#127000 From: "jagkrit2012" Han: Looking at the above list I have only one question: > Under Moha, why not there is Ahirika-sa.myojana, or Anottappa-sa.myojana? > There is Uddhacca-sa.myojana in the list. > Ahirika and Anottappa are more dangerous than Uddhacca. > > So I asked my Burmese friend, but I may not get a reply to my question. > > No, I am not making a fuss on the different *classifications* as Nina had reminded me. > I am making a fuss on the Ahirika and Anottappa cetasikas themselves in comparison with Uddhacca. JJ: I asked your question to the speakers in the foundation in Thai DSG and they answer as I translate as follow: (sorry if my translation is not good) A.Khampan: Everything that Buddha taught is about reality; kusala, akusala, abhayakata. And the purpose of teaching is to have more understanding that all is dhammas not us. T.A. Sujin always reminds us that we have to understand word by word. Sa.myojanas means akusala dhamma which ties bunch of all being up within samsara or saosara (the cycle of birth and death), not letting anyone out. Classification of sa.myojanas clearly shows the reality of fetter. Lobha which is pleasure of craving to anything ties up with that arammana, not let go. If lobha exits, no one survives from samsara. Dosa is pa.tigha-sa.myojanas. When anger occurs, it ties us up with rage and furious. It fetters us not to reach kusala and it blinds us with anger not to have panna. Avijja definitely ties us up with ignorance. Since we all have avijja, we could not get out of this samsara. Vicikiccha or doubt is also sa.myojana because it ties us up not to understand characteristic of dhammas according to reality. Miccha-ditthi or wrong view is sa.myojana where it ties us up not to have right view. Uddhacca or restlessness or disturbed citta is also sa.myojana. Everytime akusala citta arises, uddhacca will always associate within. When uddhacca arises, it always conditions more restlessness which is difficult to notice. Even lobha, dosa, vicikiccha do not arise, uddhacca can arise showing unrest of akusala citta. However, ahirika, shameless to akusala and anottappa, fearless to akusala which are associated with uddhacca and arises with all akusala citta are not called sa.myojana because they do not trigger strongly as fetter like others. They are just dhammas which maintain the same status as and arise with other sa.myojanas. Nevertheless, Moha, ahirika, anottappa and uddhacca can be eradicated completely with arahata-magga. Speaking of general understanding, whenever kilesas exists , no one can leave samsara until kilesas are eradicated level by level. When reaching arahat, that person will not be tied up or fettered with any kilesas ever again and there is no cause to re-born in any plane ever. The benefit to dhamma listeners, when speaking of akusala dhammas, is to understand dhammas due to their reality and foresee their danger which are very pollute in our daily life. We, therefore, will not ignore to learn dhamma and develop our understanding until all kilesas are all terminated. ---------------------- A.Paderm: In tipitaka, Buddha showed the refining of uddhaca-sa.myojana that uddhacca fetters anyone from right practice. For example, vipassanu-kilesa arises when opas or bright light occurs due to wrong deliberating. Craving to bright light, one will be disturbed with uddhacca which fetters from reaching right practice or higher vipassana. Uddhacca, therefore, ties up anyone to leave samsara because he cannot develop vispssana.nana. Suttanta tipitaka, kutaga-nikaya, Patisumpitamak book.7 part 2 542: Citta recalls to opas (bright light) is blocked by uddhacca, how? When bhikku attends to characteristic of impermanence, opas will arise. Bhikku recalls that opas is dhamma. Because of that recalling, bhikku becomes restless with uddhacca. Bhikku who has been blocked by uddhacca will not able to experience the truth of impermanence with dukka and anatta. Because of that, it is called citta which recalls to opas, being blocked by uddhacca……… Uddhacca is turbulence of citta which brings restlessness to its existence. It activates its function as fetter, not let anyone reaching the stage of kilesa eradication with right practice. When citta is restless, no one can develop both sammata or vipassana which is the crucial dhamma leading to get out of samsara. When citta is peaceful and rest from akusala, that is the appropriate moment of development of panna. In the opposite, restless and disturbed citta can not lead to any development of panna. Ahirika and anottappa, even though they associate with all akusala cittas, do not trigger as powerful fetter to block any one from right practice of kilesa eradication. Ahirika and anottappa just state the characteristic of akusala in aspect of bad sila as akusala kamma-patha due to its own duty. In the opposite, hirika and ottappa are the closest cause to condition kusala in the level of sila. This is the complication of dhammas that the Buddha kindly gave us. ------- JJ: I hope that you get some answer from their answers above. This afternoon, I talked with A.Paderm who is the speaker in foundation and responsible to anwer all posts in Thai dsg. He said that when study dhamma, we must be careful. It does not like study any conventional subject where we must understand every detail as much as we can. But study dhamma is different. Panna of the Buddha is very supreme. We definately cannot understand everything which Buddha taught at once. Panna can be develop little by little. And we must be aware and estimate our level of panna when learning dhamma. When something cannot be understand, don't try to justify by our own reason. Because it will lead to more vicikicha or more doubt and that is sa.myojana which ties us up not to understand dhammas as their reality but obsess with only our own vitakka. And always remember, study dhamma to understand the reality which can be experienced at the present moment. Anumodhana Jagkrit #127001 From: "truth_aerator" This afternoon, I talked with A.Paderm who is the speaker in > foundation and responsible to anwer all posts in Thai dsg. He said > that when study dhamma, we must be careful. It does not like study > any conventional subject where we must understand every detail as > much as we can. But study dhamma is different. Panna of the Buddha > is very supreme. We definately cannot understand everything which > Buddha taught at once. Panna can be develop little by little. And > we must be aware and estimate our level of panna when learning > dhamma. When something cannot be understand, don't try to justify > by our own reason. Because it will lead to more vicikicha or more > doubt and that is sa.myojana which ties us up not to understand > dhammas as their reality but obsess with only our own vitakka. And > always remember, study dhamma to understand the reality which can > be experienced at the present moment. #127004 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han JJ: I asked your question to the speakers in the foundation in Thai DSG and they answer as I translate as follow: (sorry if my translation is not good) #127005 From: han tun N: Also when there are no things to give there can still be kusala > citta with generosity. There is also anumodana daana, kusala citta > thinking with appreciation of others' good deeds. There is extension > of merit: dedicating good deeds to others, dead or alive, so that > they also have kusala cittas, rejoicing in your kusala. I learnt this > in Thailand. After a Dhamma discussion they recite a dedication, they > did this for Lodewijk. Ph: I see. So even if we are not physically with someone at some moment, there can be giving to them. I find this a bit difficult to appreciate, but not to worry. Our understanding is where it is, that can't be changed. > ------ > Ph: > > > > I try to justify my killing. They just do it without thinking > > twice. Is it better to kill knowing it is a sin, or kill without > > such knowledge? > ------ > Kh Sujin once said: not knowing, there is ignorance, it makes it worse. Ph: I see. > I can't say much about your killing insects, it depends on the citta. > On hiri and ottappa or the lack of it. Actually, it is good to > remember that it depends on conditions whether a sting, something > painful, is felt. Kamma conditions painful feeling. We think of > insects, but, what we take for an insect has fallen away before we > can think of it. Why have aversion towards what does not last? Ph: Well, "my" kusala is of not such a developed degree to understand in such terms at 3 a.m when I need to get up early and a mosquito torments me, then hides when I turn on the late. It sounds silly now to be bothered by such a thing, but things are different at 3 a.m because of accumulated ignorance related to believing in stories about "have to get my sleep" and "he is tormenting me." But who knows, understanding may arise at such times too. There is also wrong understanding that says as a householder my duty is to take care of my health and health of loved ones and being stung by mosquitoes is not good for the health. Not really a problem in Japan, of course. More justification. Anyways, enough on killing, it will end, or it won't, with your thoughtful words added to the conditions involved. Phil #127008 From: "philip" The word "should" is no exception. Even though dhammas are impersonal (with no concerns about personal responsibility) they *should* know the difference between giving with panna and giving without panna. > > In the same way, the parts of a car are inanimate but they *should* fit together, and the axle *should* be strong enough (etc). > Well, I don't get this, I like "can" or "may" to express the possibility of certain dhammas arising in a thoroughly uncontrollable way rather than "should" which implies to me a desire for an idealized result, but it doesn't really matter does it? Thanks. Phil #127009 From: "philip" wrote: > A bit surprised, somehow, to hear A.Sujin say that old people have more lobha, it accumulates in a way that makes old people full of it, so to speak. ... S: We can simply say that lobha accumulates whenever it arises. We may think that older people are wiser, but as you point out, it just depends on what is accumulated even now as we speak - ignorance and attachment or understanding of the present reality? Appreciating your recent input here. Quote from Poland: " Death can be the object of calm or [fear]. No matter what one is attached to in this life, the object cannot follow to the next life, but attachment will continue on and on, changing the object of attachment." Metta Sarah p.s A great discussion from Poland coming up, no 88 half-way through - "Now it's time to talk about Metta". Also good reminder on the 'gradual wearing away' - "Don't mind, otherwise it's self that is troubled again!." ===== #127011 From: "sarah" wrote: > JJ: Exactly. I think the one who has right understanding of learning or practicing dhammas will be easy to speak to. Because he will not be overwhelmed by conceit of knowledge. Even he was very well known, he could accept his wrong practice, careless of losing face at all. .. S: Well said. There's a section in "useful posts" in the files under 'Easy to speak to? Difficult to speak to?" which includes some good quotes, including those in the chapter on viriya from "Perfections". Here's a quote from the commentary to the Metta Sutta which I included in one of the messages: >S: From the commentary to the metta sutta in The Minor Readings (Khuddakapatha) on the meaning of: "And Meek and gentle and not proud", we read: "....For a person who, when told `this ought not to be done' says `What has been seen by you? What has been heard by you? Who are you that you speak to me; are you a Preceptor, Teacher, friend, compamion?' or obstructs with silence or accepts (the admonition) but does not act on it, is far from arriving at any distinction; but one who, when advised, says `Good, venerable sir, well said. What is blameworthy is hard to see in oneslelf. If you should see me again thus, tell me out of compassion. may I long have advice from you' and practises acording as instructed, is not far from arriving at distinction. That is why he would be meek (easily-speakable-to) by accepting (others' advice) and acting on it. And he would be gentle (mud: lit. `malleable') just as he would be meek...........Or alternatively, the word gentle (means that) he would be without grimaces, open-countenanced, easy to talk with and as welcoming as a good ford with an easy approach. And he would be not only gentle but also not proud (anatimaanii) as well; he would not be proud towards others on account of such grounds for pride as birth, race, etc, but would abide like the elder Sariputta even-minded (to all alike) whether outcaste or prince." S: Also, see posts saved under "Dust-rag" in "useful posts" when you have time. Metta Sarah p.s hope your father-in-law's surgery has gone well. ==== #127012 From: "sarah" wrote: > > Ph: (quoting from above.) "In this way, we can come to know which dhammas are kusala, which are akusala and which are neither kusala not akusala. We can come to know akusala as akusala, no matter of what degree, be it coarse or more subtle." > > We *can* come to know this, as in it is possible that satipatthana may arise. Not "can" as in an expected result of a training program! ... S: Yes, good point. If there has been sufficient listening and understanding has been developing, the understanding can know kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala when they arise. Like now, there can be a 'studying' with understanding of what appears - just dhammas, not self. Dhamma da - very naturally! Metta Sarah ==== #127013 From: "sarah" wrote: > Anyone knows if Buddhadatta's manuals are online? Pali and English? > > I'm particularly interested in Ruupaaruupa vibhaaga. I only know of a russian translation so far: > > http://lit.lib.ru/i/irhin_w_j/buddhadatta.shtml > > As far as I can tell, PTS published it in Pali as Buddhadata's Manuals, and the translation of Ruupaaruupavibhaaga is available in the Journal of the Pali Text Society, Vol. XVI, pp. 1-12, as well as Maha Bodhi Journal, Centenary Volume (Calcutta, 1992). #127014 From: "jagkrit2012" >S: From the commentary to the metta sutta in The Minor Readings > (Khuddakapatha) on the meaning of: > "And Meek and gentle and not proud", we read: > >..........; but one who, when advised, says > `Good, venerable sir, well said. What is blameworthy is hard to see in > oneslelf. If you should see me again thus, tell me out of compassion. > may I long have advice from you' and practises acording as instructed, is > not far from arriving at distinction. That is why he would be meek > (easily-speakable-to) by accepting (others' advice) and acting on it. JJ: Very beautiful sutta. This do shows how thoughtful instruction to anyone who is steadfast to have right understanding, careless about self. Thank you very much, Sarah. ------------------ > S: Also, see posts saved under "Dust-rag" in "useful posts" when you have time. JJ: I also remember this passage which speaks about humbleness of Saribhuta comparing to the dust-rag, the begger child in the elegant palace and the lost horn cow. This is also my favorite. I will look in this useful posts for more detail. Thank you very much. ------------------- > S: p.s hope your father-in-law's surgery has gone well. JJ: Thank you very much for your kind concern. I'm sorry to let you know that he already passed away. The day before I got back from Poland, he was admitted to ICU with severe pneumonia. He was treated well and recovered and ready for surgery of his stomach cancer. However, the night of Sep 26, he had blood bleeding inside and shocked in a coma for 2 days and then passed away. It was very sudden. No one was expecting something like this. However, my wife, I and grandkids luckily have few understanding accumulating from studying dhammas with T.A.Sujin for sometimes. This understanding helps us a lot, especially my wife who loves her father so much, to go through tough time without excessive sorrow and moan. We discussed about dhamma of death a lot. It is so true that there is no sign of leaving this life at all for everybody among us. This is keeping us aware more and be more careful of ignorance. Again thank you very much for your kind concern and always brings us valuable dhamma teaching to share. Dhamma of the Buddha is invaluable and we'll realize clearly in particular timing. Anumodhana Jagkrit #127015 From: "philip" wrote: JJ: Thank you very much for your kind concern. I'm sorry to let you know that he already passed away. The day before I got back from Poland, he was admitted to ICU with severe pneumonia. He was treated well and recovered and ready for surgery of his stomach cancer. However, the night of Sep 26, he had blood bleeding inside and shocked in a coma for 2 days and then passed away. It was very sudden. No one was expecting something like this. However, my wife, I and grandkids luckily have few understanding accumulating from studying dhammas with T.A.Sujin for sometimes. This understanding helps us a lot, especially my wife who loves her father so much, to go through tough time without excessive sorrow and moan. We discussed about dhamma of death a lot. It is so true that there is no sign of leaving this life at all for everybody among us. This is keeping us aware more and be more careful of ignorance. Anumodhana Jagkrit #127018 From: Nina van Gorkom However, the night of Sep 26, he had blood bleeding inside and > shocked in a coma for 2 days and then passed away. It was very > sudden. No one was expecting something like this. However, my wife, > I and grandkids luckily have few understanding accumulating from > studying dhammas with T.A.Sujin for sometimes. This understanding > helps us a lot, especially my wife who loves her father so much, to > go through tough time without excessive sorrow and moan. We > discussed about dhamma of death a lot. It is so true that there is > no sign of leaving this life at all for everybody among us. This is > keeping us aware more and be more careful of ignorance. > > Again thank you very much for your kind concern and always brings > us valuable dhamma teaching to share. Dhamma of the Buddha is > invaluable and we'll realize clearly in particular timing. ------- N: I can feel so much sympathy with you and your wife. There is no sign ahead of leaving this life, how I experienced this. We never know the next moment. Things happen that we never dreamt of. Before Lodewijk died we also discussed dhamma of death a lot and he was very appreciative. But we had no time to prepare. But now, while listening to recordings I notice how often T.A. speaks about life and death and the falling away of this moment, momentary death, and not to cling to what has fallen away. All this has much more meaning to me now. The Dhamma is very valuable. Nina. #127019 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > > Hi Ken H > > The word "should" is no exception. Even though dhammas are impersonal > (with no concerns about personal responsibility) they *should* know the > difference between giving with panna and giving without panna. > > > > In the same way, the parts of a car are inanimate but they *should* fit > together, and the axle *should* be strong enough (etc). > > > > Well, I don't get this, I like "can" or "may" to express the possibility > of certain dhammas arising in a thoroughly uncontrollable way rather than > "should" which implies to me a desire for an idealized result, but it > doesn't really matter does it? Thanks. > > It matters :-) "Should" only comes about as aversion to what is present. > Phil > > _._,___ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127020 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hello Herman, all, > > Some more thoughts to consider. > > If time (past, future) or amount (trillions) or duration (1/100s of nano > second) are conceptual, then the teaching of trillions of cittas rising and > falling in a split second is conceptual and can't be verified > non-conceptually by a citta. > > How can citta itself know if citta lasts split second or 100 years other > than by using memory and inference? It doesn't exist prior to its rise or > fall. It cannot experience its own non-existence. > > Also if only "one citta" happens at a time, then we can say that it is > freed and liberated from obstructions caused by another citta which does > not exist now to obstruct the existing citta. Citta A cannot obstruct Citta > B because A cannot be present when citta B is. So if we take such discrete > teaching on cittas, each and every citta is already freed and it cannot > cognize its own non-existence... Deathless freedom... > > Yes, if there were only this citta...... (there isn't :-)) > With best wishes, > > Alex > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127021 From: "philip" wrote: > > > So when I said: > ------------- > >> I think a doctor who is required to perform abortions is in the same boat as the blind monk (in the suttas) who walked on caterpillars. > >> > ------------- > That wasn't such an extreme statement, was it? > > A doctor can be contractually obliged to help women in legal ways as directed by a hospital. Therefore his daily duties can include [intentionally] acting in ways that might have unfortunate consequences. The consequences aren't necessarily "intended" but the operations are. The result is the same. > Dear Ken I am not sure the comparison holds. The doctor knows that by perfoming an abortion he is killing the foetus. Indeed that is his objective in doing the operation. The blind monk, on the contrary, was walking but his intention was blameless, he didn't wish to kill insects, although he did, and was walking as part of his monkly lifestyle. Robert #127023 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:50 am Subject: Re: Listening to the Perfections (3 - giving freedom from fear) kenhowardau Hi Phil (and Herman), I know you don't like prolonged discussions, but I'll just add a bit more. ---- >PH: Well, I don't get this, I like "can" or "may" to express the possibility of certain dhammas arising in a thoroughly uncontrollable way rather than "should" which implies to me a desire for an idealized result, but it doesn't really matter does it? Thanks. ---- KH: I think every point in a Dhamma discussion is, by definition, vitally important. In this case it is vitally important to understand the word "should" in the context of the 8fold path. We agree it does *not* mean anything other than conditioned dhammas, arising and functioning beyond anyone's control. However, once we have got that firmly established in our minds, I would argue that "should" can be given its ordinary, everyday meaning. We have heard of samvega, the sense of urgency (like a man with fire on his head): Panna knows that all akusala *should* be overcome and that all samsara *should* be made to cease. That means "should" in the ordinary sense of the word, doesn't it? As for your and Herman's contention that "should" is a synonym for "aversion" I wouldn't argue with that. Given the dhammas-only proviso, it is fair to say that panna has aversion to akusala and aversion to samsara. Of course, it must be a kusala form of aversion, not the akusala dosa, but, otherwise, wouldn't you agree it was aversion in the ordinary sense of the word? Ken H #127024 From: han tun > We have heard of samvega, the sense of urgency (like a man with fire on his head): Panna knows that all akusala *should* be overcome and that all samsara *should* be made to cease. That means "should" in the ordinary sense of the word, doesn't it? Well seeing our great accumulated greed for results I prefer "can" or "may" but I stilll think it's not important, can't see how it is relevant to understanding visible object now, but as usual I am choosing not to push understanding to try to wrap around something that doesn't PING! tout de suite. But thanks for your interest! Phil > > As for your and Herman's contention that "should" is a synonym for "aversion" I wouldn't argue with that. Given the dhammas-only proviso, it is fair to say that panna has aversion to akusala and aversion to samsara. Of course, it must be a kusala form of aversion, not the akusala dosa, but, otherwise, wouldn't you agree it was aversion in the ordinary sense of the word? > > Ken H > #127026 From: "jagkrit2012" wrote: > Our conversation is probably getting away from us. > > I questioned the wisdom of getting advice regarding the ending of suffering > from anyone who also still suffers. > > You are finding lots of reasons to find that position extreme. I don't think the conversation is getting away from us, we just disagree. I think the position that learning from others on the path is not wise, is extreme. That doesn't mean that I am finding all sorts of reasons to find it so, it's just my opinion, for better or worse. I would ask you, if Buddha is the only reliable teacher, why did the Buddha establish the Sangha? Why did he plan for the teachings to be carried on after his death? etc. > You will also find DN12 extreme then, but you will have to take that up > with it's main speaker :-) > "There is, Lohicca, a teacher who is not worthy of criticism in the world." > > "But which teacher, Master Gotama, is not worthy of criticism in the world?" > > "There is the case, Lohicca, where a Tathagata appears in the world, worthy > & rightly self-awakened. ... So basically your interpretation of this, written at the time that the Buddha was alive, is that after his death there is no worthy teacher. And if one is on their own, then they, as an imperfect person, must be an even worse teacher for themselves. So what's your estimation of the right way to practice under those circumstances? Or should we just give up? