no development. The kindness may accumulate for a while or in this life, but at other times, the opposite may accumulate, because the nature of the kusala, the nature of its value is not really understood and of course, it's all taken for Self. While I was at the Chinese Doctor having a painful massage the other day, I heard a good passage in which K.Sujin was talking about how meaningless everything in life is when there is no awareness. There's just lots of meaningless thinking about the past, about the future, about all sorts of things. (If I come across it again, I'll transcribe it.) Jon and I had been talking about how for someone in a coma, there must be lots and lots of ignorance, but really is that "just like now"? Without any awareness, just lots and lots of thinking in ignorance. ... > Ph; I always remember reading in one of NIna's books, lobha even when we recognize a tree, we *like* to recognize things. And also remember hearing that the very first cittas after rebirth are rooted in lobha. We say lobha is a river, maybe we can also say it is the sea we are born in and only rarely emerge from. ... S: Yes, people talk a lot about jhanas, but don't we wish to see now, to hear now, to smell, to taste and touch now? Lobha all day from the moment we wake up. .... > > Her family have been so very sad, we'd just like to help them all as best we can. > > Ph: I'm sure you always find the best way. Well, no one's perfect, but I bet you find the right way to help people a lot of the time. Unless they are people I don't like, I don't like it when you try to help them. I don't like you when you help people I don't like (That is not a joke, it is the way kilesa work.) .... S: Not a joke, but still funny :-)) Whether or not our way of trying to help is "the right way" or not doesn't matter - just the awareness and understanding, leading to more kusala is all that matters. This morning at breakfast, I sat with "Old Bruce" who Nina will remember I mentioned before. He used to swim with us in spite of his cancer and ailments. He's just finished a long course of chemotherapy and the diagnosis is not good: about 3 months, he's been told. Now he's depressed and has lost his appetite. I tried to talk a little about momentary death and life going on and on, "just like now", a little about present dhammas including thinking. But at the end, he said he couldn't hear me very well and what I said was quite incomprehensible to him! Never mind, we just do our best and let it go. ... .... >Of course that not liking you at such times and not liking the other person is just the functioning of dhammas rolling on and on, a story created by ignorance, it is not to be held on to or valued, and no good regretting it. It's already gone. ... S: Well said! Gone, gone gone..... and now more seeing, more visible object, more thinking. ... > Ph: Might be a tough sell. Best wishes as always for Sharon's recovery, and her family's peace of mind. .... S: I appreciate your kind thoughts. Yes, there was no chance for the dhamma ipod, nor for many of my other suggestions for various kinds of stimulation and healing, but again it's all down to kamma what will be experienced and how any recovery (or not) will occur. Metta Sarah ===== #121519 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Right concepts' sarahprocter... Hi Connie (& Scott) #121306 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > here's that "accumulation" (why we study) stuff again - > > vism ch17, 51 ... > > Abhisa"nkhara.nalakkha.naa sa"nkhaaraa, aayuuhanarasaa, cetanaapaccupa.t.thaanaa, avijjaapada.t.thaanaa. > > Formations have the characteristic of forming. Their function is to accumulate. They are manifested as volition. Their proximate cause is ignorance. .... S: Here the reference is all to kamma, the accumulation of kamma/cetana. Not sure that was what the discussion was about. Metta Sarah ===== #121520 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness nilovg Dear Lukas, See the quotes by Scott from the Itivuttaka co and my quotes in today's post. There are many meanings of samaya. At a particular moment when the conditions are right, citta and cetasika (and also ruupas) arise. No person can make them arise. Lobha, or sati, arise when it is the samaya for them. They have conditions for their arising. Nina. Op 20-dec-2011, om 10:13 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > L: This phrase 'What on that occassion' ('Katamo tasmi.m samaye') > precedes description of each cetasika? What is the meaning of it > used there? Does it refers, that there needs to be proper moment > for each cetasika to arise. Like 'Only when there is occasion for > lobha to arise, then... the characteristics can be known..etc.'? #121521 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:28 am Subject: What I heard. nilovg Dear Lukas and all, Kh Sujin said that a talk on viriya (viriya katha) helps right energy for awareness now while there is still an opportunity for awareness. When there is rebirth in an unhappy plane this is very difficult, perhaps impossible. She said: be aware just a little, be aware even though there is not yet clear understanding. Just go on being aware, this is a condition for the arising of pa~n~naa later on. N: I found this encouraging, not worrying about the degree of understanding, or worrying about it that sati is so weak. It can be accumulated little by little. She said that we are still in human life, not in hell. We should not waste our life in being forgetful. ------ Nina. #121522 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Uddhacca /Restlessness nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 19-dec-2011, om 13:09 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > Of higher importance is of course how the chain can be broken and > for that the vedana - tanha link is significant . > The extract below presents that quite nicely .. at least I.M.H.O. .. ------- N: I really prefer the explanations by the VIsuddhimagga and the ancient commentaries. There nirodha samaapatti is not given as the solution. Understanding of the present reality, no matter it is kusala, akusala, pleasant, unpleasant, is the way. And the beginning is right now, while reading posts. -- Nina. #121523 From: "connie" Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:01 am Subject: Re: 'Right concepts' nichiconn dear Sarah, > > here's that "accumulation" (why we study) stuff again - > > > > vism ch17, 51 ... > > > > Abhisa"nkhara.nalakkha.naa sa"nkhaaraa, aayuuhanarasaa, cetanaapaccupa.t.thaanaa, avijjaapada.t.thaanaa. > > > > Formations have the characteristic of forming. Their function is to accumulate. They are manifested as volition. Their proximate cause is ignorance. > .... > S: Here the reference is all to kamma, the accumulation of kamma/cetana. Not sure that was what the discussion was about. > You're right: accumulating formations of merit, demerit and imperturbable. What was I thinking? That these are like the baggage for the next life... be it after cuti or just next to now in this present body; ho ho ho - what the stocking giving us the boot is stuffed with - instead of (worry)beads and nuts, we've got mixed cetasikas. It was just stammered in response to something I think Scott had mentioned in passing about how we (generic) are always talking about conditions and accumulations. Or was it that when I read that, the other came into mind. "Whatever". I'm never sure anything I might think to say relates to whatever the subject at hand might be, Sarah, but here's hoping everyone's fruits ripen nicely, connie #121524 From: "connie" Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:34 am Subject: Sangiitisutta Bk of 10s, No5. nichiconn Dear Friends, we've come to CSCD 348. Dasa ariyavaasaa. I’ll leave off the Pali & notes but give all 3 translations this time. Don't mind the length (or Olds’ spelling)! Walshe DN 33.3.3(5) 'Ten Ariyan dispositions (ariya-vaasaa): Here a monk (a) has got rid of five factors, (b) possesses six factors, (c) has established one guard, (d) observes the four supports, (e) has got rid of individual beliefs, (f) has quite abandoned quest, (g) is pure of motive, (h) has tranquillised his emotions, is well liberated (i) in heart, and (j) by wisdom. How has he got rid of five factors? Here, he has got rid of sensuality, ill-will, sloth-and-torpor, worry-and-flurry, and doubt; (b) what six factors does he possess? On seeing an object with the eye, hearing a sound ..., smelling a smell ..., tasting a flavour ..., touching a tangible object ..., or cognising a mental object with the mind, he is neither pleased nor displeased, but remains equable, mindful and clearly aware; (c) how has he established the one guard? By guarding his mind with mindfulness; (d) what are the four supports? He judges that one thing is to be pursued, one thing endured, one thing avoided, one things suppressed (as verse 1.11(8)); (e) how has he got rid of individual beliefs (pununna-pacceka-sacco)? Whatever individual beliefs are held by the majority of ascetics and Brahmins he has dismissed, abandoned, rejected, let go; (f) how is he one who has quite abandoned quests? He has abandoned the quest for sense-desires, for rebirth, for the holy life; (g) how is he pure of motive? He has abandoned thoughts of sensuality, ill-will, cruelty; (h) how is he one who has tranquillised his emotions (passaddha-kaaya-sankhaaro hoti)? Because, having given up pleasure and pain with the disappearance of former gladness and sadness, he enters into a state beyond pleasure and pain which is purified by equanimity, and this is the fourth jhaana; (i) how is he well emancipated in heart? He is liberated from the thought of greed, hatred and delusion; (j) how is he well liberated by wisdom? He understands: "For me greed, hatred and delusion are abandoned, cut off at the root, like a palm-tree stump, destroyed and incapable of growing again." [iii 271] Olds Ten Aristocratic Garbs: Here friends, a beggar has let go of five, has control of six, guards one, calculates four, separates individual truths, annihilates wishes, purifies his principles, creates impassivity of body, is well freed in mind, is well freed in wisdom. How, friends, has a beggar let go of five? Here, friends, a beggar, has let go of pleasure-wishing, has let go of anger, has let go of lazy ways and inertia, has let go of fear and trembling, has let go of vascillation. Even so, friends, has a beggar let go of five. How, friends, does a beggar have control of six? Here, friends, a beggar seeing a material shape with the eye is neither pleased in mind nor upset in mind and he lives detached, mindful, self-aware. Here, friends, a beggar hearing a sound with the ear is neither pleased in mind nor upset in mind and he lives detached, mindful, self-aware. Here, friends, a beggar smelling a scent with the nose is neither pleased in mind nor upset in mind and he lives detached, mindful, self-aware. Here, friends, a beggar tasting a flavor with the tongue is neither pleased in mind nor upset in mind and he lives detached, mindful, self-aware. Here, friends, a beggar feeling a touch with the body is neither pleased in mind nor upset in mind and he lives detached, mindful, self-aware. Here, friends, a beggar conscious of a thought with the mind is neither pleased in mind nor upset in mind and he lives detached, mindful, self-aware. Even so, friends, does a beggar have control of six. How, friends, does a beggar guard one? Here, friends, a beggar guards his mind by getting control of his intentions. Even so, friends, does a beggar guard one. How, friends, does a beggar calculate four? Here, friends, a beggar figures a thing is to be gone after, a thing is to be endured, a thing is to be avoided, a thing is to be got rid of. Even so, friends, does a beggar calculate four. How, friends, does a beggar separate individual truths? Here, friends, a begar, however many there may be of ordinary shamen or brahmen or the number of their truths about separate individuality, from all those he has separated himself, he has thrust off, tossed away, abandoned, vomited them up and released them. Even so, friends, does a beggar separate individual truths. How, friends, does a beggar annihilate wishes? Here, friends, a beggar has let go of wishing for pleasures, has let go of wishing to become, has let go of wishing to live the Brahma-life. Even so, friends, does a beggar annihilate wishes. How, friends, does a beggar purifiy his principles? Here, friends, a beggar lets go of the pleasure principle, lets go of the anger principle, lets go of the injury principle. Even so, friends, does a beggar purify his principles. How, friends, does a beggar create impassivity of body? Here, friends, a beggar lets go of pleasure, lets go of pain, allows his former mental ease and misery to subside, without pain, without pleasure, with an utterly pure and detached mind he enters into and makes a habitat of the Fourth Burning. Even so, friends, does a beggar create impassivity of body. How, friends, does a beggar get well-freed in heart? Here, friends, a beggar is free from lustful thoughts, is free from hateful thoughts, is free from deluded thoughts. Even so, friends, does a beggar get well-freed heart. How, friends, does a beggar get well-freed in wisdom? Here friends, a beggar knows: 'I have let go of lust, taken it out by the roots, like a palm cut off at its base it is a thing that no longer has life, a thing that cannot come into existance again.' He knows: 'I have let go of hate, taken it out by the roots, like a palm cut off at its base it is a thing that no longer has life, a thing that cannot come into existance again.' He knows: 'I have let go of delusion, taken it out by the roots, like a palm cut off at its base it is a thing that no longer has life, a thing that cannot come into existance again.' RDs [ 10.5 ] Ten Ariyan methods of living. Herein, friends, a brother has got rid of five factors, is possessed of six factors, has set the one guard, carries out the four bases of observance,[10.5] has put away sectarian opinions, has utterly given up quests, is candid in his thoughts, has calmed the restlessness of his body, and is well emancipated in heart and intellect. (1) What five factors has he got rid of? Sensuality, malevolence, sloth and torpor, excitement and worry, doubt. (2) What six factors is he possessed of? The six 'chronic states.' (3) How has he set the one guard? By the mental guard of mindfulness. (4) What are the four bases of observance? Herein a brother judges that something is to be (i) habitually pursued, (ii) endured, (iii) avoided, (iv) suppressed. (5) How does he become 'one who has put away sectarian opinions? All those manyopinions of the mass of recluses and brahmins which are held by individuals as dogmas: -- all these he has dismissed, put away, given up, ejected, let go, eliminated, abandoned. (6) How is he one whose questing is utterly given up? He has eliminated the questing after worldly desires, the questing for rebirth, the questing for religious life. (7) How is he candid in his thoughts? He has eliminated occupying his mind with sensual or malicous or cruel ideas. (8) How does he tranquillize the activity of the body? Because of eliminating the being affected pleasurably or painfully, because of the dying out of previous impressions as joyful or sorrowful, he attains to and abides in a state of neutral feeling, of very pure indifference and mental lucidity, namely, the state called Fourth Jhaana. (9) How does he become well emancipated in heart? He becomes emancipated in heart from passion, hate, and illusion. (10) How does he become well emancipated in intellect? He understands his emancipated condition, namely, in the thought: Passion . . . hate . . . illusion . . . for me are eliminated, but off at the root, become as a palmtree stump, become non-existent, unable to grow again in future. ...corner continues, connie #121525 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:42 am Subject: Like Foam... bhikkhu5 Friends: The Clusters of Clinging are Unsubstantial! The Buddha once said about the fleeting aspects of reality: Form is like a lump of foam, feeling is like a water bubble, perception is like a mirage, constructions like a hollow tree, and consciousness like an illusion! Just a coreless appearance! However one may reflect over it, and carefully investigate it. When one views it cautiously: It appears but empty and void! Pointing at this body The One of Broad Wisdom has taught that if only three things are lacking, one will have to leave this fragile frame, ditched all behind: If metabolism, heat and consciousness depart from this physical body, then it lies there, cast away again: Unconscious food for others.. This illusion, beguiler of vain fools. It is similar to a serial killer. Neither a substance, nor any safety. A Bhikkhu with aroused enthusiasm looks upon these 5 clusters of clinging in exactly this ultra-realistic way: Disgusted, both day & night! Ever aware, calmly & clearly comprehending! He should eliminate all mental chains, thereby making his own island! Thereby becoming his own protector, refuge, lamp and light! Let him train as with his head ablaze with fire yearning only for the everlasting deathless state! <...> Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nik�ya III 142-3 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 Full Text: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-095.html Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <....> #121526 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:20 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants truth_aerator Hello KenH, >KH: Doesn't the Buddha present all conventional-language suttas that >way? >====================== Is the Buddha misleading us? Or does He expects that all words "do this" are to be interpreted as "do NOT do this" ? Why couldn't He be so clear as to tell us sutta after sutta that there is no control and don't ever do anything. Live life normally... Maybe in 100,000MK the awakening will appear while one is cooking in comfort of one's own home... With best wishes, Alex #121527 From: "connie" Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:32 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants nichiconn dear RobE, What's that mean: that the language used is not just conventional ?? > > I would like sometime for someone to just acknowledge that the language here and such language is not just conventional, but sounds like it is very directly promoting the powers of the advanced person, and the fact that it turns out that the Buddha is the most excellent example of this description is neither here nor there. Of course we are not of the same station as the Buddha, but if there is no control there is no control, even for the Buddha. > If it's talking about people doing something, it's conventional. It might sound like anything to us, even that "I was so-and-so in that past life story" - and how can we be expected to believe that's really literal? Conventional language is just (pardon the expression) an expedient means... which isn't to say it's lies, just that the truth is hard to see when we mistake the story for the reality. peace, connie (who used to help build race "Buggies" & thinks the transaxle was the vans' worst feature) #121528 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:20 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "I would like sometime for someone to just acknowledge that the language here and such language is not just conventional..." Scott: connie already responded to this bit. I was like, 'What? This guy is even confused about conventional language.' R: "...Well, I don't doubt that the powers noted in the sutta are impersonal. But calling the Buddha's language conventional does not at all answer the question as to why he is so intent on enthusiastically lauding the *control* and willfulness of the exercise of those powers..." Scott: Rob, seriously now. You do not understand the meaning of 'conventional language.' When there is talk that seems to you to be all about 'control' it is *conventional talk* and refers only to dhammas, their characteristic and function, arising, acting in concert, and falling away to condition the arising of more. That *is* conventional language. The whole idea is that the convention is used to describe the reality. You just totally go for the concrete, literal, 'conventional' message hook, line and sinker. R: "...You dismiss this as being caught up in the conventional. I tend to look at what is actually there...I think there's meaning in his meaning..." Scott: You think there's 'meaning in his meaning.' What is that supposed to mean? Ha ha. No, really. What on earth are you talking about. Is what is written in the suttas literal as you seem to say? If so, what is the point of seeking 'meaning in the meaning?.' Please try to focus your thinking and come up with a less emotional and more logical argument. R: "...I just believe in what is true, and that starts from what is there, not from what you imagine or translate. I'm not mired in literalness. I just think it's dangerous to run away from the literal before it is understood...(Nonsensical whining elided - just make your points, Rob; skip the crying, it's just a discussion for dog's sake. Honestly)" Scott: You 'believe in what is true.' Do you have any idea what that is supposed to mean? You have seriously got to get this thing about 'conventional' straight in your head, man. The conventional language of the suttas is the form in which the 'truth' - the conditioned and conditioning arising and falling away of sequential impersonal moments of consciousness - is expressed. It is merely accepted usage describing 'truth.' No, what you think is 'truth' - if you take the literal accepted usage sort of talk to be 'truth' - is merely convention. R: "...Yeah, I'm not too sure about this translation, but you are right that the terms involved are worth investigating..." Scott: Well, that's something then. R: "...However, I wish that in a post where I don't mention practice but am pretty clear about what I am talking about, that you don't go back to the same crap that you are constantly accusing me of, and deal with the issue at hand. It's stultifying to what could otherwise be a worthwhile investigation. That aside, your other comments are appreciated." Scott: I always remember where you are coming from, Rob. You may run for cover when pressed, but you are a dyed-in-the-wool, common, everyday, western buddhist and you believe in 'practice' and defend and seek to justify it at all times. Whining is not discussing, as I've mentioned to Howard. I don't care what you believe. Go ahead. I just remember it and bring it up whenever I feel like it *and* to let you know that I think it informs your whole take on the Dhamma. That is what wrong view is. Sue me. Jon says the exact same things to you, and you rant about practice all the time with him, so just keep it up and worry about what you have to say. I'm discussing Dhamma. You keep thinking about persons. Scott. Scott. #121529 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:09 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear RobE, > > What's that mean: that the language used is not just conventional ?? > > > > > I would like sometime for someone to just acknowledge that the language here and such language is not just conventional, but sounds like it is very directly promoting the powers of the advanced person, and the fact that it turns out that the Buddha is the most excellent example of this description is neither here nor there. Of course we are not of the same station as the Buddha, but if there is no control there is no control, even for the Buddha. > > > > If it's talking about people doing something, it's conventional. It might sound like anything to us, even that "I was so-and-so in that past life story" - and how can we be expected to believe that's really literal? > > Conventional language is just (pardon the expression) an expedient means... which isn't to say it's lies, just that the truth is hard to see when we mistake the story for the reality. Well, that's all well and good, but if it is indeed "expedient," or to use another word, "practical," it means that Buddha understands that to speak in conventional language about the Dhamma actually does activate something, actually does create a desirable, that is to say "kusala" result, even though we can sit back and say it's "conventional." So what is that result? How does conventional Dhamma act as a cause? What does it do? Why does the Buddha bother to talk that way at all? Because it is indeed expedient, it does in fact do something, it is in fact a cause for development. We can say that conventional language is meant for those who don't understand dhamma theory, who can't see moment-to-moment reality, and that may be true. But that means that it is the means for people to "get" the Dhamma on a level that is workable for them, and that it is part of the path. When we continuously translate everything the Buddha says into terms of individual dhammas and don't listen to or follow what he says to do, maybe we are missing the point of such conventional language - that is is actually meant by the Buddha to be followed. Maybe when we "strive" as the Buddha says to strive, that the correct dhammas really are activated. Maybe when we practice as Buddha describes in anapana and sati suttas, it really does develop satipatthana, as he described it to do. Maybe we should take the Buddha of the suttas just as seriously as we do the Buddhism of the Abhidhamma and commentaries, and maybe that means to take him literally, in addition to understanding his meaning in terms of dhammas. > peace, > connie (who used to help build race "Buggies" & thinks the transaxle was the vans' worst feature) I have no idea what the transaxle has to do with what we are talking about, but I do think it's exciting information. Thanks for sharing. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121530 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:25 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "I would like sometime for someone to just acknowledge that the language here and such language is not just conventional..." > > Scott: connie already responded to this bit. I was like, 'What? This guy is even confused about conventional language.' > > R: "...Well, I don't doubt that the powers noted in the sutta are impersonal. But calling the Buddha's language conventional does not at all answer the question as to why he is so intent on enthusiastically lauding the *control* and willfulness of the exercise of those powers..." > > Scott: Rob, seriously now. You do not understand the meaning of 'conventional language.' When there is talk that seems to you to be all about 'control' it is *conventional talk* and refers only to dhammas, their characteristic and function, arising, acting in concert, and falling away to condition the arising of more. That *is* conventional language. The whole idea is that the convention is used to describe the reality. You just totally go for the concrete, literal, 'conventional' message hook, line and sinker. You are the one who doesn't get it, Scott. I'm not falling for anything hook, line and sinker. I just don't agree with you that everything the Buddha says is code for something else. I think that's in error. Buddha did not have to use conventional language. When he says "he can think what he wants whenever he wants" that does not communicate "dhammas arising" to anyone except you and those who are committed to that interpretation. The Buddha is the expert. He didn't have to speak in code for you to continuously translate. I'm saying that he used such language for a purpose other than you turning it into your understanding. Maybe you should see what is communicated by the actual words. It's ridiculous to say that this is being a slave to the literal. Literal in such a case means "what he actually said," not reducing something that is a metaphor or an allegory into a mistaken literal story. This is what the Buddha said. There is nowhere where he said "this is a metaphor, don't take it literally," so what you are actually doing is serving your own philosophy and your own interpretation over his. What makes you think he meant every conventional thing he said to be taken as code for dhammas? He doesn't say so anywhere. My point is that when he talks in this way he is communicating something to people that you are ignoring by translating it, and you do so at the loss of what he was actually saying. > R: "...You dismiss this as being caught up in the conventional. I tend to look at what is actually there...I think there's meaning in his meaning..." > > Scott: You think there's 'meaning in his meaning.' What is that supposed to mean? Ha ha. No, really. What on earth are you talking about. Is what is written in the suttas literal as you seem to say? If so, what is the point of seeking 'meaning in the meaning?.' Please try to focus your thinking and come up with a less emotional and more logical argument. Scott, that is arrogant. Just because you don't understand what I said doesn't mean it is weird or unfocused, or that is emotional and not logical. You are wildly inventive in saying so. Would it ever occur to you to just ask what I meant if you don't understand it? But you take every opportunity to turn your own ignorance into someone else's flaw - not a very healthy psychological tendency, Doc. What I meant was simple enough - that what the words the Buddha speaks mean on their face is a meaning that is significant, not to be dismissed and translated into your own preferred terms. Before looking at it as a metaphor for dhammas, as you would like to do, look at what the meaning is as he says it, and then you can also add your favored extrapolation, without ignoring his words and what they mean on their face. I think that's a mistake. > R: "...I just believe in what is true, and that starts from what is there, not from what you imagine or translate. I'm not mired in literalness. I just think it's dangerous to run away from the literal before it is understood...(Nonsensical whining elided - just make your points, Rob; skip the crying, it's just a discussion for dog's sake. Honestly)" Why don't you try cutting off your own effusive stream of insults? That might be helpful instead of mischaracterizing what other people say. Skip it. > Scott: You 'believe in what is true.' Do you have any idea what that is supposed to mean? I explained what it means - start from what is there before you start making up interpretations. Period. It's simple enough. What is true is what is actually said. Then you can carefully extrapolate intsted of throwing out the Buddha's words in favor of interpretations. > You have seriously got to get this thing about 'conventional' straight in your head, man. No, I actually think you do. I think your approach is off course. > The conventional language of the suttas is the form in which the 'truth' - the conditioned and conditioning arising and falling away of sequential impersonal moments of consciousness - is expressed. It is merely accepted usage describing 'truth.' No, what you think is 'truth' - if you take the literal accepted usage sort of talk to be 'truth' - is merely convention. Why is it said that way? Why use conventional language? What does it accomplish, if it really means something else? Why didn't Buddha go around strictly teaching Abhidhamma? Any ideas? > R: "...Yeah, I'm not too sure about this translation, but you are right that the terms involved are worth investigating..." > > Scott: Well, that's something then. > > R: "...However, I wish that in a post where I don't mention practice but am pretty clear about what I am talking about, that you don't go back to the same crap that you are constantly accusing me of, and deal with the issue at hand. It's stultifying to what could otherwise be a worthwhile investigation. That aside, your other comments are appreciated." > > Scott: I always remember where you are coming from, Rob. You may run for cover when pressed, but you are a dyed-in-the-wool, common, everyday, western Buddhist and you believe in 'practice' and defend and seek to justify it at all times. You don't actually know who or what anyone is. That shows a very poor understanding of Dhamma, though you may be able to toss around a theoretical term or two. > Whining is not discussing, as I've mentioned to Howard. I don't care what you believe. Go ahead. I just remember it and bring it up whenever I feel like it *and* to let you know that I think it informs your whole take on the Dhamma. Making things up about people and inserting it out of context is not discussing. It's ridiculous and is off-topic. Stick to the subject and don't mount anti-imagined-crap campaigns. > That is what wrong view is. Sue me. You know what is wrong view? Making up conceptual nonsense about other people. > Jon says the exact same things to you, and you rant about practice all the time with him, so just keep it up and worry about what you have to say. I'm discussing Dhamma. You keep thinking about persons. You don't understand the Buddha's words or what he meant in sutta. You are running around with an alternate set of books in your head. That keeps you from seeing the full range of Dhamma. Sutta is not metaphorical, it has direct effects on the listener, and you are busy trying to immunize yourself. That is promoting wrong view. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #121531 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Sangiitisutta Bk of 10s, No5, and commentary. nilovg Dear friends, Book of Tens, sutta 5. DN 33.3.3(5) 'Ten Ariyan dispositions (ariya-vaasaa): Here a monk (a) has got rid of five factors, (b) possesses six factors, (c) has established one guard, (d) observes the four supports, (e) has got rid of individual beliefs, (f) has quite abandoned quest, (g) is pure of motive, (h) has tranquillised his emotions, is well liberated (i) in heart, and (j) by wisdom.... ------- Co: As to being rid of five factors, (the hindrances), this is said of the arahat.The ariyan mode of living regards the past, the present and the future. And the same is said with regard to all items. Tiika: the five hindrances are removed by the function of magga(citta). He is endowed with six factors, the six kinds of upekkhaa, equanimity, of the arahat, and this is wisdom, ~naa.na. N: There are several aspects to equanimity (See Visuddhimagga Ch IV, 156-172). Depending on the context, equanimity, upekkhaa, can refer to indifferent feeling, or the sobhana cetasika tatramajjhattataa. It can refer to equanimity of energy, equanimity of jhaana, equanimity of insight. The sixfold equanimity is the equanimity of the arahat with regard to the objects appearing through the six doors. Having seen an object with the eye, then at the time of the javanacittas he is not attached nor is he happy with regard to desirable objects, and he is not annoyed nor is he unhappy with regard to undesirable objects. He does not originate moha by lack of consideration, and dwells with equanimity and evenmindedness, endowed with sati sampaja~n~na (sati and pa~n~naa). The co mentions that the four mahaa-kiriyacittas cittas are accompanied by pa~n~naa (~naa.na-sampayutta). The co: as to constant dwelling in stability (satatavihaara), this also refers to the eight mahaa-kiriya cittas (also those without pa~n~naa) since there are no defilements. It refers to ten cittas in all, and for this see the Tiika to the Sixes, XX: The Tiika adds that here are meant the eight mahaa-kiriyacittas, the hasituppaadacitta (smile producing citta of the arahat which is an ahetuka kiriyacitta) and the votthapana-citta, the ahetuka kiriyacitta arising just before the javana-cittas. The co asks, how can there be somanassa? The answer is: because of repeated occurrence (aasevanato). ----- N: Of the eight mahaa-kiriyacittas, four are accompanied by happy feeling and four by indifferent feeling. We have to remember that the eightfold upekkhaa is not indifferent feeling but understanding. ------- The Tiika (to the Sixes) elaborates on this. Somanassa, happy feeling, occurs by itself, spontaneously. Although the arahat dwells with great equanimity towards desirable or undesirable objects, and does not abandon his natural state of purity, sometimes there is citta with somanassa when he experiences a pleasant object, because of former repeated occurrence (pubbaasevanavasena). ------- Co: as to having established one guard, this is sati with regard to the three doors (of body, speech and mind). Sati accomplishes the function of guarding all the time. Therefore it is said, when walking, standing, asleep, awake. Insight (~naa.nadassana) is present all the time. Tiika: Because of having reached an abundance of sati (sativepullappattattaa), the function of guarding is accomplished. As to when walking etc. , this is explained as constant observance, and it must be understood as absence of disturbance (vikkhepa). ------- N: As to the four supports, this has been explained in the Fours: sutta 8: DN 33.1.11(8) 'Four supports (apassenaani): Here a monk judges that one thing is to be pursued, one thing endured, one thing avoided, one thing suppressed. (Cattaari apassenaani. Idhaavuso, bhikkhu sa'nkhaayeka.m pa.tisevati, sa'nkhaayeka.m adhivaaseti, sa'nkhaayeka.m parivajjeti, sa'nkhaayeka.m vinodeti.) The Co (to the Fours) gives an explanation about the four supports or bases of conduct. He follows (pa.tisevati) what is suitable to be followed, having considered (this) (sa”nkhaaya), having known (this) with understanding (~naa.nena ~natvaa). He uses his robe with wise discrimination. As to enduring: he endures (adhivaaseti) what is proper to be endured. In detail: with wise discrimination he endures thirst etc. Co: As to avoiding: with wise discrimination he avoids (parivajjeti) a fierce elephant. As to suppressing, the Co states: he dispells (vinodeti) , he dispells what should be dispelled, he drives it away, does not allow it to enter. In detail: he does not give in to thoughts of sense pleasures. Subco: By following what should be followed akusala dhammas are eliminated and kusala dhammas increase. This is the meaning of following what is suitable to be followed. It is the same with regard to enduring or patience. The arahat has accomplished all this. -------- N: With each of these four bases of conduct, understanding is emphasized. With each one it is repeated: having considered (this) (sa”nkhaaya), having known (this) with understanding (~naa.nena ~natvaa). With understanding and mindfulness of whatever nama or rupa appears as non-self, there are the right conditions to follow what is suitable, to be patient with regard to whatever reality appears, to avoid and to dispell what is akusala. -------- As to the four kinds of quests or longing, for sense-desires, rebirth and the holy life, see the Threes, XXII, with regard to the quest for the holy life: brahmacariyesanaa. This is mentioned in the Book of Analysis (p. 366) and explained in its co, the Dispeller of Delusion (II, p. 253). Brahmacariyesanaa is explained here as The Co. to the Sangiitisutta (the Threes) mentions also that one may wonder: does the Tathaagatha exist or does he not exist after death. It is wrong view that takes up extreme standpoints (antaggaahika). Also akusala kamma through body, speech and mind goes together with the wrong view which searches for the life of purity. --------- As to being well emancipated from desire (raaga), dosa and moha, this is the result of the function of the path(consciousness). Knowing that ‘for me attachment (raaga) has been abondoned etc.’ is the fruit of the reviewing-consciousness (paccavekkha.na). This arises after the lokuttara phala-citta. Tiika: When the highest fruit has been attained, he knows the non- arising of desire etc., and knowing this is the wisdom of reviewing. ------- Conclusion: As we read with regard to sati that guards the six doors, there must have been an abundance of sati accumulated, until arahatship has been reached. It is a long way to reach arahatship, but when seeing arises and after seeing there is attachment, the characteristic of attachment can be investigated so that it can be known as a kind of naama. Lobha arises time and again but it can be object of mindfulness, even when there is not yet clear understanding of its characteristic as naama, non-self. Being aware of whatever object appears through one of the six doors is the only way leading eventually to arahatship, to the ariyan way of living. ------- Nina. #121532 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:30 pm Subject: Re: How to develop right understanding? szmicio Dear Nina, Sarah, Jon and all. > > > > L: No I meant, attraction to a girl. > > > > > > Ph: Well, that is not going to end any day soon! But I think one day when our understanding deepens we'll start to get tired of that, conditions for being attracted to people (sexually or otherwise) will be used up. > > > > L: Well, not sexually at all. This is more the feeling of attraction to a nice girl. personality and all nimitta, anupancana(? I mean minor appearances). L: To this 'my attraction to a girl' problem, I ve heard on some of the recordings, something about Bhante Dhammadharo's wife. Could you say more about this, if this is only possible. Maybe was it a cause for him to leave a Sangha? Best wishes Lukas #121533 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How to develop right understanding? nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 22-dec-2011, om 10:30 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > L: To this 'my attraction to a girl' problem, I ve heard on some of > the recordings, something about Bhante Dhammadharo's wife. Could > you say more about this, if this is only possible. Maybe was it a > cause for him to leave a Sangha? ------ N: No, he was not married. He could never find a suitable place where there was interest in satipa.t.thaana and perfect observance of Vinaya. These two go together but not every monk understands this. In the end he felt that his true accumulations were not for monkhood. As a lay person he went on many trips with Kh Sujin and Thai friends. He was so kind and generous. He listened very intently on Kh Sujin's last talk just before he had this accident near Ayuthaya. ------- Nina. #121534 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Dear Phil, Op 19-dec-2011, om 12:55 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > By the way, I am wondering why patisandhi citta is said to be > faculty condition for accompanying cetasikas and rupa produced by > kamma ( p.93 of your "Conditionality > of Life") but it is not in the list of indriyas on p.91. You write > "since it is the first citta in life it is too weak to produce > ruupa" so how is it strong enough to be faculty condition? ------- N: Mind-faculty includes all cittas, see p. 93 above. The pa.tisandhi-citta is still faculty, leader in its own field. For the cetasikas and also for the accompanying ruupa, even though that ruupa is produced by kamma at that moment. If there would not be this citta, cetasikas and kamma-rpoduced ruupa could not arise by themselves, without the pa.tisandhi-citta. ------ Nina. #121535 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Arahat does what he wants upasaka_howard Hi, Connie (and Robert) - In a message dated 12/21/2011 9:32:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, nichicon@... writes: Conventional language is just (pardon the expression) an expedient means... which isn't to say it's lies, just that the truth is hard to see when we mistake the story for the reality. ================================ I think that's well said, Connie. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121536 From: "Lukas" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:29 am Subject: Re: What I heard. szmicio Dear Nina, Can you comment further on this? > She said: be aware just a little, be aware even > though there is not yet clear understanding. L: I don't understand what 'be aware just a little' means? Best wishes Lukas #121537 From: "connie" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:40 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants nichiconn No problem, Rob E. > > I have no idea what the transaxle has to do with what we are talking about, but I do think it's exciting information. Thanks for sharing. > I recently read a story about a bunch of guys out flexing their muscles getting ready to tip a van back onto it's wheels when -whoosh!- nature pretty much took care of the problem with just a more or less accidental touch by one of these macho hunks. That's something, isn't it, how "enrightenment" occurs! But you're right, my mentioning the transaxle being so likely to fail in a big way without telling a story we could get a lesson from was just more waving the flag: See me, see me! Thanks for the reminder to shift gears. Maybe I'll remember that for a day or two & stick to discussing dhammaa. Or not... just because we think we hold the key doesn't take Kilesa out of the driver's seat. connie #121538 From: "connie" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Arahat does what he wants nichiconn Thanks, Howard. connie > > Conventional language is just (pardon the expression) an expedient > means... which isn't to say it's lies, just that the truth is hard to see when we > mistake the story for the reality. > ================================ > I think that's well said, Connie. > #121539 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project moellerdieter Dear Nina , all, you wrote: The table is very good. This is from the same person who translated the Dhammasangani, which is excellent, better than PTS. D: I can't recall by whom the previous table has been made . Many subgroups under headings which -without commentary explanation- are difficult for understanding the order. You may know the presentation of the Cetasikas in Dhammasangani . Is the arrangement of groups, subgroups , subsubgroups closer to the orginal or the one by Ukyav Min? N: When realities are classified as khandha, it is as you say: sankhaarakkhandha are fifty cetasikas. D: fine , there is a common base . Do we agree further that sankhara khanda is defined by 'volition,contact and attention' (S.N.12.2)? I recognize how difficult it is to get a consensus understanding in our studies , but I think it is worthwhile , even if it is only to accept the other angle of view. .so I wonder whether my recent statement is (roughly) in line with your thinking: I assume that the specification of citta, cetasika , rupa is embedded not only within the 5 Khandas but as well within the (process) of the Law of Dependent Orgination). Moreover I think that Abhidhamma aimed to expand the Law with a profound analysis ,introduced ethical principles (kammapatha) to emphasise is use for daily life mindfulness and included Nibbana as Paramattha Dhamma ( besides the conditioned dhammas ) to point out that this is possible to be experienced in this very life. with Metta Dieter #121540 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:10 am Subject: "no-control" and "no-practice" truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, Can someone explain why "practice" is wrong? No-control is what gives sense to practice. Practice develops understanding that will lead to inevitable Awakening about which we have no control. If there was control, one would not need to practice in the first place. One could just wish and control the mind so that there would be no greed, anger, delusion and whatever other derivative akusala states might be. With best wishes, Alex #121541 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:17 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants scottduncan2 Rob E., Distilling the few relatively coherent elements of your most recent excited communication, we have: R: "...Buddha did not have to use conventional language..." R: "...When he says 'he can think what he wants whenever he wants' that does not communicate 'dhammas arising'..." R: "...Literal in such a case means 'what he actually said,'..." R: "...the words the Buddha speaks mean on their face is a meaning that is significant..." R: "...start from what is there..." Scott: The inability to disengage from this concrete view hampers you immensely, Rob. This is an utterly superficial view of the Dhamma, which, as you'll be happy to note, has been referred to in conventional language by the Buddha as being very deep. The only reason I can see for your holding to this superfial take on the Dhamma, as I'll continue to point out to you, is that it justifies your belief in 'practice' - in a view sustaining the notion of a person deliberately imposing his or her so-called 'will' on events unfolding. While appearing to engage in discussions on the various aspects of dhammas, the view expressing you persists from an encapsulated vantage point, and this view - a clear and unabashed belief in the efficacy of a person - nullifies anything you claim to understand about dhammas. You clearly consider the view, which you summarise as 'dhammas arising,' to be incorrect. You clearly hold that this incorrect view is wrongly asserted by 1% of the so-called buddhist world. In the above you take a stand against the basic characteristic of any dhamma, and that is that all are impermeable to control. In the above you assert with vehemence that it *is* indeed possible for a person to exert control over dhammas. You even persist in holding to the view that your belief is an identical reflection of what was taught by the Buddha. This is totally incorrect. Scott. #121542 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 5:48 am Subject: practice requires no-control truth_aerator Scott, >S:The only reason I can see for your holding to this superfial take on >the