#125200 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:42 pm Subject: Re: Kenh1 jonoabb Hi RobK and KenH Aside from the (largely hypothetical) question of whether there can be kusala citta involved with an expression of wrong view ("Eat up your greens or there'll be no Father Christmas for you this year": )), I don't see a clear Dhamma issue identified in this discussion as yet. Perhaps one of you could formulate exactly what is the issue being discussed, so others can join in too? Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert K, > > > > ----- > > >> KH: My argument is with Robert K for his insistence that people - not just > > dhammas) - are reborn, or that people - not just dhammas – perform kusala and > > akusala actions. Or that concepts are made of lots and lots of kalapas of rupas > > (as if kalapas were molecules and rupas were atoms!). > > >> > > > > > > > RK: Dear Kenh > > perhaps you could quote me directly. > > ----- > > > > KH: No, I don't keep files on people. But if I had to dig into the distant past I would refer to some posts where (if I remember correctly) you supported the introduction of Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory into school curriculums. You believed evolution theory contradicted the Dhamma. > ++++++++++++ > Dear Kenh > Don't you think it is fairer and easier to follow if you cite something directly. Regarding your statement that: > > >KH: My argument is with Robert K for his insistence that people - not just > > dhammas) - are reborn, or that people - not just dhammas – perform kusala and > > akusala actions."" > > this is an outright misrepresentation bordering on a lie. > _______ > But you made this silly paraphrase based on the fact (your remember rightly on this point) that I don't think all of current evoloutionary doctrine is in agreement with the Dhamma . > I looked up the discussion we had: > > ROBERT: Richard Dawkins (Oxford prof., Fellow of the Royal society) Dawkins writes > that > > in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe > to > > be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, > and > > you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, > pp.132-133). > > > > And "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if > > there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but > > pointless indifference." (quoted in Easterbrook, 1997, p.892). > > > > Biologists/scientists: George Gaylord Simpson: "Man is the result of a > > purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." (1967, > > pp.344-345). > > > > Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root > of > > the stupendous edifice of evolution...." (Monod, 1972, p.110); and "Man at > last > > knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of > which > > he emerged by chance." (p.167) > > > > As Futuyma explains: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the > > blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or > > spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Darwin's theory of > > evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism of > > much of science, in short what has since been the stage of most Western > > thought." (Futuyma, 1986, p.2). > __________ > You reply to this - mainly directed at my quotes from Richard dawkins, who you admire: > . > > RK: > Dawkins ,when he writes about a world of senseless injustise(the human > and animal realm) according to you has waht type of citta? > > --------------------- > > > Kenh: > If he writes the way he does in a genuine attempt at helping people, >then there > >must be some kusala cittas involved. > +++++++++++++ > > > > I stated in that thread that creationists have clear wrong view (belief in a creator GOd). My point is that the evoloution bioligists like Dawkins have a different extreme wrong view (they think it all happens due to chance- no kamma etc). > Thus I could see any reason to preference either view . > I do not see how Dawkins is having kusala citta when he writes: > in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe > to > > be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, > and > > you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, > pp.132-133). > robert > #125201 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:41 pm Subject: KENH2 rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > Do you feel I say something different from Nina? > ----------------- > > KH: Your words are sometimes the same, but Nina believes science and Dhamma are two different things and cannot contradict each other. Therefore, I take her descriptions to be saying, for example, that kalapas of rupas are being conditioned to arise now – at this very moment - rather than to be saying that kalapas (as distinct from molecules) are created by chemical reactions in the stomach. > > Ken H > ++++++++++++ Dear Kenh in fact Nina has said on several occasions that she likes my writing about science and Dhamma. Now Nina is famously kind and she would never say she didn't like them, however I am pretty confident my interpretation of Dhamma aligns very, very closely with Nina's, although her understanding runs deeper of course. ++++++++ You write that: Even though Nina and Sarah have said some things about the heart (for example) and about sense rupas being located all over the body, I have no argument with them. I believe they are saying those things just to give a better understanding of the dhammas we are studying. My argument is with Robert K" _++++++++++++ let us go back to the heart base. You didn't agree with my explanations of heart base and feel that what Nina and sarah said was in agreement with you. I think you are wrong. I am sure nina and sarah both believe the heart base really is exactly as described in the visuddhimagga (even though they can't know this directly with insight (yet). What puzzles (amazes) me is your insistence that they see it the same way you do. can you clarify? What is different from their explanation and mine (please quote us if you can to make the points cleaR) ROBERT #125202 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:53 pm Subject: Re: Kenh1 rjkjp1 dEAR jON here is one that everyone can come in on: Question: identify any of these following quotes as expression of right view or wrong view. 1.God made the world. 2.God controls the world. 3.Humans exist in absolute reality. 4.Human is a designation for the changing elements that do exist momentarily. 5.Richard Dawkins writes that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133). robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi RobK and KenH > > Aside from the (largely hypothetical) question of whether there can be kusala citta involved with an expression of wrong view ("Eat up your greens or there'll be no Father Christmas for you this year": )), I don't see a clear Dhamma issue identified in this discussion as yet. Perhaps one of you could formulate exactly what is the issue being discussed, so others can join in too? > > Jon > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Robert K, > > > > > > ----- > > > >> KH: My argument is with Robert K for his insistence that people - not just > > > dhammas) - are reborn, or that people - not just dhammas – perform kusala and > > > akusala actions. Or that concepts are made of lots and lots of kalapas of rupas > > > (as if kalapas were molecules and rupas were atoms!). > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > RK: Dear Kenh > > > perhaps you could quote me directly. > > > ----- > > > > > > KH: No, I don't keep files on people. But if I had to dig into the distant past I would refer to some posts where (if I remember correctly) you supported the introduction of Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory into school curriculums. You believed evolution theory contradicted the Dhamma. > > ++++++++++++ > > Dear Kenh > > Don't you think it is fairer and easier to follow if you cite something directly. Regarding your statement that: > > > > >KH: My argument is with Robert K for his insistence that people - not just > > > dhammas) - are reborn, or that people - not just dhammas – perform kusala and > > > akusala actions."" > > > > this is an outright misrepresentation bordering on a lie. > > _______ > > But you made this silly paraphrase based on the fact (your remember rightly on this point) that I don't think all of current evoloutionary doctrine is in agreement with the Dhamma . > > I looked up the discussion we had: > > > > ROBERT: Richard Dawkins (Oxford prof., Fellow of the Royal society) Dawkins writes > > that > > > in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe > > to > > > be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, > > and > > > you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, > > pp.132-133). > > > > > > And "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if > > > there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but > > > pointless indifference." (quoted in Easterbrook, 1997, p.892). > > > > > > > Biologists/scientists: George Gaylord Simpson: "Man is the result of a > > > purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." (1967, > > > pp.344-345). > > > > > > Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root > > of > > > the stupendous edifice of evolution...." (Monod, 1972, p.110); and "Man at > > last > > > knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of > > which > > > he emerged by chance." (p.167) > > > > > > As Futuyma explains: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the > > > blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or > > > spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Darwin's theory of > > > evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism of > > > much of science, in short what has since been the stage of most Western > > > thought." (Futuyma, 1986, p.2). > > __________ > > You reply to this - mainly directed at my quotes from Richard dawkins, who you admire: > > . > > > > RK: > Dawkins ,when he writes about a world of senseless injustise(the human > > and animal realm) according to you has waht type of citta? > > > --------------------- > > > > > Kenh: > > If he writes the way he does in a genuine attempt at helping people, >then there > > >must be some kusala cittas involved. > > +++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > I stated in that thread that creationists have clear wrong view (belief in a creator GOd). My point is that the evoloution bioligists like Dawkins have a different extreme wrong view (they think it all happens due to chance- no kamma etc). > > Thus I could see any reason to preference either view . > > I do not see how Dawkins is having kusala citta when he writes: > > in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe > > to > > > be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, > > and > > > you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, > > pp.132-133). > > robert > > > #125203 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:02 pm Subject: kenh3 rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Do you feel I say something different from Nina? > > ----------------- > > > > KH: Your words are sometimes the same, but Nina believes science and Dhamma are two different things and cannot contradict each other. Therefore, I take her descriptions to be saying, for example, that kalapas of rupas are being conditioned to arise now – at this very moment - rather than to be saying that kalapas (as distinct from molecules) are created by chemical reactions in the stomach. > ++++++++== Dear Kenh this is another disingenuous post. Are you implying that I said kalapas are created by chemical reactions? Where do you get such an idea.. please try to cite what I write. Also please cite where Nina writes: 'science and Dhamma ... cannot contradict each other"? robert #125204 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:17 pm Subject: Pilgrimage in India, Ch 3, 5. nilovg Dear friends, Because of ignorance and wrong view we have accumulated for so long it is difficult to know precisely which object appears at the present moment. We have doubts at which moment nåma presents itself and at which moment rúpa. “We” shall never know, only paññå will know when it is developed more. We may also doubt the usefulness of knowing realities such as seeing, visible object, hearing or sound. When doubt arises we should not be afraid of it or try to push it away. It is so fortunate that the Buddha taught us the way to know all kinds of phenomena. Doubt is a reality that should be known as it is: not self but only a kind of nåma arising because of conditions. Right at the moment of awareness the value of sati can be proved. When phenomena are understood as different elements, as nåma and rúpa, the clinging to the concept of self will eventually become less. Whereas, when we think of a “whole”, such as “my person”, “I see”, “I hear”, “I doubt”, there is no detachment from the concept of self. Doubt about the value of the development of the Path will gradually be eliminated when paññå becomes keener and it knows more precisely the object that presents itself. The more paññå develops the more can one prove to oneself the benefit of the Path in one’s life. We read in the “Dialogues of the Buddha” (II, 19, “Mahå-Govinda Sutta”) that Sakka, the ruler of the devas, in front of the “devas of Thirtythree”, praised eight qualities of the Buddha. One of these was the following: “Crossed, too, by that Exalted One has been the sea of doubt, gone by for him is all question of the ‘how’ and ‘why’, accomplished for him is every purpose with respect to his high resolve and the ancient rule of right. A teacher who has attained thus far, of this kind, of this character, we find not, whether we survey the past, or whether we survey the present, save only that Exalted One.” ****** Nina. #125205 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > > I think you have a point, and I think Dieter had a good point too - in my view, contemplation is taking an important concept and staying with it, turning it around, probing it, in order to understand what it represents, as opposed to just jabbering and making stuff up. In other words, the former I think can involve vittakha and vicara, or at least something like them, while the latter is just creating more proliferations. > > > Contemplation is one of those terms I find hard to pinpoint. Ideally speaking, it would be pariyatti imo, so strictly speaking a kusala citta with panna and a concept of a dhamma as object. Naturally, vitaka and vicara would be kusala then as well. But I can't really tell when's thinking about dhamma for example actually kusala, and my bet is on it being akusala most of the time, what would make vitaka and vicara akusala at the time as well. That is a good point too. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - #125206 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording moellerdieter Hi RobE, pt, and Howard , you wrote: I think you have a point, and I think Dieter had a good point too - in my view, contemplation is taking an important concept and staying with it, turning it around, probing it, in order to understand what it represents, as opposed to just jabbering and making stuff up. In other words, the former I think can involve vittakha and vicara, or at least something like them, while the latter is just creating more proliferations. D: yes, that I had in mind in distinction from the -usually constant- inner monologue ("In the Zen tradition, there is the phrase "Nen nen ju shin ki" which means something like "Thought following thought"), pt: Contemplation is one of those terms I find hard to pinpoint. Ideally speaking, it would be pariyatti imo, so strictly speaking a kusala citta with panna and a concept of a dhamma as object. Naturally, vitaka and vicara would be kusala then as well. But I can't really tell when's thinking about dhamma for example actually kusala, and my bet is on it being akusala most of the time, what would make vitaka and vicara akusala at the time as well. D: pinpointing .. PTS: AnupassanÄ (f.) [abstr. of anupassati, cf. Sk. anudarÅ›ana] looking at, viewing, contemplating, consideration, realisation S v.178 sq., Sn p. 140; Ps i.10, 20, 96; ii.37, 41 sq., 67 sq.; Vbh 194. Anupassin (-- Ëš) (adj.) [fr. anupassati] viewing, observing, realising S ii.84 sq., v.294 sq., 311 sq., 345, Dh 7, 253; Sn 255, 728; Ps i.191 sq.; Vbh 193 sq., 236; Sdhp 411. Anupassati [anu + passati] to look at, contemplate, observe Sn 477; Ps i.57, 187; Sn A 505. Buddh.Dict. AnupassanÄ: Contemplation, deep reflection, profound consideration: The 4 fold: see: satipatthana. The 18 chief insights of vipassana The 7 fold: The seven contemplations: 1: Contemplating constructions as impermanent, one leaves behind the perception of permanence. 2: Contemplating them as painful, one leaves behind the perception of happiness. 3: Contemplating them as not self, one leaves behind the perception of ownership. 4: Becoming disillusioned, one leaves behind delighting. 5: Causing fading away of lust, one leaves behind greed. 6: Causing ceasing, one leaves behind creating. 7: Relinquishing, one leaves behind clinging. Pts.M. I, p. 58. - See also Vis.M XXI, 43; XXII, 114. with Metta Dieter #125207 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and result. nilovg Hi Howard (pt, Prasad), Op 24-jun-2012, om 14:10 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > > But with regard to the idea that the results of kamma cannot be > > changed, this is not so. Further conditions, including further > > kamma, CAN modify > > the not-yet-arising results of kamma. The Buddha certainly taught > > this. .... > -------- N: It would interest me to have a sutta text, if you can find it? Prasad gave the example of Angulimala, which is very good. Result of kamma, this is rebirth-consciousness and also each moment of an experience through one of the senses. This is very short and falls away immediately. Mostly we think of situations, like medical cases, but that is more the story of kamma and vipaaka. What is the reality of vipaaka, the momentary result? Hard to find out. I remember that Kh Sujin discussed cancer and the associations people have with this word. I get upset when hearing this word. She spoke about someone who could eat everything and did not suffer much. She would bring the issue back to sense impressions at this moment. This is right, vipaakacitta is just one moment. We are misled by words and terms we think about for a long, long time. Someone who has developed understanding and attained the state of sotaapanna does not have an unhappy rebirth and this is also an example that by developed understanding there are no more conditions for this form of result. I like your discussion with pt, and I also think that the whole matter of fatalism or determinism does not apply at all. --------------------------- Quoting some of your discussion: pt: My guess is because they are thinking about the issue, rather than understanding the issue (as in panna arising right now). -------------------------------------------------------- HCW: I do think it applies (one way or the other), but only wisdom will ultimately solve the issue in any useful way, not thinking.... ----- N: Quite so, well said. ------ HCW: Yeah, I think too much also! Thinking, thinking, thinking - a sickness of ours maybe! ;-) ------- N: Yeah, yeah, so true. I do too, a good reminder. Just this morning on a Thai recording in Rathbury: We keep on thinking stories of feelings, events, but the citta that thinks falls away immediately, and there isn't a story anymore. We should know: thinking is not self, it is not self, this is the core of the teachings. We have to understand this moment. ------------------------------------------------------- > N: There are other texts > explaining that one cannot escape from vipaaka: Dhammapada vs 127: > is found that place on earth, where abiding one may escape (the > consequences of) an evil deed.> > ---------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > But, Nina, there are places on the suttas at which the Buddha taught > that the results of kamma can be modified by further conditions, > including > further offsetting kamma. So, what should one do: pick and choose? > ------ N: No contradictions, one text stresses one aspect and another text stresses another aspect. I do not have any problem with that. What I also consider: kamma and vipaaka is one of the unthinkables, it is the field of Buddhas. We cannot point to this kamma that brings that result. We are unable to understand much about it. Even when kusala kamma with understanding can avert the result of akusala kamma, even that is conditioned and there is not "us" who can do anything. It is as you say: Very good! Whatever happens, it is by conditions. --------- > Nina. #125208 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and result. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and pt & Prasad) - In a message dated 6/25/2012 4:24:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard (pt, Prasad), Op 24-jun-2012, om 14:10 heeft _upasaka@..._ (mailto:upasaka@...) het volgende geschreven: > > > But with regard to the idea that the results of kamma cannot be > > changed, this is not so. Further conditions, including further > > kamma, CAN modify > > the not-yet-arising results of kamma. The Buddha certainly taught > > this. .... > -------- N: It would interest me to have a sutta text, if you can find it? ---------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Not very much yet, but I am searching. A somewhat relevant article with some sutta references is Ven Nyanaponika's at _http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/kammafruit.html_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/kammafruit.html) The sutta MN 135 gives a lot of examples of the rebirth-destination-result of one kamma being (appropriately) offset by other kamma. ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #125209 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:10 pm Subject: Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording ptaus1 Hi Dieter, > D: pinpointing .. > > The 4 fold: see: satipatthana. > > The 18 chief insights of vipassana Thanks for the definitions. Yes, a moment of satipatthana happening would be nice. Regarding thinking and inner monologue, my take is that satipatthana can happen in the midst of thinking, and, that stopping the inner monologue for some time doesn't mean that there's satipatthana happening instead, nor kusala for that matter. Though it usually does feel very nice when the inner monologue is suppressed for a while, and in fact, I find the longer it is suppressed, the better it feels. But then I'm not so sure this is kusala at all. Best wishes pt #125210 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording moellerdieter Hi pt, you wrote: Thanks for the definitions. Yes, a moment of satipatthana happening would be nice. Regarding thinking and inner monologue, my take is that satipatthana can happen in the midst of thinking, and, that stopping the inner monologue for some time doesn't mean that there's satipatthana happening instead, nor kusala for that matter. Though it usually does feel very nice when the inner monologue is suppressed for a while, and in fact, I find the longer it is suppressed, the better it feels. But then I'm not so sure this is kusala at all. D: suppressing acc. to my experience isn't the best solution .. better to let the present thought phasing out before the next association is taken up (remember the simile of the monkey jumping from branch to branch ) which of course needs at least some mindfulness. An inner 'OK,Ok' towards the momentary sequence of thought may help to avoid a 'discord' which may happen when one is aruptly blocking a certain stream of associations.... with Metta Dieter #125211 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:21 am Subject: [dsg] Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording ptaus1 Hi Dieter, > D: better to let the present thought phasing out before the next association is taken up > (remember the simile of the monkey jumping from branch to branch ) which of course needs at least some mindfulness. I think it is precisely that which I call "suppression". I mean, if I actually try to willfully suppress thinking, it doesn't work. But if I "let the thought phase out" with some "mindfulness", it stops. And I call it "suppressed" because this "mindfulness" knows it as such, hence that's where the attention is (that's what it attends to), and hence attention cannot attend to something else. However, I also prefer to call such "mindfulness" - strong concentration in fact, because I don't think this concentration is necessarily kusala concentration, whereas mindfulness by theravadin definition can only be kusala. So, I find there's a very strong possibility of mixing up concentration and mindfulness. Best wishes pt #125212 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:04 am Subject: To Phil - an Apology [Re: ps to lukas [dsg] Out of our hands? ( was ;;;] upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - There are a few things I wrote to you for which I want to apologize. (I quote only the relevant items, excising the rest). I insert my comments into quoted material within double square brackets: In a message dated 6/23/2012 2:37:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Upasaka@... writes: Hi, Phil - In a message dated 6/23/2012 2:20:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: -------------------------------------------------------------- HCW I am hardly active on any list but this. But keep it up, Phil, and you may succeed in reducing my activity here radically. [[I lashed out in anger here, which I regret and for which I hope for your forgiveness.]] I have rarely encountered a hater, Phil, and so you bring some freshness into my life! [[Again, I apologize - this time for anger-induced sarcasm]] -------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: I've done relatively little posting, but, clearly for you, any posting by me is too much. In any case, I have no reason to apologize to anyone, least of all to someone as mean spirited as you. [[Your posting was unkind, but I was wrong to characterize YOU as mean spirited, and I apologize for this.]] --------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: In how many directions are you going at the same time, Phil? Do you have multiple personality disorder? [[Again, this was snide sarcasm on my part. Not nice, and I'm very sorry for it.]] --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, I apologize for ending my prior post to you with a simple "Howard". I DO wish you well, Phil, and I apologize for all coldness expressed in my last post to you. I do hope you can accept my apologies, but if not, then so it is. ================================== With metta, Howard P. S. I expect and deserve no praise for this post. It resulted at least as much from my desire to lessen my own suffering (from regret and conscience) as from compassion. /Do no harm, do good, and purify the mind/ (The Buddha) #125213 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording moellerdieter Hi pt, thanks for the feedback... good issue to discuss. Let us talk first in conventional terms before coming to Abhidhamma. you wrote; I think it is precisely that which I call "suppression". I mean, if I actually try to willfully suppress thinking, it doesn't work. D:Suppression -just to get the meaning correctly: EtymDict. : 'late 14c., "to put down by force or authority," from L. suppressus, pp. of supprimere "press down, stop, check, stifle," For example one can say 'stop!' , e.g. ordering oneself 'to turn into a pillar of salt ' , an arupt pausing of activity which interrupts the mind stream too, the length of the pause ('monkey resting on a branch') is depending on concentration. However it doesn't work for long. pt; But if I "let the thought phase out" with some "mindfulness", it stops. D: it stops after phasing out , doesn't it? pt: And I call it "suppressed" because this "mindfulness" knows it as such, hence that's where the attention is (that's what it attends to), and hence attention cannot attend to something else. D: 'suppress' indicates force .. but ' let the thought phase out' means 'let go' , so the term ' suppression' doesn't really fit. In our daily routine we are used to act rather automatically, so the attention is scattered into numerous aspects. E.g . driving a car while talking to a friend and listening with half an ear to the radio,etc.. lot of routine .. Mindfulness or sati means - we possibly agree - the focus on a certain object and for that we need to collect the spreaded attention by letting go of certain intentions and support the focus we want to observe respectively contemplate about. Not seldom there are competing intentions ... hence my suggestion of Ok.Ok , so to say 'to pacify the losers ' pt:However, I also prefer to call such "mindfulness" - strong concentration in fact, because I don't think this concentration is necessarily kusala concentration, whereas mindfulness by theravadin definition can only be kusala. So, I find there's a very strong possibility of mixing up concentration and mindfulness. D: yes, mindfulness belongs to the cetasikas of the Beautiful Mental Factors, whereas strong concentration - one pointedness -is included in the cetasikas of the Ethically Variable Factors. I think we may avoid a mixture when we see the difference of samma sati which means to know, to be attentive what is going on now ( within the 4 frames) in distinction from samma samadhi where strong concentration is used for absorption of the senses media (to learn what is beyond..) with Metta Dieter #125214 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:09 am Subject: Re: Kamma and result. glenjohnann Hello Nina and all --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > Just this morning on a Thai recording in Rathbury: > > We keep on thinking stories of feelings, events, but the citta that > thinks falls away immediately, and there isn't a story anymore. We > should know: thinking is not self, it is not self, this is the core > of the teachings. We have to understand this moment. A. I find this very helpful. I often think of visual object, seeing, hearing etc. as being one moment of citta arising and falling away, but seldom think of thinking as a moment of citta that falls away immediately - there is no story any more; no citta which thinks, no story. It is easy to think, "well, this is just thinking", but not so usual to think of a moment of thinking that arises and falls away just as a moment of seeing. When we speak of the six senses, although thinking is among them, it's the one from which the stories proliferate. Not so easy, I find, to understand it as just a moment of citta arising and falling away because of conditions. Too easy to take the story as something real. So, as always, best to develop the understanding that knows each reality as it is. Thank you, Nina, for posting this for us. Ann #125215 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:10 am Subject: Re: kenh3 kenhowardau Hi Robert K, -------------- >> KH: My argument is with Robert K for his insistence that people - not just > dhammas) - are reborn, or that people - not just dhammas – perform kusala and > akusala actions."" > RK: this is an outright misrepresentation bordering on a lie. --------------- KH: I am glad to hear it was a misrepresentation, albeit an accidental one. When I say "there are only dhammas" you accuse me of mindless oversimplification, and you refer to passages in the Tipitaka where it is said (for example) that frogs are reborn. What am I to make of that? I can only assume you are saying there is more to ultimate reality than "only dhammas." Instead of explaining exactly what that something more might be, however, you simply ask for my interpretations of the passages you quote. Then, when I interpret them to be saying only dhammas (not frogs) are conditioned by kamma, you accuse me of misrepresenting you. ---------------- <. . .> >> KH: Therefore, I take her descriptions to be saying, for example, that kalapas of rupas are being conditioned to arise now – at this very moment - rather than to be saying that kalapas (as distinct from molecules) are created by chemical reactions in the stomach. > ++++++++== Dear Kenh > RK: this is another disingenuous post. Are you implying that I said kalapas are created by chemical reactions? Where do you get such an idea.. please try to cite what I write. --------------- KH: This is another case in point. When I say only dhammas exist, you say the heart and the body exist. You tell Pt the body is made of kalapas. (I can find that quote if you want me to.) In support of your claim you quote where Nina has written about nutrition giving rise to rupas. How am I to know how you interpret Nina's quote if you won't tell me? You just ask for my interpretation of it. I can only assume you see it as saying that food, when it goes into the stomach, it is converted into rupas. Don't blame me if my assumption is wrong; I am only doing my ingenuous best. Ken H #125216 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:37 am Subject: Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: I agree with pt here. For thinking about a concept to be kusala (including "turning it around, probing it, in order to understand what it represents"), there must probably be some level of understanding I think I would agree with that... Although it would seem to me that understanding would develop through such 'probing,' etc., as long as it was kusala. > ...And of course the object must be one that can usefully be reflected on. What kind of objects would you see as being 'important objects' in this context? Well, it's not like I'm an expert at listing kusala objects of contemplation. I would be thinking of any sort of legitimate Dhamma concept or the contemplation of how dhammas behave or their characteristics. That sort of thing, that has the potential to develop pariyatti and develop the path. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #125217 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:17 pm Subject: Re: Kenh1 epsteinrob Hi Jon, Rob K, Ken H, & all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi RobK and KenH > > Aside from the (largely hypothetical) question of whether there can be kusala citta involved with an expression of wrong view ("Eat up your greens or there'll be no Father Christmas for you this year": )), I don't see a clear Dhamma issue identified in this discussion as yet. Perhaps one of you could formulate exactly what is the issue being discussed, so others can join in too? > > Jon As I see it, the issue is whether there is any relation of what we refer to here as concepts to actual dhammas, or are all conventional perceptions and activities not only distorted but completely fictional with the status of pure hallucinations. As I see it, real activities exist in the world, but they are really arising and falling away rupas, not as we ordinarily conceive of them, and actions such as murder actually do take place, but are really namas and rupas, not solid and lasting realities as we normally perceive them. I think that this is somewhere in the neighborhood of where Rob K. is as well - that when kamma patha is produced by murderous akusala cetana, that there is a real killing that takes place. Real rupas arise, and the death citta is produced for the murdered person, whose current life experience is ended. Ken H. has the view that none of this takes place at all, that murder does not exist and that since people are nothing but fictions, what we see as murder has no relation to dhammas at all. All that causes kamma is the murderous cetana - there is no killing of a "being" that takes place at all. As Rob K. said, less akusala cittas should lead to less murder and other unwholesome actions. Nina said that kusala cittas cannot lead to murder and so there is no contradiction between conventional actions and paramatha dhammas. This shows a relationship between what arises in terms of dhammas, and what happens in conventional life. Ken H. has the position that there is no relation, that if one has right view, it doesn't matter whether beings appear to be murdered, because the person with right view knows that there are no beings to be killed, and therefore there is no kamma in that case. To Ken H., the point of the story of the blind monk and the caterpillars is that since the monk had right view and knew there were actually no caterpillars, it didn't matter if he trampled on them or not - no kamma when one understands that there are no beings to trample. In my view, this is a distortion of the Dhamma. If one willfully kills beings, one generates akusala kamma, even if one knows that ultimately there are no beings. The caterpillars are not real as such, but the cittas and rupas that are produced when 'caterpillars are trampled' are real, and they create suffering for the 'caterpillar's cittas' and kamma for he who does the trampling. The blind man was blameless because he was blind, and thus had no choice and no desire to kill with regard to the caterpillars. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > >> KH: My argument is with Robert K for his insistence that people - not just > > > dhammas) - are reborn, or that people - not just dhammas – perform kusala and > > > akusala actions. Or that concepts are made of lots and lots of kalapas of rupas > > > (as if kalapas were molecules and rupas were atoms!). > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > RK: Dear Kenh > > > perhaps you could quote me directly. > > > ----- > > > > > > KH: No, I don't keep files on people. But if I had to dig into the distant past I would refer to some posts where (if I remember correctly) you supported the introduction of Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory into school curriculums. You believed evolution theory contradicted the Dhamma. > > ++++++++++++ > > Dear Kenh > > Don't you think it is fairer and easier to follow if you cite something directly. Regarding your statement that: > > > > >KH: My argument is with Robert K for his insistence that people - not just > > > dhammas) - are reborn, or that people - not just dhammas – perform kusala and > > > akusala actions."" > > > > this is an outright misrepresentation bordering on a lie. > > _______ > > But you made this silly paraphrase based on the fact (your remember rightly on this point) that I don't think all of current evoloutionary doctrine is in agreement with the Dhamma . > > I looked up the discussion we had: > > > > ROBERT: Richard Dawkins (Oxford prof., Fellow of the Royal society) Dawkins writes > > that > > > in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe > > to > > > be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, > > and > > > you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, > > pp.132-133). > > > > > > And "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if > > > there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but > > > pointless indifference." (quoted in Easterbrook, 1997, p.892). > > > > > > > Biologists/scientists: George Gaylord Simpson: "Man is the result of a > > > purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." (1967, > > > pp.344-345). > > > > > > Jacques Monod: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, lies at the very root > > of > > > the stupendous edifice of evolution...." (Monod, 1972, p.110); and "Man at > > last > > > knows that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe, out of > > which > > > he emerged by chance." (p.167) > > > > > > As Futuyma explains: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the > > > blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or > > > spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Darwin's theory of > > > evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism of > > > much of science, in short what has since been the stage of most Western > > > thought." (Futuyma, 1986, p.2). > > __________ > > You reply to this - mainly directed at my quotes from Richard dawkins, who you admire: > > . > > > > RK: > Dawkins ,when he writes about a world of senseless injustise(the human > > and animal realm) according to you has waht type of citta? > > > --------------------- > > > > > Kenh: > > If he writes the way he does in a genuine attempt at helping people, >then there > > >must be some kusala cittas involved. > > +++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > I stated in that thread that creationists have clear wrong view (belief in a creator GOd). My point is that the evoloution bioligists like Dawkins have a different extreme wrong view (they think it all happens due to chance- no kamma etc). > > Thus I could see any reason to preference either view . > > I do not see how Dawkins is having kusala citta when he writes: > > in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe > > to > > > be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, > > and > > > you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, > > pp.132-133). > > robert > > > #125218 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording epsteinrob Hi Dieter. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > pt: Contemplation is one of those terms I find hard to pinpoint. Ideally speaking, it would be pariyatti imo, so strictly speaking a kusala citta with panna and a concept of a dhamma as object. Naturally, vitaka and vicara would be kusala then as well. But I can't really tell when's thinking about dhamma for example actually kusala, and my bet is on it being akusala most of the time, what would make vitaka and vicara akusala at the time as well. > > > D: pinpointing .. > > PTS: AnupassanÄ (f.) [abstr. of anupassati, cf. Sk. anudarÅ›ana] looking at, viewing, contemplating, consideration, realisation S v.178 sq., Sn p. 140; Ps i.10, 20, 96; ii.37, 41 sq., 67 sq.; Vbh 194. > > Anupassin (-- Ëš) (adj.) [fr. anupassati] viewing, observing, realising S ii.84 sq., v.294 sq., 311 sq., 345, Dh 7, 253; Sn 255, 728; Ps i.191 sq.; Vbh 193 sq., 236; Sdhp 411. > > Anupassati [anu + passati] to look at, contemplate, observe Sn 477; Ps i.57, 187; Sn A 505. > > Buddh.Dict. AnupassanÄ: Contemplation, deep reflection, profound consideration: > > The 4 fold: see: satipatthana. > > The 18 chief insights of vipassana > > The 7 fold: The seven contemplations: > > 1: Contemplating constructions as impermanent, one leaves behind the perception of permanence. 2: Contemplating them as painful, one leaves behind the perception of happiness. 3: Contemplating them as not self, one leaves behind the perception of ownership. 4: Becoming disillusioned, one leaves behind delighting. 5: Causing fading away of lust, one leaves behind greed. 6: Causing ceasing, one leaves behind creating. 7: Relinquishing, one leaves behind clinging. Pts.M. I, p. 58. - See also Vis.M XXI, 43; XXII, 114. I think this is an excellent brief rundown of what is meant in Buddhism by contemplation, and citing the Pali as anupassana so we can look at that as well. "Deep reflection," "profound consideration" are something quite different from the usual quick thinking by proliferation or association. The seven contemplations is also a very useful cite. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #125219 From: "philip" Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:36 am Subject: Delisting announcement #12 philofillet Dear group My recent comments make it clear that it is ¥¥¥really¥¥¥ time for me to be moving along. My only interest in Dhamma is Abhidhamma, really, and I don't have enough understanding/confidence/??? to be able to see why it is a duty (obviously enjoyed perfectly well by others, with benefits to the development of their understanding) to adjust explanation to attempt to satisfy or find common ground with those who see Abhidhamma (understandably) as some kind of late addition without primary authority. Fair enough, but not for me. It's true that I have a personal aversion to you, Howard, and to Rob E, but that obviously is do to the akusala functioning of "my" dhammas rather than something about you that you should mend. I think it would be good if you shut down your private mailing list, however. If you are comfortable here you no longer need that wall to hide behind. It rankles knowing that you guys are able to discuss privately (and I know from my membership there in the past that you are disparaging at times of Dhamma as taught by A Sujin in a way that you are not here) there while students of A Sujin have no private forum of their own in which the word of Abhidhamma is given unquestioned and unquestionable authority in order to create less distraction to its study. I don't think anyone other than me wants that kind of closed forum, pepple seem to enjoy debate. But if it ever someday becomes a reality, please let me know by e-mail as I won't be reading here. Thanks moderators, hoping to see you in Bkk in January - if I get miles from the discount route I am flying this summer! Phil #125220 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Delisting announcement #12 sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Phil & all, Nina, you'll be interested to hear that the elderly swimmer, Bruce, died here (in Manly) recently. We once mentioned how he swam every day with our group in the ocean in spite of his cancer - very patient and brave. On Sunday morning, there was a beautiful sunrise as we all entered the very cold water (mid-Winter) and formed a circle out in the sea to scatter flowers and his ashes as we sang a cheerful farewell ballad he'd selected. His daughter joined us - a letting go.... The point is, Phil, that, as we all know, life is so very short - not worth hanging onto grudges and long stories about how people have behaved. No understanding of dhammas at such times at all. It doesn't matter at all what others believe or don't believe - as in our case, just different moments of conditioned thinking. When there is understanding or metta, no animosity, no disrespect at all. The Dhamma is not for book study and theory, but for direct understanding and for the way we live. If there's a big "disconnect", then it shows it's not sacca ~naa.na - really firm confidence in the Teachings, as I see it. Phil, you've referred to the "private mailing list" before. The problem is only in the "rankles". Anyone can talk privately anytime. A.Sujin is very used to people criticising what she says in public or private and to lots and lots of disparaging comments about the Dhamma as taught by her. Lots and lots of it over the years. She never minds at all - it just reflects a different or lack of understanding of the Teachings by accumulations. No self at all. It would be a good topic to bring up with her in Jan - she'll just point to the problem as being the citta now - the minding, the caring, the attachment, the lack of understanding of seeing and visible object now. Still, understandable if the "rankles" mean you need a break. Look forward to seeing you in Bkk in Jan if not before:-) Metta Sarah p.s Howard & Rob E, maybe best to just drop the "private list" - a real red herring as I see it and nothing to defend/justify at all. >________________________________ > From: philip >My recent comments make it clear that it is >¥¥¥really¥¥¥ time for me to be moving along. My only interest in Dhamma is Abhidhamma, really, and I don't have enough understanding/confidence/??? to be able to see why it is a duty (obviously enjoyed perfectly well by others, with benefits to the development of their understanding) to adjust explanation to attempt to satisfy or find common ground with those who see Abhidhamma (understandably) as some kind of late addition without primary authority. Fair enough, but not for me. #125221 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Delisting announcement #12 nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 26-jun-2012, om 9:15 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > > Nina, you'll be interested to hear that the elderly swimmer, Bruce, > died here (in Manly) recently. We once mentioned how he swam every > day with our group in the ocean in spite of his cancer - very > patient and brave. On Sunday morning, there was a beautiful sunrise > as we all entered the very cold water (mid-Winter) and formed a > circle out in the sea to scatter flowers and his ashes as we sang a > cheerful farewell ballad he'd selected. His daughter joined us - a > letting go.... > > The point is, Phil, that, as we all know, life is so very short - > not worth hanging onto grudges and long stories about how people > have behaved. No understanding of dhammas at such times at all. > --- N: This is very touching, a wonderful way of taking leave. I also appreciate your reminders to Phil, useful for all of us. ----- Nina. #125222 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kamma and result. nilovg Dear Ann, Op 26-jun-2012, om 0:09 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven: > It is easy to think, "well, this is just thinking", but not so > usual to think of a moment of thinking that arises and falls away > just as a moment of seeing. When we speak of the six senses, > although thinking is among them, it's the one from which the > stories proliferate. Not so easy, I find, to understand it as just > a moment of citta arising and falling away because of conditions. > Too easy to take the story as something real. > > So, as always, best to develop the understanding that knows each > reality as it is. ------ N: Difficult to know the characteristic of thinking, I find that too. But it depends on pa~n~naa, we cannot select. Appreciating your post, Nina. #125223 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 3:50 pm Subject: Re: Kenh1 kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: <. . .