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #127028 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > We are not fooled at all. We only have to worry about the experiential > > object now, not some other object we suppose we are missing. That other > > object does not exist apart from my intersection with a visual object at a > > particular locus of experience, and Einstein will bear me out. > > > > > OK. Then you say the eye is irrelevant to whatever is seen, because you > don't experience the eye, do you? I would not say the eye has nothing to do with seeing, but I would say that the eye as you imagine it in your mind from an external viewpoint has nothing to do with seeing, for sure. Looking at the image of an eye in your mind, and referring to it, is not the "eye that you see with." The eye that you see with is experienced as a visual portal through which you see visual objects. If you want to switch deftly back and forth between scientific information and experience as it is experienced, that doesn't seem very useful to me, but that is what many people do in order to have ideas about existence from an external standpoint. That has nothing to do with the fact of experience, which is what actually takes place in the experiential moment, not in a scientific moment that has taken place conceptually in someone's mind about that moment. I think things are pretty simple if you don't mix up frames of reference and compare them to each other. Mixing apples and oranges is only good for fruit salad, though that is tasty. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #127029 From: "Robert E" wrote: Ken H. wrote: > > A doctor can be contractually obliged to help women in legal ways as directed by a hospital. Therefore his daily duties can include [intentionally] acting in ways that might have unfortunate consequences. The consequences aren't necessarily "intended" but the operations are. The result is the same. > > > Dear Ken > I am not sure the comparison holds. > The doctor knows that by perfoming an abortion he is killing the foetus. Indeed that is his objective in doing the operation. > > The blind monk, on the contrary, was walking but his intention was blameless, he didn't wish to kill insects, although he did, and was walking as part of his monkly lifestyle. The question would be whether the legal obligation to professional perform a legal medical procedure which results in death of a fetus is the equivalent of the "obligation" to walk even though caterpillars may be killed underfoot. The doctor has no personal intention to kill, even though he does have a professional intention to complete the operation that results in death. Just to give an extreme example to highlight this, imagine a doctor who enjoyed killing fetuses and expressed some sort of glee when performing abortions. He would be fired, lose his license and possibly face legal consequences. Though killing is still the result, there is a difference between professional activity and the rage or hatred that causes one to desire to kill a being. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #127030 From: "sarah" wrote: > > JJ: ....This understanding helps us a lot, especially my wife who loves her father so much, to go through tough time without excessive sorrow and moan. We discussed about dhamma of death a lot. It is so true that there is no sign of leaving this life at all for everybody among us. This is keeping us aware more and be more careful of ignorance. ... S: Talking of "useful posts', when you have time, please also look under a section: "Death7 - Mourning & Grief, Again & Again" There are some very good extracts and passages to assist those who are in mourning here. Some of us particularly appreciate the Uraga Jataka quoted here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/120924 Each verse ends with: "Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread." Metta Sarah ===== #127032 From: "jagkrit2012" Ph: I see. So even if we are not physically with someone at some > moment, there can be giving to them. I find this a bit difficult to > appreciate, but not to worry. Our understanding is where it is, > that can't be changed. ----- N: The generosity is with the citta, it all depends on the kusala citta. > > > > > I can't say much about your killing insects, it depends on the > citta. > > On hiri and ottappa or the lack of it. Actually, it is good to > > remember that it depends on conditions whether a sting, something > > painful, is felt. Kamma conditions painful feeling. We think of > > insects, but, what we take for an insect has fallen away before we > > can think of it. Why have aversion towards what does not last? > > Ph: ..... but things are different at 3 a.m because of accumulated > ignorance related to believing in stories about "have to get my > sleep" and "he is tormenting me." But who knows, understanding may > arise at such times too. ----- N: Understanding conditions can help, there can (;-)) be more patience in difficult circumstances. And also viriya: courage for kusala. ---- > > Ph:There is also wrong understanding that says as a householder my > duty is to take care of my health and health of loved ones and > being stung by mosquitoes is not good for the health. Not really a > problem in Japan, of course. More justification. ----- N: Thinking stories. ---- Nina. #127034 From: Nina van Gorkom RE:So basically your interpretation of this, written at the time >that >the Buddha was alive, is that after his death there is no >worthy >teacher. And if one is on their own, then they, as an >imperfect >person, must be an even worse teacher for themselves. So >what's your >estimation of the right way to practice under those >circumstances? Or >should we just give up? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no Buddha outside your own mind. If Buddha was alive, how would we known that he was Awakened one rather than "just another Indian Ascetic"? We cannot find the Buddha outside. Ultimately one has to use one's own discrimination and be liberated. While I believe, It is impossible to prove these things: 1)That Buddha existed as a historic person. There is no proof. 2)That Buddha Gotama was fully Awakened. 3)That he spoke the Truth or didn't use Skillful means (upaya). Check out Nanda story and Dhamma as parable of raft (MN22). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.3.02.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html 4)That such and such tradition has accurately transmitted His message. While I believe or attempt to believe them, I need to be brutally honest, there is no proof and will not be. Tough. With best wishes, Alex #127036 From: han tun wrote: > Thanks for the great transcript. > Recently there have been so many excellent transcripts (two great ones from Nina yesterday) of A. Sujin talking. Of course I can bookmark these myself but rather than having a personal collection on my iphone or computer that might get lost, do you think it might be possible to have a file of them in the file section? I'm not a techie but is it somehow possible to have an open file that people can add to? Basically, any post that contains a transcript of A. Sujin talking is gold....i personally would be happy just reading her words...yes, a variant on UPs, but... .... S: I'm not a techie either, but there is a section in the files called "Members' files' and I think you could easily start one to include KS transcripts and add to it as you like. You could go back through the archives to find any transcripts too. As you know, we select from posts, obviously inc. some of the transcripts, for UP under particular headings. I don't think either of us can take on anymore projects at this time. Having said that, we could as a group make a Poland collection from the transcripts so far and add to them for a booklet, perhaps in memory of Lodewijk who died very soon afterwards (as Ann suggested). Perhaps we could put them together under catchy headings and add some editorial comments as a group project that would encourage more interest. Metta Sarah p.s. There's a discussion we're just uploading now as I speak on Friday, 14th Sept in the morning. Lukas is sitting next to KS on the bus as we travel for a day-outing. K.Sujin is talking about the importance of association with good people and how one has to consider what is good until one likes it and can follow easily. She talks about showing respect to 'goodness' and how associating with the wrong person is very dangerous unless it's just to assist or help. "Be good and study dhamma with understanding!". She also emphasises the importance of being good to one's parents - the blessings, Mangala, which are discussed again on the last morning. Helfpul for us all - it was good that Lukas so willingly held Jon's microphone so we can all benefit. ====== #127038 From: "sarah" wrote: > "... So it is, monks, that this Brahma-faring is not for advantage in > gains, honours, fame; it is not for advantage in moral habit, it is > not for advantage in concentration, it is not for advantage in > knowledge and vision. That, monks, which is unshakable freedom of > mind, this is the goal, monks, of this brahma-faring, this is the > pith, this is the culmination." ... S: I like "the pith" as used here. I also just looked at the Bodhi/Nanamoli translation, also good: " 'So this holy life, bhikkhus, does not have gain, honour, and renown for its benefit, or the attainment of virtue for its benefit, or the attainment of concentration for its benefit or knowledge and vision for its benefit. But it is this unshakeable deliverance of mind that is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood, and its end.' " In case there is any doubt, the notes and comy make it clear that 'knowledge and vision' (~naa.nadassana) refers to the divine eye and 'unshakeable deliverance of mind' is the fruit of arahantship. There's also a note given (referring to the comy which cites the Patisambhidamagga) about the earlier use of asamayavimokkha (non-temporary or 'perpetual' liberation) of the 4 paths, fruits and nibbana, as contrasted with samayavimokkha (temporary liberation) of the 4 jhanas and arupa jhana attainments. Metta Sarah ===== #127039 From: "sarah" wrote: >.. And I don't care. I think it would be nuts for a householder to let himself be bloodsucked by a filthy mosquito when he a chance to kill it. (It's possible to catch cockroaches in boxes and I do on occasion, but don't tell me about catching mosquitoes at 3 a.m.) ... S: Just another being lost in samsara that wishes to live.... Metta Sarah ===== #127040 From: "sarah" wrote: > I have no experience of seeing in the absence of visible object. I wonder > what quality makes it seeing, rather than say, hearing, or feeling? ... S: Yes, whenever seeing arises, it sees visible object. The characteristic of that seeing can be directly known by awareness in the following mind door process. It is the nimitta or 'sign' of that reality. It is its nature to see, to experience visible object in this way which makes it seeing. ... > > On that note, my understanding re objectless consciousness has changed > dramatically. In the past I would have denied it as impossible, now that I > have experienced it, albeit under the influence of 5MeO-DMT, I know better. ... S: An illusion. Even supramundane cittas must have an object (nibbana), even arupa jhana cittas must have an object. Metta Sarah p.s. I thought of you when I saw the Bathurst races in the news. Either this Sunday or the following one, Pt is coming over for a discussion. I know it's a long way, but please join us if it's possible. You and Vicki could join our simple kebab lunch and then have afternoon discussion. ========= #127041 From: "sarah" wrote: > One is a wandering Bhikkhu whose possessions are the ones that he can carry with himself from forest to forest, cave to cave, cemetery to cemetery, beg for food while contemplating rotting corpses. This was the mild form that Buddha taught which was looked down as too soft by some more extreme Indian Ascetics. > > When people followed this, they had a better possibility of Awakening... ... S: Why? Metta Sarah ===== #127042 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > KH: It is impossible not to kill some kind of sentient being by our > "intentional" daily activities. Just by breathing we run the risk of > killing airborne microbes. > > So I could just as well have said "he intentionally breathed even though > he knew there were airborne microbes . . ." > > He didn't intend to kill, but he did intend to breathe (or walk) and for > the creatures involved the result was the same. > > Don't be alarmed! I am very sympathetic to this understanding. We know darn well that our staying alive (hello Beegees) is predicated on the death of other beings. And we know darn well that knowing that fact is not enough to deter us from wanting to live. -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127043 From: "philip" S: Just another being lost in samsara that wishes to live.... > A good reminder, and at times this or something like it is heard. But my "compassion" is so conditional, if it suits self, there is "compassion," (it is not karuna cuz it serves self) if self has an opposing interest, forget it! And self is very strong at 3 am when I can't sleep and a mosquito is working on me! I just find it fascinating, for some (who shall remain nameless) there are conditions for compassion towards insects always. To be honest I find the fact that I kill some mosquitos is of less import to me than the fascination I find with how it all plays out beyond control...fortunately fearing the result of deeds snd other kusala factors do arise quite often, with understanding ot not, and there is often or usually abstaining from killing. Your reminder is added to Nina's into the conditions that will or will not result in an end to killing mosquitos. (Or mosquitoes for that matter.) And never again will I accuse you of having failed to actively support non-committing of bad deeds like I did once some years back. Phil 2008 would attack Phil 2012 for fiddling while Rome is burning etc... Phil #127044 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > As for your and Herman's contention that "should" is a synonym for > "aversion" I wouldn't argue with that. Given the dhammas-only proviso, it > is fair to say that panna has aversion to akusala and aversion to samsara. > Of course, it must be a kusala form of aversion, not the akusala dosa, but, > otherwise, wouldn't you agree it was aversion in the ordinary sense of the > word? > > Don't be alarmed, I partially agree :-) The following will overlap with some of what you are saying. I have assumed that you won't mind me paraphrasing it. In the context of the discussion, there are at least two kinds of "should", one is as a command - you should do x, y z Full Stop.. Commands rely on authority or force for their effectiveness - they have no place in Buddhism. The other "should" is in the form of - if goal x is desired, then you should do a, b, c. This variety of "shoulding" is based on an understanding of conditions. We agree that the setting of goals is a symptom of aversion - no need to set a future goal if the present is perfectly acceptable. We also both know, at least in theory, that all dhammas are dukkha - not a single one will suffice as a goal, --- What I don't understand in what you write, and possibly disagree with, is that despite all of the above, you still seem to allow room for the setting of a good future goal. > Ken H > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127045 From: "philip" .... > S: I'm not a techie either, but there is a section in the files called "Members' files' and I think you could easily start one to include KS transcripts and add to it as you like. You could go back through the archives to find any transcripts too. > > As you know, we select from posts, obviously inc. some of the transcripts, for UP under particular headings. I don't think either of us can take on anymore projects at this time. > > Having said that, we could as a group make a Poland collection from the transcripts so far and add to them for a booklet, I've starting adding word files to a folder in the member files section. It's done according to my taste - no context, no date, no title, just transcripts of A.Sujin talking, whatever transcripts I find, I will throw in there. I personally find reading transcripts at random without knowing the subject is best so, again, this is a file that might be designed by me for me! If you find that it takes up too much space, I could condense the separate files, not there are some very short ones. Let me know if there are any problems with the way I've started it. As for more organized projects, that will have to be someone else! Phil #127046 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > Our conversation is probably getting away from us. > > > > I questioned the wisdom of getting advice regarding the ending of > suffering > > from anyone who also still suffers. > > > > You are finding lots of reasons to find that position extreme. > > I don't think the conversation is getting away from us, we just disagree. > Allow me to disagree. The conversation IS getting away from us. I think the position that learning from others on the path is not wise, is > extreme. > Allow me a story about skill. One thousand people gather in the square to pit their chess skills against Garry Kasparov. One thousand people get to talk amongst each other about what next chess move to make, with the goal of defeating Garry Kasparov at chess. One thousand people will be utterly defeated, for there is no such thing as a critical mass of ignorance resulting in insight. > That doesn't mean that I am finding all sorts of reasons to find it so, > it's just my opinion, for better or worse. > > I would ask you, if Buddha is the only reliable teacher, why did the > Buddha establish the Sangha? Why did he plan for the teachings to be > carried on after his death? etc. > > > > You will also find DN12 extreme then, but you will have to take that up > > with it's main speaker :-) > > > "There is, Lohicca, a teacher who is not worthy of criticism in the > world." > > > > "But which teacher, Master Gotama, is not worthy of criticism in the > world?" > > > > "There is the case, Lohicca, where a Tathagata appears in the world, > worthy > > & rightly self-awakened. ... > > So basically your interpretation of this, written at the time that the > Buddha was alive, is that after his death there is no worthy teacher. And > if one is on their own, then they, as an imperfect person, must be an even > worse teacher for themselves. So what's your estimation of the right way to > practice under those circumstances? Or should we just give up? > > Give up on what? The ignorant person doesn't even know what game they are playing :-) > > Best, > Rob E. > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127047 From: "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > MN 117. Mahaacattaariisaka Sutta: The Great Forty > Paa.li text from http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/ > The translation by Ven Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi. > > (THE GREAT FORTY) > > 141. "Tatra, bhikkhave, sammaadi.t.thi pubba"ngamaa hoti. Katha~nca, bhikkhave, sammaadi.t.thi pubba"ngamaa hoti? Sammaadi.t.thissa, bhikkhave, sammaasa"nkappo pahoti, sammaasa"nkappassa sammaavaacaa pahoti, sammaavaacassa sammaakammanto pahoti, sammaakammantassa sammaaaajiivo pahoti, sammaaaajiivassa sammaavaayaamo pahoti, sammaavaayaamassa sammaasati pahoti, sammaasatissa sammaasamaadhi pahoti, sammaasamaadhissa sammaa~naa.na.m pahoti, sammaa~naa.nassa sammaavimutti pahoti. Iti kho, bhikkhave, a.t.tha"ngasamannaagato sekkho, dasa"ngasamannaagato arahaa hoti. > > 34. "Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. And how does right view come first? In one of right view, right intention comes into being [Note 1111]; in one of right intention, right speech comes into being; in one of right speech, right action comes into being; in one of right action, right livelihood comes into being; in one of right livelihood, right effort comes into being; in one of right effort, right mindfulness comes into being; in one of right mindfulness, right concentration comes into being; in