Dhamma, as I'll continue to point out to you, is that it justifies >your belief in 'practice' - in a view sustaining the notion of a >person deliberately imposing his or her so-called 'will' on events >unfolding. >============================================ If one could impose one's will, then there would be no need for practice. One could simply will to become awakened, and become so. Practice requires no-control. If there was control, practice would not be needed. Alex #121543 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:00 am Subject: Re: practice requires no-control scottduncan2 Alex, A: "If one could impose one's will, then there would be no need for practice. One could simply will to become awakened, and become so. Practice requires no-control. If there was control, practice would not be needed." Scott: Ridiculous. There *is* no control. There *is* no need for 'practice.' One *cannot* impose one's 'will.' The utter incoherence of the ridiculous statement 'practice requires no-control' should be enough to stupify any reader. Scott. #121544 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "no-control" and "no-practice" upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Nina) - In a message dated 12/22/2011 12:10:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Nina, all, Can someone explain why "practice" is wrong? No-control is what gives sense to practice. Practice develops understanding that will lead to inevitable Awakening about which we have no control. If there was control, one would not need to practice in the first place. One could just wish and control the mind so that there would be no greed, anger, delusion and whatever other derivative akusala states might be. With best wishes, Alex ================================ My take on the basis for disapproving of intentional practice is that it is twofold, as follows: 1) The understanding of 'bhavana' as designating development, with that development viewed from the (true) perspective of it's occurring as a result of nothing but impersonal conditions, and 2) The assumption that intentional practice is thought of by "practitioners" as something carried out by actors, agents, or beings. There is validity to both of these perspectives, I think. I believe the definition in #1 is correct, and the occurrence of atta-view during intentional practice presumed in #2 is, indeed, common. Where there may be, but needn't be, a missing the mark with regard to the foregoing, I believe, is as follows: For #1, there may be a non-recognition that among the impersonal conditions are intention and thinking, and, for #2, there may be a non-recognition that frequent interposing of sense-of-self and atta-view applies not only during intentional practice but to pretty much all human activities, including study of sutta, abhidhamma, and commentary. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121545 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:08 am Subject: Re: practice requires no-control truth_aerator Scott, >S: There *is* no need for 'practice.' Prove it. The Buddha often exhorted monks to develop (bhavana) wholesome qualities and there are plenty of suttas about anapanasati and other practices. Why couldn't the Buddha be clear about "Monks! Don't practice, for if you will practice, you will develop wrong views!" Alex #121546 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "no-control" and "no-practice" truth_aerator Hello Howard, all, >1)The understanding of 'bhavana' as designating development, with >that development viewed from the (true) perspective of it's >occurring as a result of nothing but impersonal conditions, and >======================================================== This doesn't disprove meditation. Meditation is fully conditioned process that is anatta and no-control. Of course it happens due to impersonal conditions. Reading and considering Abhidhamma also happens as a a result of nothing but impersonal conditions. >2)The assumption that intentional practice is thought of by >"practitioners" as something carried out by actors, agents, or >beings. >================================================= There is possibility of wrong view about atta. But this can be applied just as well to reading and considering Abhidhamma, as well as eating and drinking. So should one drop like a log in order not to intentionally do anything? Or is it better to simply drop wrong views??? You are correct in your post. With best wishes, Alex #121547 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "no-control" and "no-practice" upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 12/22/2011 3:16:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello Howard, all, >1)The understanding of 'bhavana' as designating development, with >that development viewed from the (true) perspective of it's >occurring as a result of nothing but impersonal conditions, and >======================================================== This doesn't disprove meditation. Meditation is fully conditioned process that is anatta and no-control. Of course it happens due to impersonal conditions. Reading and considering Abhidhamma also happens as a a result of nothing but impersonal conditions. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, of course! And I meditate every day (with rare exceptions) - just in case you were wondering. ;-) ----------------------------------------------- >2)The assumption that intentional practice is thought of by >"practitioners" as something carried out by actors, agents, or >beings. >================================================= There is possibility of wrong view about atta. But this can be applied just as well to reading and considering Abhidhamma, as well as eating and drinking. ------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, as I pointed out. :-) ------------------------------------------------- So should one drop like a log in order not to intentionally do anything? Or is it better to simply drop wrong views??? --------------------------------------------- HCW: The latter choice sounds like a good one. ;-) --------------------------------------------- You are correct in your post. --------------------------------------------- HCW: Well, that makes at least 2 of us who think so! ;-) ---------------------------------------- With best wishes, Alex ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #121548 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:05 am Subject: Re: practice requires no-control scottduncan2 Alex, A: "Prove it..." Scott: Again, Alex? I know you've worked hard to come up with this latest wrinkle in your never-ending quest, but seriously, 'prove it?' Some think your questions are reasonable. I have no doubt that your sole interest is debate. I have absolutely no interest. I just like to poke you back... A: "...The Buddha often exhorted monks to develop (bhavana) wholesome qualities and there are plenty of suttas about anapanasati and other practices..." Scott: Your persistent theory (one you've been harping on for months) - that when someone is 'doing practice' then it's automatically going to produce results because everything is conditioned, including the 'practice' which, of course, is automatically kusala - is totally simple-minded. And I mean completely, utterly dumb. It's a paradox. Kusala develops when kusala arises. This is bhaavanaa. A conventionally worded exhortation is made, not to support your concrete notion that one just does something, but to describe how it is the arising of kusala that develops kusala. Only someone who is totally convinced in the reality of a person with will could think otherwise. It is self-view to suggest what you do. There is no doubt about it. Back to the drawing-board with you, Alex. Come back later with your next attempt at arguing in favour of 'practice' and 'meditation.' What the point is of all this arguing you do is beyond me. I like it, though, because then I can write stuff like this. Ha ha. Scott. #121549 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "no-control" and "no-practice" scottduncan2 Howard, No support of Alex will enhance his distorted and incorrect views. If anything, throwing yourself in with him will only solidify my sense that you, too, have got it all wrong (and I already totally am convinced of this). H: "My take on the basis for disapproving of intentional practice is that it is twofold, as follows: 1) The understanding of 'bhavana' as designating development, with that development viewed from the (true) perspective of it's occurring as a result of nothing but impersonal conditions, and 2) The assumption that intentional practice is thought of by 'practitioners' as something carried out by actors, agents, or beings. There is validity to both of these perspectives, I think. I believe the definition in #1 is correct, and the occurrence of atta-view during intentional practice presumed in #2 is, indeed, common. Where there may be, but needn't be, a missing the mark with regard to the foregoing, I believe, is as follows: For #1, there may be a non-recognition that among the impersonal conditions are intention and thinking, and, for #2, there may be a non-recognition that frequent interposing of sense-of-self and atta-view applies not only during intentional practice but to pretty much all human activities, including study of sutta, abhidhamma, and commentary." Scott: Says the guy who 'meditates' everyday. The notion of 'intentional practice' is complete nonsense. Just that fact alone - your daily 'meditation - nullifies all that you attempt to give lip-service to in the above. When you 'meditate' it is self because you totally believe in the efficacy of something you claim to be your own 'will' - no matter how you try to appear to be factoring in anatta. You, like Alex, are so convinced that you have it right that you can smugly imagine that your very own 'meditation' is just perfect. Of course, like every meditator, unless you are speaking to a fellow delusionist, you would never clearly explain your so-called 'meditation' to anyone who dares to doubt you. If you want, however, you could tell me what you do so I can show you how full of holes the whole thing is. You and Alex can support and congratulate each other all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that you are both wrong. Scott. #121550 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:01 pm Subject: Re: practice requires no-control truth_aerator Scott, >Scott: I have no doubt that your sole interest is debate. >>>>>> Again, you read my mind even before I think about it and you seem to know my intentions better than I do myself. I am interested in a discussion, and want the truth. > Scott: Your persistent theory (one you've been harping on for >months) - that when someone is 'doing practice' >============================================= When development as impersonal process occurs... >then it's automatically going to produce results because everything >is conditioned, including the 'practice' which, of course, is >automatically kusala - is totally simple-minded. >======================================== Wrong development can occur. It is not automatically and always kusala. You are adding in ideas before I even think them (if I do). I don't see it so black and white. >And I mean completely, utterly dumb. >==================================== Only your strawman. >but to describe how it is the arising of kusala that develops >kusala. >=============================== Please describe this "arising of kusala that develops kusala". Alex #121552 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "no-control" and "no-practice" truth_aerator Scott, >Scott: Says the guy who 'meditates' everyday. The notion of >'intentional practice' >========================== With which kind of citta, does intention (cetana cetasika) never arises? Is there any kind of citta without cetana cetasika? So the problem is not with "intentional" which happens anyways. It is with wrong views which can just as well be applied to meditation as to reading and considering Abhidhamma. Alex #121553 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:19 pm Subject: Re: practice requires no-control scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...Please describe this 'arising of kusala that develops kusala'. Scott: Bzzz Bzzz, Alex. Scott. #121554 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "no-control" and "no-practice" scottduncan2 Alex, A: "...cetana cetasika?..." Scott: Yeah, I know, Alex: Cetana cetasika is identical to 'my willpower.' Tedious. 'Bye. Scott. #121555 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:38 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Connie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > No problem, Rob E. > > > > > I have no idea what the transaxle has to do with what we are talking about, but I do think it's exciting information. Thanks for sharing. > > > > I recently read a story about a bunch of guys out flexing their muscles getting ready to tip a van back onto it's wheels when -whoosh!- nature pretty much took care of the problem with just a more or less accidental touch by one of these macho hunks. That was my story, which I told here on dsg, when we were talking about the whole VW thing. It was a VW minivan, a few decades ago when I was in college. > That's something, isn't it, how "enrightenment" occurs! It happens all by itself! > But you're right, my mentioning the transaxle being so likely to fail in a big way without telling a story we could get a lesson from was just more waving the flag: See me, see me! Thanks for the reminder to shift gears. No pun intended, ha ha - shift gears; funny! I wasn't against the transaxle reference, just didn't get it. Please bring up anything you feel like, as far as I'm concerned. > Maybe I'll remember that for a day or two & stick to discussing dhammaa. Or not... just because we think we hold the key doesn't take Kilesa out of the driver's seat. The key to the transaxle? I feel a sense of car metaphors floating in the air, but I won't take them literally. Yes, Kilesa is always driving our car of self-view - right over the cliff of incessant rebirth. This has been a very hard-driving conversation. Thanks for keeping me on the right road. Best, Rob E. "proud accidental pusher-upper of VW mini-vans" - - - - - - - - - - - #121556 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:50 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > Distilling the few relatively coherent elements of your most recent excited communication, Whatever, keep characterizing away... > we have: > > R: "...Buddha did not have to use conventional language..." > > R: "...When he says 'he can think what he wants whenever he wants' that does not communicate 'dhammas arising'..." > > R: "...Literal in such a case means 'what he actually said,'..." > > R: "...the words the Buddha speaks mean on their face is a meaning that is significant..." > > R: "...start from what is there..." > > Scott: The inability to disengage from this concrete view hampers you immensely, Rob. This is an utterly superficial view of the Dhamma, which, as you'll be happy to note, has been referred to in conventional language by the Buddha as being very deep. > > The only reason I can see for your holding to this superfial take on the Dhamma, as I'll continue to point out to you, is that it justifies your belief in 'practice' - in a view sustaining the notion of a person deliberately imposing his or her so-called 'will' on events unfolding. > > While appearing to engage in discussions on the various aspects of dhammas, the view expressing you persists from an encapsulated vantage point, and this view - a clear and unabashed belief in the efficacy of a person - nullifies anything you claim to understand about dhammas. > > You clearly consider the view, which you summarise as 'dhammas arising,' to be incorrect. You clearly hold that this incorrect view is wrongly asserted by 1% of the so-called buddhist world. > > In the above you take a stand against the basic characteristic of any dhamma, and that is that all are impermeable to control. In the above you assert with vehemence that it *is* indeed possible for a person to exert control over dhammas. You even persist in holding to the view that your belief is an identical reflection of what was taught by the Buddha. This is totally incorrect. The truth is that you do not understand what I'm saying, and seem to be blocked from it by your polarized dogmatic view of the Dhamma - that there are two Dhammas, and the one the Buddha spoke was the wrong one, since it has to be translated into something other than