> > To Ken H., the point of the story of the blind monk and the caterpillars is that since the monk had right view and knew there were actually no caterpillars, it didn't matter if he trampled on them or not - no kamma when one understands that there are no beings to trample. > > In my view, this is a distortion of the Dhamma. If one willfully kills beings, one generates akusala kamma, even if one knows that ultimately there are no beings. <. . .> ------------ Hi Robert E, I will say it again. There are only dhammas; there are no sentient beings to be killed and no sentient beings to do the killing. Once that truth has been directly and fully penetrated, akusala kamma patha will never again occur. An ariyan monk is someone who has directly penetrated it, isn't he? He is no longer capable of akusala kamma patha. Therefore, if an observer gets the impression that this monk is murdering a sentient being, that observer should think again. The monk can't be doing any such thing: he is not capable of it. If the observer wanted to give a conventional explanation of what had happened he would have to say the monk in one way or another trod on the caterpillars accidentally. He would have to say the caterpillars' kamma was such that they simply had to die violently at that time, even though no one was acting maliciously or negligently towards them. And we know that must be true even though, in the case of an ordinary person, it probably could not be true. An ordinary blind person who had been told there were caterpillars on a path would know perfectly well he was incapable of walking along it without causing death and injury. This monk knew the opposite. There was no way in the world he could cause any sentient being any harm. Ken H #125224 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Delisting announcement #12 upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 6/26/2012 2:38:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Dear group My recent comments make it clear that it is ¥¥¥really¥¥¥ time for me to be moving along. My only interest in Dhamma is Abhidhamma, really, and I don't have enough understanding/confidence/??? to be able to see why it is a duty (obviously enjoyed perfectly well by others, with benefits to the development of their understanding) to adjust explanation to attempt to satisfy or find common ground with those who see Abhidhamma (understandably) as some kind of late addition without primary authority. Fair enough, but not for me. It's true that I have a personal aversion to you, Howard, and to Rob E, but that obviously is do to the akusala functioning of "my" dhammas rather than something about you that you should mend. ----------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Whatever! I hope you do realize the oddity (at least!) of telling people that you personally dislike them, especially when you hold them blameless for that. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I think it would be good if you shut down your private mailing list, however. If you are comfortable here you no longer need that wall to hide behind. --------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: The tiny group you speak of, with only 12 members, only 2 or 3 of whom post, is the Kalama Dhamma list, It's description is the following: It is none of your business that there should exist a very small, barely active, private group of (only somewhat) similarly-minded Buddhists, a group which, BTW, you had been a member of but chose to leave, and a group which I informed Sarah, Jon, and Nina about shortly after it was formed back in January 2009. The KD-list has served as an occasional refuge from unkind attacks, for which I offer no apology, but it is far from being a "hiding place". Those members of KD-list who are also members of DSG speak freely on DSG. They do not hold back here. The DSG is a public list, my very favorite Dhamma list, and very important to me. This does not mean that the KD-list must not exist, and your being "rankled" by it's existence is no one's problem but your own. Your loves and hates are your problems. ------------------------------------------------------------------ It rankles knowing that you guys are able to discuss privately (and I know from my membership there in the past that you are disparaging at times of Dhamma as taught by A Sujin in a way that you are not here) there while students of A Sujin have no private forum of their own in which the word of Abhidhamma is given unquestioned and unquestionable authority in order to create less distraction to its study. I don't think anyone other than me wants that kind of closed forum, pepple seem to enjoy debate. -------------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: It rankles you that we are able to discuss privately??? What rankles you is your problem, no one else's. ANY people have the right to come together privately, if they wish. If it is wished, it is a right of any folks to do so. If it is not wished, then there is no requirement that it be done. In any case, it is no business of yours what others do on their own. You are responsible for yourself, not others. It is bad enough to think one has control over himself/herself let alone to think that one should have control over others. BTW, expressing disagreement with the positions of a teacher, even strong criticism of some of the teachings, is perfectly legitimate. What you do not mention is that there has also been defense of some of the teachings of Khun Sujin, especially by me, on KD-list. It happens that I admire the Zen-like perspective that I have observed in the writings of Ajahn Sujin, but that *also* is nobody's business but mine. What I admire, I admire,and what I do not, I do not. The same holds for others, including Robert Epstein, who happens to have become increasingly admiring of Abhidhamma in recent days. What serves any folks well, serves them well. I salute all folks who consider well and long and find things of value for themselves. Live and let live, Phil!! What happens to be my main criterion for evaluating people is not their held "positions" nor their knowledge nor even their intelligence, but the degree of their goodness, kindness, fairness, and lovingness. It is that, BTW, that has been prominent in keeping me a member of DSG for so long. ----------------------------------------------------------------- But if it ever someday becomes a reality, please let me know by e-mail as I won't be reading here. Thanks moderators, hoping to see you in Bkk in January - if I get miles from the discount route I am flying this summer! Phil ==================================== With metta, Howard Kindness Trumps Cleverness /When I was young, I used to admire intelligent people; as I grow older, I admire kind people./ (Abraham Joshua Heschel) #125225 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kenh1 upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Robert) - In a message dated 6/26/2012 5:46:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Robert E, I will say it again. There are only dhammas; there are no sentient beings to be killed and no sentient beings to do the killing. Once that truth has been directly and fully penetrated, akusala kamma patha will never again occur. An ariyan monk is someone who has directly penetrated it, isn't he? He is no longer capable of akusala kamma patha. Therefore, if an observer gets the impression that this monk is murdering a sentient being, that observer should think again. The monk can't be doing any such thing: he is not capable of it. If the observer wanted to give a conventional explanation of what had happened he would have to say the monk in one way or another trod on the caterpillars accidentally. He would have to say the caterpillars' kamma was such that they simply had to die violently at that time, even though no one was acting maliciously or negligently towards them. And we know that must be true even though, in the case of an ordinary person, it probably could not be true. An ordinary blind person who had been told there were caterpillars on a path would know perfectly well he was incapable of walking along it without causing death and injury. This monk knew the opposite. There was no way in the world he could cause any sentient being any harm. ------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Would he not know that his actions would cause pain? ------------------------------------------------------- Ken H ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #125226 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:05 am Subject: Re: Delisting announcement #12 epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > p.s Howard & Rob E, maybe best to just drop the "private list" - a real red herring as I see it and nothing to defend/justify at all. You mean not to discuss it? I have no problem about that - it's not a secret society or anything, just another discussion forum, so no big deal. I haven't been there lately, and not sure how active it is, but seriously, it's no problem one way or the other. I have two or three groups that I started that are completely inactive, mostly in acting areas - not sure what the fuss is about, other than certain folks' vivid imaginations. Anyway, I did respond to the post in question before reading yours, so that is that, but I don't have a problem with discussing or not discussing anything here down the road, as you think is best. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #125227 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:58 am Subject: Re: Delisting announcement #12 epsteinrob Hi Phil. Gee whiz, man... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > My recent comments make it clear that it is > ¥¥¥really¥¥¥ time for me to be moving along. My only interest in Dhamma is Abhidhamma, except for confiding all your negative feelings that no one wants to hear and criticizing others continuously. Do you really think you have a strong interest in the Dhamma? Or is your main interest spilling negativity and putting yourself up while you put others down? Since you give so much public advice freely and enjoy sharing all the faults that you see in a few people here who have been scapegoating, I'd like to give you a piece of public advice on your way out - take a look at your own negativity and stop expressing it. Really take a look. You are a negative force in this list and not someone who is contributing to the understanding of Dhamma. It's fine that our leaving, but it would be better if you were to correct your absolutely wrong, negative attitude towards others and stop giving yourself such an easy time about your own aversions. I have never seen someone who was so apt to tell others how horrendous their behavior is, while excusing all of his own. It shows a truly self-centered childish attitude that is the opposite of the Dhamma and the opposite of having any kind of Sangha. > really, and I don't have enough understanding/confidence/??? to be able to see why it is a duty (obviously enjoyed perfectly well by others, with benefits to the development of their understanding) to adjust explanation to attempt to satisfy or find common ground with those who see Abhidhamma (understandably) as some kind of late addition without primary authority. Fair enough, but not for me. No one has ever asked you to adjust your conversations or explanations for anyone else's benefit. If you would just talk about your Dhamma interests - if any - instead of wasting your time gossiping about the people you dislike, you might actually get some benefit out of your interactions. It's ridiculously self-defeating behavior. > It's true that I have a personal aversion to you, Howard, and to Rob E, but that obviously is do to the akusala functioning of "my" dhammas rather than something about you that you should mend. Who cares? Please keep your aversions to yourself unless you are going to analyze them in terms of Dhamma, which would be of some benefit. Again, another Dhamma opportunity lost, because that is not really your focus despite your pretensions. > I think it would be good if you shut down your private mailing list, however. If you are comfortable here you no longer need that wall to hide behind. It rankles knowing that you guys are able to discuss privately (and I know from my membership there in the past that you are disparaging at times of Dhamma as taught by A Sujin in a way that you are not here) there while students of A Sujin have no private forum of their own in which the word of Abhidhamma is given unquestioned and unquestionable authority in order to create less distraction to its study. Excuse me? Since when do you have any say about what other people do on their own time? Many people participate in other lists regarding various Buddhist and other topics, and it has nothing to do with you or anyone else. Personally, I haven't posted to Howard's group lately and I'm not sure about the activity there, but the time spent there was very valuable talking about...you guessed it - detailed Dhamma issues, and sometimes in great depth. You are the only one around here, Phil, who seems continuously interested in making personal comments, personal comparisons and telling other people what to do. It's pretty unhealthy. > I don't think anyone other than me wants that kind of closed forum, people seem to enjoy debate. But if it ever someday becomes a reality, please let me know by e-mail as I won't be reading here. We'll see. > Thanks moderators, hoping to see you in Bkk in January - if I get miles from the discount route I am flying this summer! I seriously do hope you get benefit from your time studying Abhidhamma, and that you stop frittering away your energy on gossip and personal attacks. That would be a big step forward. See you soon - unless you really don't return. In the latter case, hope you work out your personal issues and, seriously, much metta on your path. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #125228 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Delisting announcement #12 epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ...It happens that I admire the > Zen-like perspective that I have observed in the writings of Ajahn Sujin, > but that *also* is nobody's business but mine. I am glad to see you have noticed that too. I am sometimes surprised by her attention to the moment and the briskness with which she can address it. > What I admire, I admire,and > what I do not, I do not. The same holds for others, including Robert Epstein, > who happens to have become increasingly admiring of Abhidhamma in recent > days. I have...? What's happening to me!? :-) > What happens to be my main criterion for evaluating people is not > their held "positions" nor their knowledge nor even their intelligence, but the > degree of their goodness, kindness, fairness, and lovingness. It is that, > BTW, that has been prominent in keeping me a member of DSG for so long. I think this is really nicely said, and is a great point - that feeling of personal support and caring, which I also feel amongst my dsg friends -- the sense of real Sangha, fellowship -- is equally important on the path as anything we may learn or discuss. I think we should remember that more frequently, so thanks for the reminder! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #125229 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:17 am Subject: Re: Kenh1 epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > An ariyan monk is someone who has directly penetrated it, isn't he? He is no longer capable of akusala kamma patha. Therefore, if an observer gets the impression that this monk is murdering a sentient being, that observer should think again. The monk can't be doing any such thing: he is not capable of it. I agree with this - but the point in my view is that you will not see that monk lifting a hand to harm another being, no matter what. The conventional action will not take place. It is not just that one will see that the action is not really harmful because there is no one to harm. Not only will akusala cetana not arise, but the rupas of harming or killing will not occur, and those rupas are not concept, they are real. In my understanding, and in everything the Buddha and commentaries say about kamma patha, kamma patha involves real concrete rupas, it must be physically realized, so when the ariyan monk is no longer capable of akusala kamma patha, those rupas are no longer produced. There will be no 'seeming appearance' of that monk harming a living being for the unenlightened to misinterpret. Do you agree with this? If not, what part of it do you disagree with? > If the observer wanted to give a conventional explanation of what had happened he would have to say the monk in one way or another trod on the caterpillars accidentally. He would have to say the caterpillars' kamma was such that they simply had to die violently at that time, even though no one was acting maliciously or negligently towards them. If a runaway cart kills someone, no one is to blame. If a blind monk walks on a pathway and the caterpillars happen to be there, he is not obligated to stay off the path, but he has no intention to kill, and so there is no kamma. We don't know all the conditions involved, but it may be that this monk had to go down that path in order to stay alive. I've lost reference to the sutta - if you can tell me where to find it or give me its number and its Nikaya, I'll re-read the whole thing. I think that when a physical act takes place - the rupas of killing without any akusala cetana, ie, an accident, or unavoidable incident, there is no akusala kamma. That's the point. If a Buddhist monk is driving down the road and the car goes out of control and kills someone, there is no blame, even though he was driving. > And we know that must be true even though, in the case of an ordinary person, it probably could not be true. An ordinary blind person who had been told there were caterpillars on a path would know perfectly well he was incapable of walking along it without causing death and injury. And yet he may have no choice but to walk that path, and there is no wish to kill, so it is not the same as intentional killing. Even if you are right about the monk being enlightened, there is still a difference in kamma between accidental or incidental killing and intentional killing. They are not the same thing. > This monk knew the opposite. There was no way in the world he could cause any sentient being any harm. If you believe this, then in Buddhist terms there is no problem with stabbing someone if you know they are not really a being [the opposite of all the teachings on ahimsa.] If they are inconveniently in your way on the mountain path and you know they are not really a being, you could push them off the mountain with no kamma and no regret. Do you believe that in paramatha terms this is the way we are meant to view killing from an enlightened standpoint? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #125230 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:05 am Subject: Re: Kenh1 jonoabb Hi RobK [Resending this, as the reply sent yesterday has not come through] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > dEAR jON > here is one that everyone can come in on: > Question: identify any of these following quotes as expression of right view or wrong view. > 1.God made the world. > 2.God controls the world. > 3.Humans exist in absolute reality. > 4.Human is a designation for the changing elements that do exist momentarily. > 5.Richard Dawkins writes that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133). > =============== J: As I think you'll agree, there is a difference between (a) a view actually held (by a person) and (b) a statement made (by a person) that appears to reflect a particular view. Statements made do not necessarily reflect views actually held. For example, a scientist who holds the views of a Christian may, having conducted scientific research, put forward 'evidence' that supports or confirms the evolutionist view (a view he does not share). Or a person who has never heard the Dhamma in the present lifetime may, given the choice between theism and atheism, declare a belief in God as being the preferred view of the two (without actually holding that view, due to the development of insight in previous lifetimes). So I don't see any purpose in trying to identify quotes as being indicative of right or wrong view on the part of the speaker/writer. The only worthwhile question is whether or not *a particular view held* is in accordance with the teachings (and on that I would expect that you, KenH and I are mostly in agreement). For example, a held view that: 1. there is a God who made the world, 2. there is a God who controls the world, 3. human beings exist in the absolute sense, or 5. the universe is governed by materialistic evolution, is obviously not in accordance with the teachings. A held view that: 4. 'human being' is a conventional designation for certain changing elements ('dhammas') that exist only momentarily. would seem to be consistent with the teachings. (As regards the observation quoted in your item 5 that there is no rhyme or reason, nor justice, to be seen in the way the world works, I see that as being not so much a view held as a comment on how things appear (to the unenlightened observer) to be.) Jon PS It seems to me that the point under discussion between you and KenH is this: When KenH/RobK says that a person who says such and such does/does not have right view, does this indicate right/wrong view on the part of KenH/RobK? For reasons mentioned above, I doubt that the discussion of such an issue will lead anywhere useful. #125231 From: mary carbone Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:34 am Subject: thank you to all marycarbone153 Thanks for helping me in opening up my thoughts on the pain I was experiencing during and after a family visit. I found this on the net, don't know who wrote it --we can, however, be silent, breathe, wait and expect love to emerge---then and only then will we see the best options available for us--Mary #125232 From: "ptaus1" Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 3:59 pm Subject: Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording ptaus1 Hi Dieter, > D: 'suppress' indicates force .. but ' let the thought phase out' means 'let go' , so the term ' suppression' doesn't really fit. Ok, perhaps using something like "suspended" might be more agreeable. However, my point is that it is concentration (right or wrong) which actually stops verbal thinking and keeps it from reocurring for a period of time. Hence to me it looks like it supresses verbal thinking for a time. But I don't mind calling it something else as long as we agree it is concentration (whether right or wrong) that keeps verbal thinking away. Another intersting subject is what is the object of consciousness at the time when verbal thinking is stopped for a while. > Mindfulness or sati means - we possibly agree - the focus on a certain object and for that we need to collect the spreaded attention by letting go of certain intentions and support the focus we want to observe respectively contemplate about. I think whenever we are talking about focus, it's really about concentration, not mindfulness. > I think we may avoid a mixture when we see the difference of samma sati which means to know, to be attentive what is going on now ( within the 4 frames) > in distinction from samma samadhi where strong concentration is used for absorption of the senses media (to learn what is beyond..) That's cool, though my point was that the confusion is between miccha samadhi and sati - so mindfulness is being confused with wrong concentration at the time when verbal thinking is stopped. Best wishes pt #125233 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:53 pm Subject: Re: Kenh1 jonoabb Hi RobK --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > dEAR jON > here is one that everyone can come in on: > Question: identify any of these following quotes as expression of right view or wrong view. > 1.God made the world. > 2.God controls the world. > 3.Humans exist in absolute reality. > 4.Human is a designation for the changing elements that do exist momentarily. > 5.Richard Dawkins writes that in a universe governed by materialistic evolution (as he claims our universe to be) "some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice." (1995, pp.132-133). > =============== J: As I think you'll agree, there is a difference between (a) a view actually held (by a person) and (b) a statement made (by a person) that appears to reflect a particular view. Statements made do not necessarily reflect views actually held. For example, a scientist who holds the views of a Christian may, having conducted objective scientific research, put forward 'evidence' that supports or confirms the evolutionist view (a view he does not share). Or a person who has never heard the Dhamma in the present lifetime may, given the choice between theism and atheism, declare a belief in God as being the preferred view of the two (without actually holding that view, due to the development of insight in previous lifetimes). So I don't see any purpose in trying to identify quotes as being indicative of right or wrong view on the part of the speaker/writer. The only worthwhile question is whether *a particular view held* is or is not in accordance with the teachings (and on that I would expect that you, KenH and I are mostly in agreement). For example, a held view that: 1. there is a God who made the world, 2. there is a God who controls the world, 3. human beings exist in the absolute sense, or 5. the universe is governed by materialistic evolution, is obviously not in accordance with the teachings. A held view that: 4. 'human being' is a conventional designation for certain changing elements ('dhammas') that exist only momentarily, would seem to be consistent with the teachings. As regards the observation quoted in your item 5 that there is no rhyme or reason, nor justice, to be seen in the way the world works, I see that as being not so much a view held as a comment on how things appear to the unenlightened observer to be. Jon PS It seems to me that the point under discussion between you and KenH is this: When KenH/RobK says that a person who says such and such does/does not have right view, does this indicate right/wrong view on the part of KenH/RobK? For reasons mentioned above, I doubt that the discussion of such an issue will lead anywhere useful. #125234 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:27 am Subject: Re: Kenh1 epsteinrob Hi Jon, Rob K and Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > PS It seems to me that the point under discussion between you and KenH is this: When KenH/RobK says that a person who says such and such does/does not have right view, does this indicate right/wrong view on the part of KenH/RobK? > For reasons mentioned above, I doubt that the discussion of such an issue will lead anywhere useful. I may be missing something, but I don't think that's the issue at stake here. I think the issue, which is indeed the subject of Rob K.'s [and mine if I understand him correctly] and Ken H.'s views, which is: Do conventional beings and actions reference the dhammas that are actually arising at the time, although somewhat inaccurately, or are conventional beings and actions a complete fantasy with no relation to dhammas at all. This is a very important issue, and I think it's pretty clear that there is a distinction between the two views that has great import for the definition of the path and the understanding of Dhamma. Nina stated that there is no contradiction between dhammas and conventional actions, because a person who has kusala dhammas arising there will be no murder or other untoward actions. Rob K. said that 'more kusala dhammas should lead to less murder.' Ken H. disagrees with this completely, and states that since there are no beings in existence, any conventional actions that seem to be taking place, including murder, have no implication at all, no kamma, for the person with right view. Best, Rob E. =========================== #125235 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:06 pm Subject: Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: Dieter wrote: > > Mindfulness or sati means - we possibly agree - the focus on a certain object and for that we need to collect the spreaded attention by letting go of certain intentions and support the focus we want to observe respectively contemplate about. > > I think whenever we are talking about focus, it's really about concentration, not mindfulness. I think it's a mistake to separate them that way. Of course there is a difference in cultivating concentration and cultivating mindfulness, but mindfulness, vitakkha, vicara, etc. depend on concentration as well. I am sure that concentration of a certain level arises with every moment of mindfulness. They work together. > > I think we may avoid a mixture when we see the difference of samma sati which means to know, to be attentive what is going on now ( within the 4 frames) > > in distinction from samma samadhi where strong concentration is used for absorption of the senses media (to learn what is beyond..) This is different, I think, from the basic concentration needed to focus on/be aware of something in the first place. [Tried to find some references for this, but so far all I find is association of vitakkha and vicara with concentration in Jhana, w/o sati mentioned; not the accompanying cetasikas to sati which is what I'm looking for...] Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #125236 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Delisting announcement #12 nilovg Dear Rob E, Howard and all, Op 26-jun-2012, om 20:25 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > H: What I admire, I admire,and > > what I do not, I do not. The same holds for others, including > Robert Epstein, > > who happens to have become increasingly admiring of Abhidhamma in > recent > > days. > > R :I have...? What's happening to me!? :-) ------- N: Lol :-)) ------- > > H: > What happens to be my main criterion for evaluating people is not > > their held "positions" nor their knowledge nor even their > intelligence, but the > > degree of their goodness, kindness, fairness, and lovingness. It > is that, > > BTW, that has been prominent in keeping me a member of DSG for so > long. > > R: I think this is really nicely said, and is a great point - that > feeling of personal support and caring, which I also feel amongst > my dsg friends -- the sense of real Sangha, fellowship -- is > equally important on the path as anything we may learn or discuss. > I think we should remember that more frequently, so thanks for the > reminder! ------ N: Yes Rob, so nicely said by Howard and you. I find it a real treat to have correspondance with you, really worth while. It helps me too to be on dsg and writing is also a reminder for myself. I value friendship. Nina. #125237 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:29 pm Subject: Pilgrimage in India, Ch 3, 6. nilovg Dear friends, The Buddha, by his supreme wisdom, “crossed the sea of doubt”. He could not have crossed the sea of doubt without having cultivated the right conditions. He had developed mindfulness and wisdom with the greatest perseverance and energy. Energy, viriya, is another one of the perfections the Buddha accumulated in many lives. In the ‘Visuddhimagga” we read in the passage about the perfections fulfilled by Bodhisattas (Ch IX, 124) concerning energy: “They constantly arouse energy, having beings’ welfare and happiness at heart. When they have acquired heroic fortitude through supreme energy, they become patient with beings’ many kinds of faults....” In his last life the Buddha, before he attained enlightenment, searched the truth as a pupil of Ålåra the Kålåma and then of Uddaka, but their teachings did not lead to the attainment of the truth. He followed the severest ascetical practices with supreme effort and heroic fortitude but his effort was not yet the effort of the Middle Way. In the “Greater Discourse to Saccaka” ( Middle Length Sayings I, 36) we read that he described to Aggivessana his ascetical practice of the ‘non-breathing method” which caused him severe pains. Yet, he was not cast down by the pains. We read: “...When I, Aggivessana, had stopped breathing in and breathing out through the mouth and through the nose and through the ears, there came to be a fierce heat in my body. As, Aggivessana, two strong men, having taken hold of a weaker man by his limbs, might set fire to him might make him sizzle over a charcoal pit, even so, Aggivessana, when I had stopped breathing in and breathing out through the mouth and through the nose and through the ears, did there come to be a fierce heat in my body. Although, Aggivessana, unsluggish energy came to be stirred up by me, unmuddled mindfulness set up, yet my body was turbulent, not calmed, because I was harassed in striving by striving against that very pain. But yet, Aggivessana, that painful feeling, arising in me, persisted without impinging on my mind...” ______ Nina. #125238 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Broken heart? 7. The 'situation' - the story sarahprocter... Dear Nina & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > >S: Sujin: "Now there is thinking about the situation, but that > > situation is not now. What > > happens if one dies now? Only thinking of a situation that does not > > come now. It > > indicates one's attachment and clinging which will condition more > > in the future lives." > ------- > N: I am just reading to Lodewijk my letter about perfections, that is > a report about another pilgrimage. How I was clinging to the > situation of Dhamma discussions, not wanting to miss out. Now I > understand more that what counts is awareness of the present reality, > no matter where one is. ... S: This is so important. It also applies to intellectual study about Abhidhamma topics, such as location of heart-base, killing and so on. If it's not kusala citta now, concerned with the understanding of present realities, it's not pariyatti, let alone satipatthana. Thinking about various stories, situations, even ideas about Dhamma, can take us away from the present moment if there's no awareness, no understanding now. Always "thinking of a situation that does not come now"! Metta Sarah ===== #125239 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:35 pm Subject: Re: Broken heart? 7. The 'situation' - the story sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > L: I remember the passage from Milindha pa~n~nha, that also must be checked in life, investigated how much we really know. This was a question if all this 5 senses that are produced by kamma, if they are conditioned by one kamma or different kammas. Venerable Nagasena answers: By different kammas, and give a simile of planting a seeds. It's like planting different seeds, what we get later will be the same plant or different plants? Different was the answer of a king, they cannot be other than different cause different seeds give different plants. This is exactly with these 5 senses. Eye, visible object, ear, sound...,body and tangible objects. They are not ours, they are just different moments, conditioned by different kammas from a past. > > My question here is why Ven. Nagasena and King Milinda are talking only of 5 senses? .... S: The five sense bases - eye-sense, ear-sense, olfactory (smell)-sense, taste-sense, body-sense - all conditioned by past kamma. We can't know which kammas conditioned these senses arising and falling away during life. Tangible objects are different. Hardness, for example, can be conditioned by kamma, citta, temperature or nutriment, so it's not being referred to above. Also, we cannot refer to the senses as "different moments", but perhaps you mean they are transient dhammas arising and falling away like all other conditioned dhammas. ... > >S: The friend had been told to 'control' herself. But all these dhammas are conditioned - habits, tendencies, sense experiences. She had been told to 'practice more', but the dhammas are anatta - they are for understanding, not for trying to control. > > L: As Bhante Dhammadharo mentions, this is understanding that nothing is under control. This is the way of correct understanding. ... S: Yes, any dhamma at all, not under anyone's control. Metta Sarah ===== #125240 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:48 pm Subject: Re: Some way to study dhs and atth sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > L: Dhatukatha follows the Dhammasangani, the first book of Abhidhamma and Vibhanga the second book of Abhidhamma. In Dhammasangani the Lord explains all realies that may come. There he classifies them on many different ways such as: > kusala dhammaa, akusala dhammaa, avyakata dhamma. This group is a triplet. All dhammas can be classified like that. > > sukhaya vedanaya sampayutta dhamma, dukkhaya vedanaya sampayutta dhamma, adukkhamasukkhya vedanaya sampayutta dhamma. another triplet on realities. so all this dhammas that are associated with pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling and neither pleasant of unpleasant. > > There are also couplets like, hetu dhamma, na hetu dhamma. This all realities that are a root, or that are not root. > > And in Vibhanga we can consider more. Ruupa now like visible object? hetu or na hetu? > > Dhatukatha follows, and considers any reality as just elements, that are not self. > > There are also other 4 books. As I remember this is puggalapa~n~nati,concepts of persons, katha vathu, points of controversy(only matika, the introduction made by buddha himself), yamaka, and patthana, the great book on conditions. Just check it cause I am not sure. > > How i find it? This all are different vibhangas(classifications), to help to consider realities. Check atthasalini, 4 oceans, ocean of methods. This is how Theravada works. This is called vibhajjavada or something like that, the teachings of classifictions. Check also a concept on saavaka, the hearers. Theravada is purely based on that, listening and considering Dhamma. > > That's what I can say after few years of practicing theravada, I feel that way. And if Abhidhamma is true work of Buddha? That only u can say. If u read that, and this really brings understanding, then u will how powerful it is. > Maybe anyone wants to correct me? Or add something, welcome. ... S: You gave a very nice summary - as you say, different classifications to help us to consider and understand realities. As you mention, only the reader can know whether it brings understanding. Thx for sharing. Metta Sarah ====== #125241 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:21 pm Subject: Ven. Dhammadharo, to Lukas. nilovg Dear Lukas and friends, I heard a Thai recording made in Rathbury. Here Ven. Dhammadharo had disrobed already and was assisting Kh Sujin on Dhamma trips. His name was Alan Driver. Alan: in answer to someone who was wishing for sati: If you wish for sati there is no opportunity for its arising. The whole day there is wishing, wishing. It is better to be aware of colour that appears. Wishing is a reality, it is not self. It has a characteristic. Or regret of the lack of sati, this is a reality that can be object of awareness. There can be sati at such moments instead of sitting and hoping for the arising of sati. The right conditions for sati are reading, listening, considering, but it takes time. Patience, khanti, is necessary. Question: is there a method? Alan: Conversations about the Dhamma, or helping others in introducing them to the Dhamma. Each way of kusala is a helpful condition. But, one must know what sati is, what its characteristic is. One should continue to listen and to consider the Dhamma. ****** Nina. #125242 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:12 pm Subject: Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording ptaus1 Hi RobE, > > I think whenever we are talking about focus, it's really about concentration, not mindfulness. > > I think it's a mistake to separate them that way. Of course there is a difference in cultivating concentration and cultivating mindfulness, but mindfulness, vitakkha, vicara, etc. depend on concentration as well. I am sure that concentration of a certain level arises with every moment of mindfulness. They work together. It would probably have to do with conditional relations, which I don't know much about. My guess is that it is the root cetasikas that primarily determine whether citta is a/kusala, and then concentration, vicara, sati and the rest follow suit. I.e, it's not concentration that will make a citta a/kusala. I'm also not sure whether it can be said that these other cetasikas will "depend" on concentration in some way, I mean certainly not any more than they would "depend" on other cetaiskas, other than the roots of course. Further, cetasikas fall away with the citta. Any notion of continuity, especially of focus, or peace, etc, is probably just perversion of perception, the most probable result of that being taking akusala concentration for mindfulness. That's imo of course. I mean, the hardest step for a meditator is to admit the confusion between mindfulness and concentration. Once that happens, it's then fairly straightforward to realize that concentration is not right concentration, nor kusala, in the first place. Even though akusala concentration might arise with ("lead to") earth shattering experiences, which are extremely pleasant, peaceful, etc, it all still doesn't make it kusala. Anyway, just my observations. Best wishes pt #125243 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:44 pm Subject: Daily Dhamma: Incapable of Falling Away! yawares1 Dear Members, I think I love this article very much. ************** Daily Dhamma: Incapable of Falling Away! [Presented by Dr.Tep Sastri@ SD/JTN] If someone asks , "what is the Dhamma in the nutshell?", my reply will be "Siila, Samaadhi, Pa~n~naa". If he asks further, "what is the briefest way to practice the Dhamma?", my answer wil be to develop Siila, Samaadhi, Pa~n~naa. If he asks for a single sutta that briefly explains how to develop Siila-Samaadhi-Pa~n~naa, then my choice will be the Aparihaani Sutta [AN 4.37]. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.037.than.html In the Aparihaani Sutta [AN 4.37] the Greatest Teacher gave a group of four aparihaaniya (not-falling-away) dhammas briefly as follows: "Endowed with four qualities, a monk is incapable of falling away and is right in the presence of Unbinding(Nibbana). Which four? "There is the case where a monk is (i) consummate in virtue, (ii) guards the doors to his sense faculties, (iii) knows moderation in eating, & (iv) is devoted to wakefulness. "The monk established in virtue, restrained with regard to the sense faculties, knowing moderation in food, & devoted to wakefulness: dwelling thus ardently, day & night, untiring, he develops skillful qualities for the attainment of rest from the yoke. The monk delighting in heedfulness and seeing danger in heedlessness is incapable of falling away, is right in the presence of Unbinding." *********** Love Buddha's dhamma, yawares/sirikanya #125244 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:26 am Subject: The Cute Little Mozart yawares1 Dear Members, This Wednesday, how about the little Mozart in BELIEVE IT OR NOT! And I truly believe in REINCARNATION. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnmJjZwKvzA He's cute too, yawares #125245 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:47 am Subject: Re: Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording moellerdieter Hi pt, you wrote: : 'suppress' indicates force .. but ' let the thought phase out' means 'let go' , so the term ' suppression' doesn't really fit. Ok, perhaps using something like "suspended" might be more agreeable. However, my point is that it is concentration (right or wrong) which actually stops verbal thinking and keeps it from reocurring for a period of time. Hence to me it looks like it supresses verbal thinking for a time. But I don't mind calling it something else as long as we agree it is concentration (whether right or wrong) that keeps verbal thinking away. D: yes, ' suspended 'fits better ..and yes, it is concentration which can prevent the habitual diversion and restlessness. (D:Another intersting subject is what is the object of consciousness at the time when verbal thinking is stopped for a while. > Mindfulness or sati means - we possibly agree - the focus on a certain object and for that we need to collect the spreaded attention by letting go of certain intentions and support the focus we want to observe respectively contemplate about.) pt: I think whenever we are talking about focus, it's really about concentration, not mindfulness. D: there is no real mindfulness without concentration , by focus I mean to which object the attention is directed to (mental formation/sankhara khandha). Mindfulness , satipatthana in daily life, means first of all paying attention to one's interaction with the All, that 'what is going on ' , assumed that the foundation has been laid (Maha Satipatthana Sutta). You probably think about that one-pointedness , which stays with one object, needed for absorption (Jhana). (D:> I think we may avoid a mixture when we see the difference of samma sati which means to know, to be attentive what is going on now ( within the 4 frames) > in distinction from samma samadhi where strong concentration is used for absorption of the senses media (to learn what is beyond..) That's cool, though my point was that the confusion is between miccha samadhi and sati - so mindfulness is being confused with wrong concentration at the time when verbal thinking is stopped. D: not clear to me .. what is micca samadhi? The Cetasika Ekaggatta is stated in Abh. to be an ethically variable factor, common property to all classes of consciousness, i.e. the quality wrong is determined by the company of one of the 14 unwholesome mental factors , isn't it? with Metta Dieter #125246 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Delisting announcement #12 epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > H: What I admire, I admire,and > > > what I do not, I do not. The same holds for others, including > > Robert Epstein, > > > who happens to have become increasingly admiring of Abhidhamma in > > recent > > > days. > > > > R :I have...? What's happening to me!? :-) > ------- > N: Lol :-)) > ------- :-) > > > > H: > What happens to be my main criterion for evaluating people is not > > > their held "positions" nor their knowledge nor even their > > intelligence, but the > > > degree of their goodness, kindness, fairness, and lovingness. It > > is that, > > > BTW, that has been prominent in keeping me a member of DSG for so > > long. > > > > R: I think this is really nicely said, and is a great point - that > > feeling of personal support and caring, which I also feel amongst > > my dsg friends -- the sense of real Sangha, fellowship -- is > > equally important on the path as anything we may learn or discuss. > > I think we should remember that more frequently, so thanks for the > > reminder! > ------ > N: Yes Rob, so nicely said by Howard and you. I find it a real treat > to have correspondance with you, really worth while. It helps me too > to be on dsg and writing is also a reminder for myself. I value > friendship. > Nina. Thanks so much, Nina. I certainly feel the same way! Thanks to you, Sarah and Jon for keeping this group moving forward. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #125247 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:22 am Subject: Re: Kenh1 epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: As I think you'll agree, there is a difference between (a) a view actually held (by a person) and (b) a statement made (by a person) that appears to reflect a particular view. > > Statements made do not necessarily reflect views actually held. I don't get this. If someone sincerely makes a statement of belief, that does reflect their view, doesn't it? For example, a scientist who holds the views of a Christian may, having conducted scientific research, put forward 'evidence' that supports or confirms the evolutionist view (a view he does not share). I doubt a scientist would put forth evidence that he thought was incorrect. He may think that science and religion do not intersect and reserve his views within each apart from the other, but that is not to say that he does not hold both views, one in the realm of concrete reality, and the other in the realm of spiritual matters. > Or a person who has never heard the Dhamma in the present lifetime may, given the choice between theism and atheism, declare a belief in God as being the preferred view of the two (without actually holding that view, due to the development of insight in previous lifetimes). If he chooses a preferred view, then that is the one that he holds at that time. I don't see that one can espouse a view, unless he is lying, without holding it. That seems like a very tenuous formulation. > So I don't see any purpose in trying to identify quotes as being indicative of right or wrong view on the part of the speaker/writer. All we have are the words that someone puts forth as their own to identify their views. I'm sure you don't think that language has nothing to do with one's view, since the identification and definition of things has so much to do with how they are regarded. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #125248 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:57 pm Subject: Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording ptaus1 Hi Dieter, > D: there is no real mindfulness without concentration , by focus I mean to which object the attention is directed to (mental formation/sankhara khandha). pt: Not sure I follow. What is "real" mindfulness? I think concentration and attention arise with every citta, kusala or akusala, so I still don't see quite how is concentration crucial for arising of mindfulness, if that's what you are saying. > D: Mindfulness , satipatthana in daily life, means first of all paying attention to one's interaction with the All, that 'what is going on ' , assumed that the foundation has been laid (Maha Satipatthana Sutta). pt: Perhaps it might be useful to look at the differences between cetasikas of mindfulness, attention and concentration. I mean, from memory, the main function of mindfulness is remembering kusala, not paying attention. Attention pays attention, concentration concentrates, and mindfulness remembers kusala. Different functions, if function is the right technical term. That's how I remember it. Please see the 'Sati' section in the Useful Posts file. E.g. taking the very first message (38028) there by Htoo actually addresses some of the differences between these: > > quote - Htoo: Thieves may be mindful. But they when mindful are not developing sati cetasika. They may be mindful because they are attentive to what they should do not to be caught. This mindfulness is actually done by manasikara cetasika which is a universal cetasika and can arise with akusala cittas like when stealing. < < end quote pt: Manasikara is attention, so yet another way to confuse mindfulness with other cetasikas. > D: not clear to me .. > what is micca samadhi? The Cetasika Ekaggatta is stated in Abh. to be an ethically variable factor, common property to all classes of consciousness, i.e. the quality wrong is determined by the company of one of the 14 unwholesome mental factors , isn't it? pt: Miccha samadhi is the opposite of samma samadhi that you were mentioning. So then concentration which arises with akusala citta would be a contributing factor to miccha samadhi. What I'm saying is that as a meditator, I might usually think I'm experiencing mindfulness, whereas as a matter of fact, I'm experiencing wrong concentration. And this confusion happens because wrong concentration accompanies meditative experiences of "stopping of verbal thought", "intense non-bodily pleasure", "mental clarity", "deep peace", etc, all of which seem to resemble descriptions of samma samadhi in the texts. Best wishes pt #125249 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:13 am Subject: Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording epsteinrob Hi pt. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > It would probably have to do with conditional relations, which I don't know much about. Well you probably know more than me. :-) > My guess is that it is the root cetasikas that primarily determine whether citta is a/kusala, and then concentration, vicara, sati and the rest follow suit. I'm sure you are right about that. > ...I mean, the hardest step for a meditator is to admit the confusion between mindfulness and concentration. I think that is a good point, and one that I have had a little more clarity about from both dsg and my 'contemplation' of some of the anapanasati sutta stanzas. There needs to be a balance in the development of both sati and samatha. That's my view anyway. But seeing that they are different is very important. Even the way the breath is regarded is different if the focus is calm versus understanding. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #125250 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:51 pm Subject: Re: Question about Jhanacitta sarahprocter... Hi Staisha, Just wanted to say that I was glad to see you posting again after a very long break! I'd be interested to know how you found Nina's detailed reply and whether there was a particular reason for asking. Do you live in the States? I forget. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Staisha" wrote: > I have not wrote here in a long time, > and apologize if this is not written in correct formatting. > > Q: when there are jhanacitta, no matter for how long, there cannot be bhavanga- cittas in between? > > Why is this so? #125251 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:27 pm Subject: Re: ''Some Evidence Suggesting the Spurious Nature of Abhidhamma Philosophy'' sarahprocter... Dear Rob K & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > We were discussing about the eyedooor processes with Kuhun sujin a few weeks ago. And the topic came up about how amazing and uncontrollable it is. The actual moment of seeing arises at the eyedoor (located in the physical eye) but the remaining moments of citta in that process are occuring at the heart base, so far from the eye coor. And the the other mindoor processes occuring at the heart base, and repeated many many times before there is even perception, " this is a table" . And each moment needs many condtions to arise. A" miracle" was one of her words. ... S: Yes, the "miracle" of the coming together of the ayatanas at this moment. Without this miracle, there'd be no experiencing at all. ... > > Now of course i cant distniguish these different moments, but I am very confident in the truth of it and know. It is conditioning more understanding of anatta and as Sujin says" these aspects, although we might not see them directly, are accumulated in sankhara khandha and do help direct understanding to arise. ... S: Here she is referring to the accumulated wise considering about realities. It is the understanding and other wholesome mental factors which are accumulated in sankhara khandha conditioning the direct understanding of the reality appearing now. If it's not pariyatti understanding, but just thinking about various concepts and details, such as ideas about heart-base during by-pass surgery, exact location of eye-sense and so on, it just leads to more and more thinking and speculation as I see it. Do you remember when we raised a qu Nina had from her Vism & Tiika studies? It was about a detail relating to visible object #35947 KS: "It helps for thinking about words and concepts, but not understanding reality as it is. No matter what is said in the commentary, what appears, appears *now* according to the commentary. Now it (visible object) is seen, no matter if we think about the shape, colour or size - it's that which can be seen (known) in order to become detached from clinging or paying attention as before (as we're used to). Otherwise we're following words and concepts instead of understanding it. The only way to become detached is to understand reality appearing in order to understand there's no one in it. Otherwise there's only thinking about visible object all the time in a day." ... > > The idea of these processes occuring in the " brain" seems so caught up in cultural ideas and self to me. ... S: I don't remember anyone saying this. I think Ken H has repeatedly stressed it is exactly what he isn't saying. I think he's said many times that if there's an idea of dhammas situated in conventional ideas of things - whether they be brains, pumps, blood or anything else, it's missing the point, but I'll leave you both to pursue that one! I think there is a communication issue between the two of you. Metta Sarah ===== #125252 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:31 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. sarahprocter... Hi Ken H & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > Thanks for your message; it explained a point I was trying to make some time ago when I said satipatthana was "for mass murderers and snow sweepers alike." I attracted some criticism for that. What a pity I wasn't able to explain it the way you have here: > > ----- > > N: … She will answer that so long as one is not a sotaapanna there are conditions to kill or to be enslaved to alcohol. Then she will bring people back to the present moment: now you are not drinking, not killing, you are just thinking. Even thinking now is a conditioned naama, not "your" thinking. Or seeing, is there no seeing now, know it, understand it as only a naama. > ----- ... S: That was what I understood you to be saying....always back to this moment. Misunderstandings are easy. At least we all agree on this, I think! Metta Sarah ==== #125253 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:40 pm Subject: Re: Delisting announcement #12 sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, Phil & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > You mean not to discuss it? ... S: i didn't wish anyone to feel they needed to justify or explain any private comments that was all. I liked these comments Nina heard from K.Sujin on a recording and sent to Lukas recently - I think just along the lines that you and Howard were discussing: >When we listen to the Dhamma and there is yoniso manasikara, right attention, we see more and more the danger of even slight defilements. This is a condition for sati, to be aware of realities, aware of whatever appears now. She stressed the importance of kusala in daily life. Everybody has lots of self love. This can diminish by kusala. We should be able to forgive others, that is a way of daana, abhaya daana: the wish that everybody lives in safety, free from danger. Each moment in daily life there can be the practice of Dhamma, this is not just sitting alone. We can be more concerned for others. There can be mettaa, helping others. At the moment of kusala citta we are free from lobha, dosa and moha. If we do not understand this and prefer to only sit alone, in seclusion, we have not understood the practice of Dhamma. **** S: "Each moment in daily life there can be the practice of Dhamma..." There are tests all day, tests of whether there is kindness, help and understanding or whether lobha, dosa and moha win out again.... Metta Sarah ====== #125254 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Forgiving, was Delisting. nilovg Dear Sarah, Rob E, Phil & all, Op 28-jun-2012, om 9:40 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > "Each moment in daily life there can be the practice of > Dhamma..." > > There are tests all day, tests of whether there is kindness, help > and understanding or whether lobha, dosa and moha win out again.... ------ N: Yes always things happening that are beyond control. What a test! As to forgiving, I found this passage of pilgrimage so helpful about the perfections Bodhisattas are accumulating: <“They constantly arouse energy, having beings’ welfare and happiness at heart. When they have acquired heroic fortitude through supreme energy, they become patient with beings’ many kinds of faults....”> ----- Nina. #125255 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:19 pm Subject: Pilgrimage in India, Ch 3, 7. nilovg Dear friends, The Buddha took hardly any food and his body became completely emaciated. We read in the “Greater Discourse on the Lion’s Roar” (Middle Length Sayings I, 11) that the Buddha said to Såriputta: “Because I ate so little, all my limbs became like the knotted joints of withered creepers; because I ate so little, my buttocks became like a bullock’s hoof; because I ate so little, my protruding backbone became like a string of balls; because I ate so little, my gaunt ribs became like the crazy rafters of a tumble-down shed; because I ate so little, the pupils of my eyes appeared lying low and deep in their sockets as sparkles of water in a deep well appear lying low and deep; because I ate so little, my scalp became shrivelled and shrunk as a bitter white gourd cut before it is ripe becomes shrivelled and shrunk by a hot wind. If I, Såriputta, thought: ‘I will touch the skin of my belly’, it was my backbone that I took hold of. For, because I ate so little, the skin of my belly, Såriputta, came to be cleaving to my backbone. If I, Såriputta, thought: ‘I will obey the calls of nature’, I fell down on my face then and there, because I ate so little. If I, Såriputta, soothing my body, stroked my limbs with my hand, the hairs, rotted at the roots, fell away from my body as I stroked my limbs with my hand, because I ate so little. But I, Sariputta, even by this procedure, by this course, by this mortification, did not reach states of further-men or the excellent knowledge and insight befitting the ariyans....” The Bodhisatta found that such severe austerity that he had practised with “unsluggish energy” was not the way leading to enlightenment. He decided to take solid food. From the hands of the girl Sujåtå he received boiled rice and sour milk, near the river Nerañjarå. Afterwards he cast the golden dish upstream into the river and, full of his resolve “Today will I become a Buddha!”, he walked in the evening towards the Bodhi-tree (“Expositor” I, 34). He would attain enlightenment that very night. ------- Nina. #125256 From: Lukas Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:24 pm Subject: The characteristic of visible object? szmicio Dear friends, What is the characteristic of visible object? What is the characteristic of thinking? Best wishes Lukas #125257 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording upasaka_howard Hi, pt (and Dieter) - In a message dated 6/27/2012 11:11:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ptaus1@... writes: Hi Dieter, > D: there is no real mindfulness without concentration , by focus I mean to which object the attention is directed to (mental formation/sankhara khandha). pt: Not sure I follow. What is "real" mindfulness? I think concentration and attention arise with every citta, kusala or akusala, so I still don't see quite how is concentration crucial for arising of mindfulness, if that's what you are saying. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- HCW: There are many sorts of "concentration" discussed by the Buddha, and not just the cetasika arising with every citta that is discussed in the Abhidhamma. In fact, there is more than one sutta, pt, in which the Buddha teaches how concentration conditions mindfulness. One example is the following in which a concentration is *to be developed* and so is more than what is always present: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SN 35.99 PTS: _S iv 80_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sltp/SN_IV_utf8.html#pts.080) CDB ii 1181 Samadhi Sutta: Concentration translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu _© 1997–2012_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.099.than.html#F_termsOfUse\ ) "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns things as they actually are present. And what does he discern as it actually is present? "He discerns, as it actually is present, that 'The eye is inconstant'... 'Forms are inconstant'... 'Eye-consciousness is inconstant'... 'Eye-contact is inconstant'... 'Whatever arises in dependence on eye-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is inconstant.' "He discerns, as it actually is present, that 'The ear is inconstant'... 'The nose is inconstant'... 'The tongue is inconstant'... 'The body is inconstant"... "He discerns, as it actually is present, that 'The intellect is inconstant'... 'Ideas are inconstant'... 'Intellect-consciousness is inconstant'... 'Intellect-contact is inconstant'... 'Whatever arises in dependence on intellect-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is inconstant.' "So develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns things as they actually are present." _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Also, within AN 11.1 there is the following: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "And what is the purpose of concentration? What is its reward?" "Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward." "And what is the purpose of knowledge & vision of things as they actually are? What is its reward?" "Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward." "And what is the purpose of disenchantment? What is its reward?" "Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward." "And what is the purpose of dispassion? What is its reward?" "Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward. "Thus in this way, Ananda, skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward. "In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the consummation of arahantship." ==================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #125258 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] samaadhi. Was Out of our hands? nilovg Hi Howard, Op 28-jun-2012, om 14:25 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > There are many sorts of "concentration" discussed by the Buddha, and > not just the cetasika arising with every citta that is discussed in > the > Abhidhamma. In fact, there is more than one sutta, pt, in which the > Buddha > teaches how concentration conditions mindfulness. One example is > the following > in which a concentration is *to be developed* and so is more than > what is > always present: > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N: The commentary I checked in Thai and it is quite interesting. Samaadhi: the fact that citta has only one object. The Buddha saw someone who was declining from having (only) one object. When the citta has one object, the kammathaana (object of meditation) needs a wetnurse, therefore the Buddha preached this sutta. ----- N: The sutta indicates that one object: the eye, seeing, eyecontact etc. Kammathaana: not necessarily jhaana of samatha. It seems to indicate, also at other places, the objects of satipa.t.thaana. Also in this sutta these objects are mentioned. A wetnurse: the baby is very dependant on this. N: my own observation: I think we need the help of samaadhi so that there is one object at a time that is the object of vipassanaa. ------ Nina. #125259 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The characteristic of visible object? nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 28-jun-2012, om 11:24 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > What is the characteristic of visible object? What is the > characteristic of thinking? ------ N: Visible object is all that appears through the eyesense, it is that which is seen. It is ruupa, different from the experience of visible object. Visible object does not know anything, it does not know that it is experienced. It could not appear if there were no seeing. Thinking: this thinks of stories about persons or things. When we consider more seeing, hearing, tasting, etc. we can come to understand that thinking is quite different from the experience of sense objects. I heard from a Thai recording, taken in Rathbury, Alan (before: Ven. Dhammadharo, he spoke Thai very well) said: ****** Nina. #125260 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:48 pm Subject: Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording ptaus1 Hi Howard, > H: There are many sorts of "concentration" discussed by the Buddha, and > not just the cetasika arising with every citta that is discussed in the > Abhidhamma. In fact, there is more than one sutta, pt, in which the Buddha > teaches how concentration conditions mindfulness. One example is the following pt: I've read the excerpts twice, but for some reason I still don't quite see where it states or implies that concentration conditions mindfulness? > H: in which a concentration is *to be developed* and so is more than what is > always present pt: I'm not sure I'd agree entirely with such interpretation for a couple of reasons at least: 1. We probably agree that the suttas encourage development of kusala concentration, so not just any concentration. So in that sense, yes, kusala concentration is not always present and needs to be developed. Further, my main contention is really that what is being mixed up by meditators is wrong concentration and mindfulness. If it was right concentration and mindfulness, that wouldn't be so bad at all and would probably sort itself out at some point. But taking wrong concentration for mindfulness is the actual problem imo. 2. The Buddha encouraged development of all wholesome qualities including concentration, energy, perception, etc, in many suttas. Taking all those suttas together, can it be concluded that concentration "conditions" mindfulness? There's probably a conditional relation like conascent or something like that which says that concentration and mindfulness condition eachother by virtue of arising with the same citta. But the implication in Dieter's post (and in the minds of many meditators, including myself) seems to be that concentration is one of the main, if not the main factor, that makes mindfulness happen. But how important really is concentration for the arising of mindfulness? I can't say that it seems it is anywhere close to being the main condition for it. Would it come before the 3 roots for example? I guess we are really exploring conditional relations here. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll have time to read up on that any time soon, so perhaps these are just elementary misguided questions on my behalf. Best wishes pt #125261 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:57 am Subject: Re: Delisting announcement #12 epsteinrob Hi Sarah, and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > I liked these comments Nina heard from K.Sujin on a recording and sent to Lukas recently - I think just along the lines that you and Howard were discussing: > > > >When we listen to the Dhamma and there is yoniso manasikara, right > attention, we see more and more the danger of even slight > defilements. This is a condition for sati, to be aware of realities, > aware of whatever appears now. She stressed the importance of kusala > in daily life. Everybody has lots of self love. This can diminish by > kusala. We should be able to forgive others, that is a way of daana, > abhaya daana: the wish that everybody lives in safety, free from > danger. Each moment in daily life there can be the practice of > Dhamma, this is not just sitting alone. We can be more concerned for > others. There can be mettaa, helping others. At the moment of kusala > citta we are free from lobha, dosa and moha. If we do not understand > this and prefer to only sit alone, in seclusion, we have not > understood the practice of Dhamma. I'm really enjoying this discussion, and the quote above from K. Sujin is just wonderful - a great exposition of how kusala is actually helpful and can be seen to help others and reduce suffering when it is recognized. I like the way that K. Sujin can sometimes have the expansiveness to express the implications of kusala, and the practical effect it has. It also seems to support what I thought was such a good statement by Rob K. in our controversial current topic on dhammas and concepts, which I paraphrase: "We should expect that more kusala will result in less murder." In other words, there is a practical effect on our daily lives, even now while we are still caught in delusion. When kusala arises, things are better, even if it is just for a moment or a short period of time. > S: "Each moment in daily life there can be the practice of > Dhamma..." And again, when K. Sujin says that the practice of Dhamma is not just sitting alone, but helping others, that is a somewhat Mahayana view. There are many Theravadins that believe that enlightenment is completely a solo affair, an individual path, and I again enjoy K. Sujin's expansiveness [and metta] in what she said above. > There are tests all day, tests of whether there is kindness, help and understanding or whether lobha, dosa and moha win out again.... Good to see, and good to be aware of. Thanks, Sarah. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #125262 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:05 am Subject: Re: Problems in life. epsteinrob Hi Sarah and Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: Ken H.: > > Thanks for your message; it explained a point I was trying to make some time ago when I said satipatthana was "for mass murderers and snow sweepers alike." I attracted some criticism for that. What a pity I wasn't able to explain it the way you have here: > > > > ----- > > > N: … She will answer that so long as one is not a sotaapanna there are conditions to kill or to be enslaved to alcohol. Then she will bring people back to the present moment: now you are not drinking, not killing, you are just thinking. Even thinking now is a conditioned naama, not "your" thinking. Or seeing, is there no seeing now, know it, understand it as only a naama. > > ----- > ... > S: That was what I understood you to be saying....always back to this moment. Misunderstandings are easy. > > At least we all agree on this, I think! Whatever other issues there may be, I think it is a very good point which you and Ken H. have highlighted, that at a given moment even a so-called murderer may be having a kusala moment, or may be thinking about shopping for a Christmas present, or anything else. Our definitions and labels for people do not necessarily represent the reality that is happening now. This leaves a hopeful opening for the development of kusala for anyone. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #125263 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:15 am Subject: [dsg] Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > HCW: > There are many sorts of "concentration" discussed by the Buddha, and > not just the cetasika arising with every citta that is discussed in the > Abhidhamma. In fact, there is more than one sutta, pt, in which the Buddha > teaches how concentration conditions mindfulness. One example is the following > in which a concentration is *to be developed* and so is more than what is > always present: > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > SN 35.99 > PTS: _S iv 80_ > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sltp/SN_IV_utf8.html#pts.080) > CDB ii 1181 > Samadhi Sutta: Concentration > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.099.than.html#F_termsOfUse\ ) > "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns things as they > actually are present. And what does he discern as it actually is present? > "He discerns, as it actually is present, that 'The eye is inconstant'... > 'Forms are inconstant'... 'Eye-consciousness is inconstant'... 'Eye-contact > is inconstant'... 'Whatever arises in dependence on eye-contact, experienced > either as pleasure, as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is > inconstant.' > "He discerns, as it actually is present, that 'The ear is inconstant'... > 'The nose is inconstant'... 'The tongue is inconstant'... 'The body is > inconstant"... > "He discerns, as it actually is present, that 'The intellect is > inconstant'... 'Ideas are inconstant'... 'Intellect-consciousness is inconstant'... > 'Intellect-contact is inconstant'... 'Whatever arises in dependence on > intellect-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as > neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is inconstant.' > "So develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns things as > they actually are present." > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > Also, within AN 11.1 there is the following: > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > "And what is the purpose of concentration? What is its reward?" > "Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as > its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its > reward." > "And what is the purpose of knowledge & vision of things as they actually > are? What is its reward?" > "Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as > its purpose, disenchantment as its reward." > "And what is the purpose of disenchantment? What is its reward?" > "Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward." > "And what is the purpose of dispassion? What is its reward?" > "Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & > vision of release as its reward. > "Thus in this way, Ananda, skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as > their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from remorse has > joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, > rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its > reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. > Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. > Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, > knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & > vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, > disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, > dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as > its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward. > "In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the > consummation of arahantship." > ==================================== Wow, Howard, these are fantastic and important passages which clearly show the role of right concentration in bhavana, the development of understanding, rather than as an alternative path from the development of mindfulness as it is sometimes characterized. Great contribution to our ongoing discussion of this topic. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #125264 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording moellerdieter Hi pt, you wrote: D: there is no real mindfulness without concentration , by focus I mean to which object the attention is directed to (mental formation/sankhara khandha). pt: Not sure I follow. What is "real" mindfulness? I think concentration and attention arise with every citta, kusala or akusala, so I still don't see quite how is concentration crucial for arising of mindfulness, if that's what you are saying. D: We need to go into detail. Nyantiloka 's Buddhist Dictionary: a.. sati 'mindfulness', is one of the 5 spiritual faculties and powers (s. bala), one of the 7 factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga), and the 7th link of the 8-fold Path (magga), and is, in its widest sense, one of those mental factors inseparably associated with all karmically wholesome (kusala) and karma-produced lofty (sobhana) consciousness (Cf. Tab. II). - For the 4 foundations of mindfulness s. satipatthana. ' assumed mindfulness is the best English term for sati ( questioned , see the essay 'Mindfulness is not sati? ' http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/mindfulness-is-not-sati/ ) ( other sources to mention http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel121.html Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/mindfulnessdefined.html ) Wiki: Mindfulness refers to a psychological quality that involves: bringing one's complete attention to the present experience on a moment-to-moment basis,[1]or involves paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally,[1] or involves a kind of nonelaborative, nonjudgmental, present-centered awareness in which each thought, feeling, or sensation that arises in the attentional field is acknowledged and accepted as it is[2] unquote I like " bringing one's complete attention to the present experience on a moment-to-moment basis". Moment to Moment means to recognize what is going on , what is changing , what is arising , ceasing etc. This I call real mindfulness in distinction from our daily life 'low- key' attention to the all of senses , accompanied by mental hindrances . By 'bringing one's complete attention ' , I understand to concentrate the divided mental activity to a certain spotlight, focus on a single object and/or process and/or characteristic. > D: Mindfulness , satipatthana in daily life, means first of all paying attention to one's interaction with the All, that 'what is going on ' , assumed that the foundation has been laid (Maha Satipatthana Sutta). pt: Perhaps it might be useful to look at the differences between cetasikas of mindfulness, attention and concentration. I mean, from memory, the main function of mindfulness is remembering kusala, not paying attention. Attention pays attention, concentration concentrates, and mindfulness remembers kusala. Different functions, if function is the right technical term. That's how I remember it. Please see the 'Sati' section in the Useful Posts file. E.g. taking the very first message (38028) there by Htoo actually addresses some of the differences between these: > > quote - Htoo: Thieves may be mindful. But they when mindful are not developing sati cetasika. They may be mindful because they are attentive to what they should do not to be caught. This mindfulness is actually done by manasikara cetasika which is a universal cetasika and can arise with akusala cittas like when stealing. < < end quote pt: Manasikara is attention, so yet another way to confuse mindfulness with other cetasikas. D: yes , not so easy .. I prefer to use attention (manasikara) as a low level of sati , i.e. common mindfulness. The 'lesser mindfulness' is always present , so the ethic of the citta including manasasikara is determined by another cetasika , either a wholesome or unwholesome one. (Same with one-pointedness -ekaggata) . Hence Htoo 's simile of thief is only one side of the coin. > D: not clear to me .. > what is micca samadhi? The Cetasika Ekaggatta is stated in Abh. to be an ethically variable factor, common property to all classes of consciousness, i.e. the quality wrong is determined by the company of one of the 14 unwholesome mental factors , isn't it? pt: Miccha samadhi is the opposite of samma samadhi that you were mentioning. So then concentration which arises with akusala citta would be a contributing factor to miccha samadhi. What I'm saying is that as a meditator, I might usually think I'm experiencing mindfulness, whereas as a matter of fact, I'm experiencing wrong concentration. D: Buddh. Dict. samadhi "'concentration'; lit. 'the (mental) state of being firmly fixed' (sam+a+Ö ha), is the fixing of the mind on a single object. "One-pointedness of mind (cittass' ekaggata), Brother Visakha, this is called concentration" (M. 44). Concentration - though often very weak - is one of the 7 mental concomitants inseparably associated with all consciousness. Cf. nama, cetana.Right concentration (samma-samadhi), as the last link of the 8-fold Path (s. magga),is defined as the 4 meditative absorptions (jhana). In a wider sense, comprising also much weaker states of concentration, it is associated with all karmically wholesome (kusala) consciousness. Wrong concentration (miccha-samadhi)is concentration associated with all karmically unwholesome (akusala) consciousness. Wherever in the texts this term is not differentiated by 'right' or 'wrong', there 'right' concentration is meant ." I wonder whether we may find the term 'miccha-samadhi ' within the texts . What is wrong is the unwholesome cetasika accompanying the citta ,not samadhi. pt: And this confusion happens because wrong concentration accompanies meditative experiences of "stopping of verbal thought", "intense non-bodily pleasure", "mental clarity", "deep peace", etc, all of which seem to resemble descriptions of samma samadhi in the texts. D: not yet clear to me what you mean , pt with Metta Dieter #125265 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Kenh1 kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------ <. . .> > KH: ... There was no way in the world he could cause any sentient being any harm. > HCW: Would he not know that his actions would cause pain? ----- KH: I'm not sure. We know sotopanas are capable of dosa, don't we, and we know dosa can manifest in their minds as grief, for example. In reality it is just plain dosa, but in their minds it is grief for the loss of a concept. I doubt, however, if dosa could ever manifest in their minds as an intention to cause pain. I am sure it could seem that way to onlookers, and I suspect that was what the blind-monk sutta was about. I was suggesting to Robert E that any apparent killing by the monk would simply need to be reconsidered. Any story about his being responsible for the deaths would be at odds with ultimate reality, and so a more appropriate conventional story would have to be found. Perhaps it could have been about why the caterpillars were in the wrong place at the time. Ken H #125266 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Kenh1 epsteinrob Hi Ken H, and Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > I was suggesting to Robert E that any apparent killing by the monk would simply need to be reconsidered. Any story about his being responsible for the deaths would be at odds with ultimate reality, and so a more appropriate conventional story would have to be found. > > Perhaps it could have been about why the caterpillars were in the wrong place at the time. But I think that is what the story is about. The caterpillars were in the place that they were through their own sets of conditions, and the monk had to walk the path for whatever reason, due to whatever set of conditions impinged on him as well, and that is the coming together of foot and caterpillar, due to conditions. If you don't like "foot" or "caterpillar" you can substitute "the corresponding rupas," which you will probably also object to, since there "is no correspondence...?" An ariyan monk would not cause harm intentionally, even on the conventional level is my point. So the harm caused to the caterpillars could not be intentional. If the monk could see, he would have navigated around the caterpillars for sure, as all non-violent monks do. He would not have said "ha ha, another non-being bites the dust! I love it when those illusions make that delightful crunching sound!" He would go around them, illusory or not in ultimate terms. In fact that is the only import the blindness can have. If it was just about right view recognizing that there are no beings to be killed, even though they make a nice crunch when they are crushed [merely rupas,] then it would not have to be about a blind monk. A seeing monk could do the same thing, recognizing that there are no beings, and killing haphazardly without any harm to anyone in ultimate terms. But this is not how the enlightened behave, and there is a reason for that. Buddha did not go hunting, free to do so because there "are no beings to kill anyway," so why not shoot them? Those with right view who recognize the truth of anatta non-the-less always behave with harmlessness and respect in conventional activity. There is a reason for that. Perhaps we should discuss why they behave this way, even though there are 'no beings.' Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #125267 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:38 am Subject: What some says give no indication of view rjkjp1 TherE seems to be the idea on dsg that whatever anyone says can give no indication of right or wrong view. This makes it rather pointless to discuss Dhamma imho, i gues nothing more can be said Robert #125268 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:07 pm Subject: Re: What some says give no indication of view rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > TherE seems to be the idea on dsg that whatever anyone says can give no indication of right or wrong view. > This makes it rather pointless to discuss Dhamma imho, i gues nothing more can be said > Robert > Sorry, i am using ipad and deleted the whole statement i was replying to. Here is the original idea: >"" So I don't see any purpose in trying to identify quotes as being indicative of right or wrong view on the part of the speaker/writer.""" If what someone says/writes has no relationship to view Then I am curious why anyone would preference say the Tipitika over the bible. Or why do some members post hundreds of replies over years countering Howard or Robert E.s posts? After all what howard or robert say don't correlate. Maybe Nina when she explains in beautiful detail about anatta actually means there is a soul created by God? Or when she said she apprecited my post about heart base meant that the heart base was in the brain. Robert #125269 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:29 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 rjkjp1 >> KH: Therefore, I take her descriptions to be saying, for example, that kalapas of rupas are being conditioned to arise now – at this very moment - rather than to be saying that kalapas (as distinct from molecules) are created by chemical reactions in the stomach. > ++++++++== Dear Kenh > RK: this is another disingenuous post. Are you implying that I said kalapas are created by chemical reactions? Where do you get such an idea.. please try to cite what I write. --------------- KH: This is another case in point. When I say only dhammas exist, you say the heart and the body exist. You tell Pt the body is made of kalapas. (I can find that quote if you want me to.) In support of your claim you quote where Nina has written about nutrition giving rise to rupas. How am I to know how you interpret Nina's quote if you won't tell me? You just ask for my interpretation of it. I can only assume you see it as saying that food, when it goes into the stomach, it is converted into rupas. Don't blame me if my assumption is wrong; I am only doing my ingenuous best. Ken H Youare referring to my post from nina book below: that nina made. Now i know there prevailing view on dsg is that there is no realtionship between what someone writes and their actual views. But lets just for a exercise imagine that there might be . But anyway lets look at what Nina writes in her profound book on physical phenomena: "Rupas do not arise singly, they arise in units or groups. What we take for our body is composed of many groups or units, consisting each of different kinds of rupa, and the rupas in such a group arise together and fall away together. " "The unborn being in the womb, for example, needs the right temperature in order to grow. Throughout life the element of heat produces rupas. Nutrition is another factor which produces rupas. When food has been taken by a living being it is assimilated into the body and then nutrition can produce rupas. Some of the groups of rupa of our body are produced by kamma, some by citta, some by temperature and some by nutrition. The four factors which produce the rupas of our body support and consolidate each other and keep this shortlived body going.""" I know you agree with nina, but what we are trying to establish- looking at this quote is where what i say is different from her. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" > > What am I to make of that? I can only assume you are saying there is more to ultimate reality than "only dhammas." Instead of explaining exactly what that something more might be, however, you simply ask for my interpretations of the passages you quote. > > Then, when I interpret them to be saying only dhammas (not frogs) are conditioned by kamma, you accuse me of misrepresenting you. > > ---------------- > <. . .