one of right concentration, right knowledge (sammaa~naa.na) comes into being; in one of right knowledge, right deliverance (sammaavimutti) comes into being. Thus, bhikkhus, the path of the disciple in higher training possesses eight factors, the arahant possesses ten factors. [Note 1112] > > [Note 1111] MA explains that for one having the right view of the path, the right intention of the path comes into being; similarly, for one having the right view of the fruit, the right intention of the fruit comes into being. Similarly, the following factors except the last two also refer to the supramundane path. > > [Note 1112] The additional two factors possessed by the arahant are right knowledge, which can be identified with his reviewing knowledge that he has destroyed all the defilements, and right deliverance, which can be identified with his experience of liberation from all defilements. > > -------------- > > Han: MN 117 is important for illuminating some of the dynamics of the Eightfold Path. In particular, it describes two ways the eight factors work together, one linear and one non-linear. The non-linear approach understands how right view, right effort and right mindfulness help accomplish the practices associated with right view, right intention, right speech, right action, and right livelihood. The linear approach sees the eightfold list as progressive, with each factor being the condition for the arising of the next (as mentioned in the above paragraph). This sutta also adds two further factors to the traditional eightfold list that arise when a person is fully Awakened; anyone short of the full Awakening of an arahant has an eightfold path, arahants have a tenfold path. That is why I have said that this sutta is a very interesting sutta for me. > > -------------- > > 142. "Tatra, bhikkhave, sammaadi.t.thi pubba"ngamaa hoti. Katha~nca, bhikkhave, sammaadi.t.thi pubba"ngamaa hoti? Sammaadi.t.thissa, bhikkhave, micchaadi.t.thi nijji.n.naa hoti. Ye ca micchaadi.t.thipaccayaa aneke paapakaa akusalaa dhammaa sambhavanti te cassa nijji.n.naa honti. Sammaadi.t.thipaccayaa aneke kusalaa dhammaa bhaavanaapaaripuuri.m gacchanti. > > 35. "Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. And how does right view come first? In one of right view, wrong view is abolished, and the many evil unwholesome states that originate with wrong view as condition are also abolished, and the many wholesome states that originate with right view as condition come to fulfillment by development. > > ----------- > > Sammaasa"nkappassa, bhikkhave, micchaasa"nkappo nijji.n.no hoti [pe] > > "In one of right intention, wrong intention is abolished, and the many evil unwholesome states that originate with wrong intention as condition are also abolished, and the many wholesome states that originate with right intention as condition come to fulfillment by development. > > ----------- > > sammaavaacassa, bhikkhave, micchaavaacaa nijji.n.naa hoti [pe] > sammaakammantassa, bhikkhave, micchaakammanto nijji.n.no hoti [pe] > sammaaaajiivassa, bhikkhave, micchaaaajiivo nijji.n.no hoti [pe] > sammaavaayaamassa , bhikkhave , micchaavaayaamo nijji.n.no hoti [pe] > sammaasatissa, bhikkhave, micchaasati nijji.n.naa hoti [pe] > sammaasamaadhissa, bhikkhave, micchaasamaadhi nijji.n.no hoti [pe] > sammaa~naa.nassa, bhikkhave, micchaa~naa.na.m nijji.n.na.m hoti [pe] > sammaavimuttassa, bhikkhave, micchaavimutti nijji.n.naa hoti. > Ye ca micchaavimuttipaccayaa aneke paapakaa akusalaa dhammaa sambhavanti te cassa nijji.n.naa honti. Sammaavimuttipaccayaa ca aneke kusalaa dhammaa bhaavanaapaaripuuri.m gacchanti. > > "In one of right speech, wrong speech is abolished... > In one of right action, wrong action is abolished... > In one of right livelihood, wrong livelihood is abolished... > In one of right effort, wrong effort is abolished... > In one of right mindfulness, wrong mindfulness is abolished... > In one of right concentration, wrong concentration is abolished... > In one of right knowledge, wrong knowledge is abolished... > In one of right deliverance, wrong deliverance is abolished, and the many evil unwholesome states that originate with wrong deliverance as condition are also abolished, and the many wholesome states that originate with right deliverance as condition come to fulfillment by development. > > ------------ > > "Iti kho, bhikkhave, viisati kusalapakkhaa, viisati akusalapakkhaa mahaacattaariisako dhammapariyaayo pavattito appa.tivattiyo sama.nena vaa braahma.nena vaa devena vaa maarena vaa brahmunaa vaa kenaci vaa lokasmi.m. > > 36. "Thus, bhikkhus, there are twenty factors on the side of the wholesome, and twenty factors on the side of the unwholesome. [Note 1113] This Dhamma discourse on the Great Forty has been set rolling and cannot be stopped by any recluse or brahmin or god or Maara or Brahmaa or anyone in the world. > > [Note 1113] The twenty factors on the wholesome side are the ten right factors and the wholesome states that originate from each; the twenty factors on the unwholesome side are the ten wrong factors and the unwholesome states that originate from each. Hence the name "The Great Forty." > > ----------- > > 143. "Yo hi koci, bhikkhave, sama.no vaa braahma.no vaa ima.m mahaacattaariisaka.m dhammapariyaaya.m garahitabba.m pa.tikkositabba.m ma~n~neyya tassa di.t.theva dhamme dasasahadhammikaa vaadaanuvaadaa gaarayha.m .thaana.m aagacchanti sammaadi.t.thi.m ce bhava.m garahati, > ye ca micchaadi.t.thii sama.nabraahma.naa te bhoto pujjaa, te bhoto paasa.msaa; sammaasa"nkappa.m ce bhava.m garahati, > ye ca micchaasa"nkappaa sama.nabraahma.naa te bhoto pujjaa, te bhoto paasa.msaa; sammaavaaca.m ce bhava.m garahati [pe] > sammaakammanta.m ce bhava.m garahati pe] > sammaaaajiiva.m ce bhava.m garahati [pe] > sammaavaayaama.m ce bhava.m garahati [pe] > sammaasati.m ce bhava.m garahati [pe] > sammaasamaadhi.m ce bhava.m garahati [pe] > sammaa~naa.na.m ce bhava.m garahati [pe] > sammaavimutti.m ce bhava.m garahati, ye ca micchaavimuttii sama.nabraahma.naa te bhoto pujjaa, te bhoto paasa.msaa. Yo koci, bhikkhave, sama.no vaa braahma.no vaa ima.m mahaacattaariisaka.m dhammapariyaaya.m garahitabba.m pa.tikkositabba.m ma~n~neyya tassa di.t.theva dhamme ime dasasahadhammikaa vaadaanuvaadaa gaarayha.m .thaana.m aagacchanti. > > 37. "Bhikkhus, if any recluse or brahmin thinks that this Dhamma discourse on the Great Forty should be censured and rejected, then there are ten legitimate deductions from his assertions that would provide grounds for censuring him here and now. > If that worthy one censures right view, then he would honour and praise those recluses and brahmins who are of wrong view. > If that worthy one censures right intention, then he would honour and praise those recluses and brahmins who are of wrong intention. > If that worthy one censures right speech … > right action … > right livelihood … > right effort … > right mindfulness.. . > right concentration … > right knowledge … > right deliverance, then he would honour and praise those recluses and brahmins who are of wrong deliverance. If any recluse or brahmin thinks that this Dhamma discourse on the Great Forty should be censured and rejected, then these are ten legitimate deductions from his assertions that would provide grounds for censuring him here and now. > > ------------ > > Yepi te, bhikkhave, ahesu.m okkalaa vassabha~n~naa ahetuvaadaa akiriyavaadaa natthikavaadaa tepi mahaacattaariisaka.m dhammapariyaaya.m na garahitabba.m napa.tikkositabba.m ama~n~ni.msu. Ta.m kissa hetu? Nindaabyaarosaupaarambhabhayaa``ti. > > 38. "Bhikkhus, even those teachers from Okkala, Vassa and Bha~n~na [Note 1114], who held the doctrine of non-causality, the doctrine of non-doing, and the doctrine of nihilism, would not think that this Dharnma discourse on the Great Forty should be censured and rejected. Why is that? For fear of blame, attack, and confutation.†> > [Note 1114] MA says only that these two were individuals who lived in the country of Okkala. Otherwise their identity is unknown. > > Idamavoca bhagavaa. Attamanaa te bhikkhuu bhagavato bhaasita.m abhinandunti. > > That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One's words. > > This is the End of my presentation of MN 117. Mahaacattaariisaka Sutta: The Great Forty. > > with metta, > Han > #127049 From: Nina van Gorkom There's also a note given (referring to the comy which cites the > Patisambhidamagga) about the earlier use of asamayavimokkha (non- > temporary or 'perpetual' liberation) of the 4 paths, fruits and > nibbana, as contrasted with samayavimokkha (temporary liberation) > of the 4 jhanas and arupa jhana attainments. ------ N: We find this also in Puggala Pa~n~natti and its commentary. Nina. #127050 From: "ptaus1" In the context of the discussion, there are at least two kinds of "should", > one is as a command ... > The other "should" is in the form of - if goal x is desired, then you > should do a, b, c. This variety of "shoulding" is based on an understanding > of conditions. > > We agree that the setting of goals is a symptom of aversion Perhaps "should" can also be used in an impersonal or conventional way to indicate what is kusala and what is akusala. E.g. perhaps when we are told we should develop friendliness and should not develop anger, it's in fact just implying that friendliness is kusala (or that metta is a kusala dhamma, if you like abhidhamma) while anger is akusala (dosa is akusala dhamma). So, simply a matter of expressing things in terms of understanding the issue, rather than commanding us to do something or desire something else. Just my take on this. Best wishes pt #127051 From: Nina van Gorkom A:One is a wandering Bhikkhu whose possessions are the ones that he >can carry with himself from forest to forest, cave to cave, cemetery >to cemetery, beg for food while contemplating rotting corpses. This >was the mild form that Buddha taught which was looked down as too soft >by some more extreme Indian Ascetics. > >When people followed this, they had a better possibility of >Awakening... > ... >S: Why? >==================== Why did the Buddha create monastic order? Why did the Buddha and commentators recommended becoming ordained? When person due to wisdom has enough dispassion for worldly life and has possibility of ordaining, why remain as a householder? With best wishes, Alex #127055 From: "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, all, > > > >A:One is a wandering Bhikkhu whose possessions are the ones that he >can carry with himself from forest to forest, cave to cave, cemetery >to cemetery, beg for food while contemplating rotting corpses. This >was the mild form that Buddha taught which was looked down as too soft >by some more extreme Indian Ascetics. > > > >When people followed this, they had a better possibility of >Awakening... > > ... > >S: Why? > >==================== > > Why did the Buddha create monastic order? Why did the Buddha and commentators recommended becoming ordained? > > When person due to wisdom has enough dispassion for worldly life and has possibility of ordaining, why remain as a householder? > > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #127056 From: sarah abbott R:would a householder who became a sotapanna become a monk? >>==================================================== Assuming that there is no household obligations, health issues, and other obstructions, I believe that sotapanna would consider monasticism. The less attachment there is, the less motivation there is to remain as a householder. With best wishes, Alex #127059 From: "truth_aerator" HH:Give up on what? The ignorant person doesn't even know what game >they are playing :-) >>=================================== You are very right. Unless a teacher is Awakened himself/herself and teaches from experience - how do we know that it is not a case of "blind leading the blind"? No offense to anyone, but it is a fair question. Even Arhatship or PaccekaBuddhahood is no guarantee that one can teach the Dhamma - nothing to say about pre-sotapanna level! With best wishes, Alex #127060 From: han tun wrote: Dear Brother Han, I must say Sadhu..Sadhu..Sadhu to your great posts..not just these suttas, but also all of your Itivuttakas and Dhammapada stories etc. May Buddhas bless you forever! Love you/your posts, yawares AdChoices #127061 From: "philip" wrote: > I've starting adding word files to a folder in the member files section. It's done according to my taste - no context, no date, no title, just transcripts of A.Sujin talking, whatever transcripts I find, I will throw in there. I personally find reading transcripts at random without knowing the subject is best so, again, this is a file that might be designed by me for me! ... S: That's fine. I just checked and tried to open a couple, but it didn't work. Maybe Pt can check and help if you have a problem. ... > > If you find that it takes up too much space, I could condense the separate files, not there are some very short ones. Let me know if there are any problems with the way I've started it. ... S: Don't worry - we just delete old files which either take up too much room or which don't seem to be about the Dhamma as the Buddha taught, as we've just done. Space used to be very limited in the files, but yahoo is more generous these days. Same for photos. Metta Sarah p.s saw Nina's and your other message - here in Aus I never seem to eat alone, but in Hong Kong, I love to eat alone and listen to Dhamma. Always have i-pod ear-plugs in as I munch away. Helps me chew my food better too:-) ==== #127063 From: Sukinder > Dear Friends, > > I just received a note from Shakti who has been a quiet member on DSG > for a long time. (She occasionally posted in the past). Some of us > know her from her visits to Bangkok and she has joined us on trips in > India and Burma. > > She wrote to tell me that her beloved son, Bodhi died yesterday from > a grand mal seizure in bed. > > As I recall, Bodhi would have been in his late 20s or early 30s. She asks: > > "Can you/the foundation please help me to arrange some kind of > Buddhist service? He loved Buddha and always talked to > > Buddha to help him." and she asked me to let everyone on DSG know as > many people knew him here. > > Sukin & Azita, please could you mention it to Ajahn and ask for his > name to be included when merit is extended at the end of the > discussion. May any merit here also be appreciated by those who have > passed on from this life and who may be able to share in it. > > I'm sure Shakti will appreciate any responses, good reminders or > quotes at this time. Maybe best to keep 'Shakti' in the subject > heading so that she can see them quickly. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > > #127064 From: "Tam" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, all, > > >RE:So basically your interpretation of this, written at the time >that >the Buddha was alive, is that after his death there is no >worthy >teacher. And if one is on their own, then they, as an >imperfect >person, must be an even worse teacher for themselves. So >what's your >estimation of the right way to practice under those >circumstances? Or >should we just give up? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > There is no Buddha outside your own mind. Really, is that true? Is that an expression of zen philosophy, poetry, or do you truly not believe in the historical Buddha? The Buddha "in one's mind" is certainly important, if what you mean is the capability to think like the Buddha, and by emulating his example, follow the path. > If Buddha was alive, how would we known that he was Awakened one rather than "just another Indian Ascetic"? Well, if you were unable to recognize him as the smartest teacher on the block, chances are you would not choose to be a Buddhist. Surprisingly, a number of people are not Buddhists. Those who are recognize the Buddha by his teaching, which shows his understanding to be unique. How can we tell Einstein was one of the greatest physicists? Somehow we are able to figure that out. > We cannot find the Buddha outside. Ultimately one has to use one's own discrimination and be liberated. Well the whole point is that we don't have that discrimination. It's a work in progress. So the question really is, if your current discrimination is imperfect, how are you going to develop it? The Buddha recommended his path to do so; and those who find it amenable follow it. Not that complicated on that level. > While I believe, What do you believe? And why is it important whether you can prove anything about it or not? > It is impossible to prove these things: Who are you trying to prove it to? You don't have to prove it to me. > 1)That Buddha existed as a historic person. There is no proof. By that token, there is no proof that my grandfather existed. The pictures could have been faked, I could have been brainwashed to think he was my grandfather, he could be the creation of a novelist. Yet I believe that he was real. > 2)That Buddha Gotama was fully Awakened. I can't prove that Mozart was a genius either. I go by his music. The Buddha could not have taught what he did without being fully awakened. Good enough for me! > 3)That he spoke the Truth or didn't use Skillful means (upaya). > Check out Nanda story and Dhamma as parable of raft (MN22). It doesn't matter. Follow the path, and you will eventually learn the truth. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.3.02.than.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html > > 4)That such and such tradition has accurately transmitted His message. Doesn't matter. The practice is clear -- at least when not arguing about what the real practice is around here -- and one can just do it. No worries about traditions. > While I believe or attempt to believe them, I need to be brutally honest, there is no proof and will not be. Tough. I couldn't care less. The idea of proving those things is extremely boring to me. I'd rather develop mindfulness, even if incredibly slowly. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #127066 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > > Our conversation is probably getting away from us. > > > > > > I questioned the wisdom of getting advice regarding the ending of > > suffering > > > from anyone who also still suffers. > > > > > > You are finding lots of reasons to find that position extreme. > > > > I don't think the conversation is getting away from us, we just disagree. > > > > Allow me to disagree. The conversation IS getting away from us. Are we not talking about the subject at hand: whether it is possible to a/make progress and b/learn from and/or get support from others? How is that "getting away from us?" The topic is clear, we just disagree. Please explain why you say it's "getting way" rather than merely being disputed. > I think the position that learning from others on the path is not wise, is > > extreme. > > > > Allow me a story about skill. > > One thousand people gather in the square to pit their chess skills against > Garry Kasparov. One thousand people get to talk amongst each other about > what next chess move to make, with the goal of defeating Garry Kasparov at > chess. One thousand people will be utterly defeated, for there is no such > thing as a critical mass of ignorance resulting in insight. You are assuming that everyone involved has nothing but ignorance and no understanding at all among them, or that are no degrees of mindfulness or understanding. This is likely not true. Doesn't mean that any Buddhist on the street would be able to match wits with Buddha, but that has nothing to do with whether we can make progress or not. > > That doesn't mean that I am finding all sorts of reasons to find it so, > > it's just my opinion, for better or worse. > > > > I would ask you, if Buddha is the only reliable teacher, why did the > > Buddha establish the Sangha? Why did he plan for the teachings to be > > carried on after his death? etc. > > > > > > > You will also find DN12 extreme then, but you will have to take that up > > > with it's main speaker :-) > > > > > "There is, Lohicca, a teacher who is not worthy of criticism in the > > world." > > > > > > "But which teacher, Master Gotama, is not worthy of criticism in the > > world?" > > > > > > "There is the case, Lohicca, where a Tathagata appears in the world, > > worthy > > > & rightly self-awakened. ... > > > > So basically your interpretation of this, written at the time that the > > Buddha was alive, is that after his death there is no worthy teacher. And > > if one is on their own, then they, as an imperfect person, must be an even > > worse teacher for themselves. So what's your estimation of the right way to > > practice under those circumstances? Or should we just give up? > > > > > > Give up on what? The ignorant person doesn't even know what game they are > playing :-) Do you? You must, in order to make this assessment, yes? And I will just ask you again, more directly: Are you saying there is no path, no practice, and no hope of enlightenment? If so, you are in disagreement with the Buddha that no one is capable of reaching enlightenment or following the path he laid out, which is fine, let's just clarify if that is the case. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #127067 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, Herman, all, > > Here is my concern. How can Dhamma ever be taught? Just as one cannot quench hunger by reading the menu, one can't quench extra dukkha by reading "the Dhamma". > > According to some, even Pacceka Buddhas cannot teach Dhamma for more than general morality "do good!". > http://www.palikanon.com/namen/pa/pacceka_buddha.htm > > So ability to teach complex concepts, write books, give lectures, etc is not necessary a sign of attainment or even right views. Sainthood is! > > And I wonder about some people (lay and ordained) who are very learned and teach 100x more than Venerable Sariputta knew prior to Arahatship. > > Not only this, but what people teach today may or may not be what the Buddha as historical person (if he even existed) has taught. I'm not big on speculation. I think such worry is a waste of time, and is also harmful and an excuse. The point is not whether this or that teacher can do this or that, it is whether there is a practice that you can follow and that will lead you in the direction you want to go. No one can guarantee you anything, but you can find out for yourself whether your practice is good and is going where you want to go. If so, do it. If not, don't. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #127068 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hello Herman, all, > > > >HH:Give up on what? The ignorant person doesn't even know what game >they are playing :-) > >>=================================== > > You are very right. Unless a teacher is Awakened himself/herself and teaches from experience - how do we know that it is not a case of > "blind leading the blind"? No offense to anyone, but it is a fair question. Even Arhatship or PaccekaBuddhahood is no guarantee that one can teach the Dhamma - nothing to say about pre-sotapanna level! I think it is better to practice, whatever that means to you, then complain or speculate too much. I'm not sure what your purpose is in spending time entertaining doubts to no particular purpose. Are you trying to convince yourself of the impossibility of practice or progress? If so, Herman will be happy to help. He appears to agree that there is no practice, at least so it seems. The conclusion: Buddhism is a con game. Nothing to really get from it, it's all another vain enterprise of clinging humans, who can never get out of their terrible situation. That is not what the Buddha taught. Of course you are free to disagree with his teaching or dismiss it, that's up to you. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #127069 From: Nina van Gorkom Your mention of eating dinner alone and listening to Dhamma was > very touching. But as usual self took over and it was aversion to > thinking of *me* eating alone. It always comes back to me, me, me, > no matter how selfless the original impulse that might arise with > alobha. ------ N: That is very, very common, we all have that. Mixtures of kusala and akusala with self, self. There is thinking so often. Stories about me doing something. ---- Nina. #127070 From: han tun You can check sabbaasava sutta, the second one from majjhima and Milindapanha, where it was said that yoniso manasikara and panna are different in sign. This is like a barley-reaper with sickle. He grasp a handful of barley in the left hand and cut it off by the right hand with sickle. So that yoniso manasikara is grasping any defilemts one hand and panna can cut it off. Best wishes Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tam" wrote: > > Dear all, > > Yoniso manasikara is one of the conditions for the arising of panna. Achaan Sujin often talks about considering. Does it refer to yoniso manasikara? What are the characteristic, function,manifestation and proximate cause of that? I would like to hear more about this. Any input is welcome! > > Thank you! > Tam > #127072 From: sarah abbott A: There is no Buddha outside your own mind. >====================================== >RE:Really, is that true? Is that an expression of zen philosophy, >poetry, or do you truly not believe in the historical Buddha? >>============================================= I was reading some literature... I do agree that one needs to be Awakened in order to have a chance at recognizing another Awakened one. As for historical Buddha, yes we cannot prove for certain either way. It is great story, but story nonetheless that we can not be sure. We don't know what language/dialect the Historical Buddha spoke. We do not know his first name. We can't be certain about the difference between what He has said and what was passed down to us. Unfortunately we are on our own. >Alex: If Buddha was alive, how would we known that he was Awakened >one rather than "just another Indian Ascetic"? >============================================================ >RE: Well, if you were unable to recognize him as the smartest teacher on the block, chances are you would not choose to be a Buddhist. Surprisingly, a number of people are not Buddhists. Those who are recognize the Buddha by his teaching, which shows his understanding to be unique. How can we tell Einstein was one of the greatest physicists? Somehow we are able to figure that out. >============================== There were many great teachers in Buddha's time, so I wonder how easy the choice would be. Ven. Sariputta and MahaMoggallana prior to joining the Buddha were followers of Sanjaya Belaputta. They were very wise even prior to joining Buddha. In the 20th century there have been many great monks, some of whom had contradictory opinions. Ajahn Chah, Maha Boowa, Mahasi Sayadaw, etc... If there is contradiction and controversy about some of them... One has to rely on one's discrimination... Unfortunately certain answer don't just come on a plate. >RE:if your current discrimination is imperfect, how are you going >to develop it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My personal belief is: to remove as much un-needed dukkha as possible and suttas have good, but rough, guidelines. >RE: By that token, there is no proof that my grandfather existed. >============================================== But your father as his son does exist. Various other physical traces can be found including people who talked with him. When it comes to someone who lived very approximately 2,500 years ago about whom very very little known and when history as a science didn't exist unless British came... is different. With best wishes, Alex #127074 From: "truth_aerator" RE:Are you trying to convince yourself of the impossibility of >practice or progress? If so, Herman will be happy to help. He >appears to agree that there is no practice, at least so it seems. >The >conclusion: Buddhism is a con game. Nothing to really get >from it, >it's all another vain enterprise of clinging humans, who >can never get >out of their terrible situation. That is not what >the Buddha taught. >Of course you are free to disagree with his >teaching or dismiss it, >that's up to you. >>====================================================== I hope there is a path and practice that can bring results in this life. I am not a fan of "accumulate accumulations for Aeons" that is seemed to be taught by some. I do believe (or hope) that there is a big chance that someone has misunderstood Buddha's message as we know it. But to be brutally honest, we can't be certain of many things. I believe that practice to remove extra but not all dukkha is what counts. With best wishes, Alex #127075 From: "Yawares Sastri" Dear Shakti & friends, > > Very recently, Lodewijk died, Jagkrit's father-in-law and > yesterday, Shakti's son - especially tragic. Of course, other > members have also lost dear ones that we don't know about and each > day, each moment, others are losing dear ones too. > > Perhaps it's time to reflect on the tale of Kisagotami whose son > died when he was a toddler. > > #127077 From: Nina van Gorkom S: That's fine. I just checked and tried to open a couple, but it didn't work. Maybe Pt can check and help if you have a problem. They open for me on my computer, but not on my iphone. I guess the problem is we have a cheap Word imitation called Kingwriter on the computer and those files only open for people with that program installed? I'll drop it there, in any case listening to her is better. My wish is to have an audio collection of just her talking, the straight goods. I guess her radio show in Thai is like that. Phil #127079 From: "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, Herman, > > > >RE:Are you trying to convince > >>====================================================== > > I hope there is a path and practice that can bring results in this life. I am not a fan of "accumulate accumulations for Aeons" that is seemed to be taught by some. I do believe (or hope) that there is a big chance that someone has misunderstood Buddha's message as we know it. > Dear alex, Do ypu ven. Nagasena misunderstood? He tells milinda that "10. 'And there is no realisation of Arahatship, O king, in one single life, without a previous keeping of the vows. Only on the utmost zeal and the most devoted practice of righteousness, and with the aid of a suitable teacher, is the realisation of Arahatship attained. just, O king, as a doctor or surgeon first procures for himself a teacher, either by the payment of a fee or by the performance of service, and then thoroughly trains himself in holding the lancet, in cutting, marking, or piercing with it, in extracting darts, in cleansing wounds, in causing them to dry up, in the application of ointments, in the administration of emetics and purges and oily enemas, and only when he has thus gone through training, served his apprenticeship, made himself skilful, does he visit the sick to heal them. Just so, O king, all they who as laymen, living at home in the enjoyment of the pleasures of sense, realise in themselves the condition of Peace, the Supreme Good, Nirvâna,--all they had in former births accomplished their training, laid the foundation, in the practice of the thirteen vows, had purified their walk and conduct by means of them; and so now, even as laymen, and living at home in the enjoyment of the pleasures of sense, do they realise in themselves the condition of Peace, the Supreme Good, Nirvâna." Robert #127080 From: "truth_aerator" Dear alex, > Do ypu ven. Nagasena misunderstood? > He tells milinda that > >"10. 'And there is no realisation of Arahatship, O king, in one >single life, without a previous keeping of the vows. >>>======================== And how many lives did we work to get to the position we are in today? Maybe for some people 99.9% of job is already done so that they have heard the right teaching, understood it, and can follow it. With best wishes, Alex #127081 From: han tun > S: That's fine. I just checked and tried to open a couple, but it didn't work. Maybe Pt can check and help if you have a problem. > > They open for me on my computer, but not on my iphone. I guess the problem is we have a cheap Word imitation called Kingwriter on the computer and those files only open for people with that program installed? I've been looking for your folder but can't find it, don't know if I'm blind or you've deleted it already. In any case, a good option is to post .txt files instead of Word, because .txt files generally open easily on all devices, the only drawback being limited formatting. Most importantly though, Yahoo groups interface allows editing .txt files online, so basically, you could create 1 .txt file online and then just keep adding text to the same one file online as you go, thus never having to worry about file size, multiple files, etc. Basically very easy to work with. The procedure for opening and editing the file is as follows: 1. sign in dsg and go to Files section, and then Members' files. 2. In the top right corner, in yellow letters, there will be a link "Create text file", click on it. 3. You'll be taken to a window where you can enter text, headings, etc, and when done with all that, click the blue Save button at the bottom. The file will now appear in the Files. 4. When you want to add text later to the same file, when you find your file in Members' files, don't click on the file name, but click on the blue "Edit" link to the right of the file name. This will take you to the window where you can edit and add more text, and when done, click on Save changes button at the bottom. Let me know if you need help. Best wishes pt #127084 From: "philip" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, all, > > > >A: There is no Buddha outside your own mind. > >====================================== > >RE:Really, is that true? Is that an expression of zen philosophy, >poetry, or do you truly not believe in the historical Buddha? > >>============================================= > > I was reading some literature... I do agree that one needs to be Awakened in order to have a chance at recognizing another Awakened one. > > As for historical Buddha, yes we cannot prove for certain either way. It is great story, but story nonetheless that we can not be sure. We don't know what language/dialect the Historical Buddha spoke. We do not know his first name. We can't be certain about the difference between what He has said and what was passed down to us. Unfortunately we are on our own. That is just not true - uncertainty doesn't equal "on our own." Work through the uncertainty to your own satisfaction, rather than give up because of a bit of doubt. > > >Alex: If Buddha was alive, how would we known that he was Awakened >one rather than "just another Indian Ascetic"? > >============================================================ > >RE: Well, if you were unable to recognize him as the smartest teacher on the block, chances are you would not choose to be a Buddhist. Surprisingly, a number of people are not Buddhists. Those who are recognize the Buddha by his teaching, which shows his understanding to be unique. How can we tell Einstein was one of the greatest physicists? Somehow we are able to figure that out. > >============================== > > There were many great teachers in Buddha's time, so I wonder how easy the choice would be. Ven. Sariputta and MahaMoggallana prior to joining the Buddha were followers of Sanjaya Belaputta. They were very wise even prior to joining Buddha. And they were also wise enough to join the Buddha and follow him. Maybe they were smart to do so. > > In the 20th century there have been many great monks, some of whom had contradictory opinions. Ajahn Chah, Maha Boowa, Mahasi Sayadaw, etc... If there is contradiction and controversy about some of them... > > One has to rely on one's discrimination... Unfortunately certain answer don't just come on a plate. They are all skillful approaches to the same path. Ajahn Chah and Mahasi don't disagree on anything important, as far as I can recall. Do you know of some great contradiction between them? Some teachers teach mindfulness, some teach jhana, but they are all aspects of the same teaching. You adopt a teacher based on your own affinity for their approach, rather than staying in limbo about who is exactly correct between them. > >RE:if your current discrimination is imperfect, how are you going >to develop it? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > My personal belief is: to remove as much un-needed dukkha as possible and suttas have good, but rough, guidelines. > > > >RE: By that token, there is no proof that my grandfather existed. > >============================================== > > > But your father as his son does exist. Various other physical traces can be found including people who talked with him. And Buddha left a lineage and the eightfold path, those are his children. > When it comes to someone who lived very approximately 2,500 years ago about whom very very little known and when history as a science didn't exist unless British came... is different. Someone who taught for 40 years and for whom there are countless records and eyewitness accounts is not exactly mythological. You are too doubtful compared to the brilliance of the evidence. It seems to me that you should care more about the practice, and less about proving everything. Who cares? Are you looking for a way to develop wisdom or an excuse to stay in a suffering state? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #127086 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, Herman, > > > >RE:Are you trying to convince yourself of the impossibility of >practice or progress? If so, Herman will be happy to help. He >appears to agree that there is no practice, at least so it seems. >The >conclusion: Buddhism is a con game. Nothing to really get >from it, >it's all another vain enterprise of clinging humans, who >can never get >out of their terrible situation. That is not what >the Buddha taught. >Of course you are free to disagree with his >teaching or dismiss it, >that's up to you. > >>====================================================== > > I hope there is a path and practice that can bring results in this life. I am not a fan of "accumulate accumulations for Aeons" that is seemed to be taught by some. I do believe (or hope) that there is a big chance that someone has misunderstood Buddha's message as we know it. > > But to be brutally honest, we can't be certain of many things. I believe that practice to remove extra but not all dukkha is what counts. Well if you follow the practice you will find out what happens. All you can do is develop what you can at each moment, the rest is not up to us. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #127087 From: "sarah" wrote: see posts saved under "Dust-rag" in "useful posts" when you have time. > > JJ: I also remember this passage which speaks about humbleness of Saribhuta comparing to the dust-rag, the begger child in the elegant palace and the lost horn cow. This is also my favorite. I will look in this useful posts for more detail. Thank you very much. ... S: I don't remember the similes of the beggar child in the palace or the lost horn cow. Can you say more or give a reference? I remember about the twisting of the horn of a newly-calved cow simile to show how wishing for results is useless, in the Bhumija sutta, MN 126, but not the lost horn cow! Please continue to share any reflections your family has found helpful at this sad time for them - it may help others who are experiencing losses. Metta Sarah ===== #127088 From: "sarah" wrote: > Consciousness cannot cognize its own non-existence after death or prior to its birth. Awareness cannot be aware of its own non-existence before birth or after death. Even if, lets say, there is one life - when one dies, one cannot know that one is dead. There is no consciousness, no awareness to cognize or be aware of that. .... S: There is death of consciousness (citta) at each moment. Seeing consciousness now arises and falls away, never to return. Yes, seeing consciousness does not know anything about itself or its arising and falling away. However, the Buddha taught the development of right understanding. Panna can begin to develop now until it directly understands the characteristic of seeing when it appears, eventually directly understanding its arising and falling away. This is the only way that there can be any understanding, even at an intellectual level, of what occurs at death. Otherwise it's all an idea of "one dies, one is dead" and there will be lots of doubts about whether there is one life or many. .... > Also if consciousness (citta) is momentary, it is the same. It itself cannot know its own non-existence. ... S: Citta just arises and experiences its particular object. It doesn't know or understand anything. However, the panna which arises in the mind-door process can know the nature of the reality (just fallen away) as object. If we think and think about how and why this is possible, there will just be more thinking, no understanding at all of what appears now. ... > > If aeons and aeons of existence in Samsara comes to an end, citta cannot know its own non-existence. ... S: If you are referring to the parinibbana of the arahat, there is no more citta to experience anything. And there is no concern about this either! ... > Does this mean that Awareness is in a sense - "undying" even if it had limited amount to cognize? ... S: It just means that now there is no awareness of what appears, such as visible object or thinking or attachment. Whenever the citta is sobhana (beautiful), sati (awareness) arises with it and falls away instantly. Apart from nibbana, there is no "undying" reality at all. ... > Any ideas, opinions, suggestions? ... S: My suggestion is that we talk more about the present realities so that it becomes clear there is no self involved, no "undying" anything - just cittas, cetasikas and rupas which arise and fall away instantly. Metta Sarah ====== #127089 From: "sarah" wrote: > Pt: I was more wondering about the reason for being good at something now, rather than remembering things from past life - like if you are good at languages, there's certainly no memory of you learning a language in a past life, but yet, there's this ability to learn a language quickly, have a good grasp of the grammar, etc. What's that ability based on and how much would it have to do with accumulations in sanna? > ---- > KH: I suspect it comes down to physical health, and therefore to good or bad vipakka. Just as a healthy eye-base rupa can be the basis of keen eyesight, a healthy mind-base rupa can be the basis of a keen mind – including powerful memory. ... S: I think a lot of it comes down to chanda (interest) and attachment, along with sanna. Some people have a lot of interest and attachment in food and cooking, some in languages, others in science. From the first process of life there is attachment - it depends on conditions as to how this attachment manifests. I don't know that "a healthy mind-base rupa (heart-base)" is responsible. Certainly no conditions for sanna, vitakka and so on to mark the objects necessary for memorising terms or whatever is necessary for some. Still sanna and vitakka arising and marking other objects, even if someone might seem conventionally to have a bad memory. > ------------ > > Pt: I realise it might be more dhamma-related if we were to pose the question in terms of wrong practice, attachment to wrong practice and the related perversion of perception from life to life. But there it's hard for me to separate wrong view from wrong perception, so I'm just trying to get a sense of sanna itself in a more "trivial" setting like languages or maths. > ------------ > > KH: I'm obviously not seeing it the same way you are. According to my understanding sanna would be entirely separate from panna and micha-ditthi. So a person with wisdom could have a poor memory, just as much he could have poor eyesight. ... S: Yes, sanna vipallasa whenever the citta is akusala. So most of the day, including whilst studying languages or maths, it's perversion of sanna. And yes, a person with wisdom might, conventionally speaking, have a very poor memory, but sanna arising with kusala cittas marking the objects wisely. Sanna vipallasa now or 'right' sanna with understanding of reality? Metta Sarah ===== #127090 From: "sarah" wrote: > p: If making a mark is the condition for perceiving that object again, then to me it seems it is the marks that accumulate? I mean it seems it's saying that mark is the condition. ... S: No, it is the making of that mark which accumulates, i.e. the sanna. Why do we remember the name 'Alberto'? Because when thinking about it before, sanna 'marked' it at each step of the way, so now there are conditions for sanna and vitakka to recall it. By natural decisive condition, cittas and cetasikas are accumulated, not concepts. ... > > Text Vis: It is manifested as the action of interpreting by means of the sign as apprehended, like the blind who 'see' an elephant (Ud. 68-69). > > > Text Vis: Its proximate cause is an objective field in whatever way that appears, like the perception that arises in fauns that see scarecrows as men. > > p: What is "an objective field"? Is that sort of like the plane of rebirth? ... S: No - it means the sign and details that are marked and 'interpreted'. For example, the blind man touches the hardness, smells the odour and this is recalled as an elephant. Sanna marks and remembers the object at each moment. Each sound, each visible object is different. Without sanna, there'd be no attachment to one object and no aversion to another one. ... > > N: The Tiika adds to the proximate cause, 'an object in whatever way that appears', that this is without thinking or consideration (avikappa). Thus, sa~n~naa performs its task of remembering or recognition without thinking about about the object that appears. Just as the fauns that see scarecrows as men. > > p: So, when something is perceived right now - it is in fact