what he said. When translating someone else's speech into your own terms, it's dangerous to jump too quickly to assume that they mean what you want them to mean. It is also dangerous to dismiss the plain view of what is said as "slavish attachment to literalism." That is the same thing as saying that we should not read what is actually there and start from that plain meaning. I realize I'm repeating myself, but that's because you have taken the actual meaning that is on the page, and declared it inconsequential, since it is "literal" and "conventional." I'd like to point out once again that "literal" actually means "what is actually there." If you don't take the suttas literally, you are replacing them with your own thoughts and meanings. I am saying this without drawing any conclusion as to whether such a procedure is correct or not, but I am saying that if you don't start with some attention to what seems to be said by the actual words, you are in danger of replacing them with something that is not a valid interpretation. This doesn't seem to worry you, since you think that the authority of the Abhidhamma and commentaries, and your particular interpretation of them, is absolutely correct. Therefore there is no danger of misinterpreting what the Buddha actually said. As I say, you may be right. But I am very slow to jump to such a conclusion, even if everything said in the commentaries is absolutely correct. I can't quote you right now, but on several occasions you have cited commentary to support your view and the commentary has not actually said what you claimed it supported. I'll keep my eyes open for an example. But this leads me to believe that even in reading commentary that you conveniently assume that it backs up what you already think. To me, this is open to question. Do I think that the "literal" meaning of the sutta is all there is to them, as you claim? No. I think the extrapolation into more specific analysis of dhammas is a valid and worthwhile thing to do for deeper understanding of the particulars involved in breaking down what the Buddha is talking about. But I don't think that the translation stands in place of the original words, but as a supplement. In other words, It think that what the Buddha originally said has a validity of its own - in other words, there was a reason for speaking conventionally in that case and we should understand what the conventional language is for - and that the more specific interpretation into dhamma issues is also valid. As always, I think we should look at both levels, not just one. I know you disagree, but you shouldn't jump to conclusions about what I think. Just so you're clear, I think the following: 1. The suttas have messages of their own by listening to what the Buddha actually says. 2. The further analysis into dhammas is also valid and gives specific understanding of the dhammas involved. 3. I think that practice was advocated by the Buddha and that he instructed us how to practice in order to realize the truth of the dhammas that arise in the moment. I think all three are true, not just one, and not just two; and to me it's not either/or as it is for you. Please note that there is nothing "excited" or "unclear" in anything I'm saying. It's clear and I just disagree with you on several issues. Hope you can deal with that. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #121557 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:23 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...3. I think that practice was advocated by the Buddha and that he instructed us how to practice in order to realize the truth of the dhammas that arise in the moment..." Scott: This belief nullifies anything else you say. Scott. #121558 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:34 pm Subject: Re: practice requires no-control epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >but to describe how it is the arising of kusala that develops >kusala. > >=============================== > > Please describe this "arising of kusala that develops kusala". I wouldn't hold my breath. Most likely you will instead get another derogatory personal attack. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #121559 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:37 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...3. I think that practice was advocated by the Buddha and that he instructed us how to practice in order to realize the truth of the dhammas that arise in the moment..." > > Scott: This belief nullifies anything else you say. No, it nullifies any belief *you* have in anything else I say. That's your problem. Enjoy your self-enclosed cocoon. Rob out. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #121560 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:21 am Subject: The Noble Fruit! bhikkhu5 Friends: Attaining 1 of the 4 Noble Fruits is Sublime! Insight culminates in the moment of attaining the recluses sublime fruit: A state tranquillizing all distress, its beauty from the Deathless draws... Its calm from lack of fuzzy worldliness. Truly a sweet and clarified bliss! It is a fountainhead, whose honey-sweet ambrosia emulates the deathless. Any being refining understanding, will experience this pure peerless bliss, which is the taste the Noble fruit produces, right here in this very life! The flavour of the Noble fruit is Happiness, a blessing of fulfilled insight! Visuddhimagga 702 There are 4 types of increasingly Noble individuals ( Ariya-Puggala ): 1: The Stream-winner (Sot�panna), 2: The Once-Returner (Sakad�g�mi), 3: The Non-Returner (An�g�m�), 4: The Awakened Holy One (Arahat). <...> Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <...> #121561 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:08 pm Subject: Re: What I heard. sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Phil & Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Kh Sujin said that a talk on viriya (viriya katha) helps right energy > for awareness now while there is still an opportunity for awareness. > When there is rebirth in an unhappy plane this is very difficult, > perhaps impossible. She said: be aware just a little, be aware even > though there is not yet clear understanding. Just go on being aware, > this is a condition for the arising of pa~n~naa later on. > N: I found this encouraging, not worrying about the degree of > understanding, or worrying about it that sati is so weak. It can be > accumulated little by little. > She said that we are still in human life, not in hell. We should not > waste our life in being forgetful. .... S: This reminds me of the part of the recording that caught my attention as mentioned to Phil. I listened to it again: KS: "When the panna develops on and on one can see that everything's so meaningless when awareness does not arise - only thinking thinking, thinking about the past reality which appears as nimitta or sign of reality only. So only the moment of being aware of reality has some meaning .... the other moments past completely and only the signs are left." S:She then goes on to talk about the 3 kinds of cariya, behaviour of citta: a) vi~n~naana cariya (behaviour of consciousness), b) a~naana cariya (behaviour of unknowing) c) ~naana cariya (behaviour of wisdom - pa~n~naa which can experience reality directly) KS: "So in the Patisambhiddamagga - vi~n~naana cariya, a~naana cariya and ~naana cariya. Sariputta just stressed 3 words. The vi~nnaana cariya are the moments of vipaaka ahetuka. For example when one is born one cannot escape from moments of seeing, hearing, smelling. They have to arise - no one can avoid them - and after that a~naana cariya, akusala comng all the time. No need to talk about other kinds of kusala [S: kusala other than satipatthana] because it's exactly the same like other things - just arise and pass, nothing left. Only the moment of understanding of that reality which appears is ~naana cariya. Even right now, when there is no awareness, there's no meaning at all." S: K.Sujin continues to talk about how essential is is for theoretical understanding of the Path to be "really well, firmly established otherwise there's always no awareness at all". If there's an idea of following any practise of doing anything in particular to have satipatthana arise, then it indicates the theoretical understanding is not firmly established. I like this reminder too: KS: "Always thinking, just thinking - taking reality which has gone so very seriously as something (which) stays, permanently, all the time. So in one's life, no matter it's short or long, the most valuable moment is the understanding of reality as it is. That's all, because it is the absolute reality. No story concerning, no thinking about realities as something permanent and (which) stays." Jon mentions that still while we live, we have to have the other stories. KS: " Yes, but what about the understanding? We cannot stop taking the story out of realities, but the development of understanding can understand each moment as a reality, not self, otherwise there is no way to eradicate the idea of self and wrong view. " Jon: "in that case what understanding would see if it were more fully developed would be a lot of thinking. a lot of the moments of the day are just thinking." KS: "Yes, it doesn't mean we have to stop or try to stop (thinking). it's wrong because that is done by 'I' again. The 'I ' is always there, just want something for oneself. But actually it's like other moments, just arises and falls away, nothing is left and that which has gone, never comes back at all. Each is the new one conditioned by paccaya. One can see the different levels of understanding - theoretically understanding about realities, talking about realities, and the development of understanding with direct awareness and the penetration of the true nature of reality as it is, as just what we keep on talking about. Like 'dhamma, dhamma, dhamma now' but it does not appear as dhamma when sati does not arise. So we just talk about khandha again, about ruupa khandha - how all types of ruupa are ruupa khandha, but what about this one? Whether it's the ruupa khandha which is seen, the ruupa khandha which is heard, the ruupa khandha which is touched - just in a moment so fast, arising and falling away." S: K.Sujin goes on to discuss how it has to be the well established theoretical understanding, sacca ~naana which conditions the direct undersanding. **** If anyone would like to listen to this piece (and more), it can be heard at the very beginning of the following audio to be found at the link below: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/#mtgs scroll down to: Kaeng Krajaan (Thailand), September 2006 Metta Sarah ===== #121562 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I heard. nilovg Dear Sarah, very good quotes. I have it all copied, but to which one in particular you are referring? Nina. Op 23-dec-2011, om 8:08 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > scroll down to: Kaeng Krajaan (Thailand), September 2006 #121563 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:22 am Subject: Re: What I heard. scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, S: "...K.Sujin goes on to discuss how it has to be the well established theoretical understanding, sacca ~naana which conditions the direct undersanding. If anyone would like to listen to this piece (and more), it can be heard at the very beginning of the following audio to be found at the link below..." Scott: Thanks, I've listened to this a few times. Good stuff. Scott. #121564 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 3:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I heard. nilovg Dear Lukas, A good question and it is good to discuss this subject. Do speak more about it if you like. Op 22-dec-2011, om 16:29 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > > Can you comment further on this? > > > She said: be aware just a little, be aware even > > though there is not yet clear understanding. > > L: I don't understand what 'be aware just a little' means? > --------- > N: The moment may be so brief and very weak, and after this thinking of realities follow. The moments of thinking seem to cover up a moment of sati that is gone immediately. Or we are likely to confuse awareness and thinking. This happens naturally, but we should not mind at all or become discouraged. Kh Sujin said: When sati is there, the hardness is the same, but there is awareness of it. Usually we touch without sati, but when sati arises there is a slight difference. It does not last long, but the characteristic is there, with sati. A slight difference: because the hardness is the same as when there is no sati. But sati follows the experience of the object by body- consciousness. It is just a very short moment of sati that can 'slip in'. ------- N: A short moment of sati that can slip in, that is the way it happens. I heard yesterday from a Thai recording someone asking what sati is. Kh Sujin explained about forgetfulness and I think this helps to understand the difference between forgetfulness and a moment of sati. Forgetfulness: when hardness appears and no awareness of the characteristic of hardness, a reality that arises and falls away. N: Think of the many moments of touching like the keybord now, and no awareness. Kh S: When seeing visible object no awareness of it as a reality that appears through the eyes, only that. Not a person, not a self. All realities arise because of conditions. Sati is aware of the characteristic of what appears, and this is not merely thinking that everything is anattaa. Quotes from tapes: We discussed about the difference between the moments of awareness and the moments that there is no awareness. Sujin: Pa~n~naa knows when awareness arises. It knows the difference between moments with awareness and moments without awareness. We touch things and body-consciousness experiences hardness without awareness. But sometimes when hardness presents itself there is awareness of hardness. The object is then exactly the same. Reality presents itself now but ignorance cannot understand it. When visible object appears we do not have to call it visible object. It appears and awareness can be aware of it, it does not move away from it. Pa~n~naa can begin to see it as a reality. It takes time to become detached from the story about visible object, from thinking about the name, or about the theory. The development of pa~n~naa can be proven when the effect is letting go, even for a moment, of clinging to visible object. Pa~n~naa passes on to another object, instantly, naturally. Otherwise one may cling with thinking or trying to understand the object. When pa~n~naa develops it can understand instantly and become detached instantly. It is such a short moment and then other realities appear and pa~n~naa can understand these.” There can be understanding of hardness. It is experienced through the bodysense and it is just hardness. Can it be anything else besides hardness? When one has studied the teachings and acquired a firm foundation of Dhamma study, this will condition one day the arising of sati. Instead of ignorance of the characteristic of hardness sati and pa~n~naa can experience hardness after the body-consciousness has experienced it and has fallen away. Then one begins to know hardness as an element. It is also a beginning of knowing when there is sati and when there is not. N: But after a moment of sati we may think of it with attachment. S: We should not have any expectation about sati. Is there anyone waiting for the arising of sati after seeing or after the experience of tangible object through the bodysense? ------- Nina. #121565 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 10:16 am Subject: The 4 Steps to Stream-Entry! bhikkhu5 Friends: The 4 Steps to Stream-Entry to Nibbâna... The Blessed Buddha once explained: Here, householder, the Noble Disciple possesses confirmed confidence and conviction in the Buddha in exactly his way: Worthy, honourable & perfectly self-Enlightened is the Buddha! Consummated in knowledge and behaviour, all transcended, expert in all dimensions, knower of all worlds, unsurpassable trainer of those who can be tamed, teacher & guide of both gods & humans, blessed, exalted, awakened & enlightened is the Buddha! He possesses confirmed confidence in the Dhamma in exactly this way: Perfectly formulated is this Buddha-Dhamma, visible right here and now, immediately effective, timeless, inviting each and everyone to come and see for themselves, inspect, examine and verify. Leading each and everyone through progress towards perfection. Directly observable, experiencable and realizable by each intelligence... He also possesses confirmed confidence in the Noble Sangha in this way: Perfectly training is this Noble Sangha community of the Buddha's disciples: Training the right way, the true way, the good way, the direct way! Therefore do these eight kinds of individuals, the four Noble pairs, deserve both gifts, self-sacrifice, offerings, hospitality & reverential salutation with joined palms, since this Noble Sangha community of the Buddha's disciples, is an unsurpassable & forever unsurpassed Field of Merit, in this world, for this world, to honour, protect, respect and support ... He possesses the Pure Morality esteemed by the Noble ones: Unbroken, untorn, unspotted, unmottled, freeing, praised by the wise, natural, leading to mental concentration, to absorption... These are the 4 factors of Stream-Entry that a Noble Disciple possess! The 4 steps to Stream-entry (sotÄpannassa angÄni) are therefore obtaining: 1: Unshakable faith in the fact of the perfect Enlightenment of the Buddha. 