> > >> KH: Therefore, I take her > descriptions to be saying, for example, that kalapas of rupas are being > conditioned to arise now – at this very moment - rather than to be saying that > kalapas (as distinct from molecules) are created by chemical reactions in the > stomach. > > ++++++++== > > Dear Kenh > > > RK: this is another disingenuous post. Are you implying that I said kalapas are created by chemical reactions? Where do you get such an idea.. please try to cite what I write. > --------------- > > KH: This is another case in point. When I say only dhammas exist, you say the heart and the body exist. You tell Pt the body is made of kalapas. (I can find that quote if you want me to.) In support of your claim you quote where Nina has written about nutrition giving rise to rupas. > > How am I to know how you interpret Nina's quote if you won't tell me? You just ask for my interpretation of it. > > I can only assume you see it as saying that food, when it goes into the stomach, it is converted into rupas. Don't blame me if my assumption is wrong; I am only doing my ingenuous best. > > Ken H > #125270 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:45 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 rjkjp1 Hi Robert K, -------------- >> KH: My argument is with Robert K for his insistence that people - not just > dhammas) - are reborn, or that people - not just dhammas – perform kusala and > akusala actions."" > RK: this is an outright misrepresentation bordering on a lie. --------------- KH: I am glad to hear it was a misrepresentation, albeit an accidental one. When I say "there are only dhammas" you accuse me of mindless oversimplification, and you refer to passages in the Tipitaka where it is said (for example) that frogs are reborn. What am I to make of that? I can only assume you are saying there is more to ultimate reality than "only dhammas." Instead of explaining exactly what that something more might be, however, you simply ask for my interpretations of the passages you quote. Then, when I interpret them to be saying only dhammas (not frogs) are conditioned by kamma, you accuse me of misrepresenting you. ================================= ====== dear kenh I am in manila for a few days and have poor internet connection. I can find the actual sutta commentry from vimanavatthu about the frog . Lets instead discuss this recent post by nina below. She quotes from the commentaty to abhidhamma about the women who was driwned in a future life because she drowned a dog. Again am i saying anything different from nina or this commentary. Of course nina, Buddhaghosa and me all know that in reality there are only streams of evanescent namas and rupas arsing Nd passing away. What we call a dog is merely a designation for the elements right? ======== Nina:I do not think that it is "in one's own hands'" to try to compensate for evil kamma and to avoid unhappy results. There are other texts explaining that one cannot escape from vipaaka: Dhammapada vs 127: The Expositor (p. 361) illustrates this with examples. A woman drowned a dog, and she could not escape from drowning in midocean. Moggallana who was an arahat could not escape an unhappy result form a former evil deed. When I think of cause and result, I do not believe this is fatalism. It is the dukkha of being in the cycle, and only when there is the end to rebirth there is after the final passing away no more result ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > > >> KH: Therefore, I take her > descriptions to be saying, for example, that kalapas of rupas are being > conditioned to arise now – at this very moment - rather than to be saying that > kalapas (as distinct from molecules) are created by chemical reactions in the > stomach. > > ++++++++== > > Dear Kenh > > > RK: this is another disingenuous post. Are you implying that I said kalapas > are created by chemical reactions? Where do you get such an idea.. please try to > cite what I write. > --------------- > > KH: This is another case in point. When I say only dhammas exist, you say the > heart and the body exist. You tell Pt the body is made of kalapas. (I can find > that quote if you want me to.) In support of your claim you quote where Nina > has written about nutrition giving rise to rupas. > > How am I to know how you interpret Nina's quote if you won't tell me? You just > ask for my interpretation of it. > > I can only assume you see it as saying that food, when it goes into the > stomach, it is converted into rupas. Don't blame me if my assumption is wrong; I > am only doing my ingenuous best. > > Ken H > > > > Youare referring to my post from nina book below: that nina made. Now i know there prevailing view on dsg is that there is no realtionship between what someone writes and their actual views. But lets just for a exercise imagine that there might be . > > > But anyway lets look at what Nina writes in her profound book on physical > phenomena: > "Rupas do not arise singly, they arise in units or groups. What we take for our > body is composed of many groups or units, consisting each of different kinds of > rupa, and the rupas in such a group arise together and fall away together. " > > "The unborn being in the womb, for example, needs the right temperature in order > to grow. Throughout life the element of heat produces rupas. Nutrition is > another factor which produces rupas. When food has been taken by a living being > it is assimilated into the body and then nutrition can produce rupas. Some of > the groups of rupa of our body are produced by kamma, some by citta, some by > temperature and some by nutrition. The four factors which produce the rupas of > our body support and consolidate each other and keep this shortlived body going.""" > > I know you agree with nina, but what we are trying to establish- looking at this quote is where what i say is different from her. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" > > > > What am I to make of that? I can only assume you are saying there is more to ultimate reality than "only dhammas." Instead of explaining exactly what that something more might be, however, you simply ask for my interpretations of the passages you quote. > > > > Then, when I interpret them to be saying only dhammas (not frogs) are conditioned by kamma, you accuse me of misrepresenting you. > > > > ---------------- > > <. . .> > > >> KH: Therefore, I take her > > descriptions to be saying, for example, that kalapas of rupas are being > > conditioned to arise now – at this very moment - rather than to be saying that > > kalapas (as distinct from molecules) are created by chemical reactions in the > > stomach. > > > ++++++++== > > > > Dear Kenh > > > > > RK: this is another disingenuous post. Are you implying that I said kalapas are created by chemical reactions? Where do you get such an idea.. please try to cite what I write. > > --------------- > > > > KH: This is another case in point. When I say only dhammas exist, you say the heart and the body exist. You tell Pt the body is made of kalapas. (I can find that quote if you want me to.) In support of your claim you quote where Nina has written about nutrition giving rise to rupas. > > > > How am I to know how you interpret Nina's quote if you won't tell me? You just ask for my interpretation of it. > > > > I can only assume you see it as saying that food, when it goes into the stomach, it is converted into rupas. Don't blame me if my assumption is wrong; I am only doing my ingenuous best. > > > > Ken H > > > #125271 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:58 pm Subject: Re: ''Some Evidence Suggesting the Spurious Nature of Abhidhamma Philosophy'' rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Rob K & all, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > > > > The idea of these processes occuring in the " brain" seems so caught up in cultural ideas and self to me. > ... > S: I don't remember anyone saying this. I think Ken H has repeatedly stressed it is exactly what he isn't saying. I think he's said many times that if there's an idea of dhammas situated in conventional ideas of things - whether they be brains, pumps, blood or anything else, it's missing the point, but I'll leave you both to pursue that one! > > I think there is a communication issue between the two of you. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== Dear sarah Please again explain why the visuddhimagga said it was in the blood in the conventiona heart, was buddhaghose missing the point? Or am I the only one in all of buddhaland that doesn't get it? Why don't you ask kenh and clarify. He says it is. I wonder why he said that " looking back the commentries might say we got that one ( about the heart base ) wrong" or words to that effect? Robert #125272 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Broken heart? 7. The 'situation' - the story rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > ... > S: This is so important. It also applies to intellectual study about Abhidhamma topics, such as location of heart-base, killing and so on. If it's not kusala citta now, concerned with the understanding of present realities, it's not pariyatti, let alone satipatthana. > > Thinking about various stories, situations, even ideas about Dhamma, can take us away from the present moment if there's no awareness, no understanding now. Always "thinking of a situation that does not come now"! > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== Dear sarah This reference it seems to the discussion with kenh about killing and heart base seems rather silly. Everyday life is full of akusala thinking and that is quite normal. On a discussion list one of the main aims is clariying points of Dhamma. when i write anything in the more than 2000 posts i have written on dsg every single one was writeen with akusala cittas, billions each time. And maybe 2 or 3 out of thise thousand had a few processes with kusala( maybe not). Neverheless despite these purely akusala posts you have put many of mine : even that one about heart base ( pure akusala big time) in the useful posts. Why? Obviously because it helps to clarify a Dhamma point. Robert #125273 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:33 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. rjkjp1 Dear kenh Let us go back to basics. Now there is ken howard, right. But ken h is just a name to refer to the nama and rupa in that stream of elements that began 60 years ago and will end sometime within the next few decades. Is that point ok? The rupa khandha of what is known As kenh Is actually trillions of incredilby tiny kalapas each kalapa condtioned by one of the 4 factors. Each kalapa has the 4 elements plus at keast 4 other types of rupa including color. The kalapa has no space inside , it is indivisible and incredibly tiny. But each kalapa is seperated by space from its neighbours. Is this point ok? Each kalapa lasts for about a trillioth time as flash of lightining and then disappears forever. But while the condtioning factors such as citta or kamma or utu or ahara ( nutrition) are presenr, new Kalaps will arise. Because thos conditioning factors are often similar the new kalapas may look much the same as the old ones. But again they can never be exactly the same. Countless kalaps make up the physical eye and some of those are conditioned by citta: one can detect a glint of lust sometimes in someone, or icy cold, or the flare of rage. And that is just looking at the physical eyes. . Or somone might eat and eat and eat,. You se them after a year and they are fatter. This is because of ahara conditiong rupa. Is this ok? Because kalapas and the factors that condition them are unique we can tell who is who. a. Sujin and my friend Sukin have simllar names. Sometimes people mishear and think someone meant sujin when they said sukin. But when we are all sitting at the table at the foundation no one looking at sukin thinks it is ajarn sujin. Why is that? Well his large black, greying beard, and the turban on his head are a bit of a give away. How dies his beard relate to dhammas. Well the kalapas that make up a beard are condionted to arise. Theyare not condionted to arise in the stream if nama and rupa known as A. Sujin. So one of the 28 types of rupa is feminiity, another is masculinity: they show up so we can tell who is man amd who is women. But of course knowing masculinity directly is another matter, who can know that even it arirses right now. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > > ----- > > RK: correct me if i am wrong, but there are never any beings in the ultimate sense , > whether one knows it or not, right? > ----- > > KH: That's right. > > ---------- > > RK: So how can there ever be killing. > or if there is sometimes killing could you give an example of the actual killing > process. > ---------- > > >KH: When an akusala cetana cetasika experiences the concept of volitional killing that cetana may be called `killing,' but that's the only way killing can ultimately exist, isn't it? (I.e., as a single, momentary dhamma.) > > When you say "the killing process" I think you are referring to the formula, 'the presence of a being that can be killed, an intention to kill and the resulting death of that being.' > > As for an example of that formula in practice, I always find other people's examples hard to follow, and I don't think anyone has ever followed my own attempts at giving one. > > Obviously the formula relates to the conditions that must be present for the [above mentioned] akusala cetana cetasika to arise. The 'being to be killed' must refer to some external khandhas, and the actual intended killing refers (I think) to the akusala strength of the citta which has to be great enough to accomplish the purpose (i.e., to condition the external death citta). > > It's messy, but that's the best I can do at the moment. Corrections welcome. > > Ken H > #125274 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:53 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 kenhowardau Hi Robert K, ---- <. . .> > RK: I know you agree with nina, but what we are trying to establish- looking at this quote is where what i say is different from her. ---- KH: Why should we restrict ourselves to Nina's quotes? My contention is that any and every elucidation of the Dhamma uses concepts purely as conventional designations for paramattha dhammas. The texts talk about a crow, for example, being burnt to death by a necklace of burning straw, and they say that was the result of kamma from a past life when, as a farmer, the crow burnt a cow to death in a similar way. Those are all concepts and they are being used by the texts to describe dhammas – unwholesome kamma patha, the correspondingly unpleasant vipakka cittas they condition, and the correspondingly undesirable sense objects they experience. I feel sure you are insisting those concepts also have some relevance or validity in their own right. And that is where I think you part company with the texts. Ken H #125275 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:32 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 kenhowardau Hi Robert K, ---- <. . .> > RK: She quotes from the commentaty to abhidhamma about the women who was driwned in a future life because she drowned a dog. Again am i saying anything different from nina or this commentary. Of course nina, Buddhaghosa and me all know that in reality there are only streams of evanescent namas and rupas arsing Nd passing away. What we call a dog is merely a designation for the elements right? ------ KH: Right, but why do you also talk about streams? I have always noticed that meditators (people who believe in control over dhammas) like to talk about streams of dhammas. The rest of us (I would have thought} prefer to talk about the presently arisen citta, cetasikas and rupas – or just the present dhamma-arammana. What we call a dog is really a presently arisen dhamma, or group of presently arisen dhammas, isn't it? We use the notion of a stream to explain the conditioned nature, and the conditioning functions, of dhammas, but nothing more than that. There is no stream in ultimate reality. Ken H #125276 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:24 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. kenhowardau Hi Robert K, I hadn't read this when I wrote earlier about streams. And, by the way, I wasn't implying in that post that you were a meditator (professed controller of dhammas). :-) ------------- > RK: Now there is ken howard, right. But ken h is just a name to refer to the nama and rupa in that stream of elements that began 60 years ago and will end sometime within the next few decades. Is that point ok? -------------- KH: It isn't ok with me. Many dhammas have arisen since the latest birth citta and before the next death citta, but there is no stream of such. There is always just the one, present citta and it is never accompanied by previous or future cittas in a way that might be likened to a stream. Therefore I question your use of the term. ---------------------- > RK: The rupa khandha of what is known As kenh Is actually trillions of incredilby tiny kalapas each kalapa condtioned by one of the 4 factors. Each kalapa has the 4 elements plus at keast 4 other types of rupa including color. The kalapa has no space inside , it is indivisible and incredibly tiny. But each kalapa is seperated by space from its neighbours. Is this point ok? ---------------------- KH: I have never thought of a concept as having its own khandhas. Apart from that I am also unsure about a kalapa separated by space from its neighbours. `Neighbours' would imply to me that kalapas themselves arose in kalapas, and I have never heard of that. ------------------------------------ RK: Each kalapa lasts for about a trillioth time as flash of lightining and then disappears forever. But while the condtioning factors such as citta or kamma or utu or ahara ( nutrition) are presenr, new Kalaps will arise. Because thos conditioning factors are often similar the new kalapas may look much the same as the old ones. But again they can never be exactly the same. Countless kalaps make up the physical eye and some of those are conditioned by citta: one can detect a glint of lust sometimes in someone, or icy cold, or the flare of rage. And that is just looking at the physical eyes. . Or somone might eat and eat and eat,. You se them after a year and they are fatter. This is because of ahara conditiong rupa. Is this ok? ------------------ KH: It is quite foreign to me. It sounds like a conventional scientific explanation in which the terms `molecule' and `atom' have been replaced with the terms `kalapa' and `rupa.' ----- RK: Because kalapas and the factors that condition them are unique we can tell who is who. <. . .> ----- KH: I really don't see the point in it. Satipatthana is right understanding of a single conditioned dhamma as it arises in one of the six worlds. Anything else is just a concept (story). Ken H #125277 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:53 pm Subject: Re: Kenh1 kenhowardau Hi Robert E, -------- <. . .> > RE: But I think that is what the story is about. The caterpillars were in the place that they were through their own sets of conditions, and the monk had to walk the path for whatever reason, due to whatever set of conditions impinged on him as well, and that is the coming together of foot and caterpillar, due to conditions. If you don't like "foot" or "caterpillar" you can substitute "the corresponding rupas," which you will probably also object to, since there "is no correspondence...?" ---------- KH: That sounds fair enough, but I must admit I don't know what the story was about. As you have already noticed, I have only assumed the monk was an ariyan and incapable of killing. It is said in the Tipitika that the workings of kamma and vipaka in any particular situation are unknowable (acintana) to anyone other than a Buddha, so I think maybe the sutta was about that. ----------------- > RE: An ariyan monk would not cause harm intentionally, even on the conventional level is my point. ------------------ KH: Yes, and I have been arguing there is no real conventional level. ------------------------ > RE: So the harm caused to the caterpillars could not be intentional. ------------------------ KH: In ultimate truth and reality (which is what satipathana is all about) there are no caterpillars, and so there is no squashing of caterpillars, intentional or otherwise. ------------------------------- <. . .> > RE: Those with right view who recognize the truth of anatta non-the-less always behave with harmlessness and respect in conventional activity. There is a reason for that. Perhaps we should discuss why they behave this way, even though there are 'no beings.' -------------------------------- KH: When dosa has been destroyed to the extent that an intention to kill (and other breaches of the precepts) can no longer occur that is the end of the matter. That doesn't mean conventional stories of ariyans killing people cannot be told. There was a case, for example where people thought a certain arahant was speaking with anger (and therefore could not have been an arahant) but it turned out that he simply had a gruff sounding voice. So the story was not true (did not reflect ultimate reality): it couldn't have been. Ken H #125278 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:26 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > > ---- > <. . .> > > RK: I know you agree with nina, but what we are trying to establish- looking at this quote is where what i say is different from her. > ---- > > KH: Why should we restrict ourselves to Nina's quotes? My contention is that any and every elucidation of the Dhamma uses concepts purely as conventional designations for paramattha dhammas. > > The texts talk about a crow, for example, being burnt to death by a necklace of burning straw, and they say that was the result of kamma from a past life when, as a farmer, the crow burnt a cow to death in a similar way. > > Those are all concepts and they are being used by the texts to describe dhammas – unwholesome kamma patha, the correspondingly unpleasant vipakka cittas they condition, and the correspondingly undesirable sense objects they experience. > > I feel sure you are insisting those concepts also have some relevance or validity in their own right. And that is where I think you part company with the texts. > > Ken H Dear kenh If nina or sarah or pt or anyone else can quote anything I have written anytime and clearly show where my beliefs are at odds with the ancient texts I promise never to bring up any post of yours anytime. I will bow down to your understanding and profuse Y thank you as a true knight of the Dhamma . I will keep a notebook with all your quotes and restrict myself to quoting those to anyone who asks what true Dhamma is. You will become my hero and giude in Dhamma. I eargely await the inflow of posts now. I am open to change my entire 30 year outlook on Dhamma. I will close abhidhamma.org and allow true dhamma to rise( or transfer it to you). i just wait for these posts showing how wrong I am. Robert #125279 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:43 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Robert K, > > I hadn't read this when I wrote earlier about streams. And, by the way, I wasn't implying in that post that you were a meditator (professed controller of dhammas). :-) > > ------------- > > RK: Now there is ken howard, right. But ken h is just a name to refer to the nama and rupa in that stream of elements that began 60 years ago and will end sometime within the next few decades. Is that point ok? > -------------- > > KH: It isn't ok with me. Many dhammas have arisen since the latest birth citta and before the next death citta, but there is no stream of such. There is always just the one, present citta and it is never accompanied by previous or future cittas in a way that might be likened to a stream. Therefore I question your use of the term. > > ---------------------- Dear kenh If instead of stream I said 'succession of elements'. Or succession of namas and rupas" would that be ok? Each citta falls away instantly but a new one is condionted to arise by the one that just fell awY right. So there is a neverending succesion of namas and rupas arising right? Robert #125280 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] losing sarahprocter... Hi Larry, When you pop back to check, would you elaborate a little on what you've said here: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Larry Biddinger wrote: > When you are sad you are also standing or sitting or lying down, maybe > walking or running. ... S: What does this mean? In truth isn't it true that sadness is just a mental factor that arises and passes away? We say conventionally that we're in this or that posture, but isn't this just an idea we have? Really, just different elements arising and passing away. ... Whatever the posture, it isn't sad. Mary Carbone is > a group effort, not "just sad". This is the meaning of emptiness. ... Again, what does this mean, the "group effort". Do you mean that what we take for Mary or Larry are really just different mental states at such times? What do you understand by "emptiness"? Looking forward to more discussions with you. Metta Sarah ===== #125281 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Doubt after each moment. sarahprocter... Hi Vince, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > >> Ph: I don't understand doubt, or saddha either, in Dhamma terms > > > > I like this from the Maha-satipatthana Sutta: > > > > "When doubt or wavering of the mind is present in him, he knows .... ... S: I think you made a very good point in your posts that doubt is just another element, another reality which can only be known when it arises. If there were no doubt, no wrong view, no ignorance arising, they could never be known, they could never be eradicated. I appreciated your comments. Metta Sarah ===== #125282 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:44 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > Hi Robert K, > > I hadn't read this when I wrote earlier about streams. And, by the way, I wasn't implying in that post that you were a meditator (professed controller of dhammas). :-) > > ------------- > > RK: Now there is ken howard, right. But ken h is just a name to refer to the nama and rupa in that stream of elements that began 60 years ago and will end sometime within the next few decades. Is that point ok? > -------------- > > KH: It isn't ok with me. Many dhammas have arisen since the latest birth citta and before the next death citta, but there is no stream of such. There is always just the one, present citta and it is never accompanied by previous or future cittas in a way that might be likened to a stream. Therefore I question your use of the term. > > ---------------------- Dear kenh If instead of stream I said 'succession of elements'. Or succession of namas and rupas" would that be ok? Each citta falls away instantly but a new one is condionted to arise by the one that just fell awY right. So there is a neverending succesion of namas and rupas arising right? Robert #125283 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:55 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > ---------------------- > > RK: The rupa khandha of what is known As kenh Is actually trillions of incredilby > tiny kalapas each kalapa condtioned by one of the 4 factors. Each kalapa has the > 4 elements plus at keast 4 other types of rupa including color. > The kalapa has no space inside , it is indivisible and incredibly tiny. But each > kalapa is seperated by space from its neighbours. Is this point ok? > ---------------------- > > KH: I have never thought of a concept as having its own khandhas. > > Apart from that I am also unsure about a kalapa separated by space from its neighbours. `Neighbours' would imply to me that kalapas themselves arose in kalapas, and I have never heard of that. > ----------------- Dear kenh I do not know how you get the idea that kalapas arose in kalapas from what I said? Could you say more, I am lost. And again if sarah ir nina or jon, anyone wants to show how I have got it all wrong, i plead with them to speak out now. Robert #125284 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the householders sarahprocter... Dear Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: >> D:one question however is whether it doesn'tt concern the khandha breakdown ( of Dependent Origination ) i.e. temporarily at death or finally (nibbana). > ... >> S: it's all about now, realities now. The Buddha taught us to understand what is real at this very moment. This is the only way that DO, death and so on can be understood. > > Dnew: repeating : how about Buddhagosa's interpretation of D.O. concerning 3 lives ? .... S: When there is understanding of ignorance now, there is also understanding of past ignorance and future ignorance. When there is understanding of attachment now as anatta, there is understanding that past attachment is like this and future attachment will also be like this. So by understanding dhammas now, there is an understanding of momentary death. At the end of this lifetime, conditioned dhammas arising and passing away like now. ... > ... >> D The other is the consideration whether the Buddha distinguished at all between realities and concepts. > .... >? S: Heat is a reality which can be directly known now. 'Butter-jar" is a concept which can only ever be thought about. All the teachings are for understanding, testing out at this moment. > > Dnew: taking jar for khandha ,e.g. the. vinnana jar inlucing eye consciousness, ear consciousness etc. , the jar indeed is a concept, isn't it? ... S: Sorry, I don't follow you. If there is taking the jar for anything real, for something of any kind, it's atta view. Yes, the jar is just an idea, a concept, not any khandha at all. Metta Sarah ==== #125285 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What some says give no indication of view nilovg Dear Rob K and all, Op 29-jun-2012, om 4:07 heeft rjkjp1 het volgende geschreven: > Maybe Nina when she explains in beautiful detail about anatta > actually means there is a soul created by God? Or when she said she > apprecited my post about heart base meant that the heart base was > in the brain. ------ N: ;-)) Nina. #125286 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:48 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > > ---- > <. . .> > > RK: She quotes from the commentaty to abhidhamma about the women who was driwned in > a future life because she drowned a dog. Again am i saying anything different > from nina or this commentary. Of course nina, Buddhaghosa and me all know that > in reality there are only streams of evanescent namas and rupas arsing Nd > passing away. What we call a dog is merely a designation for the elements right? > ------ > > KH: Right, but why do you also talk about streams? I have always noticed that meditators (people who believe in control over dhammas) like to talk about streams of dhammas. The rest of us (I would have thought} prefer to talk about the presently arisen citta, cetasikas and rupas – or just the present dhamma-arammana. > > What we call a dog is really a presently arisen dhamma, or group of presently arisen dhammas, isn't it? We use the notion of a stream to explain the conditioned nature, and the conditioning functions, of dhammas, but nothing more than that. There is no stream in ultimate reality. > > Ken H Dear kenh Maybe we can talk about processes of cittas then http://www.abhidhamma.org/abhid15.html Nina: ". First there have to be bhavanga-cittas and they are : the atita-bhavanga (past bhavanga), the bhavanga-calana (vibrating bhavanga) and the bhavangupaccheda (arrest-bhavanga or last bhavanga-citta before the stream of bhavanga-cittas is arrested). -"" There is a succession of cittas, each conditioning the next right?somtimes bhavanga , sometimes minddoor processes, sometimes sense door processes. And this succession has been going on for each of us for uncountable aeons. Once I was with Khun Sujin and was adimring he countryside and how quaint the oexen were in barn nok Thailand. She said " they might have been your friend last life" It's true. Robert #125287 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:59 pm Subject: Pilgrimage in India, Ch 3, 8. nilovg Dear friends, We read in the “Gradual Sayings” (Book of the Twos, Ch I, § 5) that the Buddha spoke to the monks about the energy he exerted in order to attain enlightenment. He said that he did not “shrink back from the struggle”. We read that he said: “...’Gladly would I have my skin and sinews and bones wither and my body’s flesh and blood dry up, if only I may hold out until I win what may be won by human strength, by human energy, by human striving.’ By my earnest endeavour, monks, I won enlightenment, I won the unrivalled freedom from the bond.” The commentary to the Jåtakas (I, 17) mentions that the Buddha had spoken the words: “Gladly would I have my skin and sinews and bones wither...” under the Bodhi-tree. The Bodhisatta had put forth heroic energy and his resolution had never faltered to gain the truth for the happiness of other beings. He persevered until the end. When we read about struggle and energy we should not misunderstand these words. We are used to thinking that a self should make an effort for the attainment of the truth. But viriya or energy is not self; it is a type of nåma arising because of conditions. After his enlightenment the Buddha taught the energy of the Middle Way, sammå-våyama (right endeavour) of the eightfold Path. Sammå- våyama is accompanied by sammå-ditthi (right understanding) of the eightfold Path. When sammå-ditthi realizes a characteristic of nåma or rúpa appearing through one of the six doors, there is sammå-våyama already. There is no self who can make an effort to be mindful. The Buddha exhorted his disciples to apply energy and not to be indolent in order to encourage them to develop the eightfold Path. We too should not “shrink back from the struggle” and consider nåma and rúpa over and over again. Even when we are discouraged about the development of right understanding there should be mindfulness of the reality appearing at that moment: nåma or rúpa. Then there is right effort already, since it arises together with right understanding. The more mindfulness and understanding arise, the more phenomena will be known as they are: only nåma and rúpa arising because of conditions. ****** Nina. #125288 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:03 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken > > ------------------------------------ > RK: Each kalapa lasts for about a trillioth time as flash of lightining and then > disappears forever. But while the condtioning factors such as citta or kamma or > utu or ahara ( nutrition) are presenr, new Kalaps will arise. Because thos > conditioning factors are often similar the new kalapas may look much the same as > the old ones. But again they can never be exactly the same. Countless kalaps > make up the physical eye and some of those are conditioned by citta: one can > detect a glint of lust sometimes in someone, or icy cold, or the flare of rage. > And that is just looking at the physical eyes. . Or somone might eat and eat and > eat,. You se them after a year and they are fatter. This is because of ahara > conditiong rupa. Is this ok? > ------------------ > > KH: It is quite foreign to me. It sounds like a conventional scientific explanation in which the terms `molecule' and `atom' have been replaced with the terms `kalapa' and `rupa.' > > ----- Ok lets talk about the future. Nasruddin was sitting on the outside of a branch( i think i told this story before) sawing and sawing. A man came past and said that if he keeps cutting when the branch is sawn through Nasruddin will fall to the ground. Nasruddin kept sawing and to his amazement it happened just like that. He ran adter the man wanting to know how he knew the future. Here's my prediction: In response to this post of yours no one ( except the ever patient Rob E) will say anything. Or if they do there wil be these replies. 1. We cant say anything about view. 2. You and kenh mean the same thing( that's my favorite) 3. Only the prsent moment matters everything else is distraction. 4 you are missing the point if you are not aware now while talking about dogs drowning etc. For some semi- hiddem reason no one ( howard amd rob excepted) will ever come out to make a correction of your misconceptions. I must have made some heinous kamma to have to be the one to try to help. God I miss Scott. Robert #125289 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kenh3 upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Robert) - In a message dated 6/29/2012 1:40:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Robert K, ---- <. . .> > RK: She quotes from the commentaty to abhidhamma about the women who was driwned in a future life because she drowned a dog. Again am i saying anything different from nina or this commentary. Of course nina, Buddhaghosa and me all know that in reality there are only streams of evanescent namas and rupas arsing Nd passing away. What we call a dog is merely a designation for the elements right? ------ KH: Right, but why do you also talk about streams? --------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Why not? Do not namas and rupas interrelate in such a way, as a result of which, for example, you and Robert are distinguishable? If there are no streams of dhammas, what in the world was the Buddha saying when he spoke of beings being heir to their kamma? IMO, it is a mistake to avoid interrelationships among phenomena. ---------------------------------------------------------- I have always noticed that meditators ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: Uh, oh! Guilt by association, hmm? ------------------------------------------------------- (people who believe in control over dhammas) -------------------------------------------------------- HCW: There could hardly be a more false characterization. Teachers of meditation, except for some of those those teaching concentrative, absorptive samatha bhavana, typically caution people to NOT attempt to control dhammas, but to pay attention to what arises and just let it come and go as it will. ------------------------------------------------------------ like to talk about streams of dhammas. The rest of us (I would have thought} prefer to talk about the presently arisen citta, cetasikas and rupas – or just the present dhamma-arammana. What we call a dog is really a presently arisen dhamma, or group of presently arisen dhammas, isn't it? -------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Ken! Why do you speak of groups??? (Oh, yeah, they must be more "Dhamma-true" than "streams"!!!) --------------------------------------------------------------- We use the notion of a stream to explain the conditioned nature, and the conditioning functions, of dhammas, but nothing more than that. There is no stream in ultimate reality. ---------------------------------------------------------------- HCW: The commentaries and the Buddha in the suttas speak of conditioned dhammas as arising, changing while standing, and ceasing. Is that not a "stream"? The Buddha taught anicca as a basic property of all conditioned dhammas. Where is the anicca of a dhamma during it's alleged single moment of existence? How do you explain anicca with respect to a single moment? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H ==================================== With metta, Howard /"Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while remaining is discernible."These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned./ (From the Sankhata Sutta) #125290 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:53 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. sarahprocter... Hi Rob K & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > 3. Only the prsent moment matters everything else is distraction. > 4 you are missing the point if you are not aware now while talking about dogs drowning etc. > > For some semi- hiddem reason no one ( howard amd rob excepted) will ever come out to make a correction of your misconceptions. I must have made some heinous kamma to have to be the one to try to help. > God I miss Scott. .... S: ;-)) Metta Sarah ===== #125291 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:36 pm Subject: Re: Kenh1 jonoabb Hi Rob E (125217) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon, Rob K, Ken H, & all. > > RE: As I see it, the issue is whether there is any relation of what we refer to here as concepts to actual dhammas, or are all conventional perceptions and activities not only distorted but completely fictional with the status of pure hallucinations. > =============== J: I think the issue you raise here is something of a red herring :-)). Whether or not there is a 'relation' between dhammas and conventional concepts/objects is beside the point. The Buddha pointed out that there are things that are real in the ultimate sense and that are not known as they truly are, and he declared that only by the development of understanding of these things can there be enlightenment and escape from samsara. The development of that understanding does not involve identifying any particular relationship between dhammas and conventional objects and, as far as I'm aware, the Buddha never asserted such a relationship as part of the development of the path. I would say he was at pains to assert the importance of the development of understanding of dhammas. > =============== > RE: As I see it, real activities exist in the world, but they are really arising and falling away rupas, not as we ordinarily conceive of them, ... > =============== J: I'm wondering what is the basis for the notion that "real activities exist in the world". Is this from the texts, or is it your personal experience? You seem to be positing a 2-tier reality: (a) dhammas and (b) conventional objects/activities. > =============== > RE: If one willfully kills beings, one generates akusala kamma, even if one knows that ultimately there are no beings. The caterpillars are not real as such, but the cittas and rupas that are produced when 'caterpillars are trampled' are real, and they create suffering for the 'caterpillar's cittas' and kamma for he who does the trampling. The blind man was blameless because he was blind, and thus had no choice and no desire to kill with regard to the caterpillars. > =============== J: I'm not sure that 'having no choice' is a relevant consideration. It's purely a matter of whether or not there's the intention to take life. Jon #125292 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kenh3 moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: HCW: There could hardly be a more false characterization. Teachers of meditation, except for some of those those teaching concentrative, absorptive samatha bhavana, typically caution people to NOT attempt to control dhammas, but to pay attention to what arises and just let it come and go as it will. D: I am missing the mentioning of right effort (sammÄ-vÄyÄma): the effort of avoiding or overcoming evil and unwholesome things, and of developing and maintaining wholesome things with Metta Dieter #125293 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:25 pm Subject: Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: I agree with pt here. For thinking about a concept to be kusala (including "turning it around, probing it, in order to understand what it represents"), there must probably be some level of understanding > > RE: I think I would agree with that... Although it would seem to me that understanding would develop through such 'probing,' etc., as long as it was kusala. > > > J: ...And of course the object must be one that can usefully be reflected on. What kind of objects would you see as being 'important objects' in this context? > > RE: Well, it's not like I'm an expert at listing kusala objects of contemplation. I would be thinking of any sort of legitimate Dhamma concept or the contemplation of how dhammas behave or their characteristics. That sort of thing, that has the potential to develop pariyatti and develop the path. > =============== J: If we're talking about the contemplation of a conceptual object, then we're talking about samatha bhavana (not vipassana bhavana), right? There are a limited number of objects the contemplation of which support the development of samatha to a high degree, and these objects are specified in the texts (suttas and Vism). They include, for example: certain kasinas; the 'divine abidings' of metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha; the breath; a number of recollections (death, the Buddha, the Dhamma). Contemplation of these objects can only be kusala if there is the knowledge of what is to be contemplated/recollected about the object and why (these kinds of details are found in the Vism). Whereas the idea of 'turning the object around, probing it, in order to understand what it represents' seems to imply a quite different approach (no mention of this kind of thing in Vism, for example). It seems to be more *concentration on* than *contemplation of*. Jon #125294 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:57 pm Subject: Re: What some says give no indication of view jonoabb Hi RobK --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > TherE seems to be the idea on dsg that whatever anyone says can give no indication of right or wrong view. >=============== J: I think you're talking about me :-)) I was referring to writings/remarks by 3rd parties (i.e., persons who are not participants in the discussion) who are writing/speaking in the context of a subject in which they had an interest as a scientist or academic. A person may express a view or belief in that context that s/he would not be expressed if speaking at a purely personal level. >=============== > RE: This makes it rather pointless to discuss Dhamma imho, i gues nothing more can be said >=============== J: Discussing Dhamma is fine; it's what we're all here for. I suppose we each have our own ways of doing that :-)) Jon #125295 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kenh3 upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 6/29/2012 7:42:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote: HCW: There could hardly be a more false characterization. Teachers of meditation, except for some of those those teaching concentrative, absorptive samatha bhavana, typically caution people to NOT attempt to control dhammas, but to pay attention to what arises and just let it come and go as it will. D: I am missing the mentioning of right effort (sammÄ-vÄyÄma): the effort of avoiding or overcoming evil and unwholesome things, and of developing and maintaining wholesome things ------------------------------------------------------------ HCW: You are correct about that. But during meditation per se, the typical approach is to see clearly but calmly what arises, and that will already serve to not cling to what is seen as unwholesome and to appreciate what is seen to be wholesome. The meditative approach is a subtle middle-way one, unforced. There are, of course, times at which one is *overcome* by clinging or aversion so strong that only a forceful tearing oneself away will work, but far more often, subtlety wins the moment. ------------------------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter ============================= With metta, Howard The Middle Way: Crossing the Flood /"How, Lord, did you cross the flood (of samsara)?" "Without tarrying, friend, and without struggling did I cross the flood." "But how could you do so, O Lord?" "When tarrying, friend, I sank, and when struggling I was swept away. So, friend, it is by not tarrying and not struggling that I have crossed the flood."/ (From the Ogha-tarana Sutta, SN 1.1) #125296 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kenh3 moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: 'You are correct about that. But during meditation per se, the typical approach is to see clearly but calmly what arises, and that will already serve to not cling to what is seen as unwholesome and to appreciate what is seen to be wholesome. The meditative approach is a subtle middle-way one, unforced. There are, of course, times at which one is *overcome* by clinging or aversion so strong that only a forceful tearing oneself away will work, but far more often, subtlety wins the moment.' D: I know what you mean and I agree in particular when the point is to observe the arising and ceasing of phenomena/dhammas . However- and I believe that is in line with your thinking - the mind goes easily astray when the base , especially the attention to the breathing , is lost ( which may be different for the advanced practise). My concern is the 'no-control at all' view , favored by some of our friends.. ;-) with Metta Dieter #125297 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kenh3 upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 6/29/2012 8:56:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote: 'You are correct about that. But during meditation per se, the typical approach is to see clearly but calmly what arises, and that will already serve to not cling to what is seen as unwholesome and to appreciate what is seen to be wholesome. The meditative approach is a subtle middle-way one, unforced. There are, of course, times at which one is *overcome* by clinging or aversion so strong that only a forceful tearing oneself away will work, but far more often, subtlety wins the moment.' D: I know what you mean and I agree in particular when the point is to observe the arising and ceasing of phenomena/dhammas . However- and I believe that is in line with your thinking - the mind goes easily astray when the base , especially the attention to the breathing , is lost ( which may be different for the advanced practise). ---------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, and particularly at the start of a meditation "session", some effort at staying focused on the "anchor" will help cultivate an initial calm. ------------------------------------------------------- My concern is the 'no-control at all' view , favored by some of our friends.. ;-) ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: I agree with you. if 'control' is taken to refer to volitional influence. No-control in that sense runs counter to much of what the Buddha urged, IMO. (It's a different story if 'control' means "determining" and also if it presumes a controller.) -------------------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #125298 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:56 am Subject: Re: kenh3 kenhowardau Hi Robert K, --------- > RK: There is a succession of cittas, each conditioning the next right?somtimes bhavanga , sometimes minddoor processes, sometimes sense door processes. And this succession has been going on for each of us for uncountable aeons. ---------- KH: It hasn't been going on for us or for anyone else. When the texts define the anatta characteristic of a dhamma don't they they say within or without that dhamma there is neither a self "nor anything pertaining to a self"? If I were to say a succession of cittas had been going on "for me" wouldn't I be implying that I, "me" (the self) pertained to those dhammas? If your answer is no, and you say that is not the meaning of "pertaining to" in that context, please explain how else I should understand it. ----------- > RK: Once I was with Khun Sujin and was adimring he countryside and how quaint the oexen were in barn nok Thailand. She said " they might have been your friend last life" It's true. ------------ KH: I wouldn't say it was true or untrue; I would say K Sujin was talking about metta. Being a Dhamma teacher K Sujin naturally uses satipatthana when describing metta, but she was not saying the conditioned dhammas of the past were in any *real* way you (yourself) or pertaining to you (your friends). Ken H #125299 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:06 am Subject: Re: kenh3 rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > > --------- > > RK: There is a succession of cittas, each conditioning the next right?somtimes bhavanga , sometimes minddoor processes, sometimes sense door processes. And this succession has been going on for each of us for uncountable aeons. > ---------- > > KH: It hasn't been going on for us or for anyone else. > > When the texts define the anatta characteristic of a dhamma don't they they say within or without that dhamma there is neither a self "nor anything pertaining to a self"? > > If I were to say a succession of cittas had been going on "for me" wouldn't I be implying that I, "me" (the self) pertained to those dhammas? > > If your answer is no, and you say that is not the meaning of "pertaining to" in that context, please explain how else I should understand it. > > ----------- Dear kenh, Seriously do u think I meant there was a self there. If I had said : > > RK: There is a succession of cittas, each conditioning the next right?somtimes bhavanga , sometimes minddoor processes, sometimes sense door processes. And this succession has been going on for for uncountable aeons. " Is that now acceptable? Why do you not want to use any conventional language to explain Dhamma. Robert #125300 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:23 am Subject: Re: What some says give no indication of view rjkjp1 Sory jon I took that quote out of a conversation you were having with Roberte and didnt see the whole context. Have now looked. The scientist i cited and that your comment pertains to, Richard Dawkins is famous for his views on this matter. I have read most of his books and watched interviews with him. If he doesnt really believe what he writes he is a damn good actor. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi RobK > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > TherE seems to be the idea on dsg that whatever anyone says can give no indication of right or wrong view. > >=============== > > J: I think you're talking about me :-)) > > I was referring to writings/remarks by 3rd parties (i.e., persons who are not participants in the discussion) who are writing/speaking in the context of a subject in which they had an interest as a scientist or academic. > > A person may express a view or belief in that context that s/he would not be expressed if speaking at a purely personal level. > > >=============== > > RE: This makes it rather pointless to discuss Dhamma imho, i gues nothing more can be said > >=============== > > J: Discussing Dhamma is fine; it's what we're all here for. I suppose we each have our own ways of doing that :-)) > > Jon > #125301 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:03 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 kenhowardau Hi Howard, ---- <. . .> >> KH: … but why do you also talk about streams? > HCW: Why not? Do not namas and rupas interrelate in such a way, as a result of which, for example, you and Robert are distinguishable? If there are no streams of dhammas, what in the world was the Buddha saying when he spoke of beings being heir to their kamma? IMO, it is a mistake to avoid interrelationships among phenomena. ----- KH: Each dhamma is conditioned by the dhammas that went before it, and that makes citta an heir in an ultimately real sense. But ultimate reality is not like imaginary reality, and being an heir is nothing to get excited about. Ultimately, being an heir is pure dukkha. And that's the whole point of the Dhamma, isn't it? Rather than promote clinging it creates aversion, dispassion and renunciation - leading to nibbana. -------------- >> KH: I have always noticed that meditators > HCW: Uh, oh! Guilt by association, hmm? --------------- KH: :-) I realised that might sound impolite towards the pro-meditation members of DSG, but too late, I had already posted it! ----- <. . .> >> KH: (people who believe in control over dhammas) > HCW: There could hardly be a more false characterization. Teachers of meditation, except for some of those those teaching concentrative, absorptive samatha bhavana, typically caution people to NOT attempt to control dhammas, but to pay attention to what arises and just let it come and go as it will. ------ KH: As you know, the no-control members of DSG see any conventional form of samatha bhavana or vipassana bhavana as being lobha-driven and dependent on wrong view. That will never change. :-) ------------ <. . .> >> KH: What we call a dog is really a presently arisen dhamma, or group of presently arisen dhammas, isn't it? HCW: Ken! Why do you speak of groups??? (Oh, yeah, they must be more "Dhamma-true" than "streams"!!!) ------------- KH: The ultimately real universe is a group. It is a group of presently arisen dhammas (one citta, some cetasikas and rupas). You can't get more real than that. ----------------------- <. . .> > HCW: The commentaries and the Buddha in the suttas speak of conditioned dhammas as arising, changing while standing, and ceasing. Is that not a "stream"? ----------------------- KH: That sort of stream would be different from the one you and Robert K have been talking about wouildn't it? And in any case I don't think a dhamma could be called a stream of sub-dhammas, or anything like that. There might be three submoments to every moment, but it there is just the one dhamma that exists throughout them. ----------------- > HCW: The Buddha taught anicca as a basic property of all conditioned dhammas. Where is the anicca of a dhamma during it's alleged single moment of existence? How do you explain anicca with respect to a single moment? ------------------ KH: Anicca is an inherent property of each and every momentarily-existent dhamma. I don't see a problem in that; I don't see how it necessarily needs further explanation. Ken H #125302 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 6:39 pm Subject: Re: losing sarahprocter... Hi Mary, I'd like to add a brief reply to these comments of yours as well: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "marycarbone153" wrote: > > > I am mostly calm and happy until I feel I must have a close relationship with other family members. I feel there are strong control issues and I start feeling hurt and unable to converse with them for fear I will hurt their feelings. When this happens I find myself feeling like a hungry ghost. I miss my happiness. .... S: We have a lot of attachment, a lot of expectations when it comes to family members and for they do too. The "strong control issues" are indicative of this attachment. Lots of thinking, lots of hoping, lots of sadness, resentment and dismay as a result of the attachment and expectation. In brief, lots and lots of attachment to oneself and one's feelings. When there is metta, friendliness, kindness, care without clinging, without expectation, there's no grief. Of course, there are bound to be all kinds of mental states, but when we begin to see (Or I might say, when 'right understanding' begins to see), what the real cause of the problems are, i.e. the attachment, gradually there can be the development of detachment, metta and understanding - gradually. This is the way that there will be less sadness, less hurt and less concern about one's own happiness at such times. ... >We, my family suffers from mental illness such as depression, ocd, and holding on to hurts, lacking the ability to move forward. Just went through a visit and I am feeling sad and abused like a hungry ghost. I want my happiness back and would like to be strong enough to protect it and still protect myself and my family from pain. .... S: We think about a lot of stories concerning our family and close friends. Usually, there's very little awareness, very little understanding. The way to help yourself and your family is through the development of awareness of present realities. For example, now there is seeing, there is thinking. The ideas about your family, their mental illness, feeling like a hungry ghost and so on, are just the stories conjured up by the thinking now. When there is awareness, it's apparent that there is no suffering family, no problems of any kind. "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox." Dhp 1 "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow. " Dhp 2 I'd be glad to discuss these comments and your feedback further. Metta Sarah ===== #125303 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:07 pm Subject: Re: What some says give no indication of view jonoabb Hi RobK --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Sory jon > I took that quote out of a conversation you were having with Roberte and didnt see the whole context. Have now looked. > > The scientist i cited and that your comment pertains to, Richard Dawkins is famous for his views on this matter. I have read most of his books and watched interviews with him. If he doesnt really believe what he writes he is a damn good actor. > =============== J: I accept what you say. Nonetheless, I think there's a difference between (a) a belief arrived at by, say, intellectual reasoning or academic study and (b) a held view of the kind that constitutes 'ditthi' for the purposes of the teachings. The former is a belief in a relatively superficial sense, while the latter is a matter of (possibly mostly latent) accumulated tendencies. The former may be nothing more than a conclusion based on the available (scientific) evidence for 2 competing theories, while the latter is the momentary arising of long-accumulated tendencies. As an illustration of the difference, we've all heard stories of the person who has proclaimed a certain belief during his/her lifetime but, when death is almost upon him/her, abandons that belief and instead acts exactly as would a person who holds a belief that he/she had previously denied. So I think there's limited value in talking about whether a person who is speaking or writing in another context holds a particular kind of wrong view. Indeed, only a person who has a level of understanding of dhammas can truly know what their own views in fact are. Jon #125304 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] samaadhi. Was Out of our hands? sarahprocter... Dear Howard, Nina & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: >>H: One example is > > the following > > in which a concentration is *to be developed* and so is more than > > what is > > always present: > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > N: The commentary I checked in Thai and it is quite interesting. > Samaadhi: the fact that citta has only one object. The Buddha saw > someone who was declining from having (only) one object. When the > citta has one object, the kammathaana (object of meditation) needs a > wetnurse, therefore the Buddha preached this sutta. > ----- > N: The sutta indicates that one object: the eye, seeing, eyecontact etc. > Kammathaana: not necessarily jhaana of samatha. It seems to indicate, > also at other places, the objects of satipa.t.thaana. Also in this > sutta these objects are mentioned. > A wetnurse: the baby is very dependant on this. > N: my own observation: I think we need the help of samaadhi so that > there is one object at a time that is the object of vipassanaa. .... S: I also thought of another "Samadhi Sutta". Here's a note Han posted before on the role of concentration in this sutta indicating how samadhi and vipassana panna have to develop together. They are yoked together and the characteristic of (right) concentration becomes apparent: "Here also, in AN IV.41 Samaadhi Bhaavanaa Sutta which I had quoted, towards the later part of the sutta, the Buddha said: Bhikkhu Bodhi's Notes on this paragraph: " .... Metta Sarah ==== #125305 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm Subject: Re: Kenh1 jonoabb Hi Rob E (125247) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: As I think you'll agree, there is a difference between (a) a view actually held (by a person) and (b) a statement made (by a person) that appears to reflect a particular view. > > > > Statements made do not necessarily reflect views actually held. > > RE: I don't get this. If someone sincerely makes a statement of belief, that does reflect their view, doesn't it? > =============== J: In case it wasn't apparent from the context, my comments were in relation to attributing views to a 3rd party who was speaking/writing as, for example, the author of a book on a scientific subject (and so not in terms of his/her understanding of the Dhamma). I don't believe it's possible to know the persons (deeply) held views/convictions from just that 'evidence'. > =============== > J: For example, a scientist who holds the views of a Christian may, having conducted scientific research, put forward 'evidence' that supports or confirms the evolutionist view (a view he does not share). > > RE: I doubt a scientist would put forth evidence that he thought was incorrect. He may think that science and religion do not intersect and reserve his views within each apart from the other, but that is not to say that he does not hold both views, one in the realm of concrete reality, and the other in the realm of spiritual matters. > =============== J: Yes, that is exactly the point I was making. He may, speaking as a scientist, say something that he would not say when speaking of his held beliefs. But a person reading his book may, not appreciating the distinction we are making, incorrectly attribute a held belief to him. Jon #125306 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:11 pm Subject: Re: Kenh1 jonoabb Hi Rob E (125234) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon, Rob K and Ken H. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > [J:] PS It seems to me that the point under discussion between you and KenH is this: When KenH/RobK says that a person who says such and such does/does not have right view, does this indicate right/wrong view on the part of KenH/RobK? > > > For reasons mentioned above, I doubt that the discussion of such an issue will lead anywhere useful. > > RE: I may be missing something, but I don't think that's the issue at stake here. I think the issue, which is indeed the subject of Rob K.'s [and mine if I understand him correctly] and Ken H.'s views, which is: > > Do conventional beings and actions reference the dhammas that are actually arising at the time, although somewhat inaccurately, or are conventional beings and actions a complete fantasy with no relation to dhammas at all. > =============== J: You may be right. I'll leave it to RobK and KenH to let us know which of the summaries of the issue they prefer (if either :-)). Jon #125307 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 10:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording ptaus1 Hi Dieter, > D: We need to go into detail. > > Nyantiloka 's Buddhist Dictionary: Thanks for the quotes. I hope I'll have a bit of time soon to try to chase up a few quotes from abhidhamma on sati, sanna, attention, miccha-samadhi, etc. Initially, I relied on definitions of these terms by Thanissaro, Wiki, Buddhist dictionary etc, as they were the most accessible at the time. But finding the abhidhamma definitions was a sort of an eye-opener because they were really precise and sort of surgically dry, thus giving a little less fuel to my imaginative mind to create stories about them to justify my experiences. Best wishes pt #125308 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] samaadhi. Was: Out of our hands? nilovg Dear Sarah and Howard, Op 30-jun-2012, om 11:01 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > Sarah, very good the sutta you refer to and B.B.'s note: meditation directed to the rise and fall of the five > aggregates. Perception of rise and fall brings to > light the characteristic of impermanence, and on the > basis of this the meditator discerns that whatever is > impermanent is suffering and non-self. ------- Returning to the Samaadhisutta: > > > N: The commentary I checked in Thai and it is quite interesting. > > Samaadhi: the fact that citta has only one object. The Buddha saw > > someone who was declining from having (only) one object. When the > > citta has one object, the kammathaana (object of meditation) needs a > > wetnurse, therefore the Buddha preached this sutta. > > ----- > As to wetnurse, the Pali "phaati" is increase, success, advantage, profit, not wetnurse. I asked advice on Jim's Palistudy list, and Ven. Bodhi answered me that this is a confusion with a similar word in Thai. Thus, samaadhi makes the kammathaana succesful. Anyway, we need the help of samaadhi. ------ > > N: The sutta indicates that one object: the eye, seeing, > eyecontact etc. > Now it seems that there are several objects at the same time: it seems we see and hear or see and define what we see at the same time. When there is right awareness, right understanding and right concentration, only one object presents itself, no intrusion of any other object. When visible object presents itself, there is only that object, no person in the visible object. Samaadhisutta is wonderful and reminds us of the present object. I am glad you made us pay attention to it. Nina. > > #125309 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:13 pm Subject: Pilgrimage in India, Ch 4, 1. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 4. The Buddha’s Perfections. The Buddha, as a Bodhisatta, endured many lives in order to become a Sammåsambuddha. Had he not made the resolve to become a Buddha he would not have needed to accumulate all the perfections necessary for Buddhahood and he could have attained enlightenment sooner. It was out of compassion that he endured so many lives. When we were on our pilgrimage in India, we also visited the Jeta Grove, the park that Anåthapindika had presented to the Buddha. The Buddha stayed in this Grove for twentyfive rainy seasons. When we were walking around in the Jeta Grove our friend Khun Kesanee said to me: ”He suffered so much for us.” At that moment I did not grasp these words very well. It seemed to me that a Buddha who suffers for other people is like a saviour who could redeem them through his suffering. This is an idea taught in some religions, but strange to the Buddhist teachings. However, now I understad better the meaning of my friend’s words. He endured many lives also for our sake in order to become a Buddha. Through the teachings we come to know the Buddha who is endowed with all the perfections necessary to attain Buddhahood. We come to know him as someone who preached about generosity, about síla (morality), loving kindness, energy, forbearance and the cultivation of all other kinds of wholesomeness. We come to know the Buddha as someone who practised what he preached. We learn about his teaching of the development of wisdom through mindfulness of nåma and rúpa in our daily life. When we practise what the Buddha taught and we are mindful of the realities appearing through the six doors we begin to have some understanding of the Buddha’s wisdom. His wisdom can even today change our life. Without the Buddha’s teachings we would be unable to be mindful of realities, we could not have right understanding of our life. It is evident that the Buddha’s perfections must have had their appropriate conditions. The Buddha could not have attained such wisdom and such purity of virtue immediately, they must have been cultivated for an endlessly long time. Only the right cause can bring about such result. Thus we come to understand that out of compassion for us he endured innumerable lives in order to accumulate the perfections that would make him foremost in wisdom and in all excellent qualities. ***** Nina. #125310 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:11 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 ptaus1 Hi RobK, > If nina or sarah or pt or anyone else can quote anything I have written anytime and clearly show where my beliefs are at odds with the ancient texts Better please leave me out of this. If you remember, before when I would question your beliefs, you'd usually get upset, sarcastic, threaten to leave dsg and declare all discussion useless. So I now prefer not to question your beliefs, but just try and understand what you are trying to say on a topic, and leave it at that. Sure, that doesn't give you the sort of feedback you're requesting above, but at least there are no hurt feelings. Best wishes pt #125311 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Life is a real test. was:Delisting announcement nilovg Dear Sarah and Rob E, Rob, I appreciate so much your reactions to my quote of Kh Sujin about kusala. Your writing about it reminds me again and again. Op 28-jun-2012, om 16:57 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > She stressed the importance of kusala > > in daily life. Everybody has lots of self love. This can diminish by > > kusala. ....We can be more concerned for > > others. There can be mettaa, helping others. At the moment of kusala > > citta we are free from lobha, dosa and moha. If we do not understand > > this and prefer to only sit alone, in seclusion, we have not > > understood the practice of Dhamma. > > I'm really enjoying this discussion, and the quote above from K. > Sujin is just wonderful - a great exposition of how kusala is > actually helpful and can be seen to help others and reduce > suffering when it is recognized. I like the way that K. Sujin can > sometimes have the expansiveness to express the implications of > kusala, and the practical effect it has. > > Sarah: "Each moment in daily life there can be the practice of > > Dhamma..." > ------ N: You can also find such reminders in her book about the perfections. All kinds of kusala through body, speech and mind are assisting the development of right understanding. Sarah gave a lovely reminder to Lodewijk after a severe test I want to share. Kh Sujin has plans to come to Europe and Lodewijk wanted to do his utmost to have her and several friends here with us in the Hague. I cautioned him since his health is fragile but he was very determined. He had a beautiful plan with lots of Dhamma talk in our home and luncheons. I became already excited seeing Kh Sujin and all friends, but I also realized that this is lobha! Then he got sick and felt that he had to cancel it, rather a shock. Sarah wrote: < She'll be most understanding. She'd also remind us to just understand the dhammas now - no regrets! Anything can happen anytime, but it's all still just seeing, hearing, thinking and so on...> Sarah, we discussed this. Good to be reminded that we never know conditions that make certain things happen. In the ultimate sense there are just dhammas, seeing, hearing, thinking about lovely dreams. Regrets are useless, best to have more understanding of any reality now. ------- Nina. #125312 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 1, 2012 1:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Life is a real test. was:Delisting announcement upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Sarah & Robert E) - In a message dated 6/30/2012 9:36:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Sarah gave a lovely reminder to Lodewijk after a severe test I want to share. Kh Sujin has plans to come to Europe and Lodewijk wanted to do his utmost to have her and several friends here with us in the Hague. I cautioned him since his health is fragile but he was very determined. He had a beautiful plan with lots of Dhamma talk in our home and luncheons. I became already excited seeing Kh Sujin and all friends, but I also realized that this is lobha! Then he got sick and felt that he had to cancel it, rather a shock. ================================ I'm sorry to hear of this. It was surely upsetting to both Lodewijk and you. (I think you are a dear, loving couple.) Please wish Lodewijk my very best! With metta, Howard P. S. I believe that when we shall come to see things rightly and become free of craving for what is not, aversion to what is (or might be), and attachment to what is (or might be), we will see that ultimately all is well. /What's the need for a well if water is everywhere? Having cut craving by the root, one would go about searching for what?/ (From the Udapana Sutta) #125313 From: mary carbone Date: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:29 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: losing marycarbone153 Thank you Sarah Awareness, not such a big word, but has a lot to say. I am now at the Berzin Archives, to find understanding of this important word. Mary To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com From: sarahprocterabbott@... >S: We have a lot of attachment, a lot of expectations when it comes to family members and for they do too. The "strong control issues" are indicative of this attachment. Lots of thinking, lots of hoping, lots of sadness, resentment and dismay as a result of the attachment and expectation. In brief, lots and lots of attachment to oneself and one's feelings. When there is metta, friendliness, kindness, care without clinging, without expectation, there's no grief. Of course, there are bound to be all kinds of mental states, but when we begin to see (Or I might say, when 'right understanding' begins to see), what the real cause of the problems are, i.e. the attachment, gradually there can be the development of detachment, metta and understanding - gradually. This is the way that there will be less sadness, less hurt and less concern about one's own happiness at such times. ... >We, my family suffers from mental illness such as depression, ocd, and holding on to hurts, lacking the ability to move forward. Just went through a visit and I am feeling sad and abused like a hungry ghost. I want my happiness back and would like to be strong enough to protect it and still protect myself and my family from pain. .... S: We think about a lot of stories concerning our family and close friends. Usually, there's very little awareness, very little understanding. The way to help yourself and your family is through the development of awareness of present realities. For example, now there is seeing, there is thinking. The ideas about your family, their mental illness, feeling like a hungry ghost and so on, are just the stories conjured up by the thinking now. When there is awareness, it's apparent that there is no suffering family, no problems of any kind. "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox." Dhp 1 "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow. " Dhp 2 <...> #125314 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 1, 2012 5:11 am Subject: Fwd: some news from Hanoi nilovg Dear Sarah and all, I think people here will rejoice in the interest a group of people in Hanoi have. I wrote that if they invite Acharn she may come to Vietnam. I also gave them your address since Tam wondered how to become a member of dsg. Nina. Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > Van: Tam Bach > Datum: 30 juni 2012 16:21:33 GMT+02:00 > Aan: Nina van Gorkom , robert kirk > > Onderwerp: some news from Hanoi > Antwoord aan: Tam Bach > > Dear Nina and Robert, > > It has been a while since our last exchanges concerning the > translation of the book on perfections. I haven't progressed much > further than the chapter on "dana", partly because of some work, > and partly because the conditions have arisen for my dhamma friends > to want to understand better the right development of the eight > fold Path. We have found Nina's letters about vipassana very > interesting and helpful for that and decided to translate them > first in order to discuss together. > > At the end of April, we spent about a week nearby the sea in a > small family resort. Everyday, beside enjoying the lovely setting > and delicious meals prepared by our kind host, we would listen to > dhamma talks, read about citta and cetasika, read your letters > together and discuss on all kinds of things, but mostly about the > Dhamma. We were a group of (relatively) young persons who have > quite serious interest in the Buddhadhamma, most have done retreats > in different traditions here and there. The impact of those days on > each one of us varied, but to different degrees, the understanding > of the way panna should be cultivated started to set in. A friend > wrote in a letter to the others about how her mind was becoming > more at peace with its defilements, more understanding, forgiving > and expansive thanks to hearing again and again about how all > cittas arise by their own conditions...Today, in our weekly > meeting, another friend said he felt shaken by the realization that > he'd got it completely wrong as far as satipathana is concerned. It > was a little bit like someone was pulling out a carpet under his > feet... > > So I am just writing this to share with both of you some [little] > development of understanding in a small group of dhamma farers here > in Vietnam. As it has been said in one of your letters, the Middle > way is the right way but it's easy to stray away from it. We feel > fortunate enough to have a glimpse of it through Achaan Sujin's > elaboration of the Buddha's teaching and through your letters. The > remaining work will keep on going according to the conditions of > each of us. We will see... > > Since our knowledge of the Abhidhamma is still very limited, we > will first try to familiarize with the basic concepts of paramatha > dhammas through your excellent book "Abhidhamma in daily life" (in > Vietnamese). > > When I was in Bangkok the last time, I was given the book "a survey > of paramatha dhammas" by Achaan Sujin, which is a real treasure. It > will be next on our list of books to be translated after the one on > perfections. > > Last time, I was so impressed by my two hours with the Dhamma study > group in Bangkok in Achaan Sujin's presence, that I am wondering > whether it is possible to have her come to Vietnam for sometime. I > guess traveling must not be so easy for her at her current age, so > i am just spelling aloud my thoughts and ask for your opinion about > it. > > I will have the chance to be in Bangkok again in late september, > and will do my best to come to DSG's Saturday discussion, I suppose > it is still going on as usual? > > Another question: how to join the DSG online discussion? I've found > the archives of past discussions and have never been able to figure > out how to join it. > > Well, it has been all about us and our need ! I hope at least these > some little news will be conditions to arise mudita in you . And > above all, I hope my e-mail will reach both of you in good physical > and mental health. > > With our thankful hearts and best wishes, > > Yours in Dhamma, > > Tam > #125315 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Jul 1, 2012 3:08 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 rjkjp1 I see. You just came in on a discussion with ken about heart base and asked me several questions. Something has happened in the meantime. Can you clarify, this seems rather insulting, do you feel i was attacking you here? Perhpas I can ask the moderators to step in and ask you not to make overly personal comments Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobK, > > > If nina or sarah or pt or anyone else can quote anything I have written anytime and clearly show where my beliefs are at odds with the ancient texts > > Better please leave me out of this. If you remember, before when I would question your beliefs, you'd usually get upset, sarcastic, threaten to leave dsg and declare all discussion useless. So I now prefer not to question your beliefs, but just try and understand what you are trying to say on a topic, and leave it at that. Sure, that doesn't give you the sort of feedback you're requesting above, but at least there are no hurt feelings. > > Best wishes > pt > #125316 From: "aungsoeminuk" Date: Sun Jul 1, 2012 3:18 pm Subject: Patisambhidaa aungsoeminuk Dear Dhamma Friends, When an individual attains arahatta magga it is immediately followed by arahatta phala. Arahatta magga is vijjaa and arahatta phala is vimutti. This is universal for all who attain enlightenment. Pannaa in arahatta magga is not the same for all. Sukkha vipassakaa just attain arahatta magga pannaa. There still is higher attainment. Top of the list is Sammaasambuddhaa. This is followed by pacceka buddhaa. After that agga saavakaa. Then mahaa saavakaa ( 80 disciples_ asiiti mahaa saavakaa). Salaabhinnaa (6 abhinaana attainers), tevijjaa ( 3 vijjaa pannaa of pubbenivaasa, dibbacakkhu, aasavakkhaya) and those who also attain catu-patisambhidaa. There are 4 analytical knowledges. It is called catupatisambhidaa. They are 1. attha patisambhidaa 2. dhamma patisambhidaa 3. nirutti patisambhidaa and 4. patbhaana patisambhidaa These will be discussed in next posts With Unlimited Metta, Dhammarakkhita (Htoo) #125317 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sun Jul 1, 2012 4:53 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 ptaus1 Hi RobK, > RK: I see. You just came in on a discussion with ken about heart base and asked me several questions. Something has happened in the meantime. It's a bit different. The recent heart base discussion was already the new approach so to speak and it seemed to work quite amicably - you state your belief, I ask you to elaborate, you reply, and I then don't propose a counter-interpretation nor voice any comments whether your interpretation is right or wrong - in that way I don't question the validity of your beliefs anymore. And in that way the discussion on heart base seemed to work - I understood a bit better what you were trying to say, others did hopefully as well, and no dramas. What I was referencing were our discussions before that, on right speech, right view, etc, all of which ended badly the moment I questioned the validity of your beliefs. Hence, if you remember, I stated that I will no longer question your beliefs so as not to upset you. Hence my present request to leave me out of the argument whether your beliefs are right or wrong. > Can you clarify, this seems rather insulting, do you feel i was attacking you here? It had to do with my previous stating that I won't question your beliefs anymore - so I'm now requesting not to ask me to go down that road again. From my discussions with you, I got the impression that you can't take criticism very well, so I don't want to upset you because then I get upset, other people here get upset, etc, and it's just no good. > Perhpas I can ask the moderators to step in and ask you not to make overly personal comments Please do as you see fit. I outlined how badly our discussions used to end before when I would openly question your beliefs. Therefore, I tried to find a solution, which to me seems - not to question your beliefs but just ask to elaborate on them. As for whether I think your beliefs are right or wrong, it seems better to keep it to myself and I don't want to voice it anymore so as not to cause trouble. Hence the request to please keep me out of the argument whether your beliefs are right or not. I certainly appreciate discussing dhamma points with you, but I don't want to be drawn into the argument whether you're right or not. Best wishes pt #125318 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 1, 2012 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Life is a real test. was:Delisting announcement nilovg Hi Howard, thank you for your kind post and your concern. But you know, considerations of the Dhamma truly helped us. Of course it was a shock and I was worried about Lodewijk's health problems which are also caused by old age. We can learn from such events. This morning I heard a Thai recording, Kh Sujin was paraphrasing the Expositor about sati and asati. Considerations about birth, old age, sickness and death help us with a sense of urgency, not to be neglectful with the development of understanding. I have heard this often, but by events in life we experience ourselves this becomes more meaningful. In order to be free from the cycle sati and pa~n~naa should be developed again and again. There can be more chanda, wish-to-do, and viriya, the four right efforts. One can see more the disadvantages of akusala, preventing akusala that has not yet arisen. Sati must be aware, not coming to a halt, again and again. Not laying down the burden, not letting go of sati. I think this is a good exhortation. Nina. Op 30-jun-2012, om 17:54 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I'm sorry to hear of this. It was surely upsetting to both Lodewijk > and you. (I think you are a dear, loving couple.) Please wish > Lodewijk my > very best! #125319 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 1, 2012 6:42 pm Subject: Pilgrimage in India, Ch 4, 2 nilovg Dear friends, Someone of our group remarked that he did not understand why the Thais paid such deep respect at the holy places by bowing down, by incense, candles and flowers, by sticking gold leaf on the stupas and Buddha statues and by chanting texts of the scriptures. He said that he did not have accumulations for these forms of respect. Acharn Sujin explained to him that it is because of satipatthåna, the four Applications of Mindfulness the Buddha taught, that such great respect is paid to the Buddha. When we are mindful of nåma and rúpa we understand more deeply the value of the Buddha’s teachings in our life. We come to know the teacher through the teachings and then we wish to pay respect to him, even though he passed away. In Buddhism one does not follow the teacher with blind faith, but one listens to the teachings, considers them and applies them in one’s life. When we have seen for ourselves that the Dhamma can change our life, we come to know the teacher and we wish to pay respect to him. When we had come to the end of our pilgrimage the same person said: ”Now I wish to return to the holy places and pay respect.” In order to be able to teach the Dhamma which can change people’s lives, the Buddha endured so much during the “four incalculable ages and a hundred thousand aeons” when he was a Bodhisatta (“Visuddhimagga” Ch IX, 26). Forbearance, khanti, is one of the perfections he accumulated. In many Jåtakas one can read about his forbearance and loving kindness. He did not allow hate to corrupt his mind even when his enemies tried to murder him on various occasions. In the “Khantivådi Jåtaka” (no. 313) we read that when he was asked by the king of Kåsi “What do you preach, monk?”, he replied “I am a preacher of patience”. Then the king had him flogged with scourges of thorns and had his hands and feet cut off, but the Bodhisatta did not feel the slightest anger. He practised what he preached. ****** Nina. #125320 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 1, 2012 6:55 pm Subject: Time to reflect on Dustrags 1 sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Today I was reflecting on the dust-rag reminders and how manna (conceit) often makes it difficult for all us to hear criticism or blame. Also, I was reflecting on ways of helpful speech. Let me share a few of the quotes and comments I was considering in U.P. under 'Dustrag' and "Speech-right' I wrote before: S:> In the PTS translation (Hare) it is in Bk of 9s, Ch 11 "The Lion Roar", i,11and also in B.Bodhi's "Numerical Discourses of the Buddha", under "Sariputta's Lion's Roar", p231. "Just as, Lord, people throw upon the earth things clean and unclean, dung, urine, spittle, pus and blood, yet for all that the earth has no revulsion, loathing or disgust towards it; even so, Lord, do I dwell with a heart that is like the earth, vast, exalted and measureless, without hostility and without ill will. However, one in whom mindfulness directed on the body in regard to the body is not present may well hit a fellow monk and leave without an apology. "Just as. Lord, people use water to wash things clean and unclean, things soiled....... "Just as, Lord, fire burns things clean and unclean, things soiled.... "Just as, Lord, the wind blows over things clean and unclean..... "Lord, just as a duster wipes over things clean and unclean, things soiled with dung, urine, pus and blood, yet for all that the duster has no revulsion, loathing or disgust towards it; even so, Lord, do I dwell with a heart that is like a duster.... "Lord, just as an outcast boy or girl, begging-vessel in hand and clad in rags, enters a village with a humble heart; even so, Lord, do I dwell with a heart like that of an outcast youth, a heart that is vast, exalted and measureless, without hostility and without ill will...... Metta Sarah ===== #125321 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 1, 2012 7:07 pm Subject: Time to reflect on Dustrags 2 sarahprocter... Dear Friends, I wrote the following post before: >C: The friend said that if another person points out our (true) > faults, "regardless of this other person's intentions", we should see > it as someone pointing us to treasure. ***** >S:I'm no expert when it comes to the graceful acceptance of criticism (quite the contrary), but I have been reflecting a little over the weekend and I'd like to offer a few comments about aspects I find helpful in this regard. I also learn a lot from my students in this regard -- some can really hear and appreciate criticism which tends to encourage the teacher to help more (and with more goodwill, I find). For others, their inclination is to react and argue which tends to discourage assistance and goodwill. I think that usually, the problem with hearing adverse comments or criticism -- and surely the reason we find it easier to pounce on our perception of the speaker's unwholesomeness-- is mana (conceit) and clinging to self again. As we know conceit "has haughtiness as characteristic, self-praise as function, desire to (advertise self like) a banner as manifestation....". When we hear the adverse comments, the banner can be so apparent, I find. We've discussed before the list of objects on account of which mana arises from the Vibhanga (17) and these include "...pride of gain; pride of being honoured; pride of being respected; pride of prominence; pride of having adherents; pride of wealth; pride of appearance; pride of intelligence; pride of being a knowledgeable authority;..." We also know that because of the attachment to self and finding oneself so important, we cling to the 8 worldly conditions and very seldom see the value of being a 'nobody' or a dust-rag as Sariputta did. On one of our trips to India, K.Sujin talked a lot about the value of reflecting in this very way. When I first heard it, again the banner would start waving and I was aware of how much discomfort there was at considering the value of being a door-mat that anyone could criticise or trample over. Gradually, I've come to appreciate these reminders more and more and to see what precious 'treasure' they are. The following are two passages that Nina wrote in letters about K.Sujin's example of the dustrag on that trip: ***** 1. N:>Khun Sujin had reminded us in India to become like a dustrag which serves for wiping the feet. A dustrag takes up filth and is undisturbed by it. One should become as humble as a dustrag. Sariputta, who could forgive anybody, no matter whether that person treated him in an unjust manner, compared himself with a dustrag. He had no conceit. When right understanding has been developed one will cling less to the self, there will be more humbleness. During the discussions Khun Sujin said again: "I would like to be a dustrag. I follow the way to be one, it is my resolution. Our resolution means that we take action by developing understanding and metta. ". It is beneficial to be reminded again of the dustrag, because humbleness seems to go against our nature. As understanding develops it must lead to letting go of namas and rupas. What we take for self are only impermanent namas and rupas. When their impermanence has been realized can they be as important as before? We read in the "Vinaya" (VI, Parivara, Ch XII) how the monk should behave when he approaches the Sangha when it is convened for the investigation of a legal question. We read: ...he should approach the Order with a humble mind, with a mind as though it were removing dust. He should be skilled about seats and skilled about sitting down. He should sit down on a suitable seat without encroaching on (the space intended for) monks who are Elders and without keeping newly ordained monks from a seat. He should not talk in a desultory fashion, nor about inferior (worldly) matters. Either he should speak Dhamma himself or should ask another to do so, or he should not disdain the ariyan silence... The commentary (the Samantapasadika) adds to "with a mind as though it were removing dust" : "like a towel for wiping the feet." ***** 2. N:> There is conceit if we have an idea that we should be "somebody with great wisdom". We should follow Sariputta's example who compared himself with a dustrag, a useless rag without any value. If we do not consider ourselves "somebody", but rather a "nobody", it will prevent us from pretending, even to ourselves, that we are more advanced than we in reality are. We also need the perfection of truthfulness (sacca) to keep us on the right track. We have to be sincere, truthful to reality. Do we want to avoid being aware of akusala? We have to be aware of it in order to know our true accumulations. If we are not aware of akusala we will take what is akusala for kusala. We need to develop the perfection of equanimity in order to learn to accept with kusala citta the vicissitudes of life. Praise and blame are only realities which arise because of their own conditions, in reality people are not the cause of praise or blame. When people do wrong to us we can develop metta if we see the value of metta. Instead of having aversion about people's bad points we will try to remember their good qualities. If they have none there can be compassion or there can be equanimity. There can be equanimity when we remember that the real cause of unpleasant experiences through the senses is not a person but our own kamma. We should carefully consider the different perfections and then we will be reminded to develop them in our daily life, they are needed in each situation. Khun Sujin said that while she prepares lectures for the radio she needs many perfections, such as metta, patience, energy and equanimity. When there is equanimity she does not feel hurt when people do not want to listen to her or when they criticise her.