marked right now? Is that right? Further, it is marked now, but it has also been marked before in the past, otherwise there would be no conditions for perceiving it now as 'this is the same'? ... S: Yes, marked at every single moment. Right now, sanna is busy at work, marking the visible objects, the sounds, the concepts thought about. Each visible object, each sound is different, but the visible objects are all visible objects and as the sanna marks the signs, it remembers them too. Just as the woodcutter might mark different logs according to particular details, so sanna marks the objects just as they appear. When thinking about what is seen or heard, the sanna which arises with such thinking remembers 'this is Alberto', 'this is Sarah' and so on. Sanna plays a very important role, like vedana (feeling) - that's why they are both a khandha. Metta Sarah ===== AdChoices #127091 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > We are not fooled at all. We only have to worry about the experiential > > > object now, not some other object we suppose we are missing. That other > > > object does not exist apart from my intersection with a visual object > at a > > > particular locus of experience, and Einstein will bear me out. > > > > > > > > OK. Then you say the eye is irrelevant to whatever is seen, because you > > don't experience the eye, do you? > > The eye that you see with is experienced as a visual portal through which > you see visual objects. > This is possibly your experience but not mine. I neither experience visual portal, nor eye. > If you want to switch deftly back and forth between scientific information > and experience as it is experienced, that doesn't seem very useful to me, > but that is what many people do in order to have ideas about existence from > an external standpoint. > Visual portal, indeed. > That has nothing to do with the fact of experience, which is what actually > takes place in the experiential moment, not in a scientific moment that has > taken place conceptually in someone's mind about that moment. I think > things are pretty simple if you don't mix up frames of reference and > compare them to each other. > Enjoy the company of your straw man, won't you :-) > Mixing apples and oranges is only good for fruit salad, though that is > tasty. > > No doubt that all happens through a taste portal :-) > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = = = > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127093 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > I have no experience of seeing in the absence of visible object. I wonder > > what quality makes it seeing, rather than say, hearing, or feeling? > ... > S: Yes, whenever seeing arises, it sees visible object. The characteristic > of that seeing can be directly known by awareness in the following mind > door process. It is the nimitta or 'sign' of that reality. > > What, if any, is the difference between nimitta and thinking? > It is its nature to see, to experience visible object in this way which > makes it seeing. > ... > > > > > On that note, my understanding re objectless consciousness has changed > > dramatically. In the past I would have denied it as impossible, now that > I > > have experienced it, albeit under the influence of 5MeO-DMT, I know > better. > ... > S: An illusion. Even supramundane cittas must have an object (nibbana), > even arupa jhana cittas must have an object. > > I only tried to describe what was experienced, which was really impossible to describe. On the other hand I get the feeling you are only quoting what you have read / heard. I would check with your sources, because there's no nibbana in this lot....... "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." I imagine this means the Buddha is saying that your sources are put to grief :-) > Metta > > Sarah > > p.s. I thought of you when I saw the Bathurst races in the news. Either > this Sunday or the following one, Pt is coming over for a discussion. I > know it's a long way, but please join us if it's possible. You and Vicki > could join our simple kebab lunch and then have afternoon discussion. > ========= > Thank you :-). It would be lovely to catch up with you all again. Realistically, I think it could happen after the New Year sometime. Mum and Dad live with us, and they are receiving a steady stream of visitors around this time. In the meantime, if you are travelling out this way, feel very welcome to drop in. > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127094 From: "jagkrit2012" S: I don't remember the similes of the beggar child in the palace or the lost horn cow. Can you say more or give a reference? I remember about the twisting ofthe horn of a newly-calved cow simile to show how wishing for results isuseless, in the Bhumija sutta, MN 126, but not the lost horn cow! JJ: As I checked in Tipitaka, this sutta is in: Suttanta Tipitaka Anguttara Nikaya Sattaka-Attaka-Navaka nibatra book no.4 [215] 1. Vuddhi Sutta The characteristic of the one who develops kayagatasati (Body mindfulness) The story was about one Bhikkhu who faultily alleged Sariputra to the Buddha that Sariputra carelessly bumped him and did not apologize. The Buddha called Sariputra to clarify this incident. Sariputra came to the Buddha and explained that anyone who did not develop Kayagatasati, he would not apologize his Bhikkhu friend and walked away after bumping him. Sariputra continued that people dumped dirty trash, fecal, urine, spit, pus or blood on the land but that land never feels uncomfortable, frustrated or loathed with that. He had the same feeling with the land. Sariputra said the water, fire and wind felt the same to that dirt. Sariputra furthered his explanation that a dust-rag was used to clean dirt, fecal, urine, spit, pus or blood but that dust-rag never felt uncomfortable, frustrated or loathed with that. His mind was the same as the dust-rag, which was pure, endless width, not retributive and not torment. Also a child of a beggar carrying a basket dressed with old clothes and walked into a city with very humbleness. His mind was the same as that child of the beggar, which was pure, endless width, not retributive and not torment. Also a cow that his two horns were cut off, well trained, humbly walked on a street or a small foot-way without impetuous. His mind was the same as that cow, which was pure, endless width, not retributive and not torment. Sariputra said a young girl or boy who liked adornment would feel uncomfortable with a corpse of a snake or a corpse of a dog hanging on a neck. He felt the same with uncomfortable and loathed of his decay body. Also a man held a pierced through pot full of grease. That grease flow in and out from that pot. His body was the same as that pot and lymph flow in and out. Sariputra said, the lord Buddha, any Bhikkhu who did not develop Kayagatasati. When he bumped another, he would definitely walk away without an apology. The Bhikkhu who alleged Sariputra, after listening to the above words, became repented for his fault allegation. He asked for forgiveness of his wrong-doing. The Buddha said to Sariputra that he should forgive him otherwise that Bhikkhu's head would be broken into 7 pieces. Sariputra said he would forgive that Bhikkhu if that Bhikkhu forgave him as well. End of Sutta To my understanding, this sutta shows that the one who develops Kayagatasati will always be mindful to his body. Whatever happens to his body, he will definitely be aware. In the meantime, his mindfulness associated with not clinging to that body because of its loathsome like a corpse of snake and dog or a rotten grease pot. Therefore, by not clinging to his body at all, he apologizes to his friend. Sariputra knew that the allegation was fault. However, with Kayagatasati, that allegation was like dirty trash, fecal, urine, spit, pus or blood, he who understood never felt uncomfortable, frustrated or loathed with that allegation like the feeling of the land, water, fire, wind or dust-rag toward the dirt. His mind was so humble as the feeling of the beggar child or lost horns cow, which was never arrogant. And he never felt resentment to that Bhikkhu. However, very interestingly, ever though he was the one who should forgive his Bhikkhu friend. He asked for forgiveness from his Bhikkhu friend as well. Why? Does it concern Kayagatasati in any aspect? This point is interesting to discuss. Anumodhana Jagkrit #127095 From: han tun wrote: Dear Sarah and all >S: I don't remember the similes of the beggar child in the palace or the lost horn cow. Can you say more or give a reference? I remember about the twisting ofthe horn of a newly-calved cow simile to show how wishing for results isuseless, in the Bhumija sutta, MN 126, but not the lost horn cow! JJ: As I checked in Tipitaka, this sutta is in: Suttanta Tipitaka Anguttara Nikaya Sattaka-Attaka-Navaka nibatra book no.4 [215] 1. Vuddhi Sutta The characteristic of the one who develops kayagatasati (Body mindfulness) #127096 From: "jagkrit2012" However, very interestingly, ever though he was the one who should > forgive his Bhikkhu friend. He asked for forgiveness from his > Bhikkhu friend as well. Why? Does it concern Kayagatasati in any > aspect? ----- N: His great humbleness. ----- Nina. #127098 From: Nina van Gorkom This sutta said about Kayagatasati which is interesting because > Sariputra developed this sati during the incident. ----- N: He was aware and had clear understanding of naama and ruupa. It does not mean that he limited awareness to only bodily phenomena. ------- Nina. #127100 From: "truth_aerator" RE:Ajahn Chah and Mahasi don't disagree on anything important The biggest disagreement is exact practice. This is what ultimately counts, IMHO. As for Historical issues. There is no proof of the Buddha's existence. We don't have any alive eyewitnesses nor their children. What physical evidence do we have? Even if the Buddha would be alive, would we notice him? Can we say that Ajahn Chah, Maha Boowa, or name some other great monk where Arhants? For the Buddha we rely on Indian texts. We do not know what Historical Buddha has said, no voice or video recordings exist. He also didn't write any books. The texts do not have to be literary true. It is possible to write in metaphor, etc. For example some suttas talk about city Rajagaha existing for 100,000s of years. Of course we cannot take this to be literary true, or the stories of talking animals. And most of research is based on such texts... We don't know if what was chosen at first council (assuming it even occurred!) is what the Historical Buddha has said. The comparison of pali canon with Agamas only say that there was a common core, it doesn't prove the origin of common core. "Some scholars say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali_Canon#cite_note-25 "Some scholars see the Pali Canon as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali_Canon#cite_note-29 >RE:Someone who taught for 40 years and for whom there are countless >records and eyewitness accounts is not exactly mythological. >================ Other than what scriptures say (and in different traditions accounts are contradictory) we don't have any physical proof. What would happen in court-of-law if all we had was contradictory textual accounts with no physical evidence? I could go on with this if anyone wants. With best wishes, Alex #127101 From: "truth_aerator" S: There is death of consciousness (citta) at each moment. >============================= How do we know this? At best only as inference. A citta cannot experience its own arising or passing away. It is impossible. Citta can see arising and passing away of its objects. Sure. >S:However, the Buddha taught the development of right understanding. >================================= Here is very very tricky part. I agree about not-clinging, not considering anything as Self, not adding additional dukkha. In various places the suttas say that we should not have any views. This includes even right theories. I am really unhappy when people take profound statement [1] and totally ruin it by saying that [2] 1) "one should not have views" 2) "one should not have [wrong] views" Of course anyone on the street agrees that having wrong views is bad, one should have right views. But it takes a genius to say that one should not have and should not cling to any views... Remember parable of an elephant and blind men? What if any views, including "right" one's are like blind men groping an elephant which they never saw? With best wishes, Alex #127102 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > A citta cannot experience its own arising or passing away. It is impossible. > > Citta can see arising and passing away of its objects. Sure. This is the classic Orthodox (astika) Hindu view found in such sects as Vedanta, Samkhya, etc. & was already prominent at the time of Gotama. Sariputta is recorded to have said "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html And Buddha is recorded to have said "It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html Looking into the pali, the phrase translated "But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness'" is citta, mano & vinnana respectively. This implies --- I think --- that to watch the decay & alteration of any mental phenomena is to watch the decay & alteration of consciousness, insofar as the mind is experienced as a united continuum of change, though its different functions may be isolated for purposes of instruction & analysis. > Here is very very tricky part. > > I agree about not-clinging, not considering anything as Self, not adding additional dukkha. > > In various places the suttas say that we should not have any views. This includes even right theories. I am really unhappy when people take profound statement [1] and totally ruin it by saying that [2] > > 1) "one should not have views" > 2) "one should not have [wrong] views" > > Of course anyone on the street agrees that having wrong views is bad, one should have right views. But it takes a genius to say that one should not have and should not cling to any views... Remember parable of an elephant and blind men? What if any views, including "right" one's are like blind men groping an elephant which they never saw? This is why the Abhidhamma is so fascinating to me, as it presents a more rigorous set of terms than is found in sutta. Of course, the suttas are perfect from a practical standpoint but they can also lead to uncertainties like this --- that is, right "view" (ditthi) vs. wrong "view" vs. no "view". Certain akusala cittas are defined as being conjoined with "view" (ditthi) or disjoined from "view", just as certain kusala cittas are defined as being conjoined with "knowledge" (nana) & disjoined from such. Thus, in sutta, the term ditthi can have a positive connotation if it is sammaditthi whereas in the Abhidhamma the term nana is used to heighten the difference between right & wrong view. Wrong view is just ditthi whereas right view is just nana. To give an example where the term ditthi is synonymous with nana, http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara1/\ 1-ekanipata/015-Atthanapali-e.html The term here for right view is ditthisampanno. In Dhamma - Josh #127103 From: "truth_aerator" This is the classic Orthodox (astika) Hindu view found in such sects >as Vedanta, Samkhya, etc. & was already prominent at the time of >Gotama. >========================================== Even from materialistic and atheist POV, consciousness cannot cognize its own arising or cessation. It cannot jump out of itself a cognize what happened before it was born or after it ceased. So from its own perspective it is undying. Undying not in the sense of eternity with eternal sequence of events, but rather that its limits cannot be known. Death is not an event in one's experience. It cannot be experienced. We can see someone else's death, but we cannot experience our own death (if by death we mean final cessation). With best wishes, Alex #127104 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han I, however, wonder that there is translation in English of this Vuddhi Sutta which I check in Thai and roughly translate into English. This sutta said about Kayagatasati which is interesting because Sariputra developed this sati during the incident. Anumodhana Jagkrit #127105 From: han tun wrote: Hello Han Thank you for all your sutta postings these days, and the Pali, and your thoughts. It is interesting that the elders advised government officials to be free of those biases caused by the kilesa. I personally doubt that the advice of even the most respected Dhamma friend can bear much weight against the accumulated power of kikesas. As with good health, freedom from bias is kind of a freak occurence for us, I think. Of course we (so to speak, only dhammas performing functions) can take very modest steps in that direction. Sometimes we feel there is dramatic progress, but that is moha at work. Does that sound pessimistic? I don't think it is. Our eyes are open, there is understanding of reality. Understanding of reality is better than belief in comforting notions (such as freedom from bias caused by anger, lust etc) in my opinion. Thanks again. Phil #127108 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Hello Josh, all, > > >This is the classic Orthodox (astika) Hindu view found in such sects >as Vedanta, Samkhya, etc. & was already prominent at the time of >Gotama. > >========================================== > > > Even from materialistic and atheist POV, consciousness cannot cognize its own arising or cessation. It cannot jump out of itself a cognize what happened before it was born or after it ceased. So from its own perspective it is undying. When you say "its own perspective", what would be an example of a perspective "not its own"? > > Undying not in the sense of eternity with eternal sequence of events, but rather that its limits cannot be known. > > Death is not an event in one's experience. It cannot be experienced. We can see someone else's death, but we cannot experience our own death (if by death we mean final cessation). Stated differently, one could say one cannot experience a non-experience. Perhaps I'm not following what you're trying to say. If I understand you correctly, you are stating that consciousness cannot cognize itself & therefore cannot see itself to arise or cease. As it cannot see itself to arise or cease, its only knowledge "of itself" is non-arising, non-ceasing. Therefore it is not anicca --- it must be a kind of nicca, because it has no actual knowledge of itself ever vanishing & therefore has no right to say of itself "it has ended". This is not the same thing as saying it exists forever --- but, insofar as it exists it exists always in an unchanging way because it literally cannot perceive its own change. If it sees change, it is always of something other than itself, or of some phenomena or content "inside" it, as it were. Tell me if I'm off the mark. - In Dhamma Josh #127109 From: "jagkrit2012" > This sutta said about Kayagatasati which is interesting because > > Sariputra developed this sati during the incident. > ----- > N: He was aware and had clear understanding of naama and ruupa. It > does not mean that he limited awareness to only bodily phenomena. > ------- jj: Thank you very much Nina, at the time, Sariputra had attained arahatship and his panna was very great. His understanding of naama and ruupa should be very clear. Kayagatasati should be only one factor arising at the time to show that bodily phenomena was aware. Therefore, the accusation of that Bhikkhu was not true. However, I would like to understand more about the relationship of kayagatasati and the humbleness of Sariputra. It seems that his humbleness was conditioned with other accumulation of understanding. Kayagatasati played it role limitedly to mindfulness of body. It's just my thinking. Hopefully not be delirious thinking. Anumodhana Jagkrit #127110 From: "truth_aerator" When you say "its own perspective", what would be an example of a >perspective "not its own"? >================== There is no such thing. Citta cognizes something. It cannot cognize anything prior arising, nor after it ceases. A very rough example. Lets say John was born in 1950 and died 2050. John cannot know what happened prior to 1950 nor what happens after 2050. John didn't know "I didn't exist for billions of years prior to 1950". Nor will John care about infinite non-existence after 2050. Same with momentary cittas, just the scale is different. >Stated differently, one could say one cannot experience a >non-experience. >===================== Correct. >Perhaps I'm not following what you're trying to say. If I understand >you correctly, you are stating that consciousness cannot cognize >itself & therefore cannot see itself to arise or cease. >=============== Citta cannot cognize what happened to itself prior to its arising or after its cessation. With best wishes, Alex #127111 From: "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > > Citta cannot cognize what happened to itself prior to its arising or after its cessation. > > > With best wishes, > > Alex > I'm taking the title of the post to mean that the inability of citta to perceive its own birth or death implies that it possesses --- in experience now --- a quality of not being born & not dying, in that these two aspects are absolutely unobservable. Am I following you so far? If I am, I would say that the same logic can apply to any form of change whatsoever. The eye, for instance, cannot see itself, therefore it is invisible --- however, this does not mean that seeing does not occur. The existence of the eye is revealed by the fact that the eye is functioning. It is similar with the other senses. Personally, I feel that there isn't really birth or death in the sense of the real coming-into-existence of a consciousness or the winking-out-of-existence of the same in that I think each moment of conscious-time requires a prior moment of conscious-time & each of these are actually stored within the layers of our memory. And on the status of an Arahant or Tathagata after death, if I were to have any position it would clearly be wrong. However, if a citta's existence --- like the eye --- is revealed by its functioning & the overall effect of it as a field of experience rather than the more layered approach one sees in Samkhya & Vedanta, then it follows that the changes in experience as a whole are changes in citta, just as they are changes in the domain of the senses as well. Sounds, images, scents, thoughts, attentions, etc. exist in a constant state of motion with nothing remaining perfectly the same for even a small moment. The approach that ascribes an "atta" to the whole thing tends to take it as an invariable, witnessing subject to which the panorama of objects presents itself --- yet, if that were truly so then one could rightly ask what is it that observes the witness & allows for its existence to fall within the domain of conceptual thought? At some point, one must admit that there is the presence of