2: Unshakable faith in the perfect correctness of the true Dhamma. 3: Unshakable faith in the Noble part of the Sangha (monastic+lay). 4: Purified and perfectly unspotted Morality (SÄ«la ). http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/sotaapannassa_an.htm Canonical references: SN. LV.1; DN. 33; SN. XLVII.8 Not to confuse with the 4 helpers to Stream-entry (sotÄpattiyanga): 1: Companionship with great men, 2: Hearing the True Dhamma Law, 3: Wise reflection on Cause and Effect, 4: Living in conformity with the Dhamma. http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/sotaapattiyanga.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Helpers_to_Stream_Entry.htm Canonical references: SN. LV.5; DN.33 <...> Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta NikÄya. Book II [69] section 12:41 The five Fears ... 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 SamÄhita _/\_ * <...> #121566 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:54 pm Subject: Re: "no-control" and "no-practice" kenhowardau Hi Howard, ----------- <. . .> H: "My take on the basis for disapproving of intentional practice is that it is twofold, as follows: 1) The understanding of 'bhavana' as designating development, with that development viewed from the (true) perspective of it's occurring as a result of nothing but impersonal conditions, and ------------ > KH: Bhavana – either samatha or vipassana - occurs whenever an object is rightly understood. So bhavana is basically the conditioned paramattha dhamma, panna. ---------------- > HCW: 2) The assumption that intentional practice is thought of by 'practitioners' as something carried out by actors, agents, or beings. ---------------- KH: [Speaking for myself] my assumption is that intentional practice goes hand in hand with belief in a non-momentary world. If there is belief in a non-momentary (permanent) world then of course there is going to be belief in intentional practice. Why wouldn't there be? When, on the other hand, there is belief in a momentary world the concept of intentional practice simply does not apply. It can't apply. ------------------ > HCW: <. . .> Where there may be, but needn't be, a missing the mark with regard to the foregoing, I believe, is as follows: For #1, there may be a non-recognition that among the impersonal conditions are intention and thinking, ------------------ KH: Cetana, vicara and vittaka can all be present in a momentary world of right understanding. No one is denying that. They co-arise with panna and have panna as their forerunner. -------------------------------- > HCW: and, for #2, there may be a non-recognition that frequent interposing of sense-of-self and atta-view applies not only during intentional practice but to pretty much all human activities, including study of sutta, abhidhamma, and commentary." --------------------------------- KH: But does it *necessarily* arise at those times? No: sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. However (I would argue) in a moment of so-called intentional practice atta view must necessarily arise. As I said, belief in formal practice can only occur when there is belief in a non-momentary world. That is, when there is atta view. Ken H #121567 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 4:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "no-control" and "no-practice" nilovg Dear Alex, Op 22-dec-2011, om 18:10 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Can someone explain why "practice" is wrong? No-control is what > gives sense to practice. ------ N: It does not matter what word we use, we can use the word practice. As long as we have right understanding what it is. Pa.tipatti. In Thai there is a specific interpretation: pa.ti: particular. patti: reaching. To reach the particular characteristics of realities. To be aware of the different characteristics that appear. No-control: It is difficult to understand the real meaning of this. We may say the words, but we may still have an idea of self who does not control or who controls. Lobha can be very subtle. Now a few quotes: ----------- Ann: What is pa.tipatti? Kh S: What we call satipa.t.thaana is pa.tipatti. It is the understanding of a characteristic of reality as it is, different from thinking about it. There is seeing, hearing, touching hardness, but no understanding of them. There can only be understanding of them when awareness arises, and this is not merely thinking. ------- Ann: What is the difference between a moment with sati and a moment without sati? ------ Kh S: Hearing the Dhamma and understanding can condition the arising of a moment of direct awareness. Sati can be aware of realities such as seeing, touching, very naturally, before one can prepare for it or think about it. Sati is as natural as seeing or hearing. It is aware of a characteristic . There may be very weak pa~n~naa that just knows the difference between a moment of sati and a moment without sati. You do not have to ask anybody else when pa~n~naa arises.... The arising of seeing and hearing do not depend on our will or wish. It is not possible that seeing arises whenever one wishes. The blind cannot see, even though they want to. The deaf cannot hear, even though they want to. Dhammas are anattaa, they need the appropriate conditions so that they can arise. Kh Sujin said: < All dhammas are anattaa. This must be firmly established, otherwise we think that it is ‘I’ who can exert control over realities. For example, there is an idea of ‘I’ at the moment of seeing, ‘I see’; at the moment of hearing, there is an idea of ‘I hear’. Seeing is conditioned, it arises; without conditions there could not be seeing at all.> Kh Sujin: Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 4:50 pm Subject: Re: Clarifying pariyatti sarahprocter... Dear Scott, part 2 or reply to #121234 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Scott: The suggestion is being made that what I consider to be 'thoughts' - the ideas and sentences and stuff in my head as I think all day long about this or that, including the Dhamma - are *not* what is being referred to when there is talk of pa~n~naa taking concepts (thoughts) as object. .... S: Yes, because it is not the ideas or concepts that determine whether pa~n~naa is arising or not, but the accumulated pa~n~naa itself. For example we can repeat the same phrases from a Sutta (or from the newspaper, for that matter), with or without pa~n~naa, with or without wise attetion. From my earlier post #21442 ....From the Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2) and B.Bodhi' s summaries from the commentaries, with the emphasis on ayoniso & yoniso manasikara (unwise and wise attention) in this connection: ***** "What are the things unfit for attention that he attends to? They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual desire arises in him and the arisen taint of sensual desire increases, the unarisen taint of being arises in him and the arisen taint of being increases, the unarisen taint of ignorance increases in him and the arisen taint of ignorance increases. These are the things unfit for attention that he attends to." ***** commentary notes: 1."MA makes the important point that there is no fixed determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or unfit for attention. The distinction consists, rather, in the mode of attention. That mode of attention that is a causal basis for unwholesome states of mind should be avoided, while that mode of attention that is a causal basis for wholesome states should be developed." 2. "MA illustrates the growth of the taints through unwise attention as follows: When he attends to gratification in the five cords of sensual pleasure, the taint of sensual desire arises and increases; when he attends to gratification in the exalted states (the jhanas), the taint of being arises and increases; and when he attends to any mundane things through the four "perversions" (of permanence, pleasure, self and beautiful etc), the taint of ignorance arises and increases." 3. "MA says that up to the attainment of the path of stream-entry, attention denotes insight (vipassanaa), but at the moment of the path it dentotes path-knowledge. Insight directly apprehends the first two truths, since its objective range is the mental and material phenomena comprised under dukkha and its origin; it can know the latter two truths only inferentially. Path-knowledge makes the truth of cessation its object, apprehending it by penetration as object (aaramma.na)..." ********** >Scott: There is a suggestion that considering the Dhamma is a condition for the arising of pa~n~naa *and* that pa~n~naa has to be arising in order for that 'considering' to serve as condition for pa~n~naa. A bit circular, no? So, if these 'thoughts' are not the 'thoughts' of the citta that thinks in the moment, I'm asking if there are momentary 'thoughts' - concepts - that pass beneath the radar of our so-called 'conscious experience' - like those thoughts you are thinking right now? ..... S: Remember there are degrees of pa~n~naa. So when it's said that considering the Dhamma (with pa~n~naa) is a condition for pa~n~naa to arise - the first wise considering is referrring to pariyatti, theoretical 'right' understanding of the concepts of realities with pa~n~naa at this level, leading to the direct understanding of realities which appear now. Having confidence and intellectual understanding now that seeing just sees visible object, no atta involved, no practice to be followed, is a condition for direct understanding of seeing now, visible object now. There are many, many, many moments of thinking about all kinds of concepts all day long. It doesn't matter at all - they've all gone. The path always comes back to the reality appearing now - not the analysing of past thinking processes. .... > Scott: I mean like what is passing through your head right now as you read this - I mean 'thoughts' and, if I have to add 'conventional' to the phrase, then consider it added. I'm asking whether there are little mini-thoughts that occur to citta that thinks but that are like sub-thoughts. It seems to me that a lot of imprecision exists in all the talk about thinking and concepts and the like. .... S: The point is, as I see it, that as soon as there is any interest or attempt to delve into the 'thoughts' or 'mini-thoughts' or 'sub-thoughts' that again the thinking is just lost in more stories and proliferations. None of this is in "my head", "your head" or anyone else's head. There is just thinking about concepts/thoughts. The thinking is real and must be directly known as such. The thoughts - whether about dhammas, kings or any other topic are not real and not worth clinging to in anyway. The Path will never be developed by 'working out' the thoughts - only by understanding the realities now. ..... > Scott: <.....>Is pariyatti 'the direct understanding of realities appearing?' Does pariyatti not matter? .... S: Pariyatti is leading to the direct understanding of realities appearing. Pariyatti is pa~n~naa. It is the development of the pa~n~naa, the understanding of the realities that matters. If the thinking about the concepts of dhammas just leads to more thinking, rather than the direct understanding now of seeing, of citta with attachment/with metta, of hardness and so on, then it's not of any value. ..... > Sarah: .....If there is the thinking and clarifying about concepts with akusala, say lobha, rather than kusala cittas, there will never be any real clarification at such times. So I repeat the 'mantra' about understanding the present cittas now as a reminder to us all. I find it very easy to get lost in the details about dhammas - often taking the lobha for wise consideration. > > Scott: Okay, this is contentious. What is pariyatti? Is it 'thinking?' Is it 'clarifying?' Are 'concepts' the objects of thinking? Since we agreed that pariyatti is pa~n~naa with concept as object, do you equate this with kusala 'thinking?' .... S: See above. Kusala thinking is not necessarily pariyatti at all. Most of the time, not. If it is not concerned with the development of satipatthana, the understanding of realities, the kusala thinking is not pariyatti - it may be dana, sila or samathta only. .... >Scott: Are you suggesting that my line of questioning is me being lost in details about dhammas because of lobha? If so, I'd counter with, it is very easy to get lost in wrong view if one doesn't diligently seek to be clear about details about the Dhamma. > > Don't forget to stop at any time. .... S: Thx - you'll have noted that I did at least take a pause! The Dhamma is not about people - "Scott's questioning", "Rob's questioning" or "Sarah's questioning". It's just about understanding dhammas. Most of the time, 'our' thinking is lost in signs and details due to lobha. That's why it leads to frustration when the responses are not as we'd like them to be. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be attempts to clarify the Dhamma - that's why we're all discussing together after all - but at anytime, the answer always has to come back to *now* and what appears now. After all, wrong view can only be known when it arises and is directly understood as such. Please continue - apologies in advance for slow responses. Wishing you and everyone else here Season's Greetings at this time. I hope you and the kids and your dog have an enjoyable holiday. Metta Sarah ===== #121569 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:04 pm Subject: Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" sarahprocter... Dear Connie, (Dieter, KC, Howard) #121230 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > I think, in the full 17 citta 'very great object' sense door cognitive process (see Table 4.1 CMA), that this is where the 'percept' ("received" by the sampaticchana citta) turns into 'appercept'. What is 'determined' (by the votthapana citta) is whether the 7 javanas ("apperception") are 'appropriate' to be called akusala, kusala or function. So then I guess it is this 'appercept' (nimitta?) that would serve as object for later mind door cognitive processes. (That's 2 or more questions). ..... S: First of all, let's be clear that (as you know, of course), the object of these cittas in the sense-door process remains the same. So if it is an eye-door process, it is the same visible object which is averted to, seen, "received" by sampaticchana citta, "investigated" by santirana citta, "determined" by votthapana citta and then experienced by the 7 javana kusala/akusala cittas (or kiriya in the case of an arahat). The votthapana citta, "determining consciousness' is just one ahetuka kiriya citta in the process. It is not the "cause" of whether kusala or akusala cittas arise. That is due to natural decisive support condition (pakatu upanissaya paccaya). The visible object seen in this process, the 'very great object' is (after the tadarammana and bhavanga cittas) directly experienced by at least one mind door process. The visible object fell away after being experienced by the 17 cittas in the eye-door process, so although it is the characteristic of the reality of that visible object which is experienced by the mind-door cittas, in fact it is the nimitta or 'sign' of that visible object. For all intents and purposes, it is exactly the same dhamma. In later mind-door processes, it is a concept about the visible object and there are likely to be many mind-door processes thinking about it. So, I don't know that it's of much help (any?) to talk about a "percept" "turning into" an 'appercept". It's just the same dhamma experienced by many different kinds of