< ***** Metta Sarah ======= #125322 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 1, 2012 7:09 pm Subject: Time to reflect on Dustrags 3 sarahprocter... Dear Friends, From an earlier message I wrote: >S: When we listen to and consider the teachings, as we read in the Simile of the Snake, they should be 'grasped' in a way which leads to less mana and clinging to self importance rather than the reverse. I'd like to requote two paragraphs from ADL (ch 5) which Larry wisely repeated in a post to a friend as an offering of assistance for a difficult office situation, emphasising the value of understanding phenomena as namas and rupas, not self: -------------------- "All degrees of lobha, be it coarse or more subtle, bring sorrow. We are like slaves as long as we are absorbed in and infatuated by the objects which present themselves through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body-sense and mind. We are not free if our happiness depends on the situation we are in, and the way others behave towards us. One moment people may be kind to us, but the next moment they may be unpleasant. If we attach too much importance to the affection of other, we shall be easily disturbed in mind, and thus become slaves of our moods and emotions. We can become more independent and free if we realize that both we ourselves and other people are only nama and rupa, phenomena arising because of conditions and falling away again. When others say unpleasant things to us there are conditions which cause them to speak in that way, and there are conditions which cause us to hear such words. Other people's behaviour and our reactions to it are conditioned phenonomena which do not stay. At the moment we are thinking about these phenomena, they have already fallen away. The development of insight is the way to become less dependent on the vicissitudes of life. When there is mindfulness of the present moment, we attach less importance to the way people behave towards us." ***** "At the moment we are thinking about these phenomena, they have already fallen away"< Metta Sarah ===== #125323 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 1, 2012 7:14 pm Subject: Dustrags 4 sarahprocter... Dear Friends, "--Rahula, develop a mind similar to earth, when you develop a mind similar to earth arisen contacts of like and dislike do not take hold of your mind and stay. Rahula on the earth is dumped, the pure and the impure, excreta, urine, saliva, pus, blood, the earth does not loathe those, in the same manner develop a mind similar to earth. When you develop a mind similar to earth, arisen contacts of like and dislike do not take hold of the mind and stay--" From Num, #4072 "As Erik brought up about mana. I would like to discuss and get some inputs about mana cetasika. How many different ways can mana cetasika manifest? Pride, esteem, feeling of superiority, inferiority, equality, etc. I have read about Ven. Sariputta who said that he considered himself as only a dustrag or a floormat. His humbleness is really impressed me. I admire his wisdom, his kindness, his patience and his humbleness. I asked my self do I like to feel as a dustrag, definitely not. At time I thought about how being ariyan feel like. Like a dustrag!?? V.Sariputta is the foremost Bhuddha disciple in wisdom 2nd only to the Buddha. When his mom invited group of monk for offering food, she was really mean and sarcastic to the monks. V.Sariputta was calm and patient. When he was wrongly accused by a young monk, and after the Buddha cleared the accusation he even asked for a pardon from the younger monk if he had offended him in any means. A lot more incidents rgd V.Sariputta's humbleness." Recommended reading: The Life of Sariputta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel090.html **** Metta Sarah ======= #125324 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 1, 2012 7:27 pm Subject: Dustrags 5 sarahprocter... Dear Friends, By mistake, I left out the last line of Num's message: "What's the consequence of mana? Most people like to feel superior, like to be approved." Here are a few more reflections on right speech - and right listening - which I've been considering today. MN 139 "Aranavibhanga Sutta" (Nanamoli/Bodhi transl) 8. "And how, bhikkhus, does there come to be neither extolling nor disparaging but teaching only the Dhamma? When one does not say: 'All those engaged in the pursuit of the enjoyment of one whose pleasure is linked to sensual desires…have entered upon the wrong way,' but instead: 'The pursuit is a state beset by suffering, vexation, despair, and fever, and it is the wrong way,' then one teaches only the Dhamma "(1261) Note 1261: That is, extolling and disparaging come about when one frames one's statements in terms of persons, some of whom are praised and others blamed. One teaches "only the Dhamma" when one frames one's statements in terms of the state (dhamma) –the mode of practice-without explicit references to persons. *** From the Kakacupama Sutta (The Simile of the Saw) http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn021.html "Thus, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will be easy to admonish and make ourselves easy to admonish purely out of esteem for the Dhamma, respect for the Dhamma, reverence for the Dhamma.' That's how you should train yourselves." "In any event, you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person's welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will -- abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves." "Monks, if you attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw, do you see any aspects of speech, slight or gross, that you could not endure?" "No, lord." "Then attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw. That will be for your long-term welfare & happiness." Finally for this post: From the Kara.niiyametta Sutta: Kara.niiyam-atthakusalena, yan-ta.m santa.m pada.m abhisamecca: "What should be done by one skilled in goodness, who has comprehended the state of peace" sakko ujuu ca suujuu ca, suvaco cassa mudu anatimaanii, "he ought to be able (sakko), straight (ujuu), and upright (ca suujuu), easy to speak to (suvaco), meek (mudu), without conceit (anatimaanii)" **** S: A quote of Nina's I appreciated: "But I realize that conceit arises very often, unknowingly. When thinking of he and me there is already likely to be conceit, even now while I am writing. But when thinking only of the Dhamma there will also be kusala cittas. Thus, we should be like a dust rag" S: Lots of conceit arising unknowingly all day for us all. It can be known when it appears and we can reflect again and again on the dust rag. Metta Sarah ======= #125325 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 1, 2012 7:34 pm Subject: Dustrags 6 sarahprocter... Dear Friends, For the last post in this series, I've also selected the following extract from Nina's book 'Cetasikas', ch. 'The Three Abstinences' which I posted before. It contains so many helpful reminders: >"We may not kill or steal, but we may be forgetful as far as our speech is concerned. A word which can harm ourselves and others is uttered before we realize it. We tend to disparage others because we are attached to talking and want to keep the conversation going. When we are slighted by someone else we are easily inclined to answer back. Our self-esteem may be hurt and then we want to defend ourselves. Most of the time we think of ourselves; we want to be honoured and praised. We forget that it is beneficial to abstain from wrong speech and to speak with kusala citta. How often in a day do we speak with kusala citta? The Buddha reminded the monks about right speech. We should remember what the Buddha said about right speech in the Parable of the Saw (Middle Length Sayings I, no. 21): * Monks, when speaking to others you might speak at a right time or at a wrong time; monks, when speaking to others you might speak according to fact or not according to fact; monks, when speaking to others you might speak gently or harshly; monks, when speaking to others you might speak about what is connected with the goal or about what is not connected with the goal; monks, when speaking to others you might speak with a mind of friendliness or full of hatred. Herein, monks, you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither will our minds become perverted nor will we utter an evil speech, but kindly and compassionate will we dwell, with a mind of friendliness, void of hatred; and we will dwell having suffused that person with a mind of friendliness; and, beginning with him, we will dwell having suffused the whole world with a mind of friendliness that is far-reaching, widespread, immeasurable, without enmity, without malevolence.' This is how you must train yourselves, monks." * When we give in to wrong speech there is no kindness and consideration for other people's welfare. When there is loving kindness there is no opportunity for wrong speech. We can and should develop loving kindness in daily life and we should at the same time see the value of observing morality, otherwise loving kindness cannot be sincere. Many wholesome qualities have to be developed together with right understanding so that eventually defilements can be eradicated." ***** Metta, Sarah ====== #125326 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Sun Jul 1, 2012 11:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pilgrimage in India, Ch 4, 2 moellerdieter Dear Nina, all, you wrote: "Someone of our group remarked that he did not understand why the Thais paid such deep respect ..." It has a lot to do as well with knowing (and overcoming ) one's conceit (mana) .. with Metta Dieter #125327 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 12:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pilgrimage in India, Ch 4, 2 nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 1-jul-2012, om 15:45 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven: > you wrote: > > "Someone of our group remarked that he did not understand why the > Thais > paid such deep respect ..." > > It has a lot to do as well with knowing (and overcoming ) one's > conceit > (mana) .. > ------- N: Yes, to be humble minded. Respect, admiration for the Buddha's teachings. The more one understands what he taught, the more one respects the teachings. ------- Nina. #125328 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 12:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dustrags 5 nilovg Dear Sarah, thank you for the series. Good to read old texts, one forgets. Op 1-jul-2012, om 11:27 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > MN 139 "Aranavibhanga Sutta" (Nanamoli/Bodhi transl) > > 8. "And how, bhikkhus, does there come to be neither extolling nor > disparaging but teaching only the Dhamma? When one does not say: > 'All those engaged in the pursuit of the enjoyment of one whose > pleasure is linked to sensual desires…have entered upon the wrong > way,' but instead: 'The pursuit is a state beset by suffering, > vexation, despair, and fever, and it is the wrong way,' then one > teaches only the Dhamma "(1261) > > Note 1261: That is, extolling and disparaging come about when one > frames one's statements in terms of persons, some of whom are > praised and others blamed. One teaches "only the Dhamma" when one > frames one's statements in terms of the state (dhamma) –the mode of > practice-without explicit references to persons. ------- N: This is really very good. Leave out names dropping as I wrote before. Unless it is in order to rejoice in someone else's kusala, anumodana daana. Nina. #125329 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the householders moellerdieter Dear Sarah, you wrote: (S: it's all about now, realities now. The Buddha taught us to understand what is real at this very moment. This is the only way that DO, death and so on can be understood. D: repeating : how about Buddhagosa's interpretation of D.O. concerning 3 lives ?) .... S: When there is understanding of ignorance now, there is also understanding of past ignorance and future ignorance. When there is understanding of attachment now as anatta, there is understanding that past attachment is like this and future attachment will also be like this. So by understanding dhammas now, there is an understanding of momentary death. At the end of this lifetime, conditioned dhammas arising and passing away like now. D: Not cleasr to me what you mean. Ignorance/avijja is defined by not knowing the 4 Noble Truths. How can you understand what you still do not fully know and only get by deepest penetration/path training ? To understand the reality (the All) now one needs to have established the foundation of mindfulness (Satipatthana) .. and to understand what is beyond the All, one practises Jhana. I.e. the 7th and 8th step as part of the (sila-)-samadhi training are the means to develop understanding (panna) D.O. can be understood to refer to lifetimes (samsara) and to the process going on here and now.. The chain of D.O. is not interrupted ..when there is death there is birth , at least until the chain is not broken. To use a metaphor with cards :game over, the cards are newly shuffled ..starting again with different cards but with the same system.. I like to emphasise the misunderstanding that avijja and sankhara ( first and second ) has been finalized / belong to the previous life , they belong to inumerable previous moments .. we possibly agree on that.. (?) (D The other is the consideration whether the Buddha distinguished at all between realities and concepts.> .... >? S: Heat is a reality which can be directly known now. 'Butter-jar" is a concept which can only ever be thought about. All the teachings are for understanding, testing out at this moment.> > Dnew: taking jar for khandha ,e.g. the. vinnana jar inlucing eye consciousness, ear consciousness etc. , the jar indeed is a concept, isn't it?) ... S: Sorry, I don't follow you. If there is taking the jar for anything real, for something of any kind, it's atta view. Yes, the jar is just an idea, a concept, not any khandha at all. D: I played with your example of concept 'butter- jar' . ( Who would consider to dedicate a soul to a jar, not to talk about the butter?;-) ) Khandha is a grouping, an abstract for specified dhammas . A cart may fit better to distinguish reality and concept : no reality on it's own , only the cart's wheels, the cart's axis ..etc. Likewise Vinnaya Khandha = eye consciousness, ear consciousness etc. with Metta Dieter #125330 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 2:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the hou... upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter (and Sarah) - In a message dated 7/1/2012 11:37:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: D: I played with your example of concept 'butter- jar' . ( Who would consider to dedicate a soul to a jar, not to talk about the butter?;-) ) Khandha is a grouping, an abstract for specified dhammas . A cart may fit better to distinguish reality and concept : no reality on it's own , only the cart's wheels, the cart's axis ..etc. Likewise Vinnaya Khandha = eye consciousness, ear consciousness etc. =========================== For some reason, Sarah and some others, despite the clear meaning of 'khandha' as "group"/"collection"/"aggregate", call individual namas and rupas "khandhas," a usage I find odd but their usage nonetheless. So, whether it "grates on the ear" or not (LOL!), the usage should be understood and accepted for the sake of good conversation. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #125331 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 3:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the hou... moellerdieter Hi Howard (and Sarah), you wrote: For some reason, Sarah and some others, despite the clear meaning of 'khandha' as "group"/"collection"/"aggregate", call individual namas and rupas "khandhas," a usage I find odd but their usage nonetheless. So, whether it "grates on the ear" or not (LOL!), the usage should be understood and accepted for the sake of good conversation D:the background of this discussion is the distinction between reality and concept ,the importance often emphasised here. It began when Sarah disagreed with Nyanatiloka's defintion of khandha (=abstract) with Metta Dieter #125332 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 5:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the hou... upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter (and Sarah) - In a message dated 7/1/2012 1:29:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard (and Sarah), you wrote: For some reason, Sarah and some others, despite the clear meaning of 'khandha' as "group"/"collection"/"aggregate", call individual namas and rupas "khandhas," a usage I find odd but their usage nonetheless. So, whether it "grates on the ear" or not (LOL!), the usage should be understood and accepted for the sake of good conversation D:the background of this discussion is the distinction between reality and concept ,the importance often emphasised here. It began when Sarah disagreed with Nyanatiloka's defintion of khandha (=abstract) ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, I understand that. My point, possibly tangential to your primary topic of conversation, is that a well-established way of speaking is a convention that needs to be accepted for purposes of communication. (I also think it is important, I hasten to add, that speech conventions effect manner of thinking, and so, it is important to be very much aware of one's speech conventions.) ------------------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #125333 From: "lbidd2" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 11:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] losing lbidd2 Hi Sarah, Ahhhh, the eternal debate. Okay, let's jump in: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Larry, > > When you pop back to check, would you elaborate a little on what you've said here: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Larry Biddinger wrote: > > > When you are sad you are also standing or sitting or lying down, maybe > > walking or running. > ... > S: What does this mean? In truth isn't it true that sadness is just a mental factor that arises and passes away? We say conventionally that we're in this or that posture, but isn't this just an idea we have? Really, just different elements arising and passing away. Larry: First, let's go to the "idea". Yes, all the words are ideas. They are actually little rupas, but let's not get into that. I'm just using ordinary language in an attempt to be helpful. A > ... > Whatever the posture, it isn't sad. Mary Carbone is > > a group effort, not "just sad". This is the meaning of emptiness. > ... > Again, what does this mean, the "group effort". Do you mean that what we take for Mary or Larry are really just different mental states at such times? What do you understand by "emptiness"? L: Any experience is a group of many elements. In actuality no element defines the group. So the group is empty of a definition. In that sense the group is somewhat open. However, usually we bunch everything together and say this is it. "Sad" for example. > > Looking forward to more discussions with you. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > L: Good to see you Sarah. What do you understand by "emptiness"? Larry #125334 From: "lbidd2" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 11:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] losing lbidd2 Hi Nina, So good to see you. But it seems like I've only been gone a minute. Here's a comment on one sentence: Nina: "We can learn from such experiences. You are unhappy and you wish to be happy, but this cannot occur on command. Exactly this is what the Buddha taught us: thoughts, feelings, material phenomena, they all arise because of the appropriate conditions and they do not belong to a self, they are anattaa, non-self." Larry: Any strong mental state that arises, something that we are obviously identifying with, just a glance and we can see quite simply, it's not me. The pause that refreshes;))) But letting go can be difficult. Larry #125335 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:17 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 rjkjp1 Dear pt Thanks for the detailed explanation, I dont really remember our earlier conversations, I think I joined dsg in 1999 and si many me,bers have come and gone, imost of them I don't even remember the name. I i took you wrongly in your earlier post,for some reason I thought it looked a bit off topic re the Dhamma point. Sorry about that. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi RobK, >I will no longer question your beliefs so as not to upset you. You can't take criticism very well, so I don't want to upset you > #125336 From: "lbidd2" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 2:36 pm Subject: Re: Larry back! lbidd2 Hi Jon, I sent you a reply hours ago but it got lost in the www. Anyway, it's good to see you too. I haven't been doing much with dhamma studies but the dhamma of course is always here and it brings to mind the studies everyday. Hope to participate from time to time but it looks like you guys are saying everything that needs to be said. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Larry > > Great to see you back. Was wondering only the other day what you were up to these days (in Dhamma terms, I mean). Any reflections to share? > > Hoping you stick around for a while. > > Jon > > #125337 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 3:28 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 epsteinrob Hi Ken and Howard (and Rob K.) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > KH: Right, but why do you also talk about streams? > --------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Why not? Do not namas and rupas interrelate in such a way, as a result > of which, for example, you and Robert are distinguishable? > ---------------------------------------------------------- > ...like to talk about streams of dhammas. The rest of us (I would have > thought} prefer to talk about the presently arisen citta, cetasikas and rupas > or just the present dhamma-arammana. > > What we call a dog is really a presently arisen dhamma, or group of > presently arisen dhammas, isn't it? > -------------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Ken! Why do you speak of groups??? (Oh, yeah, they must be more > "Dhamma-true" than "streams"!!!) > --------------------------------------------------------------- What is exciting to me is to hear Ken H. talk about "a dog" really being "a presently arisen dhamma, or group of...dhammas." This is the kind of correspondence I've been advocating - that sure there is no "dog" per se, but there are the dhammas that correspond to 'dog' or that we recognize or translate as 'dog.' So the concept 'dog' does relate to dhammas, just imprecisely. > We use the notion of a stream to explain the conditioned nature, and the > conditioning functions, of dhammas, but nothing more than that. There is no > stream in ultimate reality. But the stream relates to more than just general conditioning, it relates to the pattern that is created by the arising of a series of different sets of conditions. a leads to be leads to c. That is what causes it to be a stream. I think it's important to acknowledge not only the individual nature of dhammas, but they way they cause their "domino effect" down the line to further dhammas. Each domino is an individual event, but the line of dominoes does create a series of conditions that goes from the first one to the last one, and that does constitute a stream through which the series of conditions plays out. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > The commentaries and the Buddha in the suttas speak of conditioned > dhammas as arising, changing while standing, and ceasing. Is that not a > "stream"? "Changing while standing" is indeed most important since it shows anicca even within the individual dhamma. There is not even a moment in reality that is static, but is constantly in a process of dynamic change. Conditions are not static either but are part of the changing reality. > The Buddha taught anicca as a basic property of all conditioned > dhammas. Where is the anicca of a dhamma during it's alleged single moment of > existence? How do you explain anicca with respect to a single moment? Well if you allow for 'changing while standing' within the individual dhamma, you can have anicca take place on the smallest micro-level. The dhamma is said to have three phases, arising, functioning and falling away. According to the Buddha, as you quote, 'changing while standing' would exist even within that micro-moment, and the commentarial version seems to echo that. It seems to me that anicca - change - would exist in all three phases - changing while arising, changing while standing/functioning, changing while falling away. Obviously in arising there is a point where it changes to whatever the function is that is performed, and there is a point where that changes to falling away, so there is actually change throughout the entire process. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #125338 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 3:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] losing nilovg Hi Larry, good to see that you are active. Op 2-jul-2012, om 3:22 heeft lbidd2 het volgende geschreven: > Larry: Any strong mental state that arises, something that we are > obviously identifying with, just a glance and we can see quite > simply, it's not me. The pause that refreshes;))) But letting go > can be difficult. ----- N: Yeah, yeah, you are right. It is pa~n~naa's job, not ours. "We" could never manage that. But it all goes very, very gradually. Many life times. Nina. #125339 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 4:05 pm Subject: Pilgrimage in India, Ch 4, 3 nilovg Dear friends, In his last life, when he had become a Buddha, his cousin Devadatta wanted to harm him and hurled a stone at him. The Buddha’s foot was pierced by a stone splinter. We read in the “Kindred Sayings” (Sagåthå vagga, Ch I, part 4, § 8, The splinter) that although the pains were “keen and sharp”, he bore them “mindful and discerning, nor was he cast down”. When he was lying down in the “lion’s posture”, devas came to see him and expressed their admiration for his endurance: “See! what a wondrous creature (Någa) is the worshipful recluse Gotama! It is by this wondrous nature that he endures, mindful and discerning, the pains that have arisen in his body, keen and sharp, acute, distressing and unwelcome, and that he is not cast down....” He who could endure anything exhorted the monks to have endurance. We read in the “Discourse on all the Cankers” (Middle Length Sayings I, no 2) about the getting rid of all the cankers. The Buddha said concerning the cankers to be got rid of by endurance: “And what, monks, are the cankers to be got rid of by endurance? In this teaching, monks, a monk, wisely reflective, is one who bears cold, heat, hunger, thirst, the touch of gadflies, mosquito, wind and sun, creeping things, ways of speech that are irksome, unwelcome; he is of a character to bear bodily feelings which, arising, are painful, acute, sharp, shooting, disagreeable, miserable, deadly. Whereas, monks, if he lacked endurance, the cankers which are destructive and consuming might arise. But because he endures, therefore these cankers which are destructive and consuming are not. These, monks, are called the cankers to be got rid of by endurance.” Can we endure “ways of speech that are irksome, unwelcome”? Are we always forbearing with regard to other people and patient with ourselves? We tend to be impatient sometimes when we do not notice a rapid progress in understanding. We should accumulate patience and the way to do this is mindfulness of nåma and rúpa. ****** Nina. #125340 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 5:08 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 kenhowardau Hi Robert E (and Howard), ---- >>> KH: What we call a dog is really a presently arisen dhamma, or group of > presently arisen dhammas, isn't it? >>> >> HCW: > Ken! Why do you speak of groups??? (Oh, yeah, they must be more > "Dhamma-true" than "streams"!!!) >> > RE: What is exciting to me is to hear Ken H. talk about "a dog" really being "a presently arisen dhamma, or group of...dhammas." This is the kind of correspondence I've been advocating - that sure there is no "dog" per se, but there are the dhammas that correspond to 'dog' or that we recognize or translate as 'dog.' So the concept 'dog' does relate to dhammas, just imprecisely. ---- KH: I might want to retract that statement. :-) In a Dhamma discussion when we say we have experienced the sight of a dog, or the sound of a dog (etc), we know we have really only experienced visible object or audible object, don't we? That's what I meant by, "What we call a dog is really a dhamma." (Forget that I said, "a presently arisen dhamma," that might have been misleading.) Also, when we talk about the dog itself (or any other sentient being) we are really talking about a momentary arising of the five khandhas, aren't we? That's what I meant by "a group dhammas." (Again, forget that I said, "presently arisen dhammas.") So I hope you can see I wasn't talking about a series or "stream" of dhammas. According to my understanding, there is no stream. One momentary set of five khandhas arises and falls away, and that is all there is to a sentient being, or dog. A completely new set of five khandhas is conditioned to take it's place, and so there is a completely new dog. (Or a completely new "that which we call a dog.") Ken H #125341 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 5:12 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. jonoabb Hi RobK --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > ... > Dear kenh > I do not know how you get the idea that kalapas arose in kalapas from what I said? > Could you say more, I am lost. > And again if sarah ir nina or jon, anyone wants to show how I have got it all wrong, i plead with them to speak out now. > =============== J: Well, if it's any comfort, I of course don't think you've got it all wrong! But apart from that comment, I'm afraid I can't say much because, as I explained in an earlier post, I'm not really able to see what the Dhamma issue/s being discussed between you and KenH is/are. The discussion you and he are having seems to be at a somewhat personal level, and I prefer to leave you both to sort out any disagreement. I look forward to the time when you agree to shake hands on your differences and get back to the discussion of actual Dhamma issues :-)) Jon #125342 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 5:21 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. jonoabb Hi RobK --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > KH: It is quite foreign to me. It sounds like a conventional scientific explanation in which the terms `molecule' and `atom' have been replaced with the terms `kalapa' and `rupa.' > > > > ----- > RK: Ok lets talk about the future. Nasruddin was sitting on the outside of a branch( i think i told this story before) sawing and sawing. A man came past and said that if he keeps cutting when the branch is sawn through Nasruddin will fall to the ground. Nasruddin kept sawing and to his amazement it happened just like that. He ran adter the man wanting to know how he knew the future. > ... > For some semi- hiddem reason no one ( howard amd rob excepted) will ever come out to make a correction of your misconceptions. I must have made some heinous kamma to have to be the one to try to help. > =============== J: Well I appreciate the good intentions ;-)), but somehow the misconceptions you are wanting to point out are not being formulated clearly enough for me to come in on the thread and comment. (For example, your allegory about Nasruddin as a response to KenH's comment.) > =============== > God I miss Scott. > =============== J: Pondering this one. Did he share your views on certain topics (I don't recall any specific occasion)? Jon #125343 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 5:35 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" > > J: Well I appreciate the good intentions ;-)), but somehow the misconceptions you are wanting to point out are not being formulated clearly enough for me to come in on the thread and comment. (For example, your allegory about Nasruddin as a response to KenH's comment.) > > > ============== > Hi RobK > I look forward to the time when you agree to shake hands on your differences and get back to the discussion of actual Dhamma issues :-)) > > Jon Dear jon I dont see it as personal at all. It is to me a clear discusion on Dhamma points. Take this recent post below. I give a paragraph of explanation and Ken comes back saying he doesnt see it as Dhamma ( i paraphrase. See his exact comments below). No one else coments at all( as i predicted re nasruddin) leaving members to conclude whatever they conclude. Why diont some of the members who know Abhidhamma come in and say" omg robk, you silly twat, you have reaaly missed the boat." And then give more details and try to help me know what i have got wrong. Robert P.s I liked scotts writing because it was clear what he meant atall times. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken > > ------------------------------------ > RK: Each kalapa lasts for about a trillioth time as flash of lightining and then > disappears forever. But while the condtioning factors such as citta or kamma or > utu or ahara ( nutrition) are presenr, new Kalaps will arise. Because thos > conditioning factors are often similar the new kalapas may look much the same as > the old ones. But again they can never be exactly the same. Countless kalaps > make up the physical eye and some of those are conditioned by citta: one can > detect a glint of lust sometimes in someone, or icy cold, or the flare of rage. > And that is just looking at the physical eyes. . Or somone might eat and eat and > eat,. You se them after a year and they are fatter. This is because of ahara > conditiong rupa. Is this ok? > ------------------ KH: It is quite foreign to me. It sounds like a conventional scientific explanation in which the terms `molecule' and `atom' have been replaced with the terms `kalapa' and `rupa.' > > ----- #125344 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 5:35 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 jonoabb Hi KenH and RobE Butting in if I may. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E (and Howard), > ... > KH: So I hope you can see I wasn't talking about a series or "stream" of dhammas. According to my understanding, there is no stream. One momentary set of five khandhas arises and falls away, and that is all there is to a sentient being, or dog. A completely new set of five khandhas is conditioned to take it's place, and so there is a completely new dog. (Or a completely new "that which we call a dog.") > =============== J: Rob E, I'm just wondering if what you're referring to is the fact that each citta is related to one that preceded it and one that follows it by contiguity condition (among others). So are you perhaps saying that cittas that are so related can be regarded as being in a 'stream'. The texts do refer to stream (Pali: 'sota') in a number of contexts including 'bhavanga-sota' to refer to the bhavanga cittas that arise continuously throughout life except when interrupted by sense-door impressions. Jon #125345 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. jonoabb Hi Rob K --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" > > > > J: Well I appreciate the good intentions ;-)), but somehow the misconceptions you are wanting to point out are not being formulated clearly enough for me to come in on the thread and comment. (For example, your allegory about Nasruddin as a response to KenH's comment.) > > > > I look forward to the time when you agree to shake hands on your differences and get back to the discussion of actual Dhamma issues :-)) > > > > Jon > > RK: > Dear jon > I dont see it as personal at all. It is to me a clear discusion on Dhamma points. Take this recent post below. I give a paragraph of explanation and Ken comes back saying he doesnt see it as Dhamma ( i paraphrase. See his exact comments below). > > No one else coments at all( as i predicted re nasruddin) leaving members to conclude whatever they conclude. Why diont some of the members who know Abhidhamma come in and say" omg robk, you silly twat, you have reaaly missed the boat." > And then give more details and try to help me know what i have got wrong. > =============== J: Just a guess, but he could be referring (in part) to the statement "Countless kalaps make up the physical eye". His comment could be that this could be read as meaning that according to the teachings the physical eye breaks down into rupas, in the same way that modern science holds that the eye breaks down into atoms and molecules. Of course, he may be taking your comments too literally (I wouldn't have made the same assumption as KenH myself). But you may have not caught his drift, in which case it's always possible to seek clarification (or ignore completely). > =============== > RK: P.s I liked scotts writing because it was clear what he meant atall times. > =============== J: Yes, never any doubt about meaning (or sentiment :-)) Jon > =============== > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken > > > > ------------------------------------ > > RK: Each kalapa lasts for about a trillioth time as flash of lightining and > then > > disappears forever. But while the condtioning factors such as citta or kamma > or > > utu or ahara ( nutrition) are presenr, new Kalaps will arise. Because thos > > conditioning factors are often similar the new kalapas may look much the same > as > > the old ones. But again they can never be exactly the same. Countless kalaps > > make up the physical eye and some of those are conditioned by citta: one can > > detect a glint of lust sometimes in someone, or icy cold, or the flare of > rage. > > And that is just looking at the physical eyes. . Or somone might eat and eat > and > > eat,. You se them after a year and they are fatter. This is because of ahara > > conditiong rupa. Is this ok? > > ------------------ > KH: It is quite foreign to me. It sounds like a conventional scientific > explanation in which the terms `molecule' and `atom' have been replaced with the > terms `kalapa' and `rupa.' > > > > ----- #125346 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 6:02 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi KenH and RobE > > Butting in if I may. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > Hi Robert E (and Howard), > > ... > > KH: So I hope you can see I wasn't talking about a series or "stream" of dhammas. According to my understanding, there is no stream. > > =============== > > J: Rob E, I'm just wondering if what you're referring to is the fact that each citta is related to one that preceded it and one that follows it by contiguity condition (among others). > > > Jon Dear jon Here is a post I wrote a week ago back where the visuddhimaga talks about the stream of continuity. Again no one commented and yet when i mention a few days ago the stream of arisind and passing elements, there are objections. "The two together: since any given states are produced without interrupting the [cause-fruit] continuity of any given combination of conditions, the whole expression "dependent origination" (paþicca-samuppáda) represents the middle way, which rejects the doctrines, "He who acts is he who reaps" and "One acts while another reaps" (S II 20), and which is the proper way described thus, "Not insisting on local language and NOT OVERRIDDING NORMAL USAGE" (M III 234)"" "And with a STREAM of continuity there is neither identity nor otherness. For if there were absolute identity in a STREAM of continuity, there would be no forming of curd from milk. And yet if there were absolute otherness, the curd would not be derived from the milk. And so too with all causally arisen things. Or this one , please read. Are there errors in this, surely it would be helpful to me and possibly others to know. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/120682 Robert #125347 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 6:34 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > =============== > > J: Just a guess, but he could be referring (in part) to the statement "Countless kalaps make up the physical eye". His comment could be that this could be read as meaning that according to the teachings the physical eye breaks down into rupas, in the same way that modern science holds that the eye breaks down into atoms and molecules. > > Of course, he may be taking your comments too literally (I wouldn't have made the same assumption as KenH myself). But you may have not caught his drift, in which case it's always possible to seek clarification (or ignore completely). > > > =============== Dear jon, Thanks for coming in on this discussion. Please continue. Obviously atoms and molecules have no existence at all, they are merely invented ideas of scientists. But kalapas are real. Of course physical eye is merely a concept with no existence, but we need to refer to body and eye and heart etc to be able to discuss Dhamma. Nina writes in her book on physical phenomena about foetus and body ( of course she knows they are merely designations) yet for some reason when I use terms like eye or body there are objections. I would certainly be very happy if ken clarifies more, maybe to reply to this post, and on the other posts I made. Nina: "The unborn being in the womb, for example, needs the right temperature in order to grow. Throughout life the element of heat produces rupas. Nutrition is another factor which produces rupas. When food has been taken by a living being it is assimilated into the body and then nutrition can produce rupas. Some of the groups of rupa of our body are produced by kamma, some by citta, some by temperature and some by nutrition. "" > > > =============== > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > RK: Each kalapa lasts for about a trillioth time as flash of lightining and > > then > > > disappears forever. But while the condtioning factors such as citta or kamma > > or > > > utu or ahara ( nutrition) are presenr, new Kalaps will arise. Because thos > > > conditioning factors are often similar the new kalapas may look much the same > > as > > > the old ones. But again they can never be exactly the same. Countless kalaps > > > make up the physical eye and some of those are conditioned by citta: one can > > > detect a glint of lust sometimes in someone, or icy cold, or the flare of > > rage. > > > And that is just looking at the physical eyes. . Or somone might eat and eat > > and > > > eat,. You se them after a year and they are fatter. This is because of ahara > > > conditiong rupa. Is this ok? > > > ------------------ > > KH: It is quite foreign to me. It sounds like a conventional scientific > > explanation in which the terms `molecule' and `atom' have been replaced with the > > terms `kalapa' and `rupa.' > > > > > > ----- > #125348 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 7:40 pm Subject: Re: Fwd: some news from Hanoi sarahprocter... Dear Nina ,Tam & all, Nina, thank you for sharing Tam's lovely letter with her very keen interest in the Dhamma. Tam, a year or so ago, I remember meeting a young Vietnamese lady at the Foundation with good English and a very keen interest and appreciation of the Dhamma. Afterwards we chatted for a while. I wonder if it was you? It sounds as though you have a very good group and we'd love to hear from any of you here. Pls let me know if you have any difficulty subscribing. I think Ajahn Sujin would be interested to meet your group in Vietnam. When you visit Thailand at the end of Sept, you can discuss it with her. I'd love to visit you all with her. ***** It's beginning to look as if K.Sujin may really be visiting Lukas and his friends in Poland in early September. Jon and I, a few friends from Thailand including Betty, possibly Ann from Canada, Alberto from Italy will be joining. We will also have a few days together in London, discussions with Alan W and anyone else there. If anyone would like to be kept informed of details with a view to joining us in Poland, London or both, please let me or Lukas know. In Poland, we'll be based in the countryside in tourist accommodation. Lukas can also arrange free or very inexpensive accommodation for anyone with budgetary difficulties who'd like to attend. We'd love to meet anyone from DSG there. Metta Sarah ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah and all, > I think people here will rejoice in the interest a group of people in > Hanoi have. #125349 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 7:47 pm Subject: Re: Patisambhidaa sarahprocter... Dear Htoo, I'm so glad you're starting a new series. I think you'll have to add some more detail and English translation for most of us. Which texts are you referring to these days, or just your memory? Do you have any textual detail about sukkha vipassakaa attaining arahatta magga which we may not have considered. I'll look forward to the detail you add about the salaabhinnaa, tevijja a and so on. Metta Sarah p.s so glad to see you can post directly again. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "aungsoeminuk" wrote: > > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > When an individual attains arahatta magga it is immediately followed by arahatta phala. Arahatta magga is vijjaa and arahatta phala is vimutti. This is universal for all who attain enlightenment. Pannaa in arahatta magga is not the same for all. > Sukkha vipassakaa just attain arahatta magga pannaa. There still is higher attainment. Top of the list is Sammaasambuddhaa. This is followed by pacceka buddhaa. After that agga saavakaa. Then mahaa saavakaa ( 80 disciples_ asiiti mahaa saavakaa). > Salaabhinnaa (6 abhinaana attainers), tevijjaa ( 3 vijjaa pannaa of pubbenivaasa, dibbacakkhu, aasavakkhaya) and those who also attain catu-patisambhidaa. <...> #125350 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 8:10 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. sarahprocter... Dear Rob K, As you're looking for more feedback... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > ---------------------- > > > RK: The rupa khandha of what is known As kenh Is actually trillions of incredilby > > tiny kalapas each kalapa condtioned by one of the 4 factors. Each kalapa has the > > 4 elements plus at keast 4 other types of rupa including color. > > The kalapa has no space inside , it is indivisible and incredibly tiny. But each > > kalapa is seperated by space from its neighbours. Is this point ok? > > ---------------------- > > > > KH: I have never thought of a concept as having its own khandhas. ... S: I'd like to question the first line: "The rupa khandha of what is known As kenh Is actually trillions of incredibly tiny kalapas...." It just doesn't make sense to me. Each kalapa consists of at least 8 inseparable rupas as you know. Each of these rupas is rupa khandha, arising and falling away instantly. For example, the colour/visible in each kalapa arises and falls away regardless of whether it's ever seen. Each colour rupa is different from each of the other rupas in the kalapa and is different from the colour rupa in each other kalapa. This is what rupa khandha refers to - each rupa which arises and falls away, never the same. What is seen and what is heard is taken for Ken H. Rupas cannot arise alone. They arise in kalapas, groups of at least 8 rupas, separated from each other by pariccheda akasa rupa (space). Let me know if you disagree or if I've missed something. Metta Sarah ===== #125351 From: "ptaus1" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 8:24 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 ptaus1 Hi RobK, > I i took you wrongly in your earlier post,for some reason I thought it looked a bit off topic re the Dhamma point. Sorry about that. No worries, sorry for not being more clear the first time around. Best wishes pt #125352 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 8:35 pm Subject: notes from Alberto sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Lukas & all, My turn to forward a Dhamma letter - this time from Alberto. He just gave me permission to share it. **** A:>Hi Lukas (and Sarah), I'm glad you remember my Patthana posts, I was also favourably impressed by many of your posts, also those you posted recently. Looking forward to see you - Alberto In the Patthana and Paticcasamuppada the Buddha explains the arising and falling away of paramattha dhammas, why and how they arise just to fall away in the next instant. He differentiated vipaka dhammas from kusala or akusala ones and from those which are abyakata, neither results nor cause for results, which means rupa and kiriya and also nibbana. The Buddha explained the behaviour of paramattha dhammas in great detail because they are extremely difficult to see, not because they are easy. He explained them at such great lenght because, in order to be overcome, they must be fully, directly understood, not because ordinary concepts are enough to understand. It may seem that it was the Buddha that had great understanding of dhammas, but one must bear in mind that there is only one paramattha dhamma that can understand all the others, either vipaka, kusala or akusala and abyakata. It was a paramattha dhamma arising (ad falling away, and then arising just to fall away again...) because of conditions, because of all the parami he had accumulated for aeons, and that his panna wasn't really his or anybody else's. The Buddha directly knew that too, and that even panna, with all its powerful and blissful side effects, was just a sankhara dhamma, anicca, dukkha and anatta, and he knew that he was free from them all, either kusala, akusala or abyakata. **** 2nd note from Alberto: A:> I've also realized that I didn't used the term abyakata properly, since it belongs to the first triplet of the Abhidhamma (kusala dhammas, akusala dhammas, and abyakata dhammas), while I was referring to the third triplet (vipaka dhammas, vipakadhamma dhammas, and navipaka navipakadhamma dhammas). Also a better translation for vipaka dhammas I think would be dhammas which are resultants, rather then dhammas which are results; since all sankhara dhammas, of all jatis and all rupas as well, are conditioned, i.e. the results of conditions. While vipakadhamma dhammas are the dhammas which are cause (another meaning of dhamma, as in dhammapatisambhida, understanding of the causes) for vipaka. Navipaka navipakadhamma dhammas are all the other paramattha dhammas not included in the first two categories. Alberto #125353 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 9:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kenh3 upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 7/2/2012 1:28:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@... writes: > HCW: > The commentaries and the Buddha in the suttas speak of conditioned > dhammas as arising, changing while standing, and ceasing. Is that not a > "stream"? "Changing while standing" is indeed most important since it shows anicca even within the individual dhamma. There is not even a moment in reality that is static, but is constantly in a process of dynamic change. Conditions are not static either but are part of the changing reality. > The Buddha taught anicca as a basic property of all conditioned > dhammas. Where is the anicca of a dhamma during it's alleged single moment of > existence? How do you explain anicca with respect to a single moment? Well if you allow for 'changing while standing' within the individual dhamma, you can have anicca take place on the smallest micro-level. ---------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, indeed - but then it is not "a single moment". That is my point. Even a single dhamma is a (micro)process. Change is ongoing, and "time marches on". ------------------------------------------------------------ The dhamma is said to have three phases, arising, functioning and falling away. According to the Buddha, as you quote, 'changing while standing' would exist even within that micro-moment, and the commentarial version seems to echo that. It seems to me that anicca - change - would exist in all three phases - changing while arising, changing while standing/functioning, changing while falling away. ---------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, like a wave that increases in amplitude, levels off (and peaks), and decreases in amplitude, changing constantly. (Reminiscent of a quantum which is both particle and wave.) ------------------------------------------------------------ Obviously in arising there is a point where it changes to whatever the function is that is performed, and there is a point where that changes to falling away, so there is actually change throughout the entire process. -------------------------------------------------------- HCW: Exactly! ================================ With metta, Howard /Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world' it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply? "Insofar as it disintegrates_]_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.082.than.html#fn-2) monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates. "The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate... "The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate... "The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate... "The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate... "The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates. "Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"/ (The Loka Sutta) #125354 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 9:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kenh3 upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (K) and Jon, and all - In a message dated 7/2/2012 4:02:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: Dear jon Here is a post I wrote a week ago back where the visuddhimaga talks about the stream of continuity. Again no one commented and yet when i mention a few days ago the stream of arisind and passing elements, there are objections. ============================= Robert, unless I am falsely remembering, I did comment, and in a positive manner. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #125355 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 9:55 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. rjkjp1 That sounds perfect to me sarah.. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Rob K, > > As you're looking for more feedback... > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > ---------------------- > > > > RK: The rupa khandha of what is known As kenh Is actually trillions of incredilby > > > tiny kalapas each kalapa condtioned by one of the 4 factors. Each kalapa has the > > > 4 elements plus at keast 4 other types of rupa including color. > > > The kalapa has no space inside , it is indivisible and incredibly tiny. But each > > > kalapa is seperated by space from its neighbours. Is this point ok? > > > ---------------------- > > > > > > KH: I have never thought of a concept as having its own khandhas. > ... > > S: I'd like to question the first line: "The rupa khandha of what is known As kenh Is actually trillions of incredibly tiny kalapas...." > > It just doesn't make sense to me. > > Each kalapa consists of at least 8 inseparable rupas as you know. Each of these rupas is rupa khandha, arising and falling away instantly. For example, the colour/visible in each kalapa arises and falls away regardless of whether it's ever seen. Each colour rupa is different from each of the other rupas in the kalapa and is different from the colour rupa in each other kalapa. This is what rupa khandha refers to - each rupa which arises and falls away, never the same. > > What is seen and what is heard is taken for Ken H. Rupas cannot arise alone. They arise in kalapas, groups of at least 8 rupas, separated from each other by pariccheda akasa rupa (space). > > Let me know if you disagree or if I've missed something. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > #125356 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Jul 2, 2012 10:11 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. rjkjp1 In case it easn't clear, i mean what you wrote sounds perfect.Thanks for clarifying my clumsy phrasing Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > That sounds perfect to me sarah.. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > > Dear Rob K, > > > > As you're looking for more feedback... > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > RK: The rupa khandha of what is known As kenh Is actually trillions of incredilby > > > > tiny kalapas each kalapa condtioned by one of the 4 factors. Each kalapa has the > > > > 4 elements plus at keast 4 other types of rupa including color. > > > > The kalapa has no space inside , it is indivisible and incredibly tiny. But each > > > > kalapa is seperated by space from its neighbours. Is this point ok? > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > > > > KH: I have never thought of a concept as having its own khandhas. > > ... > > > > S: I'd like to question the first line: "The rupa khandha of what is known As kenh Is actually trillions of incredibly tiny kalapas...." > > > > It just doesn't make sense to me. > > > > Each kalapa consists of at least 8 inseparable rupas as you know. Each of these rupas is rupa khandha, arising and falling away instantly. For example, the colour/visible in each kalapa arises and falls away regardless of whether it's ever seen. Each colour rupa is different from each of the other rupas in the kalapa and is different from the colour rupa in each other kalapa. This is what rupa khandha refers to - each rupa which arises and falls away, never the same. > > > > What is seen and what is heard is taken for Ken H. Rupas cannot arise alone. They arise in kalapas, groups of at least 8 rupas, separated from each other by pariccheda akasa rupa (space). > > > > Let me know if you disagree or if I've missed something. > > > > Metta > > > > Sarah > > ===== > > > #125357 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Tue Jul 3, 2012 1:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasika in daily life -project -viriya 1 - welfare for the hou... moellerdieter Hi Howard (Nina and Sarah) you wrote: For some reason, Sarah and some others, despite the clear meaning of 'khandha' as "group"/"collection"/"aggregate", call individual namas and rupas "khandhas," a usage I find odd but their usage nonetheless. So, whether it "grates on the ear" or not (LOL!), the usage should be understood and accepted for the sake of good conversation (D:the background of this discussion is the distinction between reality and concept ,the importance often emphasised here. It began when Sarah disagreed with Nyanatiloka's defintion of khandha (=abstract) ----------------------------------------------------- HCW: Yes, I understand that. My point, possibly tangential to your primary topic of conversation, is that a well-established way of speaking is a convention that needs to be accepted for purposes of communication. (I also think it is important, I hasten to add, that speech conventions effect manner of thinking, and so, it is important to be very much aware of one's speech conventions.) D: One final point :the Buddha khandhas used it in a similar way ( Sarah quoted canonical sources) I commented that - as far as I know - the suttas do not distinguish between realities and concept/abstract , so by khandhas, as a way of speech, the individual namas and rupas are meant . However Abhidhamma, in a deeper exploration , introduced this disctinction and here we need to keep in mind -as you said - " that speech conventions effect manner of thinking, and so, it is important to be very much aware of one's speech conventions." If no other evidence comes up , I think one may conclude the issue this way.. with Metta Dieter #125358 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jul 3, 2012 3:48 am Subject: Re: Life is a real test. was:Delisting announcement epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Rob E, > Rob, I appreciate so much your reactions to my quote of Kh Sujin > about kusala. Your writing about it reminds me again and again. :-) I am glad - it was a very helpful quote! Rob E.: > > I'm really enjoying this discussion, and the quote above from K. > > Sujin is just wonderful - a great exposition of how kusala is > > actually helpful and can be seen to help others and reduce > > suffering when it is recognized. > ------ > N: You can also find such reminders in her book about the > perfections. All kinds of kusala through body, speech and mind are > assisting the development of right understanding. > > Sarah gave a lovely reminder to Lodewijk after a severe test I want > to share. ... > ...but it's all still just seeing, hearing, thinking and so on...> > Sarah, we discussed this. Good to be reminded that we never know > conditions that make certain things happen. In the ultimate sense > there are just dhammas, seeing, hearing, thinking about lovely > dreams. Regrets are useless, best to have more understanding of any > reality now. Thank you for sharing your personal story about this. It is a very good reminder that we can see that there are only dhammas when these kinds of things happen. It really can take us out of the story, into the reality of this moment, and I think that is inherently less painful. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #125359 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Jul 3, 2012 4:35 am Subject: Re: Problems in life. epsteinrob Hi Rob K., Ken H., and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear kenh > Let us go back to basics. > > Now there is ken howard, right. But ken h is just a name to refer to the nama and rupa in that stream of elements that began 60 years ago and will end sometime within the next few decades. Is that point ok? > > The rupa khandha of what is known As kenh Is actually trillions of incredilby tiny kalapas each kalapa condtioned by one of the 4 factors. Each kalapa has the 4 elements plus at keast 4 other types of rupa including color. > The kalapa has no space inside , it is indivisible and incredibly tiny. But each kalapa is seperated by space from its neighbours. Is this point ok? > > Each kalapa lasts for about a trillioth time as flash of lightining and then disappears forever. But while the condtioning factors such as citta or kamma or utu or ahara ( nutrition) are presenr, new Kalaps will arise. Because thos conditioning factors are often similar the new kalapas may look much the same as the old ones. But again they can never be exactly the same. Countless kalaps make up the physical eye and some of those are conditioned by citta: one can detect a glint of lust sometimes in someone, or icy cold, or the flare of rage. And that is just looking at the physical eyes. . Or somone might eat and eat and eat,. You se them after a year and they are fatter. This is because of ahara conditiong rupa. Is this ok? > > > Because kalapas and the factors that condition them are unique we can tell who is who. Look, as far as I am concerned you have given a very thorough, concise and sensible explanation of how rupas/kalapas arise in such a way that conventional physical reality has the appearance and properties that it displays. It makes more sense to say that the rupas of "eating and eating" result in the rupas of a "larger" person than to say that rupas and eating have no relation to each other at all, because eating and person are just concepts. When we see a skinny person who then eats and eats and gets fatter, we are not seeing the rupas as they arise. We are not in touch with the true reality of how that takes place. But we do see a kind of result of all those rupas arising. A different set of kalapas are coming up, with different properties because of what has gone in the kalapas before. And that makes sense. The arahat can see the process on the paramatha level, the ordinary person only sees conventional results. But there still is a relation between those conventional results and the paramatha dhammas that have arisen and passed. You outline what I think is the thorniest point of contention within this group. Some people think that conventional reality is just nonsense, hallucination made out of whole imaginary cloth, with no relation to dhammas at all. Others, like yourself, see a sensible relation between what actually arises and what we experience every day. You understand that there is a difference between the concept of a person and the namas and rupas that arise to create that person's temporary processes, but you don't see them as totally unrelated. Others do. For those who see paramatha dhammas in a totally separate world with no relation at all to everyday actions and occurrences, it is impossible to make good sense of the suttas, in which the Buddha often talks about the conventional actions and results that we experience every day. Sometimes he also talks about the paramatha level and sometimes he talks somewhere inbetween. But all that he says relates to dhammas and to the path. It is a continuum of undestanding, rather than a divided understanding. I think we can all agree with Ken H's formulation of kamma patha below. Then the question is whether we can say "there is a being to be killed" while at the same time understanding that there is not a "being per se," but a being that appears and changes at each moment based on the continuous arising and falling away of dhammas. Best, Rob E. ---------------------------- Ken H.: > > When you say "the killing process" I think you are referring to the formula, 'the presence of a being that can be killed, an intention to kill and the resulting death of that being.' ---------------------------- #125360 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 3, 2012 5:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kenh3 nilovg Dear Rob K, thank you for this wonderful collection of quotes from VS. I keep it in my files. So clearly explained, Nina. Op 2-jul-2012, om 10:02 heeft rjkjp1 het volgende geschreven: > Or this one , please read. > Are there errors in this, surely it would be helpful to me and > possibly others to know. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/120682 #125361 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Jul 3, 2012 8:25 am Subject: Re: Problems in life. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Rob K., Ken H., and all. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > You outline what I think is the thorniest point of contention within this group. Some people think that conventional reality is just nonsense, hallucination made out of whole imaginary cloth, with no relation to dhammas at all. Others, like yourself, see a sensible relation between what actually arises and what we experience every day. You understand that there is a difference between the concept of a person and the namas and rupas that arise to create that person's temporary processes, but you don't see them as totally unrelated. Others do. > > For those who see paramatha dhammas in a totally separate world with no relation at all to everyday actions and occurrences, it is impossible to make good sense of the suttas, in which the Buddha often talks about the conventional actions and results that we experience every day. Sometimes he also talks about the paramatha level and sometimes he talks somewhere inbetween. But all that he says relates to dhammas and to the path. It is a continuum of undestanding, rather than a divided understanding. > > I think we can all agree with Ken H's formulation of kamma patha below. Then the question is whether we can say "there is a being to be killed" while at the same time understanding that there is not a "being per se," but a being that appears and changes at each moment based on the continuous arising and falling away of dhammas. > > Best, > Rob E. > > ---------------------------- > > Ken H.: > > > When you say "the killing process" I think you are referring to the formula, 'the presence of a being that can be killed, an intention to kill and the resulting death of that being.' > > ---------------------------- >Hi, Robert (K) and Jon, and all - In a message dated 7/2/2012 4:02:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: Dear jon Here is a post I wrote a week ago back where the visuddhimaga talks about the stream of continuity. Again no one commented and yet when i mention a few days ago the stream of arisind and passing elements, there are objections. ============================= Robert, unless I am falsely remembering, I did comment, and in a positive manner. With metta, Howard ==== dear Howard and Rob epstein Yes indeed I should have acknowledged that. One of the useful outcomes of this latest series of posts is that I appreciate more your interest in Abhidhamma, which seems to be growing... Robert #125362 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Jul 3, 2012 8:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: kenh3 rjkjp1 Thanks Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob K, > thank you for this wonderful collection of quotes from VS. I keep it > in my files. So clearly explained, > Nina. > Op 2-jul-2012, om 10:02 heeft rjkjp1 het volgende geschreven: > > > Or this one , please read. > > Are there errors in this, surely it would be helpful to me and > > possibly others to know. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/120682 > > > > > #125363 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Jul 3, 2012 12:15 pm Subject: Ken H on hols kenhowardau Hi all, I will be on holiday in Phuket from 5 July to 22 July. This time last year when I was there I couldn't sign on to DSG or to Yahoo. I don't know why that was, but I should have more luck this year with my own computer instead of relying on the hotel and internet cafes. Even if I can't sign on to post a message I will at least be able to read the posts. See you when I see you! Ken H #125364 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Jul 3, 2012 3:40 pm Subject: Re: Ken H on hols sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, Have a good trip and suggest to Sue that you combine it with a Bkk get together next time! No excuses for not posting on holiday these days! Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > I will be on holiday in Phuket from 5 July to 22 July. > > This time last year when I was there I couldn't sign on to DSG or to Yahoo. I don't know why that was, but I should have more luck this year with my own computer instead of relying on the hotel and internet cafes. > > Even if I can't sign on to post a message I will at least be able to read the posts. > > See you when I see you! > > Ken H > #125365 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Jul 3, 2012 6:48 pm Subject: Re: Ken H on hols rjkjp1 Dear kenh, I just got off a bus, south of manila, and it had great internet connection the whole trip. The bus is still like the first time I was here20 years ago, broken seats and music blaring But internet trumps comfort ! Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Ken H, > > Have a good trip and suggest to Sue that you combine it with a Bkk get together next time! > > No excuses for not posting on holiday these days! > > Metta > > Sarah > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > I will be on holiday in Phuket from 5 July to 22 July. > > > > This time last year when I was there I couldn't sign on to DSG or to Yahoo. I don't know why that was, but I should have more luck this year with my own computer instead of relying on the hotel and internet cafes. > > > > Even if I can't sign on to post a message I will at least be able to read the posts. > > > > See you when I see you! > > > > Ken H > > > #125366 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jul 3, 2012 10:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ken H on hols upasaka_howard Have a great trip, Ken! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 7/2/2012 10:15:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi all, I will be on holiday in Phuket from 5 July to 22 July. This time last year when I was there I couldn't sign on to DSG or to Yahoo. I don't know why that was, but I should have more luck this year with my own computer instead of relying on the hotel and internet cafes. Even if I can't sign on to post a message I will at least be able to read the posts. See you when I see you! Ken H #125367 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 12:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Life is a real test. nilovg Dear Rob E, Op 2-jul-2012, om 19:48 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > Thank you for sharing your personal story about this. It is a very > good reminder that we can see that there are only dhammas when > these kinds of things happen. It really can take us out of the > story, into the reality of this moment, and I think that is > inherently less painful. ------- N: You formultaed in these sentences the essence of the Dhamma. Our normal daily life consists of stories, this is so natural. Then we learn to see through these stories: there are only dhammas. Indeed it helps to cope with difficult events, not taking them so personal. This is taught in the suttas all the time. That is why I find suttas very important and most helpful. They deal with common events and problems in daily life and help me to see what is really true. You formulated this so well in another post: ------- Nina. #125368 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 12:07 am Subject: Pilgrimage in India, Ch 4, 4 nilovg Dear friends, During our journey, when we had to sit in the bus for eighteen hours (and this happened now and then), we might have liked to change the situation. Don’t we wish to change the situation when things are not as we would like them to be? However, right understanding of nåma and rúpa is more important than the fact whether a situation is pleasant or unpleasant. The experience of pleasant of unpleasant objects through the senses is vipåka and how could we change vipåka that is the result of kamma? Life is nåma and rúpa arising because of conditions and there is no self who could control nåma and rúpa. During our pilgrimage there were many reminders to consider nåma and rúpa and at such moments there were less conditions for akusala cittas with aversion. Nobody in our group complained during the long journey in the bus. Once we were sitting in the dark during the small hours of the morning and we still had not reached the hotel where we were supposed to stay overnight. One of the ladies asked the Thai monk who was with us whether he would preach about endurance. The monk, who never showed any tiredness and preached all day long to us with great vigour, stood up and preached about endurance. We should have endless patience with regard to the development of wisdom. The “Visuddhimagga” (Ch I, 135) gives us an example of a monk who attained enlightenment on his death-bed. It is not difficult to attain enlightenment when the right conditions have been cultivated, but it is difficult to be mindful over and over again, with great patience and perseverance, during all our activities. We read that the Elder Mahå-Sa"ngharakkhita was lying on his death-bed and had not attained enlightenment. The young bhikkhu who was his attendant said that it would be a disappointment for many people who had come to see him if he would die an ordinary man. We read that the Elder said: “...’Friend, thinking to see the Blessed One Metteyya [1], I did not try for insight. So help me to sit up and give me the chance.’ He helped the Elder to sit up and went out. As he went out the Elder reached Arahatship and he gave a sign by snapping his fingers. The Order assembled and said to him ‘Venerable sir, you have done a difficult thing in achieving the supramundane state in the hour of death’- ‘That was not difficult, friends. But rather I will tell you what is difficult. Friends, I see no action done (by me) without mindfulness and unknowingly since the time I went forth’....” ---------- 1) The Bodhisatta Metteyya will be the next Buddha. ****** Nina. #125369 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 3:08 am Subject: Re: Problems in life. truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, >RE: You outline what I think is the thorniest point of contention >within this group. Some people think that conventional reality is >just nonsense, hallucination made out of whole imaginary cloth, with >no relation to dhammas at all. >=========================================== Those who say that "conventional reality" doesn't exist - I dare them to avoid drinking and eating anything. After all, refrigerator, Cereals, cup, table, fork, knives, etc, do not exist! I hope that whenever one drives, one remembers that traffic lights, intersection, other cars, pedestrians do exist. The thing is: Just because it is possible to analyze something as being made of parts, it doesn't make "whole" and less real. It *just* means that whole can be taken apart. That is all. It is an insult to intellect to reject the whole merely because it can be taken apart. If something can be taken apart, it means that it HAS TO EXIST in order to be taken apart in the first place. What doesn't exist is something that is constant (nicca), ultimately happy (sukha), and thing-in-itself (Atta) with the former features. With this, we do not have problem with conventional actions. With best wishes, Alex #125370 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 3:50 am Subject: Re: kenh3 epsteinrob Hi Ken H, and Rob K. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > > ---- > <. . .> > > RK: I know you agree with nina, but what we are trying to establish- looking at this quote is where what i say is different from her. > ---- > > KH: Why should we restrict ourselves to Nina's quotes? My contention is that any and every elucidation of the Dhamma uses concepts purely as conventional designations for paramattha dhammas. > > The texts talk about a crow, for example, being burnt to death by a necklace of burning straw, and they say that was the result of kamma from a past life when, as a farmer, the crow burnt a cow to death in a similar way. > > Those are all concepts and they are being used by the texts to describe dhammas – unwholesome kamma patha, the correspondingly unpleasant vipakka cittas they condition, and the correspondingly undesirable sense objects they experience. > > I feel sure you are insisting those concepts also have some relevance or validity in their own right. And that is where I think you part company with the texts. Well, the question is more towards how do we know dhammas, rather than what is a concept. What I mean is that what we see in everyday life either has some relation to dhammas - gives us a clue if we understand in the right way, or not - no relation at all, as I think you would say. I think you would say that concepts refer to dhammas but they do not reflect them. I would say that concepts 'reflect' dhammas imperfectly, rather than say nothing about them at all. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #125371 From: "philip" Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 2:49 am Subject: Re: Dustrags 4 philofillet Hi Sarah and all I would like to say again that posting this sort of thing and other pleas for kind and gentle speech indicates, in my opinion, a subtle belief in the ability to influence other people's behaviour. If people like me often have wrong speech, or make disparaging comments, that's just the way conditions are playing out, and if you try to discourage it will only succeed in demonstrating a belief in the control of the dhammas of others and end up alienating the wrong speech-er. I quote this from the SPD series: "We may believe that we want to be without defilements, but when defilements actually arise it seems that we wish to have them. We may have conceit, we may find ourselves important, or we may be jealous. Someone else may say that such defilements should be eradicated, that one should rejoice in someone else's happiness or that one should have loving-kindness towardes a disagreeable person, but are we able to follow such advice? People who want to be angry, who want to have contempt for others, who want to be arrogant or jealous, cannot follow the adivce to cultivate wholesomeness. This shows that the eradication of defilements cannot occur immediately, that it can only be accomplished very gradually." (end of passage) I *enjoy* disliking the people I dislike, I *enjoy* writing rude things to them. That's not good news for me, but it's the way it is. You don't have to worry, because I won't be participating here and as long as me and other rude speakers are absent, it should be all right here and you won't have to post this sort of series! I repeat from the above: "People who want to be angry, who want to have contempt for others, who want to be arrogant or jealous, cannot follow the advice to cultivate wholesomeness." Pushing people who are behaving badly in the direction of wholesomeness by posting about Rahula and the 4 elements or things about the benefits of metta etc is not really helpful. Just likely to alienate them. Why must there be such clinging to pleasant behaviour at DSG, I just don't get it, why can't there be more understanding? Anyways, just wanted to post the above as a reminder for the next time there is an outbreak of bad behaviour and anyone feels the need to try to change others' behaviour. Better to have some bad behaviour than a belief in the controllability of dhammas. I'll be gone again as soon as this is posted, so won't be able to respond further. Phil p.s I have come to realize that my problem here is not that I can't stand criticism or disagreement about Abhidhamma. It's just that I just plain dislike some people because of their tone, style of posting and other snooty aesthetic things, and strongly enough that I have decided to leave. Very silly of course, but life is full of silliness. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > "--Rahula, develop a mind similar to earth, when you develop a mind similar to earth arisen contacts of like and dislike do not take hold of your mind and stay. Rahula on the earth is dumped, the pure and the impure, excreta, urine, saliva, pus, blood, the earth does not loathe those, in the same manner develop a mind similar to earth. When you develop a mind similar to earth, arisen contacts of like and dislike do not take hold of the mind and stay--" > > > From Num, #4072 > > "As Erik brought up about mana. I would like to discuss and get some inputs about mana cetasika. How many different ways can mana cetasika manifest? Pride, esteem, feeling of superiority, inferiority, equality, etc. > > I have read about Ven. Sariputta who said that he considered himself as only a dustrag or a floormat. His humbleness is really impressed me. I admire his wisdom, his kindness, his patience and his humbleness. I asked my self do I like to feel as a dustrag, definitely not. At time I thought about how being ariyan feel like. Like a dustrag!?? V.Sariputta is the foremost Bhuddha disciple in wisdom 2nd only to the Buddha. When his mom invited group of monk for offering food, she was really mean and sarcastic to the monks. V.Sariputta was calm and patient. When he was wrongly accused by a young monk, and after the Buddha cleared the accusation he even asked for a pardon from the younger monk if he had offended him in any means. A lot more incidents rgd V.Sariputta's humbleness." > > Recommended reading: The Life of Sariputta, > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel090.html > > **** > Metta > > Sarah > ======= > > > #125372 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 8:56 am Subject: Re: Kenh1 epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > RE: As I see it, the issue is whether there is any relation of what we refer to here as concepts to actual dhammas, or are all conventional perceptions and activities not only distorted but completely fictional with the status of pure hallucinations. > > =============== > > J: I think the issue you raise here is something of a red herring :-)). > > Whether or not there is a 'relation' between dhammas and conventional concepts/objects is beside the point. Whether or not it is beside the point, it seems to be the point of contention between folks as serious about the Dhamma as Ken H. & Rob K. So maybe it is worth addressing so as to settle the disagreement? In any case, I don't think it's beside the point at all, unless it is already settled that nothing we do in life means anything. Only direct understanding matters, and I don't think the Buddha ever said anything to suggest that pure understanding, removed from all life circumstances, was the only thing that mattered. So it comes down to what is really an essential Dhamma argument, not beside the point at all, whether there is indeed an eightfold path, which includes other factors other than right understanding, or a one-fold path, which includes only right understanding, and in which all the other 7 factors are nothing but subsidiary aspects of right understanding. Buddha never suggested that, but I think that is what it comes down to when one thinks that "understanding dhammas" stands alone without any other necessary supports, such as actual right action or right livelihood. If one thinks that right action - even with the word action in it - comes down to nothing but an arising dhamma that has no actual action in it, and that is true for all the factors, then there really is only right understanding, only mental factors, and then the Buddha's explicit exposition of the Dhamma is reduced to something quite one-dimensional compared to the diverse and balanced teaching that the Buddha enunciated during the course of his 40 years of teaching. The reason it is not beside the point is because the Buddha did *not* say over and over again "all that matters is understanding dhammas." He said that the way we lived, acted, and spoke were all important parts of the path, without which the destruction of the defilements and the ultimate understanding that brings enlightenment, which is a matter of mental factors, would not ever come. > The Buddha pointed out that there are things that are real in the ultimate sense and that are not known as they truly are, and he declared that only by the development of understanding of these things can there be enlightenment and escape from samsara. He also said that without the other aspects of the path, such as right action, such understanding could not properly develop. The path does not emanate from purely intellectual activity. > The development of that understanding does not involve identifying any particular relationship between dhammas and conventional objects and, as far as I'm aware, the Buddha never asserted such a relationship as part of the development of the path. Well he talked about life, action, meditation and dictates of right living continuously, both for monks and lay people. What does all that add up to? > I would say he was at pains to assert the importance of the development of understanding of dhammas. Well he was also at pains to talk about all the conditions necessary to develop this, and that included how one lives in the conventional world. > > =============== > > RE: As I see it, real activities exist in the world, but they are really arising and falling away rupas, not as we ordinarily conceive of them, ... > > =============== > > J: I'm wondering what is the basis for the notion that "real activities exist in the world". Is this from the texts, or is it your personal experience? It is from the Buddha's own mentioning of such things in very conventional contexts. While dhammas are always implicated, that doesn't mean that the actions and responses in the world are not meaningful. > You seem to be positing a 2-tier reality: (a) dhammas and (b) conventional objects/activities. The Buddha said may times that ultimate reality and conventional reality were both true in their own realms, and that they did not contradict each other. "The Awakened One, the best of teachers, spoke of two truths, conventional and higher; no third is ascertained; a conventional statement is true because of convention and a higher statement is true as disclosing the true characteristics of events." - Khathāvatthu Aṭṭha kathǎ And Nina has said as much most recently. Rob K.'s statement that "more kusala cittas should lead to less murder" sort of summarizes the point in question. If we could look at that, perhaps that would be a good place to clarify the issue. > > =============== > > RE: If one willfully kills beings, one generates akusala kamma, even if one knows that ultimately there are no beings. The caterpillars are not real as such, but the cittas and rupas that are produced when 'caterpillars are trampled' are real, and they create suffering for the 'caterpillar's cittas' and kamma for he who does the trampling. The blind man was blameless because he was blind, and thus had no choice and no desire to kill with regard to the caterpillars. > > =============== > > J: I'm not sure that 'having no choice' is a relevant consideration. It's purely a matter of whether or not there's the intention to take life. Well that makes sense to me, too, but if one "has no choice" that just clarifies that there is no intention to kill, even if some "crunching rupas" take place by happenstance. If there "were a choice" with no intention to kill, the monk would merely walk around the caterpillars and spare them the suffering of being crunched. In any case, your view on this contradict's Ken H.'s interpretation that the monk was fine because he understood that "there were really no caterpillars to kill" rather than the point that "there was no intention to kill," with which I agree. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #125373 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 1:44 pm Subject: Out of our hands? ( was Re: To Phil. Dhamma recording epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: I agree with pt here. For thinking about a concept to be kusala (including "turning it around, probing it, in order to understand what it represents"), there must probably be some level of understanding > > > > RE: I think I would agree with that... Although it would seem to me that understanding would develop through such 'probing,' etc., as long as it was kusala. > > > > > J: ...And of course the object must be one that can usefully be reflected on. What kind of objects would you see as being 'important objects' in this context? > > > > RE: Well, it's not like I'm an expert at listing kusala objects of contemplation. I would be thinking of any sort of legitimate Dhamma concept or the contemplation of how dhammas behave or their characteristics. That sort of thing, that has the potential to develop pariyatti and develop the path. > > =============== > > J: If we're talking about the contemplation of a conceptual object, then we're talking about samatha bhavana (not vipassana bhavana), right? That is not what I had in mind. I am thinking of the development of pariyatti, which, if I understand it correctly, which I very well may not, involves the conceptual understanding of how dhammas actually behave. In other words, it is the understanding of how dhammas behave, but without yet actually being able to experience them directly. Please let me know where I am off-base. It seems that defining pariyatti is an adventure in swimming through quicksand. Anyway, contemplation of the direct characteristics of dhammas, etc., should lead to the development of understanding via pariyatti, not samatha bhavana. As I understand it, the kind of concept that leads to samatha bhavana are concepts such as the breath known on a conceptual rather than a direct level, and other objects of that sort, such as meditative nimittas, kasinas, etc. When talking about pariyatti I am talking about contemplation of Dhamma, not meditation objects. > There are a limited number of objects the contemplation of which support the development of samatha to a high degree, and these objects are specified in the texts (suttas and Vism). They include, for example: certain kasinas; the 'divine abidings' of metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha; the breath; a number of recollections (death, the Buddha, the Dhamma). > > Contemplation of these objects can only be kusala if there is the knowledge of what is to be contemplated/recollected about the object and why (these kinds of details are found in the Vism). Whereas the idea of 'turning the object around, probing it, in order to understand what it represents' seems to imply a quite different approach (no mention of this kind of thing in Vism, for example). It seems to be more *concentration on* than *contemplation of*. I am talking about contemplation of the concepts of Dhamma, not meditation. You may question this as well, but it's a very different subject. If you read a commentary and gain some understanding of what is being said about the characteristics of dhammas, or discuss them as we do here, and some understanding develops, that is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #125374 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 1:52 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---- <. . .> > RE: What I mean is that what we see in everyday life either has some relation to dhammas - gives us a clue if we understand in the right way, or not - no relation at all, as I think you would say. I think you would say that concepts refer to dhammas but they do not reflect them. I would say that concepts 'reflect' dhammas imperfectly, rather than say nothing about them at all. ----- KH: The Dhamma is knowable only when it has been taught by a Buddha. No amount of concept-examination will ever uncover it. I think that must mean concepts do not reflect dhammas. If concepts did reflect dhammas in some way it would be only a matter of time (Buddhas or no Buddhas) before conventional science discovered dhammas. If, for example, the human body was made of kalapas then nuclear physicists would have discovered kalapas by now. (IMHO) In another DSG thread some people have been saying there is a limited degree of control in absolute reality. If there was limited control we would have slowly gained complete control by now, wouldn't we? So I am saying there is no control to any degree in absolute reality and, for the same reasons, there is no reality (substance, sabhava) in concepts. Not even a reflection of it! Ken H #125375 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 2:01 pm Subject: Re: What some says give no indication of view epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > >=============== > > RE: This makes it rather pointless to discuss Dhamma imho, i gues nothing more can be said I don't know how the RE got in front of this, but it is an RK comment, not mine. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #125376 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 4:27 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 jonoabb Hi RobK --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear jon > Here is a post I wrote a week ago back where the visuddhimaga talks about the stream of continuity. Again no one commented and yet when i mention a few days ago the stream of arisind and passing elements, there are objections. > =============== J: Thanks Rob. The post you've copied here appears to consist of quotes from the Visuddhimagga. You say there was a post a few days ago that brought objections, but I've not been able to find it. > =============== > > > "The two together: since any given states are produced without interrupting > the [cause-fruit] continuity of any given combination of conditions, the whole > expression "dependent origination" (paþicca-samuppáda) represents the middle > way, which rejects the doctrines, "He who acts is he who reaps" and "One acts > while another reaps" (S II 20), and which is the proper way described thus, "Not > insisting on local language and NOT OVERRIDDING NORMAL USAGE" (M III 234)"" > > "And with a STREAM of continuity there is neither identity nor otherness. > For if there were absolute identity in a STREAM of continuity, there would be no > forming of curd from milk. And yet if there were absolute otherness, the curd > would not be derived from the milk. And so too with all causally arisen things. > > > RK: Or this one , please read. > Are there errors in this, surely it would be helpful to me and possibly others to know. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/120682 > =============== J: This post is also a collection of (very useful) passages from the Visuddhimagga, so obviously I would not be disagreeing with that part of the content ;-)). Jon #125377 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 4:31 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. jonoabb Hi RobK --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > J: Just a guess, but he could be referring (in part) to the statement "Countless kalaps make up the physical eye". His comment could be that this could be read as meaning that according to the teachings the physical eye breaks down into rupas, in the same way that modern science holds that the eye breaks down into atoms and molecules. > > > > Of course, he may be taking your comments too literally (I wouldn't have made the same assumption as KenH myself). But you may have not caught his drift, in which case it's always possible to seek clarification (or ignore completely). > > > > > =============== > > Dear jon, > Thanks for coming in on this discussion. Please continue. > > Obviously atoms and molecules have no existence at all, they are merely invented ideas of scientists. > But kalapas are real. Of course physical eye is merely a concept with no existence, but we need to refer to body and eye and heart etc to be able to discuss Dhamma. > =============== J: Yes, all true enough. But I thought KenH may be alluding to the idea held by some that *conventional objects (such as the eye) break down into dhammas*, that is to say, that dhammas are constituent parts of conventional objects. As I say, this would presumably be based on a literal reading of your statement "Countless kalaps make up the physical eye". > =============== > RK: Nina writes in her book on physical phenomena about foetus and body ( of course she knows they are merely designations) yet for some reason when I use terms like eye or body there are objections. I would certainly be very happy if ken clarifies more, maybe to reply to this post, and on the other posts I made. > =============== J: I have long felt that when you and KenH discuss you are each talking about something different. It doesn't surprise me that you find the experience exasperating :-)) Jon #125378 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 4:36 pm Subject: Re: What some says give no indication of view jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > >=============== > > > RE: This makes it rather pointless to discuss Dhamma imho, i gues nothing more can be said > > I don't know how the RE got in front of this, but it is an RK comment, not mine. > ===== J: Apologies for that. A slip of either the finger or the mind (more likely the latter :-)) Jon > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - > #125379 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 5:17 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > > Dear jon > > Here is a post I wrote a week ago back where the visuddhimaga talks about the stream of continuity. Again no one commented and yet when i mention a few days ago the stream of arisind and passing elements, there are objections. > > =============== > > J: Thanks Rob. The post you've copied here appears to consist of quotes from the Visuddhimagga. You say there was a post a few days ago that brought objections, but I've not been able to find it. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Jon, I meant this one and following ones: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/125275 RK: Of course nina, Buddhaghosa and me all know that in reality there are only streams of evanescent namas and rupas arising and passing away. What we call a dog is merely a designation for the elements right? ------ KH: Right, but why do you also talk about streams? I have always noticed that meditators (people who believe in control over dhammas) like to talk about streams of dhammas. The rest of us (I would have thought} prefer to talk about the presently arisen citta, cetasikas and rupas – or just the present dhamma-arammana. __________________ robert > > > =============== > > "The two together: since any given states are produced without interrupting > > the [cause-fruit] continuity of any given combination of conditions, the whole > > expression "dependent origination" (paþicca-samuppáda) represents the middle > > way, which rejects the doctrines, "He who acts is he who reaps" and "One acts > > while another reaps" (S II 20), and which is the proper way described thus, "Not > > insisting on local language and NOT OVERRIDDING NORMAL USAGE" (M III 234)"" > > > > "And with a STREAM of continuity there is neither identity nor otherness. > > For if there were absolute identity in a STREAM of continuity, there would be no > > forming of curd from milk. And yet if there were absolute otherness, the curd > > would not be derived from the milk. And so too with all causally arisen things.++++++++++++++++++++ #125380 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 5:26 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 rjkjp1 By the way I cited this quotation some time back and had no objections (I thought) at that time. : Abhidhammattha Sangaha: Ch VI, BODHI:guide to #6 "The life-span of a citta is termed, in the Abhidhamma, a mind-moment (cittakkha.na). This is a temporal unit of such brief duration that, according to the commentators, in the time it takes for lightning to flash or the eyes to blink, billions of mind-moments can elapse. Nevertheless, though seemingly infinitesimal, each mind-moment in turn consists of three sub-moments - arising (uppaada), presence (.thiti), and dissolution (bhanga). Within the breadth of a mind-moment, a citta arises, performs its momentary function, and then dissolves, conditioning the next citta in immediate succession. Thus, through the sequence of mind-moments, the flow of consciousness continues uninterrupted LIKE THE WATERS IN A STREAM ."" robert > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear jon > > > Here is a post I wrote a week ago back where the visuddhimaga talks about the stream of continuity. Again no one commented and yet when i mention a few days ago the stream of arisind and passing elements, there are objections. > > > =============== > > #125381 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 7:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dustrags 4 sarahprocter... Hi Phil, > From: philip >I would like to say again that posting this sort of thing and other pleas for kind and gentle speech indicates, in my opinion, a subtle belief in the ability to influence other people's behaviour. If people like me often have wrong speech, or make disparaging comments, that's just the way conditions are playing out, and if you try to discourage it will only succeed in demonstrating a belief in the control of the dhammas of others and end up alienating the wrong speech-er. ... S: Actually it wasn't a plea for anything and I did not have you or your speech in mind at all when I wrote the series. I had been asked more than once to say something with regard to hearing personal criticism and this is what prompted my reflections on equanimity with regard to the worldly conditions, learning from Sariptutta's example of being like a dust-rag and so on. As I've mentioned before, I just share what I find helpful to reflect on and that's all. Some us really benefit from reminders of metta and "developing a mind like the earth", while others like yourself find them "alienating". So be it. It was the same in the Buddha's time as well. Yes, it just comes down to the understanding at this moment, the understanding now of the benefit of metta when it arises and the harm of dosa. If we try to have metta, try to be like a dust-rag that accepts all the filth and gunge that comes its way, or thing we can control others in any way, we go wrong, I agree. However, if there was no point in giving such reminders for us to reflect on about all kinds of kusala now, the Buddha would have kept quiet. ... > >I quote this from the SPD series: > >"We may believe that we want to be without defilements, but when defilements actually arise it seems that we wish to have them. We may have conceit, we may find ourselves important, or we may be jealous. Someone else may say that such defilements should be eradicated, that one should rejoice in someone else's >happiness or that one should have loving-kindness towardes a disagreeable person, but are we able to follow such advice? People who want to be angry, who want to have contempt for others, who want to be arrogant or jealous, cannot follow the adivce to cultivate wholesomeness. This shows that the eradication of >defilements cannot occur immediately, that it can only be accomplished very gradually." (end of passage) ... S: Yes, "accomplished very gradually" through right understanding. As I mentioned in one of the letters, when I first heard K.Sujin encouraging us all to reflect on the dust-rag and the benefit of having a mind that can hear any criticism, any blame , any adversity with equanimity, I didn't appreciate it as much as I do now. I remember others would go up quietly to her to tell her about problems they had with family members and so on and she'd always talk about realities now and about metta, considering others' needs rather than one's own. Just dhammas, no people to get upset about or dislike at all. .. > >I *enjoy* disliking the people I dislike, I *enjoy* writing rude things to them. That's not good news for me, but it's the way it is. You don't have to worry, because I won't be participating here and as long as me and other rude speakers are absent, it should be all right here and you won't have to post this sort of series! ... S: You *enjoy* disliking people because there is no hiri and ottappa at such times, no metta. It's not "all about Phil":-) As I said, I wasn't worried or concerned about you or your posts and had no thought whatsoever about them when I wrote this particular series. Perhaps you'd been waiting for a response after your last little outburst:-) ... >I repeat from the above: "People who want to be angry, who want to have contempt for others, who want to be arrogant or jealous, cannot follow the advice to cultivate wholesomeness." ... S: Right, so little use in talking to them about dhammas, about kusala and akusala at such times. However, others can benefit and the person who is angry may reflect wisely later. .... >Pushing people who are behaving badly in the direction of wholesomeness by posting about Rahula and the 4 elements or things about the benefits of metta etc is not really helpful. Just likely to alienate them. Why must there be such clinging to pleasant behaviour at DSG, I just don't get it, why can't there be more understanding? ... S: Like now - what kind of cittas are writing or reading? This is what the Dhamma comes down to - understanding now. ... > >Anyways, just wanted to post the above as a reminder for the next time there is an outbreak of bad behaviour and anyone feels the need to try to change others' behaviour. Better to have some bad behaviour than a belief in the controllability of dhammas. I'll be gone again as soon as this is posted, so won't be able to respond further. ... S: :-) ... >p.s I have come to realize that my problem here is not that I can't stand criticism or disagreement about Abhidhamma. It's just that I just plain dislike some people because of their tone, style of posting and other snooty aesthetic things, and strongly enough that I have decided to leave. Very silly of course, but life is full of silliness. ... S: Yes, lack of understanding about the value of metta and about dhammas at such times. When we have long stories about people and dislikes as you describe, it indicates lots of "me and them". As we know, there are no people, just dhammas. Appreciating this is a condition for metta now. The purpose of DSG is to exchange reminders about dhammas and that's what I'll continue to do. Thank you for all your helpful quotes from Survey. Much appreciated. Have a good trip to Canada, Phil. All the outbursts are 'gone' - forget them! Metta Sarah >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: >> "--Rahula, develop a mind similar to earth, when you develop a mind similar to earth arisen contacts of like and dislike do not take hold of your mind and stay. Rahula on the earth is dumped, the pure and the impure, excreta, urine, saliva, pus, blood, the earth does not loathe those, in the same manner develop a mind similar to earth. When you develop a mind similar to earth, arisen contacts of like and dislike do not take hold of the mind and stay--" #125382 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 7:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dustrags 4 nilovg Dear Phil, Op 3-jul-2012, om 18:49 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: > > I quote this from the SPD series: > > "We may believe that we want to be without defilements, but when > defilements actually arise it seems that we wish to have them. ..." > ------ N: Very understandable Phil, when hiri and ottappa do not arise, we do not see the danger of being enslaved to defilements. ------- > Ph: I *enjoy* disliking the people I dislike, I *enjoy* writing > rude things to them. .. Why must there be such clinging to pleasant > behaviour at DSG, I just don't get it, why can't there be more > understanding?... > --------- N: That's just it, more understanding. I like this sutta: PTS III, 167, Tika.n.dakiisutta, At Three-thorn Grove, I discussed at the Pali list. We read this: < "And for what reason should he abide perceiving the repulsive in the unrepulsive as well as in the repulsive? (He should do so with the thought:) 'May no lust arise in me for lust- inducing objects, and may no hatred arise in me towards hate-inducing objects!' (4) "And for what reason should he abide perceiving the unrepulsive in the repulsive as well as in the unrepulsive? (He should do so with the thought:) 'May no hatred arise in me towardshate-inducing objects, and may no lust arise in me for lust-inducing objects!'> N: It does not matter what object presents itself, they are all equal in this respect that they are only impermanent mental phenomena, naama, and physical phenomena, ruupa. Each object falls away immediately, no matter it is pleasant or unpleasant, it is paritta, of slight importance. Through vipassanaa we all can very, very gradually learn this. If an object is very beautiful we can learn to see it as only a reality which does not stay. What falls away immediately is not really beautiful. When an object is very dirty, very ugly, we can learn that it is only a reality that does not stay. It is just an element, why should one have aversion towards an element? All these texts we should not consider as theoretical, they point to the development of understanding of any object that appears, no matter it is pleasant or unpleasant, kusala or akusala. We are inclined to think about objects for a long time, how beautiful they are, how ugly they are. We forget that they fall away immediately. ----- The commentary (I shorten now): He pervades pleasant objects with the impure or applies these with impermanence. He pervades unpleasant objects with mettaa or sees them as elements. Thus he abides seeing the unrepulsive in the repulsive. N: When we meet an unpleasant person who insults us we can forgive him and have mettaa instead of aversion, or we can understand that whatever we see or hear are only conditioned elements. ------- The fifth way is the sixfold upekkhaa. N: This is evenmindedness, tatramajjhattataa, a sobhana cetasika. Sixfold: with regard to the objects experienced through the senses and the mind-door. ------- You said: more understanding. Yes, more understanding that the person you dislike is only elements that arise and fall away. Where is he? Each akusala citta also has ignorance. Ignorance of what? Of the reality that appears now. ------ Nina. #125383 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 7:22 pm Subject: Pilgrimage in India, Ch 4, 5 nilovg Dear friends, Even though we have understood how to develop the eightfold Path we are often not patient enough to be mindful, day in day out, of visible object and seeing, sound and hearing an all the other realities that appear. At the moment of mindfulness and right understanding there is only the characteristic which appears and there is no impatience with regard to a result of our development, no worry about the future. When hardness, for example, presents itself there can be awareness of only hardness; when the experience of hardness presents itself there can be awareness of that characteristic. This is the way to become more patient with ourselves and with other people. This is the way to be able to endure any kind of situation. Truthfulness, sacca, is another one of the perfections the Buddha had fulfilled. We read in the Jåtakas that the Bodhisatta always kept his promises even when he was in danger of life. We read in the “Sutasoma Jåtaka” (no 537) that a man-eater (who would be reborn later on in the Buddha’s time as A.ngulimåla) was going to kill the Bodhisatta in order to eat him. The Bodhisatta had to go away for a while first in order to fulfil a promise he had made to a Brahmin. After that he came back on his own accord to the man-eater since he had promised him to return. His truthfulness tamed the man-eater. When the man- eater was reborn in the Buddha’s time as A.ngulimåla he was tamed again by the Buddha and he even attained arahatship. In the “Lakkha.na Sutta” (The Marks of the Superman”, Dialogues of the Buddha III, no 30) we read how accumulated kusala kamma conditioned the bodily features of the Buddha. We read concerning his truthfulness: “Whereas in whatsoever former birth... monks, the Tathågata, then being human, put away lying, felt revulsion at lies, became truth- speaker, bound to truth, trustworthy, consistent, breaking his word to no one, he by the doing and by the accumulating of that kamma, by the mass and the abundance thereof... was reborn in a bright and blessed world. Deceasing thence, and attaining this life as you know it, he acquired these two Marks of the Superman, to wit, down growing in separate hairs, all over his body; and between the eyebrows a hairy mole, white and like soft cotton-down.” ***** Nina. #125384 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 7:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kenh3 moellerdieter Hi Rob K, all, thanks for the clarification . As you quoted : "the flow of consciousness continues uninterrupted LIKE THE WATERS IN A STREAM " Interesting in this respect Ven.Narada 'Buddhism in a Nutshell ' excerpt: "According to Buddhism mind is nothing but a complex compound of fleeting mental states. One unit of consciousness consists of three phases -- arising or genesis (uppada) static or development (thiti), and cessation or dissolution (bhanga). Immediately after the cessation stage of a thought moment there occurs the genesis stage of the subsequent thought-moment. Each momentary consciousness of this ever-changing life-process, on passing away, transmits its whole energy, all the indelibly recorded impressions to its successor. Every fresh consciousness consists of the potentialities of its predecessors together with something more. There is therefore, a continuous flow of consciousness like a stream without any interruption. The subsequent thought moment is neither absolutely the same as its predecessor -- since that which goes to make it up is not identical -- nor entirely another -- being the same continuity of kamma energy. Here there is no identical being but there is an identity in process. Every moment there is birth, every moment there is death. The arising of one thought-moment means the passing away of another thought-moment and vice versa. In the course of one life-time there is momentary rebirth without a soul. It must not be understood that a consciousness is chopped up in bits and joined together like a train or a chain. But, on the contrary, "it persistently flows on like a river receiving from the tributary streams of sense constant accretions to its flood, and ever dispensing to the world without the thought-stuff it has gathered by the way."[12] It has birth for its source and death for its mouth. The rapidity of the flow is such that hardly is there any standard whereby it can be measured even approximately. However, it pleases the commentators to say that the time duration of one thought-moment is even less than one-billionth part of the time occupied by a flash of lightning. Here we find a juxtaposition of such fleeting mental states of consciousness opposed to a superposition of such states as some appear to believe. No state once gone ever recurs nor is identical with what goes before. But we worldlings, veiled by the web of illusion, mistake this apparent continuity to be something eternal and go to the extent of introducing an unchanging soul, an atta, the supposed doer and receptacle of all actions to this ever-changing consciousness. "The so-called being is like a flash of lightning that is resolved into a succession of sparks that follow upon one another with such rapidity that the human retina cannot perceive them separately, nor can the uninstructed conceive of such succession of separate sparks."[13] As the wheel of a cart rests on the ground at one point, so does the being live only for one thought-moment. It is always in the present, and is ever slipping into the irrevocable past. What we shall become is determined by this present thought-moment. " as well as Venerable Nyanaponika's ' Abhdidhamma Studies ' (see http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhistudy.pdf espec.Chapter 1 ) who emphases the aspect of time , not sufficiently considered by 'bare and qualified analysis ' , in particular when single static picture like in a cinema are taken for reality instead of the change or flux. with Metta Dieter #125385 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jul 4, 2012 8:57 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 rjkjp1 Yes, that is quite a nice explanation by ven. Narada. I wonder if others agree with.. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > Hi Rob K, all, > > thanks for the clarification . > > As you quoted : "the flow of consciousness continues uninterrupted LIKE THE WATERS IN A STREAM " > > > Interesting in this respect Ven.Narada 'Buddhism in a Nutshell ' > excerpt: "According to Buddhism mind is nothing but a complex compound of fleeting mental states. One unit of consciousness consists of three phases -- arising or genesis (uppada) static or development (thiti), and cessation or dissolution (bhanga). Immediately after the cessation stage of a thought moment there occurs the genesis stage of the subsequent thought-moment. Each momentary consciousness of this ever-changing life-process, on passing away, transmits its whole energy, all the indelibly recorded impressions to its successor. Every fresh consciousness consists of the potentialities of its predecessors together with something more. There is therefore, a continuous flow of consciousness like a stream without any interruption. The subsequent thought moment is neither absolutely the same as its predecessor -- since that which goes to make it up is not identical -- nor entirely another -- being the same continuity of kamma energy. Here there is no identical being but there is an identity in process. > Every moment there is birth, every moment there is death. The arising of one thought-moment means the passing away of another thought-moment and vice versa. In the course of one life-time there is momentary rebirth without a soul. > It must not be understood that a consciousness is chopped up in bits and joined together like a train or a chain. But, on the contrary, "it persistently flows on like a river receiving from the tributary streams of sense constant accretions to its flood, and ever dispensing to the world without the thought-stuff it has gathered by the way."[12] It has birth for its source and death for its mouth. The rapidity of the flow is such that hardly is there any standard whereby it can be measured even approximately. However, it pleases the commentators to say that the time duration of one thought-moment is even less than one-billionth part of the time occupied by a flash of lightning. Here we find a juxtaposition of such fleeting mental states of consciousness opposed to a superposition of such states as some appear to believe. No state once gone ever recurs nor is identical with what goes before. But we worldlings, veiled by the web of illusion, mistake this apparent continuity to be something eternal and go to the extent of introducing an unchanging soul, an atta, the supposed doer and receptacle of all actions to this ever-changing consciousness. > "The so-called being is like a flash of lightning that is resolved into a succession of sparks that follow upon one another with such rapidity that the human retina cannot perceive them separately, nor can the uninstructed conceive of such succession of separate sparks."[13] As the wheel of a cart rests on the ground at one point, so does the being live only for one thought-moment. It is always in the present, and is ever slipping into the irrevocable past. What we shall become is determined by this present thought-moment. " > > > as well as Venerable Nyanaponika's ' Abhdidhamma Studies ' (see http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhistudy.pdf espec.Chapter 1 ) > who emphases the aspect of time , not sufficiently considered by 'bare and qualified analysis ' , in particular when single static picture like in a cinema are taken for reality instead of the change or flux. > > with Metta Dieter > > > > > #125386 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jul 5, 2012 1:53 am Subject: Re: Kenh1 epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > J: Yes, that is exactly the point I was making. He may, speaking as a scientist, say something that he would not say when speaking of his held beliefs. But a person reading his book may, not appreciating the distinction we are making, incorrectly attribute a held belief to him. I still think this is a dicey issue. There is a difference between having two sets of beliefs and having one real and one false belief. I don't think a scientist will announce something as true that he does not believe is actual, even though he may have a personal belief that appears to contradict it. Einstein said that "God doesn't play dice with the Universe," yet all of his work was about provable formulas, not spiritual pronouncements. I would say that those beliefs were not contradictory to him, not that one was a 'held' belief and the other was not. I think we can hold more than one belief at a time. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #125387 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Jul 5, 2012 2:37 am Subject: Re: Kenh1 truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, >RE: I still think this is a dicey issue. There is a difference >between having two sets of beliefs and having one real and one false >belief. >=========================== It is a dicey issue. Rather than having "Real Truth" and falsehood that is merely "conventionally" (whatever that means) true -> Why not have two ways of looking at the same experience? Is it possible to analyze something using more or less technical jargon? Is it possible to look something from various valid perspectives? With best wishes, Alex #125388 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jul 5, 2012 8:22 am Subject: Re: kenh3 epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > So I hope you can see I wasn't talking about a series or "stream" of dhammas. According to my understanding, there is no stream. One momentary set of five khandhas arises and falls away, and that is all there is to a sentient being, or dog. A completely new set of five khandhas is conditioned to take it's place, and so there is a completely new dog. (Or a completely new "that which we call a dog.") I don't think this is correct. The fact that rupas always arise in kalapas - that is a series [stream] points to the organization of conditionality from one dhamma to the next. Kalapas are not simeoltaneous groups but are a conditional sequence. Cittas as well do not arise at random but are "conditioned," as you say, to arise in a sensible manner. If you look at the series of citta that arise in relation to seeing visible object, they are not random but are indeed a series or stream - a certain number of rupa-moments, mind-moments, etc. And they arise in a sensible order, before the next one is sensibly, not randomly, conditioned as well. I think it is a misunderstanding to think that dhamma theory isolates a single dhamma and then it disappears without a trace. While the single dhamma at any moment does disappear, its trace does not. It's like saying that football [the American kind] is played by one football player. One guy does throw the ball, but the fact that another one then arises to catch it is not a coincidence, but a coordinated action between a and b. Likewise with the rupas in a kalapa, and likewise with the sequences of cittas. We don't experience a single moment of "dog," concept or not, but a whole series of visible objects, sounds, etc., interspersed with concepts/thinking and mental processes, etc., and we add that up to the concept of dog. But the concept of dog is not arisen or supported in a single moment, nor in isolation from visible and other actual dhammas which actually do arise to support it. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #125389 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jul 5, 2012 9:19 am Subject: Re: kenh3 epsteinrob Hi Jon, and Ken H, Rob K & Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > KH: So I hope you can see I wasn't talking about a series or "stream" of dhammas. According to my understanding, there is no stream. One momentary set of five khandhas arises and falls away, and that is all there is to a sentient being, or dog. A completely new set of five khandhas is conditioned to take it's place, and so there is a completely new dog. (Or a completely new "that which we call a dog.") > > =============== First, I'd like to take the opportunity to say that in a sense I agree with what Ken H. describes here - in a sense the "dog" does not last for longer than a moment and then is replaced by an almost exact, but of course completely renewed and somewhat transformed "replica." It is somewhat like a film that is stopped and one can look at all the individual frames. Each frame is unique and slightly different than those before and after, and each is a unique and separate image when the "stream" of the film is stopped for closer inspection. On the other hand, when the film is running, and we see "the dog" changing from moment to moment and it adds up to the dog looking or turning or running, that is not just an illusion but also reflects a kind of reality. It is not just a coincidence that each frame in the film matches perfectly with the sequence of the ones before and after, for in fact they are part of a logical sequence. It's not a mistake to say they are related, just a mistake to say they are all the 'same dog.' In other words, way more interesting and complicated than merely saying "it's a new dog each time," or to say the opposite "it is one and the same eternal dog but changing a bit." It is in fact not correct to say it is simply an isolated moment in which a whole new dog arises, or to say that it is the "same dog." I think what one has to say is that the factors that made up or were identified as "dog" are passed on in a logical way but that as they are passed on they also change to create a continued appearance of "dog" that is made up of many micro-moments of experience. None of them really add up to dog per se, but neither it is a coincidence that we experience that dog throughout those moments. To think the dog is a being that has eternal continuity and that has an internal identity is a mistake, but to think that nothing of what we see exists when we see "dog" is also a mistake. > J: Rob E, I'm just wondering if what you're referring to is the fact that each citta is related to one that preceded it and one that follows it by contiguity condition (among others). Yes that is at the very least an important part of what I am referencing. > So are you perhaps saying that cittas that are so related can be regarded as being in a 'stream'. Well of course they are creating the conditions for each next one, like dominoes, and thus have a very lawful and identifiable relationship from moment to moment. To say that this is not the case would be to ignore the obvious. > The texts do refer to stream (Pali: 'sota') in a number of contexts including 'bhavanga-sota' to refer to the bhavanga cittas that arise continuously throughout life except when interrupted by sense-door impressions. And this is indeed another example of how important the 'unbroken stream' of cittas really is. If it were not the case that the *stream* needs to be unbroken in order to maintain the continuity of experience from citta to citta, there would be no need nor would there exist any bhavanga cittas. They are only there to maintain the continuity of the *stream.* Certainly they don't otherwise pertain to any single cittas, which indeed do not stand alone, but are part of that continuity. Thanks for providing that opportunity to clarify that, at least a bit. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #125390 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jul 5, 2012 1:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: kenh3 epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: RE: > Obviously in arising there is a point where it changes to whatever the > function is that is performed, and there is a point where that changes to > falling away, so there is actually change throughout the entire process. > -------------------------------------------------------- > HCW: > Exactly! > ================================ Well you and I agree on this - that's a good start! :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #125391 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jul 5, 2012 2:51 pm Subject: Re: Life is a real test. epsteinrob Hi Nina. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Rob E, > Op 2-jul-2012, om 19:48 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > > > Thank you for sharing your personal story about this. It is a very > > good reminder that we can see that there are only dhammas when > > these kinds of things happen. It really can take us out of the > > story, into the reality of this moment, and I think that is > > inherently less painful. > ------- > N: You formultaed in these sentences the essence of the Dhamma. Our > normal daily life consists of stories, this is so natural. Then we > learn to see through these stories: there are only dhammas. Indeed it > helps to cope with difficult events, not taking them so personal. Hearing you say that back to me is very helpful to me too. It just makes a lot of sense. > This is taught in the suttas all the time. That is why I find suttas > very important and most helpful. They deal with common events and > problems in daily life and help me to see what is really true. Yes, this also supports how I feel when I read some of the suttas - the way you put it is very good. > You formulated this so well in another post: paramatha dhammas in a totally separate world with no relation at all > to everyday actions and occurrences, it is impossible to make good > sense of the suttas, in which the Buddha often talks about the > conventional actions and results that we experience every day. > Sometimes he also talks about the paramatha level and sometimes he > talks somewhere inbetween. But all that he says relates to dhammas > and to the path. It is a continuum of understanding, rather than a > divided understanding.> Thank you, Nina. It is very good to talk to you about this. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #125392 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jul 5, 2012 3:07 pm Subject: Re: Problems in life. epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > What doesn't exist is something that is constant (nicca), ultimately happy (sukha), and thing-in-itself (Atta) with the former features. With this, we do not have problem with conventional actions. Agreed. The only part that I am not sure about is no "atta with the former features." Could you please explain what you mean by that? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #125393 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jul 5, 2012 3:22 pm Subject: Re: Dustrags 4 epsteinrob Phil - you're back - what a surprise! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I would like to say again that posting this sort of thing and other pleas for kind and gentle speech indicates, in my opinion, a subtle belief in the ability to influence other people's behaviour. This is nothing but a misuse of Abhidhamma as an excuse for your own unkind comments. It shows a serious misunderstanding of the difference between 'no-control' and just being plain old irresponsible. Slapping someone and then saying 'not my fault it's due to conditions' is an abuse of the Dhamma, plain and simple. The fact is, you can take in what others say and you can respond to it. No 'you,' but if you are not stubborn, change can still take place - and should. > I *enjoy* disliking the people I dislike, I *enjoy* writing rude things to them. Well it's true that you are rude and seem to only care about what makes you feel good. What you enjoy is not important. You should control yourself. That's right, buck up and stop speaking this way. ... > Anyways, just wanted to post the above as a reminder for the next time there is an outbreak of bad behaviour and anyone feels the need to try to change others' behaviour. Better to have some bad behaviour than a belief in the controllability of dhammas. It's not an either/or choice. Actually people can criticize you and try to get you to change your behavior without having a belief in direct control. Everything conditions change, including what is said here. > I'll be gone again as soon as this is posted, so won't be able to respond further. You won't be gone, Phil. You promised this a week or two ago, but in fact you can't resist coming back just to harass people. > p.s I have come to realize that my problem here is not that I can't stand criticism or disagreement about Abhidhamma. It's just that I just plain dislike some people because of their tone, style of posting and other snooty aesthetic things, and strongly enough that I have decided to leave. Yet, you will not leave. I guess that's another thing you can't control. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #125394 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jul 5, 2012 3:30 pm Subject: Re: kenh3 epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > KH: The Dhamma is knowable only when it has been taught by a Buddha. No amount of concept-examination will ever uncover it. I think that must mean concepts do not reflect dhammas. > > If concepts did reflect dhammas in some way it would be only a matter of time (Buddhas or no Buddhas) before conventional science discovered dhammas. If, for example, the human body was made of kalapas then nuclear physicists would have discovered kalapas by now. (IMHO) I agree that physicists won't find a physical reality of dhammas, but this does not mean that the primal level of concepts - seeing people, objects, actions - does not reflect dhammas. That level is prior to intellectual concepts that are contained in science or other analysis. They are experiential objects [concepts] that reflect a basic, everyday level of understanding that is only clarified by panna, not by intellectual knowledge. > In another DSG thread some people have been saying there is a limited degree of control in absolute reality. If there was limited control we would have slowly gained complete control by now, wouldn't we? Limited is limited. I don't believe in control, but I also don't believe in complete separation of volition and result either. Volition is an active factor, even though it is not subject to control. We can jump off the ground, but we can't fly. No amount of jumping [limited flight] will lead to eventual flying. > So I am saying there is no control to any degree in absolute reality and, for the same reasons, there is no reality (substance, sabhava) in concepts. Not even a reflection of it! Well that is the issue. I don't think that's correct. There's too much coincidence between the properties of rupas, for instance, and the conventional objects that we experience in everyday life. They seem to be related, and are spoken of in that way in all the scriptures, including the commentaries. None of them that I've seen, limited though that might be, try to divorce the understanding of dhammas from everyday experiences, but rather elucidate them. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #125395 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu Jul 5, 2012 3:34 pm Subject: Re: What some says give no indication of view epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > >=============== > > > > RE: This makes it rather pointless to discuss Dhamma imho, i gues nothing more can be said > > > > I don't know how the RE got in front of this, but it is an RK comment, not mine. > > ===== > > J: Apologies for that. A slip of either the finger or the mind (more likely the latter :-)) The mind is a slippery instrument! :-) I've tried to hold mine still, but it doesn't seem to take! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #125396 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Jul 5, 2012 5:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and result. sarahprocter... Hi Howard (& Nina). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > But with regard to the idea that the results of kamma cannot be > > > changed, this is not so. Further conditions, including further > > > kamma, CAN modify > > > the not-yet-arising results of kamma. The Buddha certainly taught > > > this. .... > > > -------- > N: It would interest me to have a sutta text, if you can find it? > ---------------------------------------------------------------- S: What about when lokutta cittas (enlightenment) occurs? Even at the stage of sotapanna, past kamma can no longer bring results by way of woeful rebirth, for example. After the parinibbana of an arahat, past kamma of any kind can no longer bring results. Also, we know the results of kamma are so very intricate. For example, a human birth is a result of past kusala kamma, but past akusala kamma may lead to deformities and so on from birth. Are these the sorts of things you were meaning? Htoo wrote a series before on different types of kamma, such as #45247 and following: >1. janaka kamma or regenerative kamma 2. upatthambhaka kamma or supportive kamma 3. upapiilaka kamma or reductive kamma 4. upaghataka kamma or destructive kamma< Metta Sarah ======= #125397 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Jul 5, 2012 5:30 pm Subject: Re: ''Some Evidence Suggesting the Spurious Nature of Abhidhamma Philosophy'' sarahprocter... Dear Rob K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > >R: The idea of these processes occuring in the " brain" seems so caught up in cultural ideas and self to me. > > ... > > S: I don't remember anyone saying this. I think Ken H has repeatedly stressed it is exactly what he isn't saying. I think he's said many times that if there's an idea of dhammas situated in conventional ideas of things - whether they be brains, pumps, blood or anything else, it's missing the point, but I'll leave you both to pursue that one! > > > > I think there is a communication issue between the two of you. ... S: [Pls note that this does not mean I think you are saying the same thing!!] .... >R: Please again explain why the visuddhimagga said it was in the blood in the conventiona heart, was buddhaghose missing the point? Or am I the only one in all of buddhaland that doesn't get it? ... S: No of course Buddhaghosa wasn't "missing the point". No one has suggested this for a moment. Buddhaghosa and the great disciples whose commentaries he compiled had no doubt about the realities they were discussing here or elsewhere. However, for us it's different. Do our studies help us to understand the realities appearing now or is there the idea of 'some thing' or 'some place'? For example, in one of your recent posts you wrote: ">R: That special kammic matter will arise wherever there is the suitable conditions, including blood (or even a blood substitute). Although now, for us, it arises inside the body inside the heart, it can certainly arise in a pump, or anywher suitable." Now you will say that your reference to blood, blood substitute , heart and pump are to various rupas. So you seem to be saying we have rupa conditioned by kamma arising inside rupas conditioned by kamma or in the case of the pump, rupa conditioned by kamma arising inside rupas conditioned by temperature. Is that correct? There are simply conditioned namas and rupas arising and falling away. Of course, rupas arise at a particular location, but as soon as we have the idea of "arm", "eye", "heart", "blood', "pump" and so on as having any existence at all, we are forgetting that the teachings are for the understanding of anatta, not atta. ... > Why don't you ask kenh and clarify. He says it is. I wonder why he said that " looking back the commentries might say we got that one ( about the heart base ) wrong" or words to that effect? .. S: I think it's our understanding that gets it wrong, not the commentaries. When the Buddha referred to location of heart-base, he was referring to ultimate realities only, using coventional language. Metta Sarah ====== #125398 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Jul 5, 2012 5:49 pm Subject: Re: ''Some Evidence Suggesting the Spurious Nature of Abhidhamma Philosophy'' sarahprocter... Hi Robert K & Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > dear Kenh > from Sarah > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21096 > > In the first chapter in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - the > Abhidhamma text, PTS)and its commentary (the Debates Commentary) there is > a lot of discussion about commonly used terms. The following quote from > the Commentary (On the Person, p 41) > """Thus it is said: > The Enlightened One, best of speakers, spoke two kinds of truth, namely, > the popular and that of highest meaning, a third is not got at (i.e > known). > Therein, discourse meeting with agreement is true and is by way of world > convention. Highest meaning discourse expression is also true and, as > such, characteristic of things (as they are). > ""enquote > > When the Commentary says "true by way of conventional" does that not show the THERAS believed that what they said about heart and ear ect was true. ... S: I think we can all agree that it means that a "butter-jar" is correct usage by way of worldly convention. Today, what we refer to as a "computer" is true, correct by way of worldly convention. "Person" is correct, true by way of sammuti sacca or vohara sacca, worldly convention. It means such worldly convention shouldn't be confused or equated with paramattha sacca. .... >" But POPULAR discourse they teach > consistently and in conformity with TRUTH according to the method > selected. And highest-meaning discourse, too. `they teach consistently > and in conformity with truth according to the method selected.' > "" endquote ... S: So "butter-jar" and "people" are used in conformity with sammuti sacca, conventional truth, regardless of whether we've heard the Teachings or not. So we cannot say a "butter-jar" contains or consists of rupas or that "people" consist of or contain khandhas - because they are just conventional truths. When we read about or refer to "butter-jar" or "people" it just depends on the understanding whether there is an understanding of realities at such a time. Clearly, when the Buddha used such conventional terms and popular discourse, there was no question but that he fully understood realities at such a time and was pointing to these by way of such language. Agreed? Metta Sarah ===== #125399 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 5, 2012 5:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma and result. nilovg Dear Sarah (Howard, Htoo), Op 5-jul-2012, om 9:02 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven: > Howard:But with regard to the idea that the results of kamma cannot be > > > > changed, this is not so. Further conditions, including further > > > > kamma, CAN modify > > > > the not-yet-arising results of kamma. The Buddha certainly > taught > > > > this. .... --------- Htoo wrote a series before on different types of kamma, such as #45247 and following: >1. janaka kamma or regenerative kamma 2. upatthambhaka kamma or supportive kamma 3. upapiilaka kamma or reductive kamma 4. upaghataka kamma or destructive kamma< ---------- N: I am glad that you referred to Htoo's series. THat clarifies, Nina.