experience as a mere fact which does not admit of an observable cause outside itself, yet at the same time is beset with the constant observation of change --- a fact which, when expanded, presents itself to us as the facts of anicca, dukkha & anatta, with anicca being related to time, dukkha being related to ethical desirability & anatta being related to our assumption of an ultimate position of observation & point of control. This is why I brought up the suttas which seem to imply that feeling, perception & consciousness are not truly divisible in experience. And, further, the illusion of stasis in the senses itself derives from the fact that matter (rupa) changes at a slower rate than them which creates the illusion that the sense-fields are changing at a slower rate than thought &, therefore, the notion that there is a relatively unchanging subject that is the witness of thought when, in reality, this is just another superimposed concept. in Dhamma - Josh #127113 From: Nina van Gorkom However, I would like to understand more about the relationship of > kayagatasati and the humbleness of Sariputra. It seems that his > humbleness was conditioned with other accumulation of > understanding. Kayagatasati played it role limitedly to mindfulness > of body. ------ N: Acharn teaches us to relate to the present moment in order to understand suttas. I try to follow this up, though my understanding is only on the intellectual level. When considering hardness now, or feeling now, it helps to see that we are only naama and ruupa that do not last at all. Would that not lead to detachment from the idea of: I exist, I am so important? Another person may bump into us on purpose, or speak unpleasant words, but there is not another person, only conditioned phenomena. Again, we have to learn this, but reminders help. But one can think with metta and compassion of someone else. We forgive him, and if he feels hurt because of what we said or did, even we did not have akusala cetanaa, why not asking him forgiveness? It is a way of daana, abhaya daana, we wish him to live free of any danger. So, this is an attitude inspired by compassion and benevolence. Nina. #127115 From: "sarah" wrote: > Part II of Survey of Paramattha Dhammas continued. (I'm skipping several paragraphs on stages on englightnemnt.) > > > "The Buddha explained citta not only as 'that which is pure' (pandara) he also used the term manaayatana (mind base) for citta, so that the characteristic of citta would be understood even more clearly. Aayatana is explained in the Atthasaalini (Book I, Part IV, Ch. II, 140-141) as 'dwelling place', 'place of birth', 'place of association' and 'cause.' It is explained that the place of birth, the meeting-place and cause are sutiable terms for citta. Citta is place of birth because contact (phassa cetasika) and the other cetasikas arise "in the citta." .... S: This is why citta is said to be "innermost". I mentioned this recently: >S: All cittas are pandara, clear. As we read in the Dhammasangani, there are many synonyms for citta: mano or maanasa (mind), hadaya (heart), pa.n.dara (pure), manaayatana (mind-base), manindriya (faculty of mind), vi~n~naa.na (consciousness), vi~n~naa.nakkhandha and manovi~n~naa.na dhaatu. All cittas are pa.n.dara, but I believe that pabhassara (luminous) is only used for vipaka cittas and kusala cittas, not akusala cittas. We discussed some of these synonyms in Poland. Citta as "innermost". In passing, K.Sujin mentioned that in some text(s) it refers to cetasikas inside citta, hence "innermost"...< S: I could remember seeing it in the texts, but what you quote above makes this clear. "For mind is aayatana in the sense of birth-place as in the passage: - 'states such as 'contact' and so on, are born in the mind.' (AN iii. 43) I think this is the Pali: "phassaadayo hi dhammaa ettha sa~njaayanti ti sa~njaatidesa.t.thena pi etam aayatana.m". (I don't quite follow the Pali and I wasn't able to find the AN ref. Others may.) ... >Citta is a place of association because objects from outside, such as visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object, 'meet' in the citta by being its object. As to the meaning of cause (hetu), citta is the cause or condition for contact (phassa) and for the other cetasikas arising together with it; it is conascent-condtion (sahajaata-paccaya) for them." (59) ... S: A great passage, especially considering the different meanings/aspects of ayatana and citta as leader and innermost. Metta Sarah ===== #127116 From: "sarah" wrote: <...> > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara1/\ > 1-ekanipata/015-Atthanapali-e.html > > The term here for right view is ditthisampanno. #127117 From: "sarah" wrote: > Thera Godhika And The Mara > [Translated from the Pali by Daw Mya Tin, MA] <...> > Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: > > Verse 57: Mara cannot find the path taken by those who are endowed with virtue, who live mindfully and have been freed from moral defilements by Right Knowledge. ====== #127118 From: han tun wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > We are not fooled at all. We only have to worry about the experiential > > > > object now, not some other object we suppose we are missing. That other > > > > object does not exist apart from my intersection with a visual object > > at a > > > > particular locus of experience, and Einstein will bear me out. > > > > > > > > > > > OK. Then you say the eye is irrelevant to whatever is seen, because you > > > don't experience the eye, do you? > > > > The eye that you see with is experienced as a visual portal through which > > you see visual objects. > > > > This is possibly your experience but not mine. > > I neither experience visual portal, nor eye. Okay, first you said that I am saying the eye is irrelevant; then when I try to describe the way that the eye exists [as not an objective eye, but just the experience of seeing,] you turn back and say that the eye as a visual portal is my experience, not yours. I think we're both saying that what is relevant is the experience of seeing, and I'm not that interested in taking semantics and turning them this way and that way to score a point. We both agree that there is no experience of the eye as an eye in seeing, but there is the experience of seeing. My point is thus that science is irrelevant to the experience of seeing, whereas you were claiming a delay between the "real" object and the seen object, because of the delay in seeing. And I am saying the delayed object is the "real" object, because that is what is experienced. The delay is meaningless, unless you are interested in coordinating a scientific object with the experiential object. > > If you want to switch deftly back and forth between scientific information > > and experience as it is experienced, that doesn't seem very useful to me, > > but that is what many people do in order to have ideas about existence from > > an external standpoint. > > > > > Visual portal, indeed. Just a description of visual material being apprehended experientially, as opposed to an external eye that is studied for its attributes. If you want to parry with the term I came up with, go right ahead. > > That has nothing to do with the fact of experience, which is what actually > > takes place in the experiential moment, not in a scientific moment that has > > taken place conceptually in someone's mind about that moment. I think > > things are pretty simple if you don't mix up frames of reference and > > compare them to each other. > > > > Enjoy the company of your straw man, won't you :-) As an alternative to making a general comment, you could try answering what I said, and tell me what possible relevance the delay you started out with has for experience? You are taking an ideal object, the "real" object and then saying we don't experience it because of a delay in perception. I am still arguing against your original point, not a straw man. It's only a straw man because you won't acknowledge your own original position. Why don't we settle the original point instead of talking around it? > > Mixing apples and oranges is only good for fruit salad, though that is > > tasty. > > > > > No doubt that all happens through a taste portal :-) Indeed. On the other hand you don't seem to want to defend your own view, so I guess I'm dancing with my own speech portal here, and it's starting to echo. Care to participate? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #127120 From: "sarah" wrote: > >A: When people followed this, they had a better possibility of >Awakening... > > ... > >S: Why? > >==================== > > Why did the Buddha create monastic order? Why did the Buddha and commentators recommended becoming ordained? ... S: If this is your answer to my question, then why didn't the Buddha recommend everyone become ordained? Why didn't he recommend everyone go from "forest to forest, cave to cave, cemetery to cemetery, beg for food while contemplating rotting corpses"? ... > When person due to wisdom has enough dispassion for worldly life and has possibility of ordaining, why remain as a householder? ... S: Today, there are many considerations. Firstly one has to know that one really has the inclination and accumulations to lead this lifestyle, to cut all bonds with family and friends, to be able to live easily following all the rules. Secondly, one has to know that one is part of a community of bhikkhus where there is good understanding of the Dhamma and everyone has full respect for the Tipitaka and follows the rules. One has to know that the senior monks are really to be respected and understand the Teachings. If it's not one's natural way of living, if the conditions are not right, it'll just lead to more stress and anxiety and be very difficult to follow all the rules perfectly. For the development of the path, for the understanding of the Teachings, there's no advantage at all. Seeing is seeing regardless of where one is. Hearing now, hearing in the forest - just the same. Metta Sarah ====== AdChoices #127121 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi RobertE, > > I am considering many things. One of which is that we shouldn't cling too much to the texts or traditions but "be a light unto oneself". If your light is bright enough to follow, by all means go for it. > Ultimately your own discernment is the key. Even if it is to choose a teacher suitable for oneself at a certain time. > Mahasi? Ajahn Brahm? Ajahn Chah? Etc. Just choose - then it's not a big problem. They're all good. > >RE:Ajahn Chah and Mahasi don't disagree on anything important > > > The biggest disagreement is exact practice. This is what ultimately counts, IMHO. I don't think that's a big problem, though many might. I think if you follow the breath and read the texts you've got a pretty good practice right there. Whether you follow the breath in the belly or the tip of the nose I think depends more on temperament than absolute rightness or wrongness. There are many traditions that follow the breath. Buddhism's principle of mindfulness is the most powerful tool in doing so, and what kind of breath practice you follow will likely be fine if you follow the right principle. > As for Historical issues. There is no proof of the Buddha's existence. We don't have any alive eyewitnesses nor their children. What physical evidence do we have? > > Even if the Buddha would be alive, would we notice him? Can we say that Ajahn Chah, Maha Boowa, or name some other great monk where Arhants? They were all noticed, and all recognized as powerful teachers. The Buddha was recognized by many as a most brilliant teacher. Your idea that great teachers might remain obscure seems totally speculative and with no particular merit. > For the Buddha we rely on Indian texts. We do not know what Historical Buddha has said, no voice or video recordings exist. He also didn't write any books. The texts do not have to be literary true. It is possible to write in metaphor, etc. For example some suttas talk about city Rajagaha existing for 100,000s of years. Of course we cannot take this to be literary true, or the stories of talking animals. And most of research is based on such texts... It doesn't matter. The practice is clear. You don't have to waste your time worrying about talking animals until you hear one yourself. What does that have to do with anything? Practicing mindfulness can be done without a talking animal. That's just nonsense. > We don't know if what was chosen at first council (assuming it even occurred!) is what the Historical Buddha has said. The comparison of pali canon with Agamas only say that there was a common core, it doesn't prove the origin of common core. > > "Some scholars say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali_Canon#cite_note-25 > > "Some scholars see the Pali Canon as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali_Canon#cite_note-29 > > > >RE:Someone who taught for 40 years and for whom there are countless >records and eyewitness accounts is not exactly mythological. > >================ > > Other than what scriptures say (and in different traditions accounts are contradictory) we don't have any physical proof. > > What would happen in court-of-law if all we had was contradictory textual accounts with no physical evidence? > > > I could go on with this if anyone wants. I really don't want, because it's irrelevant. The only point I've been trying to make is that all such doubt and speculation is a waste of time, and is in fact a distraction from practice. Why bother? Why not stop and focus on the real issues - the knots that you have to work through to get to the next level, whatever that may be? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #127122 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > > > In the context of the discussion, there are at least two kinds of > "should", > > one is as a command > ... > > > The other "should" is in the form of - if goal x is desired, then you > > should do a, b, c. This variety of "shoulding" is based on an > understanding > > of conditions. > > > > We agree that the setting of goals is a symptom of aversion > > Perhaps "should" can also be used in an impersonal or conventional way to > indicate what is kusala and what is akusala. E.g. perhaps when we are told > we should develop friendliness and should not develop anger, it's in fact > just implying that friendliness is kusala (or that metta is a kusala > dhamma, if you like abhidhamma) while anger is akusala (dosa is akusala > dhamma). So, simply a matter of expressing things in terms of understanding > the issue, rather than commanding us to do something or desire something > else. Just my take on this. > > Good to hear from you. I think I understand what you are saying, but I can't quite catch how what you are saying sheds a different light on the matter. I read you to be saying that, say, anger is akusala, and that we should not be angry because it is akusala. In that form, should is a prescription, a command. You then raise the nuance of "understanding the issue", which is very applicable, and certainly removes any command or prescription aspect. But isn't anger an aversion to the present? And isn't that explicitly wanting things to be different? Or are you saying that anger and understanding can co-exist? Sorry if I'm being thick :-) > Best wishes > pt > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127123 From: "sarah" wrote: > Yoniso manasikara is one of the conditions for the arising of panna. Achaan Sujin often talks about considering. Does it refer to yoniso manasikara? ... S: When there is wise consideration, there is yoniso manasikara. Whenever kusala cittas arise, there is yoniso manasikara. There can be yoniso manasikara with or without understanding, therefore. It depends on the context in the texts as to whether it's referring to wise consideration with panna, direct understanding of realities or any kusala cittas. (Yoniso manasikara refers to the kusala mind-door process - mind-door adverting citta and following javana cittas. Ayoniso manasikara refers to the akusala mind-door process). A. Sujin would say, never mind about the name or trying to 'pin-point' it, but is there wise consideration now? Is there any understanding of reality which appears now, such as visible object or thinking? This is the way that yoniso manasikara will be understood. ... >What are the characteristic, function,manifestation and proximate cause of that? I would like to hear more about this. Any input is welcome! ... S: Now you are talking about manasikara, the cetasika, I think, not yoniso manasikara. We also need to be careful, because there are the three meanings of manasikara. Manasikara cetasika (attention) arises with every citta. It's characteristic, as Lukas said, is to direct the other cetasikas and citta to the object like the rudder of a ship, or the charioteer who directs the horses. Now, even at the moment of seeing, the citta and other universal cetasikas need manasikara to direct them to visible object so that it can be seen. Good questions to discuss further in Vietnam too. Metta Sarah ===== #127124 From: "Lukas" N: but there is not another person, only conditioned phenomena. >Again, we have to learn this, but reminders help. L: In different ways. Sutta-maya panna, this is vitakka that comes with reading the Dhamma. Cinta-maya panna follows, and this also is vitakka, but it follows by consideration. And there is a bhava-maya panna, direct understanding, there is also a vitakka, but than it's called samma-sankappa. This may be direct understanding of a Path. The point is all those different degrees of understanding are helpful, and those are not a Self, they just follow. So we appreciate the listening, reading and considering. With no Self and control at all in it. We can hear a Dhamma, and than vitakka can follow it's own way, with wise attention or not, according to conditions. We can see how one remider influances the whole process of thinking and examination. This will bring more and more understanding. And since we know this are elements that consider, listen and understand, there is less and less idea of a Self. This is very helpful to know more and more, that all this processes of learning are not a Self. This is a right way. > It is a way of daana, abhaya daana, we wish him to live free of any > danger. > So, this is an attitude inspired by compassion and benevolence. L: I answered that, mainly because of abhaya dana, that for me is so interesting kusala. This abhaya dana is not only that level. For me this is also when we speak less, step back to saying things that are not concern with Dhamma. We can see that each word we speak influance others. It takes their minds to somewhere. If someone has a lot of ideas, this is like this, and this is like that or the world is like this is not like that. Than if we step back to say anything, since that may make people angry or follow more and more not important ideas, than we can speak less and that time, we give more shelter and freedom from fear to others. When we speak instead, more on Dhamma, we induce others to think more and more in a right way, than this is real abhaya dana. givin freedom from fear and misery. For sure this is one aspect of abhaya dana. I like to consider this that way. Best wishes Lukas #127125 From: "jagkrit2012" N: > It is a way of daana, abhaya daana, we wish him to live free of any > > danger. > > So, this is an attitude inspired by compassion and benevolence. > > L: I answered that, mainly because of abhaya dana, that for me is so interesting kusala. This abhaya dana is not only that level. For me this is also when we speak less, step back to saying things that are not concern with Dhamma. We can see that each word we speak influance others. It takes their minds to somewhere. If someone has a lot of ideas, this is like this, and this is like that or the world is like this is not like that. Than if we step back to say anything, since that may make people angry or follow more and more not important ideas, than we can speak less and that time, we give more shelter and freedom from fear to others. When we speak instead, more on Dhamma, we induce others to think more and more in a right way, than this is real abhaya dana. givin freedom from fear and misery. For sure this is one aspect of abhaya dana. > > I like to consider this that way. ------------ JJ: I love your comment above very much. Very thoughtful. However, I think abhaya dana is about forgiveness. But your idea about speaking right should fall in Sila of speaking. Sila can be something forbidden (Varita Sila) or something we should do (Jarita Sila). Forbidden sila of speaking is lie. Good sila of speaking combines with 5 categories: 1. good timing 2. kind words 3. useful 4. real words (sajja) 5. speaking with metta I think your idea of speaking mentioned above contents with these 5 categories. Anumodhana Jagkrit #127126 From: "Lukas" JJ: However, I think abhaya dana is about forgiveness. But your idea about speaking right should fall in Sila of speaking. Sila can be something forbidden (Varita Sila) or something we should do (Jarita Sila). Forbidden sila of speaking is lie. Good sila of speaking combines with 5 categories: > > 1. good timing > 2. kind words > 3. useful > 4. real words (sajja) > 5. speaking with metta > > I think your idea of speaking mentioned above contents with these 5 categories. #127127 From: "jagkrit2012" Can siila be also dana? JJ: Yes, it is great dana. > > Best wishes > Lukas > > > JJ: However, I think abhaya dana is about forgiveness. But your idea about speaking right should fall in Sila of speaking. Sila can be something forbidden (Varita Sila) or something we should do (Jarita Sila). Forbidden sila of speaking is lie. Good sila of speaking combines with 5 categories: > > > > 1. good timing > > 2. kind words > > 3. useful > > 4. real words (sajja) > > 5. speaking with metta > > > > I think your idea of speaking mentioned above contents with these 5 categories. > #127128 From: "Lukas" > Can siila be also dana? > > JJ: Yes, it is great dana. L: Than we give no fear to others. Abhaya dana. Best wishes Lukas #127129 From: "philip" The word "bias" was used by me to translate "agati" in this case. It is very difficult to express anything in English which is not my mother tongue. If I gave you the impression of anusaya (latent tendencies) by my usage of the word "bias", then it is difficult as you say. Ph: Well, I was thinking more about the "medium" defilements, if you will, the ones that arise all so often, but are not at the level of transgression. (I forget the proper terms for them.) And for those, I find "bias" is a perfectly good word. You know, the way if any one of us is walking down a street and see a person, there are process that immediately form a judgement of that person with like or dislike. I don't mean an intense or explicity like or dislike, but there is a liking or disliking of a kind that goes on all the time. I think it is pretty much unavoidable, so I am not deploring it, but I just think it is interesting