cittas in that sense door process. Again, I may have lost your plot - if so, just ignore! Metta Sarah ===== #121570 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Is there a dhamma called "anatta" sarahprocter... Dear Scott, (Ken O & all) #121111 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Scott: My cup of tea is full? What's that supposed to mean. Ha ha. ... S: Yes, a funny one - ... > >Scott: Haven't you noticed all of the controversy on the list lately where everyone is revisiting old positions on this topic of concepts as object, reversing themselves at times, revising themselves at others? Quite interesting. Jon, Nina, Sarah - all seem to be saying that pa~n~na, arising with thinking and taking pa~n~natti as object *is* what pariyatti is and, therefore, concepts can serve as objects which further the development of pa~n~naa. No one seems to be saying that concepts are not involved in things. It did seem that they used to say stuff like that but apparently not anymore. .... S: Objection! No 'revisiting'/ 'revising' anything I've said and I'm sure not for Jon or Nina either. Find me the post in which I've done any of this 'revising' if you'd like to discuss it further! .... >I say, however, that it is the arising and falling away of pa~n~naa, no matter what the object, that is development. ... S: Yes, development or bhavana is always development of pannaa. Of course it may be samatha or vipassana bhavana. When the object is a concept, even concepts of dhammas, it is not vipassana yet. Metta Sarah ===== #121571 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: What I heard. philofillet Hi Nina, Lukas and all > > L: I don't understand what 'be aware just a little' means? > > --------- > > > N: The moment may be so brief and very weak, and after this thinking > of realities follow. Wonderful post, Nina. Thank you. I was going to send the following quotation from an old post to as you about related to the development of satipatthana. Perhaps the answer is in the post you sent to Lukas, but when you have time over the next week or so (I will be away) could I ask for your thoughts on the following quotation from an old post and my question? Nina: " When we listen and consider what we hear, there can be conditions for right mindfulness which is directly aware of characteristics of realities. WHen there is awareness again and again panna can gradually develop so that characteristics are directly understood. When it further develops stages of insight can arise so that rupa is realized as ruupa and naama as naama. Thus, insight is drect understanding of chacteristics." Ph: Why do you say "right mindfulness is directly aware of characteristics of realities" instead of "panna is directly aware of characteristics of realities?" My thinking is that there is awareness of the object thanks to sati, but it is panna that understands the characteristic of realities. I need go over this again and again and again, I think. Please give us a few thoughts on this when you have time, thanks. Phil #121572 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Right concepts' sarahprocter... Dear Scott, #121112, You wrote to Ken O: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > Scott: Pa~n~naa is pa~n~naa. Apparently no one is disputing you anymore about the place of concepts as possible objects of pa~n~naa. I might be wrong about this because it sure did seem that you were being told that your ideas were incorrect for some reason. Is that how you recall it or did I miss something? ... S: Perhaps what you missed were the references to satipatthana. Pariyatti can only be said to be "pre-satipatthana' or a foundation for satipatthana. At moments of satipatthana, only realities, namas or rupas, can be the object. metta Sarah ==== #121573 From: "philip" Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:22 pm Subject: Re: What I heard. philofillet Hi Sarah Fantastic post, thanks. > S:She then goes on to talk about the 3 kinds of cariya, behaviour of citta: > a) vi~n~naana cariya (behaviour of consciousness), b) a~naana cariya (behaviour of unknowing) c) ~naana cariya (behaviour of wisdom - pa~n~naa which can experience reality directly) > > KS: "So in the Patisambhiddamagga - vi~n~naana cariya, a~naana cariya and ~naana cariya. Sariputta just stressed 3 words. The vi~nnaana cariya are the moments of vipaaka ahetuka. For example when one is born one cannot escape from moments of seeing, hearing, smelling. They have to arise - no one can avoid them - and after that a~naana cariya, akusala comng all the time. No need to talk about other kinds of kusala [S: kusala other than satipatthana] because it's exactly the same like other things - just arise and pass, nothing left. Only the moment of understanding of that reality which appears is ~naana cariya. Even right now, when there is no awareness, there's no meaning at all." Ph: I heard about these three cariyas the other day. She stressed taht "cannot escape" aspect of vinanna cariya, cannot escape the results of deeds. I think reflecting on vinaaana cariya and that inescapable aspect could help condition wise response to vipaka, including the pleasasnt. I read your post when I was at a very cool record store/coffee bar in a trendy part of Tokyo, just surrounded by good vipaka, great sights, sounds, taste (of the coffee), first day of my winter vacation, just feeling great. But you post was a reminder how completely useless all that pleasant vipaka is, it's so natural that many Buddhists make the aim of Dhamma avoidance of unpleasant vipaka, but such a big mistake, so much ananna cariya (for example during "meditation") taken by amoha and lobha for something valuable. Only naana cariya is the right way, but only a very very few moments of it for us, that has to be accepted with patience. Merry Christmas, see you again in 2012 Phil #121574 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:42 pm Subject: Re: Cetasika in daily life -Ahirika -Anottappa sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, #121113 Thank you for all your comments and quotes. Just one point at the end: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > S: Usually it is aversion to the arisen unpleasant feelings and attachment to unarisen pleasant feelings that leads to more unpleasant feelings, more depression, more grief about our loss, our unhappiness and so on. What we think about with unpleasant feeling leads to more of the same. At such times, we think the grief and unhappiness is the problem, but really it's the attachment to ourselves, to our pleasant feelings that is the problem. Ignorance at the root of it all, as you say. > .... > D: yes, usually we want to get rid of unpleasant feeling and looking for the pleasant feeling . The vicious circle of attachment remains until there is disentchantment and so dispassion as well to the latter.But in the case of grief , dosa is the urge (tanha) of aversion /'not wanting to have' .Clinging and becoming means here a rejection/hate (dosa/vibhava tanha) of the present situation , which , I think, in the case of depression is directed against the citta ("oneself"). Yes, avijja and its appearance as cetasika - moha- is the root. .... S: I think it helps to remember that cittas are so very brief, so very momentary. No one likes aversion, dosa, depression, because no one likes unpleasant feeling. It seems at such times as if the unpleasantness lasts a long time, but actually, the thinking with dosa and unpleasant feeling arises and falls away immediately, just as in the case of attachment, kindness, generosity or any other kind of thinking/mental state. Usually there's a lot of clinging to the idea of the present situation such as "I'm feeling so unhappy now", "my friend is so depressed, so sick" and so on, but actually at such times there is just momentary thinking arising and falling away. In between there are the many moments of vipaka cittas - seeing of visible object, hearing of sound and so on. As the Buddha taught us, because of attachment and ignorance, there is the getting lost in the signs and details about what has been experienced through the senses. At brief moments of awareness, no depression, no attachment, no ignorance. At such moments of awareness and understanding, there is no concern, no minding what the object is - whether it be unpleasant feeling, pleasant feeling, visible object, thinking or any other reality. The understanding of realities is the tonic for all occasions. ... > D: I think besides the manifestation of tanha we agree .. ;-). .... S: Any tanha now? Just common lobha :-) ... > > D: thanks for the points you made . Yes: ' where we are" - "Instead with insight let him see Each presently arisen state" ' > if we only would be able to practise Satipatthana for the 'high score ' of seven days in a row .. ;-) ... S: "where we are" and 'each presently arisen state" means not thinking about "being able to practise satipatthana for the 'high score'...." That is just more tanha, more lobha leading to more depression when the result is not as we wish. Useless! .... > unfortunately we are householders ... S: Why "unfortunately"? Being a householder is no hindrance at all to following the Path now, to understanding realities now. Wishing for a 'high score' is a hindrance, whether one is a bhikkhu or householder. As householders, we have all the access to the Teachings we need and there are the same realities appearing now, such as seeing and hearing, attachment, aversion and feeling. These are the proximate conditions, the objects for insight to develop. ... >and even , if not , with much wordly detachment up to the 4 base requisites , we would need the guidance of the Noble Path > for a lasting solution.. .... S: The only guidance for "a lasting solution" is the growth of panna, right understanding which can be developed now. We have good friends here - we can share and give each other all the reminders that are needed. The most important one is the reminder that all dhammas are anatta, not in anyone's control at all. ... > Where we are , each of us may be , is the construction of our raft in order to cross the stream , aren't we? .... S: Construct the raft with right understanding. It is the attachment to such understanding which is to be discarded, not the understanding which needs to be developed on and on. Metta and Season's Greetings Sarah ===== #121575 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 7:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What I heard. nilovg Dear Phil, Op 24-dec-2011, om 7:14 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > Nina: " When we listen and consider what we hear, there can be > conditions for right mindfulness which is directly aware of > characteristics of realities. WHen there is awareness again and > again panna can gradually develop so that characteristics are > directly understood. When it further develops stages of insight can > arise so that rupa is realized as ruupa and naama as naama. Thus, > insight is drect understanding of chacteristics." > > Ph: Why do you say "right mindfulness is directly aware of > characteristics of realities" instead of "panna is directly aware > of characteristics of realities?" My thinking is that there is > awareness of the object thanks to sati, but it is panna that > understands the characteristic of realities. > > I need go over this again and again and again, I think. > ------- N: Good for all of us to go over these matters again and again. Appreciating your question. Sammaa-sati is aware of the characteristics of realities and pa~n~naa investigates them and understands them. What else sati is aware of but a characteristic of visible object or hardness? It appears through the eye-door or body-door and instead of forgetfulness, being absorbed in stories, there can be non-forgetfulness or sati. Sati does not waste that moment but is aware so that there is attention to that characteristic. When pa~n~naa arises at the same time as sati it investigates the nature of that reality and it can come to understand it as not a person, not a thing that is seen or touched but only a ruupa. Sati and pa~n~naa have each a different function. There can be sati without pa~n~naa, but when pa~n~naa arises there has to be sati as well. --------- Nina. #121576 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 7:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -Ahirika -Anottappa nilovg Dear Sarah, Your post to Dieter is such a good reminder for all of us. We keep on thinking of an unhappy event, so true. Daily life. Nina. Op 24-dec-2011, om 7:42 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > Usually there's a lot of clinging to the idea of the present > situation such as "I'm feeling so unhappy now", "my friend is so > depressed, so sick" and so on, but actually at such times there is > just momentary thinking arising and falling away. In between there > are the many moments of vipaka cittas - seeing of visible object, > hearing of sound and so on. As the Buddha taught us, because of > attachment and ignorance, there is the getting lost in the signs > and details about what has been experienced through the senses. At > brief moments of awareness, no depression, no attachment, no > ignorance. At such moments of awareness and understanding, there is > no concern, no minding what the object is - whether it be > unpleasant feeling, pleasant feeling, visible object, thinking or > any other reality. The understanding of realities is the tonic for > all occasions. #121577 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 24, 2011 7:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 22-dec-2011, om 17:50 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > You may know the presentation of the Cetasikas in Dhammasangani . > Is the arrangement of groups, subgroups , subsubgroups closer to > the orginal or the one by Ukyav Min? ------- He takes it from the Dhammasangani. ------- > > N: When realities are classified as khandha, it is as you say: > sankhaarakkhandha are fifty cetasikas. > > D: fine , there is a common base . Do we agree further that > sankhara khanda is defined by 'volition,contact and attention' (S.N. > 12.2)? ------- N: Fifty cetasikas are sankhaarakkhandha. ------- > > > D: I assume that the specification of citta, cetasika , rupa is > embedded not only within the 5 Khandas but as well within the > (process) of the Law of Dependent Orgination). Moreover I think > that Abhidhamma aimed to expand the Law with a profound > analysis ,introduced ethical > principles (kammapatha) to emphasise is use for daily life > mindfulness and included Nibbana as Paramattha Dhamma ( besides the > conditioned dhammas ) to point out that this is possible to be > experienced in this very life. ------ N: As I said before: in order to understand D.O. a precise understanding of conditions is necessary. We have to know which factor condiitons the next one being conascent with it, and which one conditions another factor by way of upanissaya, natural strong dependence. The latter does not imply conascence. D.O. deals with naama and ruupa occurring in daily life. It points to freedom from conditioned realities, from the cycle, by the development of vijjaa, understanding, so that avijjaa can eventuelly be eradicated. ------- Nina. #121578 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "no-control" and "no-practice" truth_aerator Dear Nina, all, Thank you for your reply and Happy Holidays. With best wishes, Alex #121579 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 2:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "no-control" and "no-practice" nilovg Dear Alex, The same to you, thanks. And do ask if anything is not clear. I gave many quotes, but these were in certain contexts. When reading them I understand that one may have questions. Nina. Op 24-dec-2011, om 15:43 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven: > Thank you for your reply and Happy Holidays. #121580 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project moellerdieter Dear Nina ,Sarah ,all, our Cetasika discussions so far have been interesting , but - as you will have noted too- often lacking common understanding. That may be due to my missing Abhidhamma knowledge , which I assume you rely on as the guide to understand dhamma respectively Dhamma. My assumption is that much of the misunderstandings occur because the meaning of the terms isn't clear ,differently used. Hénce I consider the knowledge/recognition of an Abhidhamma 'vocabulary ' a necessity for a beneficial discussion. As I understand so far , this exactly seems to be the 'Matika' , a matrix or schedule of classifications , divided by Abhidhamma Matika and Suttanta Matika . 'The latter looks more to the suttas than to the terminolgy and method of Abhidhamma' , as Ven. Nyanatiloka stated, but its explanations are only part of the Dhammasangani ,whereas the former is used ' as an explicit framework for nearly all books',' basic to the whole Abhidhamma. . ' of which the Patthana Book of Conditional Relation (Ven.Bodhi:) 'is probaly the most important work of the Abhidhamma Pitaka ..traditionally designated the Great Treatise ' ..'purpose to apply its scheme of 24 conditional relations to all phenomena incorporated in the Abhidhamma matrix'. Obviously the Matika is the key to (first ) Abhidhamma understanding. Hence instead of starting somehow in the middle with our cetasika project, I suggest we begin again , i.e. with the Matika's 122 modes of classification and its explanations within the Dhammasangani (if available). If/when somebody else likes to continue with the 'Cetasika in daily life-project ' much appreciated but I am back to my seat ..;-) with Metta Dieter P.S. On the occasion of Christmas Eve I like to pass a 'Merry Christmas ' to all of you (isn't that adosa cetasika ;-) ) #121581 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "no-control" and "no-practice" truth_aerator Dear Nina, >N:To be aware of the different characteristics that appear. >========================================================== That is how I understand even "formal" meditations. I do have a follow up question: What does it mean to be aware of different characteristics, and is it alright (in your opinion) to practice "awareness" ? I understand that one cannot control the object of awareness. But what about developing awareness? For example I do notice from time to time big difference between wondering thoughts and awareness of them (without controlling them in any way). What is the technical name for it? With best wishes, Alex #121582 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:49 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...3. I think that practice was advocated by the Buddha and that he instructed us how to practice in order to realize the truth of the dhammas that arise in the moment..." > > Scott: This belief nullifies anything else you say. By the way Scott - four challenges for you. 1. I challenge you to find a single word in the suttas that settles this issue in your favor, and in which the Buddha says that direct practice should not be undertaken, as it represents wrong view. 2. I challenge you to find a single word in the Abhidhamma that says the above - that direct practice of meditation should not be undertaken and is wrong view. 3. I challenge you to find a single word in the Visudhimagga that says that direct practice of meditation should not be undertaken and is wrong view of practice. 4. I challenge you to find a single word in commentary that directly says that one should not practice and that this represents wrong view. It is possible that there is such in commentary, but I doubt it. I don't think the idea that meditation is a wrong practice, the result of wrong view, is in the ancient commentaries. It's a modern interpretation of the ancient commentaries. If you can find such a statement among the actual ancient commentaries, I will be very happy to see and study such a statement. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #121583 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:01 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...I challenge you to find a single word..." Scott: Anatta. Scott. #121584 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:06 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...I challenge you to find a single word..." > > Scott: Anatta. That's cute, Scott, but proves my point. "Anatta" doesn't prove that meditation is bad; that's your interpretation, not that of the ancient commentators or anyone else with authority. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #121585 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:09 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...'Anatta' doesn't prove that meditation is bad..." Scott: Anatta means that 'meditation' is impossible. You don't understand the term. Scott. #121586 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:12 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...'Anatta' doesn't prove that meditation is bad..." > > Scott: Anatta means that 'meditation' is impossible. You don't understand the term. Your interpretation of anatta means that meditation is impossible. You are wrong. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #121587 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:13 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Scott. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > > > Rob E., > > > > R: "...'Anatta' doesn't prove that meditation is bad..." > > > > Scott: Anatta means that 'meditation' is impossible. You don't understand the term. > > Your interpretation of anatta means that meditation is impossible. You are wrong. By the way, Scott, I am still waiting for you to show me any sutta or any ancient commentary, or any citation from Abhidhamma, that says what you just said. So far - nothing. You're on your own. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #121588 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:27 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants scottduncan2 Rob E., "...I am still waiting for you to show me any sutta or any ancient commentary, or any citation from Abhidhamma, that says what you just said..." Scott: Keep waiting, Rob. Scott. #121589 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:00 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > "...I am still waiting for you to show me any sutta or any ancient commentary, or any citation from Abhidhamma, that says what you just said..." > > Scott: Keep waiting, Rob. Oh, I will, Scott, don't worry. Empty assertion with no evidence is worthless, but it's the easiest thing to do in the world. Everyone has an opinion and if you are stubborn enough, you don't need to back it up, just keep saying it over and over again and be content. You can call someone who honors the word of the Buddha a "literalist" as if there is something wrong with paying attention to what Buddha actually said, and you can assert that anyone who meditates is an idiot just because you said so. In fact, you can say anything you want and think you are right. Go for it. The truth is, that you are standing on your own interpretation of "anatta" and what its implications are, and nothing else. And what you think about "practice" directly contradicts what has been written by the Buddha. Now you'll probably say I'm getting excited again or some other distracting remark, or a one-word answer, but you still haven't got a leg to stand on. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #121590 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 8:05 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Now you'll probably say I'm getting excited again..." Scott: Yep. Scott. #121591 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:35 am Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...Now you'll probably say I'm getting excited again..." > > Scott: Yep. Predicted and fulfilled. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - #121592 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 11:19 am Subject: How2 Get Calm Contentment? bhikkhu5 Friends: What is the Cause of Contentment (Santutthi) ? The blessed Buddha once said: Contentment is the highest Treasure! Dhammapada 204 Please imagine a state, where one always is Content� If always content, what would, one need, urge for or want? Nothing! What is the cause of contentment? Mutual joy with others success is the proximate cause of contentment... Lack of Mutual joy is therefore the cause of discontentment� A: When did you last rejoice happily in someone else�s success? B: When did you last enjoy the calm peace of satisfied contentment? State-A causes state-B. Therefore: Non-state-A causes non-state-B...! Mutual joy can be trained! Result => Calm Content! <...> Enjoy Elevated Rejoice! It cures! When providing the cause, one gains the effect� Have a nice & noble day! Friendship is the Greatest! Bhikkhu Sam�hita _/\_ * <....> #121593 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:43 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "Predicted and fulfilled." Scott: Since you seem so hungry, I'll throw you a bone: My answer to your 'challenge' was 'anatta.' Give *me* a quote (god I hate the 'give me a quote' nonsense religionists get up to) that shows that anatta, as a characteristic of dhammas, does *not* preclude the imposition of control. Fantasies about 'meditation' are totally based on the ability to 'control' dhammas. As long as you believe in 'meditation' you misunderstand anatta. Scott. #121594 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:49 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "Predicted and fulfilled." > > Scott: Since you seem so hungry, I'll throw you a bone: > > My answer to your 'challenge' was 'anatta.' Give *me* a quote (god I hate the 'give me a quote' nonsense religionists get up to) that shows that anatta, as a characteristic of dhammas, does *not* preclude the imposition of control. Fantasies about 'meditation' are totally based on the ability to 'control' dhammas. As long as you believe in 'meditation' you misunderstand anatta. Your bone has no meat, and is tasteless. Take it up with the Buddha, who spoke of meditation techniques in great detail and with enthusiasm. The reason for the quotes is that you are making up a logical progression that does not exist in Dhamma. Anatta ---> no-control ----> no practice is possible. Steps 1 and 2 and correct. Step 3 is an erroneous conclusion taken from a radical standpoint that is not correct. Practice takes place, development takes place, certain conditions cause certain effects, all with no control and no self. That is the case no matter what. The idea that no activity can have positive results is not a logical result of these other truths. It's just a false conclusion, since control is not the factor that causes the development practice of satipatthana to have its effect. Since you can't tell the difference between a person and a practice, you will probably not be able to make a distinction based on this difference. I'll look forward to your disparaging and/or unresponsive and/or one-word-not-to-the-point answer - whatever pops out of the machine. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = Best, Rob E. #121595 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:56 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants scottduncan2 Rob E., R: "...Practice takes place, development takes place, certain conditions cause certain effects, all with no control and no self..." Scott: I love the brilliant conceit infusing this oft expressed meditator argument. It's funny. It goes like this: 'Of course dhammas are anatta; of course dhammas are conditioned; of course conditions cause certain effects. That is why I, as the ultimate condition and ultimate dhamma, am going to 'meditate' now and 'practice' and be the main condition for enlightenment to come along. I'm doing it so it has to be all conditioned so it's obviously correct.' This makes me laugh and laugh. It's funny. Scott. #121596 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:07 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants epsteinrob Hi Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "scottduncan2" wrote: > > Rob E., > > R: "...Practice takes place, development takes place, certain conditions cause certain effects, all with no control and no self..." > > Scott: I love the brilliant conceit infusing this oft expressed meditator argument. It's funny. It goes like this: > > 'Of course dhammas are anatta; of course dhammas are conditioned; of course conditions cause certain effects. That is why I, as the ultimate condition and ultimate dhamma, am going to 'meditate' now and 'practice' and be the main condition for enlightenment to come along. I'm doing it so it has to be all conditioned so it's obviously correct.' > > This makes me laugh and laugh. It's funny. I'm glad you are enjoying your own self-reflected wrong understanding of the so-called "argument" of the meditator. The meditator does not say "I am the ultimate condition" or anything of that sort, they engage the practice as instructed by the Buddha, and there's no control involved, and no self in the center of it. Like I said, you won't be able to understand this because you don't understand the difference between practice and person. You think they're the same, and it's you who are behaving as if the self is real by thinking they can only occur together. Your empty assertions have no thought or consideration behind them. You're just loudly espousing your own wrong view. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #121597 From: "scottduncan2" Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:17 pm Subject: Re: The Arahat does what he wants scottduncan2 Rob El, R: "...The meditator does not say 'I am the ultimate condition' or anything of that sort, they engage the practice as instructed by the Buddha, and there's no control involved, and no self in the center of it..." Scott: Yeah. They decide to walk slow and think about stuff, to eat slow and think about stuff, to sit in buddhisty postures on fancy cushions and think about stuff, and god knows what else - you know, all the 'practice' stuff people love to do and discuss ad nauseum. And like none of that has any self. I laugh and laugh some more. R: "...the difference between practice and person. You think they're the same, and it's you who are behaving as if the self is real by thinking they can only occur together." Scott: Oh, a new wrinkle. 'The difference between practice and person.' Hilarious. I mean it's hilarious that you actually imagine that when it comes to 'practice' a-la modern boodists there is actually a distinction to be made. Bhaavanaa is the development of dhammas. Funny stuff, man. Scott. #121598 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 25, 2011 10:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 24-dec-2011, om 18:13 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > > our Cetasika discussions so far have been interesting , but - as > you will have noted too- often lacking common understanding. > That may be due to my missing Abhidhamma knowledge , which I assume > you rely on as the guide to understand dhamma respectively Dhamma. > My assumption is that much of the misunderstandings occur because > the meaning of the terms isn't clear ,differently used. > Hénce I consider the knowledge/recognition of an Abhidhamma > 'vocabulary ' a necessity for a beneficial discussion. > > As I understand so far , this exactly seems to be the 'Matika' , a > matrix or schedule of classifications , divided by Abhidhamma > Matika and Suttanta Matika . ... > Obviously the Matika is the key to (first ) Abhidhamma understanding. > > Hence instead of starting somehow in the middle with our cetasika > project, I suggest we begin again , i.e. with the Matika's 122 > modes of classification and its explanations within the > Dhammasangani (if available). > -------- N: I think you do not have to worry so much about the Abhidhamma vocabulary. What I keep foremost in mind are the babysteps, and the examples of daily life. Then the vocabulary will also become clearer. If we concentrate too much on classifications, Howard may be disappointed, since he was looking forward to examples from daily life. But of course also when dealing with the Dhammasangani, we can think of examples from daily life. Any part we are dealing with. I have no particular wish as to the project. Meanwhile I can quote from my Intro to the Abhidhamma which I wrote besides my Abh in Daily Life: ---------- Nina. ****** #121599 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:02 am Subject: sickness. nilovg Dear Sarah and all, A friend wrote to me about her worries about sickness, she had a tough year. I wrote to her and thought that it would interest you, since you had a tough year, but Lodewijk and I also had a tough year. No end! It is so common. I selected some good quotes about sickness and death for myself, and made it into a file to be read when in trouble and also when not in trouble, I gave the title Consolation, although I know Phil would not like that. I also included your post to Dieter about being lost in thinking. I wrote to my Thai friend: Nina.