to note that (in my opinion at least) no one who is not an ariyan can possible behave with an unbiased mind. And that's fine, that's reality. > Furthermore, there are two levels of understanding: mundane and supramundane. If you are thinking of supramundane understanding all the time, yes, it is difficult. But you have also to think of mundane level of understanding, which is within reach of every puthujjana. Ph: I don't often think about supramundane thinking, that is all about path moments, stages of enlightenment, nibanna as object, all those topics isn't it? Not so interesting to me, to be honest, far beyond me. I'm only interesed in sense door objects now - seeing now, visible object now, hearing now, sound now - and the defilements that arise so quickly in the following javanas.... > Coming back to the case of "agati" I will give you just a couple of examples at the mundane level. Suppose a judge takes bribe and acquits a criminal, that is "chanda-agati". It is not that difficult to follow the Elders' advice. Ph: Ok, I see. Defilements of the transgression level, and premeditated ones at that. Right you are, not so difficult to follow the elders' advice, though of course it is possible that accumulated kilesas can arise to cause transgression beyond the best intentions and vows and respectful promises of even the most constistently ethical judge, however unlikely it might be. Thanks again, Han. Phil #127130 From: han tun wrote: Hello Han Thank you for your response. > The word "bias" was used by me to translate "agati" in this case. It is very difficult to express anything in English which is not my mother tongue. If I gave you the impression of anusaya (latent tendencies) by my usage of the word "bias", then it is difficult as you say. Ph: Well, I was thinking more about the "medium" defilements, if you will, the ones that arise all so often, but are not at the level of transgression. (I forget the proper terms for them.) And for those, I find "bias" is a perfectly good word. You know, the way if any one of us is walking down a street and see a person, there are process that immediately form a judgement of that person with like or dislike. I don't mean an intense or explicity like or dislike, but there is a liking or disliking of a kind that goes on all the time. I think it is pretty much unavoidable, so I am not deploring it, but I just think it is interesting to note that (in my opinion at least) no one who is not an ariyan can possible behave with an unbiased mind. And that's fine, that's reality. > Furthermore, there are two levels of understanding: mundane and supramundane. If you are thinking of supramundane understanding all the time, yes, it is difficult. But you have also to think of mundane level of understanding, which is within reach of every puthujjana. Ph: I don't often think about supramundane thinking, that is all about path moments, stages of enlightenment, nibanna as object, all those topics isn't it? Not so interesting to me, to be honest, far beyond me. I'm only interesed in sense door objects now - seeing now, visible object now, hearing now, sound now - and the defilements that arise so quickly in the following javanas.... > Coming back to the case of "agati" I will give you just a couple of examples at the mundane level. Suppose a judge takes bribe and acquits a criminal, that is "chanda-agati". It is not that difficult to follow the Elders' advice. Ph: Ok, I see. Defilements of the transgression level, and premeditated ones at that. Right you are, not so difficult to follow the elders' advice, though of course it is possible that accumulated kilesas can arise to cause transgression beyond the best intentions and vows and respectful promises of even the most constistently ethical judge, however unlikely it might be. Thanks again, Han. Phil #127131 From: "Yawares Sastri" I'm taking the title of the post to mean that the inability of >citta to perceive its own birth or death implies that it possesses >--- in experience now --- a quality of not being born & not dying, >in >that these two aspects are absolutely unobservable. Am I >following >you so far? >================================== Right. >If I am, I would say that the same logic can apply to any form of >change whatsoever. The eye, for instance, cannot see itself, >=============== Right. Eye cannot see itself. One can see the reflection of the eye, or even the face. >therefore it is invisible --- however, this does not mean that >seeing does not occur. >============= Right. There is difference between unobservable and not-existent. Eye is, but it cannot observe itself directly - unless one looks into the mirror and sees REFLECTION of it. Of course citta depends on causes and is impermanent. One doesn't have any awareness while in deep coma, or similar totally unconscious state. >And on the status of an Arahant or Tathagata after death, if I were >to have any position it would clearly be wrong. >>============ An interesting thing is that a dead Arhat/Buddha cannot KNOW or be AWARE of non-existence. Same can be said about materialist idea of death. Death as experience, happens to someone else - happens in third person. It is never 1st person experience. With best wishes, Alex #127134 From: "truth_aerator" A:Why did the Buddha create monastic order? Why did the Buddha and >commentators recommended becoming ordained? > ... >S: If this is your answer to my question, then why didn't the Buddha >recommend everyone become ordained? Why didn't he recommend everyone >go from "forest to forest, cave to cave, cemetery to cemetery, beg >for food while contemplating rotting corpses"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people had obligations and couldn't leave. Some people were not ready. Some people might not have good enough health for vigorous lifestyle. If you have read some vinaya, you know that there are rules about who cannot be ordained. =========== Disqualifications. The factors that would disqualify an applicant from receiving ordination are of three sorts: those absolutely disqualifying him for life — even if he receives ordination, he does not count as properly ordained; those marking him as an undesirable member of the Community — if he happens to be ordained, he counts as ordained, but the bhikkhus participating in the ordination incur a dukka?a; and those indicating that he is formally unprepared for full Acceptance (for instance, he lacks robes and an alms-bowl or does not have a valid preceptor) — the Canon does not state whether these factors absolutely invalidate the applicant's Acceptance, but the Commentary puts them in the same class as the undesirables, above. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc2/bmc2.ch14.html With best wishes, Alex #127135 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > As for Historical issues. There is no proof of the Buddha's existence. We don't have any alive eyewitnesses nor their children. What physical evidence do we have? > I am getting Hajime Nakamura's book "Gotama Buddha" which purports to be based on the oldest, most reliable texts, but even here I find it more a point of curiosity than a practical matter. Recently my mother has become interested in Vipassana. She is what I'd describe as a liberal-minded Christian --- that is, she likes the idea of Jesus & finds solace in him as a religious figure but she doesn't believe in everlasting hell, Old Testament animal sacrifice, original sin, etc. She's had a lifetime of trouble with depression, though, & it wasn't the story of Buddha that sparked her interest in Vipassana. It was the movie "Doing Time, Doing Vipassana" where inmates of an Indian prison are taught Vipassana techniques to remarkable effect. We recently watched "Dhamma Brothers" also which documents the same thing occurring in an American prison in Alabama (of all places!). Her interest had nothing to do with the Buddha as a historical figure, nor does she accept any of the aspects of Buddhism which might be taken as particularly religious. What inspired her was this method of Vipassana had a remarkable, liberating effect on convicts. If it can work for a murderer with a life-sentence, it can probably work for a nurse-by-profession whose had maybe 2 speeding tickets in her 60 years, at most. This is an aspect of it I never really considered, as I was always too attracted to the mystique of history. If I had never heard of the lovely story of Siddhattha Gotama, would I be as inspired as my mother was by what people are accomplishing with Vipassana today? I've done a bit of amateurish study on world mythologies, too, & I personally look at many of the Buddhist texts in the same light --- not as a record of historical fact but as a means of conveying spiritual truth within the context of an archetypal drama. A case in point: it doesn't matter to me if there was a literal naga-king whose hood shielded Buddha from the rain while he was sitting achieving enlightenment, but it does matter to me what this tale is telling me as a tender expression of animate life recognizing that the Buddha's career of ending suffering is the most precious thing possible & feeling obligated to cherish & protect it as best one can (as the naga-king was). Mythology often can teach & describe important truths to someone less philosophically inclined. > Other than what scriptures say (and in different traditions accounts are contradictory) we don't have any physical proof. > The historical truths (or lack thereof) aside, the suttas do present reasoned arguments for everything they say --- arguments which stand or fall independent of who is saying them. The Buddha --- if the records are correct --- does not appear to insist anyone take his central teachings on faith, but engages everyone in a dialogue & presents his teachings as facts which can be investigated & analyzed & are not at all unreasonable to even an ignorant mind following its own logic & analysis. In Dhamma - Josh #127137 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Alexander says he first found himself floating above clouds before witnessing, "transparent, shimmering beings arced across the sky, leaving long, streamer like lines behind them." This reminds me of "When the world is devolving, beings for the most part head toward the Radiant (brahmas). There they stay: mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time." From Brahmajalasutta #127138 From: "truth_aerator" I am getting Hajime Nakamura's book "Gotama Buddha" which purports >to be based on the oldest, most reliable texts, but even here I find >it more a point of curiosity than a practical matter. >>===================== I don't know about that book, I've heard that he was translator of PC into Japanese. It may be very beneficial to study into earliest known Buddhism and practice in accordance with that. But of course the argument can be that "we don't know exactly what earliest Buddhism taught". There are some hints (such as last two chapters of Sutta Nipata). As for historicity and such. We can't be totally sure that any or all that we have is fully authentic, so personal "practice" and discrimination is what is left. With best wishes, Alex #127139 From: han tun wrote: > > Dear Jagkrit, > > I do not know whether you have seen my message containing AN 9.11 Siihanaada sutta. > In case you missed it, please click on the following link. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/127118 > > In that sutta, there is a clear indication that the mindfulness of the body in the body (kaayagataasati) has attributed to Venerable Saariputta's humbleness. > > with metta and respect, > Han > #127141 From: "philip" wrote: > > > An interesting thing is that a dead Arhat/Buddha cannot KNOW or be AWARE of non-existence. > > Same can be said about materialist idea of death. > > Death as experience, happens to someone else - happens in third person. It is never 1st person experience. > Two suttas come to mind to me in this discussion. Anuradha Sutta "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" "No, lord." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html And "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html __________ How I see it as follows: if we are going to speak in terms of ultimate realities we need to remove any credence in such terms as existence, non-existence, is, is-not, or anything that smacks of an individual being (in any sense). So, in this respect, the statement "a dead Arhat/Buddha cannot KNOW or be AWARE of non-existence" wouldn't even arise. What would arise, though? Boiling away all the fat of concepts, we have mere tautologies. Your statement, bereft of persons or terms of existence, is simply "experience experiences" & "non-experience non-experiences". This is a very subtle point, I think, but is one of the things that separates Buddhism from other sects of the time (& now). Other sects would say ask "what is?" & come up with "is," "is not," "both," or "neither." Buddha doesn't ask the question. So, for instance, in the statement "the eye cannot see itself", if we remove the concept "itself" & we also remove the "cannot" we are left with "the eye sees" or, even better, "the eye". I doubt --- at this point --- there are too many philosophical complications which cannot be resolved by removing statements of existence or non-existence, along with all references to self or other. And then a third sutta comes to mind: "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html in Dhamma - Josh #127143 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Members, > > This lovely Uposatha day I saw an interesting news: > > Heaven is real, says neurosurgeon who claims to have visited the afterlife > [By Eric pfeiffer, yahoo news] > > ************* > yawares > > \\\\ > The experience of heaven is real - so is the experience of hell :-) -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127144 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:49 pm Subject: Re: Unborn and Undying Awareness [Existence & non-existence] kenhowardau Hi Josh, Welcome to DSG. --- <. . .> > J: How I see it as follows: if we are going to speak in terms of ultimate realities we need to remove any credence in such terms as existence, non-existence, is, is-not, or anything that smacks of an individual being (in any sense). --- KH: You are right with regard to an individual, permanent being or self(atta) but your rule must not be extended to paramattha dhammas. As their name clearly states, paramattha dhammas are things that ultimately do exist. They are the *only* things that ultimately do exist. When people follow the Naragjuna trail, and reject the ultimate reality of conditioned dhammas, they follow a teaching that is Buddhist in name only, and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the true Dhamma. Ken H #127146 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > Our conversation is probably getting away from us. > > > > > > > > I questioned the wisdom of getting advice regarding the ending of > > > suffering > > > > from anyone who also still suffers. > > > > > > > > You are finding lots of reasons to find that position extreme. > > > > > > I don't think the conversation is getting away from us, we just > disagree. > > > > > > > Allow me to disagree. The conversation IS getting away from us. > > Are we not talking about the subject at hand: > I rather had the feeling that you framing my position as extreme was somehow going to suffice in your mind as a refutation of it. That, of course, is spurious logic, and happily, you are no longer pursuing that line of argument. Alex, in the meantime, has done a great job of demonstrating that the Buddhism of the Sutta Nipata sage, especially in the context of 21st century living, is an extreme opposite of middle-class conventionality. I only say that to highlight how very, very incompatible Buddhism and middle-class thinking are :-) > whether it is possible to a/make progress and b/learn from and/or get > support from others? How is that "getting away from us?" The topic is > clear, we just disagree. Please explain why you say it's "getting way" > rather than merely being disputed. > > See above. I'm not interested in straw men, red herrings, red men, straw herrings :-) > > I think the position that learning from others on the path is not wise, > is > > > extreme. > > > > > > > Allow me a story about skill. > > > > One thousand people gather in the square to pit their chess skills > against > > Garry Kasparov. One thousand people get to talk amongst each other about > > what next chess move to make, with the goal of defeating Garry Kasparov > at > > chess. One thousand people will be utterly defeated, for there is no such > > thing as a critical mass of ignorance resulting in insight. > > You are assuming that everyone involved has nothing but ignorance and no > understanding at all among them, or that are no degrees of mindfulness or > understanding. This is likely not true. Doesn't mean that any Buddhist on > the street would be able to match wits with Buddha, but that has nothing to > do with whether we can make progress or not. > > Progress towards what? I know they are only three words, but they convey very precisely a dilemma that you do not seem to be aware of - a person seeking progress towards a goal they cannot possibly know, cannot possibly know whether they are progressing or otherwise. If that is too dense, I apologise, but I want to be precise, so we can avoid unnecessary haggling. The Buddhist goal is cessation of all phenomena - what do you consider would indicate progress? Less phenomena :-) > > > > Give up on what? The ignorant person doesn't even know what game they are > > playing :-) > > > Do you? You must, in order to make this assessment, yes? > I have plenty of doubts about some of the doctrines that do the rounds here :-) On the other hand, I have absolutely no doubt that we are in a game, and that it can be reduced to only three rules - ignorance, craving and aversion. > And I will just ask you again, more directly: Are you saying there is no > path, no practice, and no hope of enlightenment? If so, you are in > disagreement with the Buddha that no one is capable of reaching > enlightenment or following the path he laid out, which is fine, let's just > clarify if that is the case. > Oh, there is a path to cessation allright. It's just that nobody actually wants to go there........so who are you going to learn from? > > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127147 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear RobertK, > > >R:would a householder who became a sotapanna become a monk? > >>==================================================== > > Assuming that there is no household obligations, health issues, and other > obstructions, I believe that sotapanna would consider monasticism. > > The less attachment there is, the less motivation there is to remain as a > householder. > > Well said. Allow me to be "extreme". Eradication of attachment and life are incompatible. Monastic life gives the possibility of simply maintaining the body till it expires, without craving. The householders life does not allow this. > With best wishes, > > Alex > __,_ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127148 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Josh, > > Welcome to DSG. > > --- > <. . .> > > J: How I see it as follows: if we are going to speak in terms of > ultimate realities > > we need to remove any credence in such terms as existence, non-existence, > is, > is-not, or anything that smacks of an individual being (in any sense). > --- > > KH: You are right with regard to an individual, permanent being or > self(atta) but your rule must not be extended to paramattha dhammas. As > their name clearly states, paramattha dhammas are things that ultimately do > exist. They are the *only* things that ultimately do exist. > > When people follow the Naragjuna trail, and reject the ultimate reality of > conditioned dhammas, they follow a teaching that is Buddhist in name only, > and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the true Dhamma. > > Welcome to DSG, Josh. With this post Ken has outlined what the discussions here at DSG have centered around for the last twelve years of my participation (on and off). I have no reason to assume that the next twelve years will be any less futile .... :-) In the meantime, not an ultimate reality in sight :-) > Ken H > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127149 From: "Lukas" The experience of heaven is real - so is the experience of hell :-) L: Yes, indeed. Best wishes Lukas #127150 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > > KH: You are right with regard to an individual, permanent being or self(atta) but your rule must not be extended to paramattha dhammas. As their name clearly states, paramattha dhammas are things that ultimately do exist. They are the *only* things that ultimately do exist. > > When people follow the Naragjuna trail, and reject the ultimate reality of conditioned dhammas, they follow a teaching that is Buddhist in name only, and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the true Dhamma. I'm familiar with the works of Nagarjuna & I agree. - in Dhamma Josh AdChoices #127151 From: "Lukas" wrote: > ** > > > Dear Ken, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > > > > KH: You are right with regard to an individual, permanent being or > self(atta) but your rule must not be extended to paramattha dhammas. As > their name clearly states, paramattha dhammas are things that ultimately do > exist. They are the *only* things that ultimately do exist. > > > > When people follow the Naragjuna trail, and reject the ultimate reality > of conditioned dhammas, they follow a teaching that is Buddhist in name > only, and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the true Dhamma. > > I'm familiar with the works of Nagarjuna & I agree. > > - in Dhamma > Josh > > Just for the record, I'm unfamiliar with Nagarjuna, and I therefore doubt that the futility of the discussions here are Nagarjuna related. -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127153 From: "Lukas" J: But your idea about speaking right should fall in Sila of >speaking. Sila can be something forbidden (Varita Sila) or something >we should do (Jarita Sila). L: I ve heard this two I think before. But can u give more details on that two kinds of siila? Wasnt it mentioned at visudhimagga? I am recalling carita siila, or am I wrong? >Forbidden sila of speaking is lie. Good sila of speaking combines >with 5 categories: > > 1. good timing > 2. kind words > 3. useful > 4. real words (sajja) > 5. speaking with metta > > I think your idea of speaking mentioned above contents with these 5 categories. L: Was it in Suttas? I mean this 5 categories. I think I read Sutta, when a disciple speaks in accordance to Dhamma, this is very right speach. If there is no concern of Dhamma, this is not a right speach. I will appreciate to hear more on that. Best wishes guys Lukas #127154 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > With this post Ken has outlined what the discussions here at DSG have > centered around for the last twelve years of my participation (on and off). I guess that makes sense, as the subject seems to be the main crux of debate in not just Buddhism but Indian philosophy in general post-Buddhism, in one way or another, with different positions arguing for more essence, less essence, qualified essence, etc. > > I have no reason to assume that the next twelve years will be any less > futile .... :-) > > In the meantime, not an ultimate reality in sight :-) > Well, to prevent any confusion, my statement should have been: "if we are going to speak in terms of ultimate realities we need to remove any credence in such terms as existence *of an individual or place*, non-existence *of an individual or place*, *an individual or place* is, *an individual or place* is-not, or anything that smacks of an individual being (& by individual being I'm talking about personal terms)." Whenever the catuskoti shows up there is a chance, also, for Brahmanical Monism to show up unless there is a more measured analysis & definition to counter this tendency. It took me a very long time to see the benefit in the fourfold division of reality into citta, cetasikas, rupa & nibbana as it prevents the pendulum from swinging too far into the netherworld of a monism-of-essence while at the same time allowing for a definition of all these elements by one characteristic (anatta). But I still question why a sect like the Sarvastivadins would arise which seem take a plurality of existents a little too far, while at the same time avoiding Monism. in dhamma - Josh #127155 From: "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear friends, > > I got recently an unexpected message from Wojtek, a polish friend who was attending our meetings with Acharn and did a lot of organisation work. Always assisting with help to our thai group. He expressed his thanks that was possible to organise such a meetings in Poland, that he recalls as very nice. He said if there will be meetings in a future he is always happy to join. etc.. > > I told him I have serious problems recently I cannot manage. > > He answered this: > > Wojtek: "What problems? > > Is seeing a problem? Is hearing a problem? :) > > Unfortunately, I am affraid that your problems are not real." > > > Very helpful answer. Always happy to hear Dhamma from good friends. > > Best wishes > Lukas > #127156 From: "Ken H" Date: Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Unborn and Undying Awareness [Existence & non-existence] kenhowardau Hi Herman (and Josh), --- > H: Just for the record, I'm unfamiliar with Nagarjuna, and I therefore doubt that the futility of the discussions here are Nagarjuna related. --- KH: The discussions at DSG have not been futile. Many people like me came here with no idea of what the Buddha *really* taught, and then gained something (an understanding) that is now the most precious thing in their lives. Ken H #127157 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > With this post Ken has outlined what the discussions here at DSG have > > centered around for the last twelve years of my participation (on and > off). > > I guess that makes sense, as the subject seems to be the main crux of > debate in not just Buddhism but Indian philosophy in general post-Buddhism, > in one way or another, with different positions arguing for more essence, > less essence, qualified essence, etc. > > > > > I have no reason to assume that the next twelve years will be any less > > futile .... :-) > > > > In the meantime, not an ultimate reality in sight :-) > > > > Well, to prevent any confusion, my statement should have been: > > "if we are going to speak in terms of ultimate realities we need to remove > any credence in such terms as existence *of an individual or place*, > non-existence *of an individual or place*, *an individual or place* is, *an > individual or place* is-not, or anything that smacks of an individual being > (& by individual being I'm talking about personal terms)." > > Whenever the catuskoti shows up there is a chance, also, for Brahmanical > Monism to show up unless there is a more measured analysis & definition to > counter this tendency. It took me a very long time to see the benefit in > the fourfold division of reality into citta, cetasikas, rupa & nibbana as > it prevents the pendulum from swinging too far into the netherworld of a > monism-of-essence while at the same time allowing for a definition of all > these elements by one characteristic (anatta). > > But I still question why a sect like the Sarvastivadins would arise which > seem take a plurality of existents a little too far, while at the same time > avoiding Monism. > > in dhamma > - Josh > What you write is very balanced. I am wondering, is there anyone reading this forum who disputes that "existence" for the Buddha is framed in terms of dependent arising, and not in terms of things/existents? -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127158 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > > Just for the record, I'm unfamiliar with Nagarjuna, and I therefore doubt > that the futility of the discussions here are Nagarjuna related. > This statement gave me pause. I was sensing Nagarjuna somewhere in the mix but I didn't know where exactly till it was pointed out that something I said could be taken as a bit too Nagarjunian. I went through a few old posts & found Alex's posts which I hadn't read before, quoting "How can citta itself know if citta lasts split second or 100 years other than by using memory and inference? It doesn't exist prior to its rise or fall. It cannot experience its own non-existence." and "Also (citta & cetasika) would not have rise and fall because no same object can last for 3 moments (arising, persisting and falling)... No concept rises and falls, right? No aggregates rise and fall. No cittas rise and fall. No noble truths rise and fall... No citta is deluded or wise..." I was of much the same stance for years. Reading this is like reading my own reasoning exactly as I understood Nagarjuna, other forms of Mahayana Buddhism & other forms of non-Buddhist philosophy. Coming to terms with Abhidhamma & the Theravada tradition in general was for me a process of looking at these reasonings I had as squarely & honestly as I could & considering that I might be wrong about it. And these types of reasoning were so prevalent that they became the predominant form of Buddhism outside of the predominantly Theravadin sphere. So I considered that I might be wrong in this &, if I was wrong, what does it mean? I had trouble with the idea of causality in general, actually. If the suttas say that knowledge of cause & effect & knowledge of impermanence are part of the path, how can these things be considered tenable from the standpoint of bare, non-conceptual experience? But an experience without change has no meaning. So how is change observed? It seems to me that stating the question like this causes the problem in the first place. If we divide "change" & "experience" into two units, everything falls apart, whereas if the two are taken synonymously, then we're not looking at "change" as being the content of observation, but change, itself, as the act of observing viewed from a slightly different angle, or given a different flavor. Similarly, to state that there is experience without cause & effect --- like experience without change --- is to deny the actual structure of experience itself which operates within a sequential, time-bound framework of observation-events, passing by so rapidly they seem continuous though can be no other than continually arising & ceasing *by definition*. So the question becomes not "what is it that experiences?" but "what is experience?" In this regard, change does exist as an ultimate reality --- as ultimate as it gets, in that the notion of an experience without change is unintelligible & betrays the notion of "experience" as it is commonly defined, just as one might say there is a blue that is simultaneously red or the sky below. If that is the case --- if change is integral & synonymous with experience, in this sense --- then it is easy to see that the application of Madhyamikan logic, Zeno's paradox & all other such reducto ad absurdum attempts at experience are not even in the same world --- much less the same ballpark --- as the import of the suttas which begin quite simply with experience as it is presently known & a life lived with the ultimate implications of these, in contrast to the more theosophical orientation of every other mysticism one might point to. But yes, looking over past posts it seems a lot of these issues have been discussed. I wonder if anyone has changed their conclusions through talking out the difficulties of an idea they had, here? #127159 From: "jagkrit2012" L: I ve heard this two I think before. But can u give more details on that two kinds of siila? Wasnt it mentioned at visudhimagga? I am recalling carita siila, or am I wrong? > L: Was it in Suttas? I mean this 5 categories. I think I read Sutta, when a disciple speaks in accordance to Dhamma, this is very right speech. If there is no concern of Dhamma, this is not a right speech. JJ: I checked in Thai Tipitaka and translated some part of the explantion in the sutta. Suttanta.tipitaka Kuktaga.nikaya Chariya.tipitaka book 9 session 4 Pakinnaka.gatha "There are 2 kind of sila. One is varitta sila and the other is jaritta or charitta sila. Varita sila of Bhodhi satta is as follows. He has kind heart to all being eventhough in his dream. He touches no one's assets like no one touches a snake. He apriciates to help others. If he is a monk, he stays far away from carnality. If he is normal person, he has no indecent mind toward others' wife ever. When he speaks, he speaks fair amount of words which are truth, worth and kind. He know when is a good time to speak. He isn't greed, vindictive and seeing no wrong view. He has Krammasakata.nana (panna about kramma) and has steadfast faith in right practice. He has strong metta in all places." For Jaritta sila, there is very long explantion which all concerns doing good to others. I'm not sure that there is any translation in English. Probably, Han can find one. Anumodhana Jagkrit #127160 From: "ptaus1" You then raise the nuance of "understanding the issue", which is very > applicable, and certainly removes any command or prescription aspect. > > But isn't anger an aversion to the present? And isn't that explicitly > wanting things to be different? Or are you saying that anger and > understanding can co-exist? Yes, I guess I'm saying something to that effect. E.g. if friendliness arises, or anger arises, or whatever else arises, it seems possible that in the very next moment understanding might arise, which will understand friendliness as kusala, or anger as akusala, or whatever else as a/kusala. This arising of understanding would actually be development in real life of kusala (and non-development of akusala) that we are exhorted to through "you should develop X" wording. That's why to me it seems whenever "you should develop X" wording is used in terms of Dhamma, most useful interpretation is the one pointing to a moment of understanding now. It seems to avoid the pitfalls of desiring something else, aversion to the present, commands and prescriptions, etc. > Sorry if I'm being thick :-) Well I don't know who's thick, I just read you signature "I do not know what I do not know" probably for the tenth time already over the past few days, and only now finally understood what it's actually saying. It's a good one, made me laugh. Well anyway at least I think I finally understood... Best wishes pt #127161 From: "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear friends, > > I got recently an unexpected message from Wojtek, a polish friend who was attending our meetings with Acharn and did a lot of organisation work. Always assisting with help to our thai group. He expressed his thanks that was possible to organise such a meetings in Poland, that he recalls as very nice. He said if there will be meetings in a future he is always happy to join. etc.. > > I told him I have serious problems recently I cannot manage. > > He answered this: > > Wojtek: "What problems? > > Is seeing a problem? Is hearing a problem? :) > > Unfortunately, I am affraid that your problems are not real." > > > Very helpful answer. Always happy to hear Dhamma from good friends. > > Best wishes > Lukas > #127162 From: han tun wrote: Dear Lukas > L: I ve heard this two I think before. But can u give more details on that two kinds of siila? Wasnt it mentioned at visudhimagga? I am recalling carita siila, or am I wrong? > L: Was it in Suttas? I mean this 5 categories. I think I read Sutta, when a disciple speaks in accordance to Dhamma, this is very right speech. If there is no concern of Dhamma, this is not a right speech. JJ: I checked in Thai Tipitaka and translated some part of the explantion in the sutta. Suttanta.tipitaka Kuktaga.nikaya Chariya.tipitaka book 9 session 4 Pakinnaka.gatha "There are 2 kind of sila. One is varitta sila and the other is jaritta or charitta sila. Varita sila of Bhodhi satta is as follows. He has kind heart to all being eventhough in his dream. He touches no one's assets like no one touches a snake. He apriciates to help others. If he is a monk, he stays far away from carnality. If he is normal person, he has no indecent mind toward others' wife ever. When he speaks, he speaks fair amount of words which are truth, worth and kind. He know when is a good time to speak. He isn't greed, vindictive and seeing no wrong view. He has Krammasakata.nana (panna about kramma) and has steadfast faith in right practice. He has strong metta in all places." For Jaritta sila, there is very long explantion which all concerns doing good to others. I'm not sure that there is any translation in English. Probably, Han can find one. Anumodhana Jagkrit #127163 From: "Yawares Sastri" He answered this: > > Wojtek: "What problems? > > Is seeing a problem? Is hearing a problem? :) > > Unfortunately, I am affraid that your problems are not real." > > Very helpful answer. Always happy to hear Dhamma from good friends. ------- N: How good you cite Wojtek, he brings us back to the reality at this moment, the only real one. Just like Acharn. I can apply it to my situation, about sadness. Is seeing sad? We need reminders about the anattaness, never enough. Wojtek has a very good understanding. I hope to meet him once. ------ Nina. #127165 From: "Yawares Sastri" "When the world is devolving, beings for the most part head toward the Radiant (brahmas). There they stay: mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time." > > From Brahmajalasutta -------- I like your quote.Thank you very much. yawares #127167 From: "Yawares Sastri" So long as there is "I?, the cycle of birth and I get a Chinese character here. I guess it is "so long as there is 'I'" or "so long as there is self"? Thanks again. Phil #127171 From: "ptaus1" >So long as there is "I?, the cycle of birth and ? string is supposed to stand in for a quotation mark. Maybe playing with Character Encoding might help. I wonder since you're in Japan, your default encoding probably won't be neither Western nor Unicode. Nina's post might have been in Western. Best wishes pt #127172 From: "philip" >So long as there is "I?, the cycle of birth and > > I get a Chinese character here. I guess it is "so long as there is > 'I'" or "so long as there is self"? ----- N: So long as there is"I". Perhaps the quotation marks did this. I have my own file of all transcripts, called: what I heard. 167 pages. I could send you part as an attachment, but perhaps it is too much. I listen to the perfection of wisdom, I like it very much. Nina. #127174 From: sarah abbott From: Tam Bach > > >Thanks Sarah for your very clear and helpful answer. I didn't know that yoniso manasikara arises with all kusala cittas. > > > >I guess yoniso manasikara in the context of one of the four conditions for the arising of panna is the one accompanied by understanding? > > >Good to always be called back to what appears now! > > >With metta, >Tam > > > > > > > > > #127175 From: "Robert E" wrote: > I rather had the feeling that you framing my position as extreme was > somehow going to suffice in your mind as a refutation of it. That, of > course, is spurious logic, and happily, you are no longer pursuing that > line of argument. I never intended to base my argument on extremity or otherwise, but on my understanding of the path, spurious though it might turn out to be. In saying your view was extreme, I was trying to scope out what the philosophically reasonable area is. I think the Buddha was a compromiser, in the sense that he looked at the understanding a person had, and then devised a plan for that level of understanding. Although he said he had despaired of teaching before deciding to do so, and that the teaching was for "those with only a little dust in their eyes," he then went right on to teach for those who had sharp understanding and became arahants rather quickly, those who were of middle-level wits [middle-class?] and those who were downright slow. For some, sitting and meditating for countless lifetimes or doing good works to make a dent in defilements, was the best path one could hope for, but for anyone interested enough to sign up, there was a path. You seem to imply that total cessation is the only position in Buddhism, whereas gradual understanding and mindfulness through skillful practice eventually leading to wisdom seems to me to be much more of the path. If the prerequisite for total cessation is to already being committed to cessation, there really would be no possibility of liberation, since we all start out in the position of intense clinging. I also disagree that total cessation is the goal of Buddhism. I think the goal, to split hairs, is liberation from clinging, and for arahants that usually takes place first, before total cessation. Nibbana is not total cessation, but the experience of total non-dependency on all or any dhammas - the All. An arahant or Buddha can live for many years afterwards having plenty of experience, already in total freedom from clinging, except for the necessary physicality of existing in physical form. When it is time to "cessate," the Buddha does so without hesitation, but it's not the proximate goal of Buddhism, just the final result, admittedly resulting in total peace not available while still in form. So to me the path is not the path to cessation, but the path to wisdom and freedom, and at the end of that path, there is total cessation as the final result. That is part of what makes Buddhism something not quite nihilistic, and why I think that focusing only on cessation is "extreme," extreme in the sense that it literally goes for the extreme end of the path, rather than looking at the whole path and its fruit. One thing I have not heard from you yet is what do you actually think is the path, and who can actually follow it? That would help me discuss this with you more intelligently. > Alex, in the meantime, has done a great job of demonstrating that the > Buddhism of the Sutta Nipata sage, especially in the context of 21st > century living, is an extreme opposite of middle-class conventionality. I > only say that to highlight how very, very incompatible Buddhism and > middle-class thinking are :-) Once again, I see this as an "extreme," not in order to throw a straw man at you, but to point out that you are going to the far end of the path and not looking at the middle range of the path, which is much more pragmatic and comes directly from the Buddha himself. The Buddha praised the path of the householder, said that it was equally possible for a householder who follows the path correctly from that standpoint could satisfy all his household duties, live a life "in the world" and still reach liberation. This is almost exactly the definition of a "middle-class" Buddhism, though householders might often be a little wealthier in order to be able to follow the path, since those of less means were busy working all day. But "middle-class" lifestyle and values are not incompatible with Buddhism as you say. Buddha has a position for such folks in the path of the householder. He recognized that not everybody was going to jump immediately onto the cessation bandwagon, but have other kammas and tendencies to live out before reaching a more refined point, and the path is accessible to them. ...I'm not interested in straw men, red herrings, red men, straw > herrings :-) If I throw any straw herrings at you, just let me know and I'll either account for what I'm trying to say, or remove said herring from its obstructive position. > Progress towards what? Wisdom that leads to cessation of clinging, with increased peace, happiness and equanimity along the way. > I know they are only three words, but they convey > very precisely a dilemma that you do not seem to be aware of - a person > seeking progress towards a goal they cannot possibly know, cannot possibly > know whether they are progressing or otherwise. If that is too dense, I > apologise, but I want to be precise, so we can avoid unnecessary haggling. Your point is not imprecise or hard to understand at all. Although one does not know from the outset the nature of cessation or the desirability of same, one does know from the outside many of the qualities and prerequisites involved, and can cultivate those, trusting that they lead closer to the goal. One can drive one's car to California from here on the East Coast of the U.S. without knowing what California looks like. You can follow the map, get there and find out what it is like when you get there. Too simple? One can cultivate understanding, peacefulness, mindfulness, etc., and that will lead in the right direction. > The Buddhist goal is cessation of all phenomena - what do you consider > would indicate progress? Less phenomena :-) This is a good question - I have to go, but I'll get back to this later! :-) Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #127176 From: han tun "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its >object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one >sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right >discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not >occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually >is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world >does not occur to one." >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html >>>>>>>> It is interesting sutta. As I understand it, what makes more sense is that it tells us to avoid speaking in metaphysical categories of existence and non-existence. Also the Buddha has stated: =================================================== "He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view." ===================================================== Please note the emphasis is in psychology rather than metaphysical ontology such as multiplicity of ultimately existing particles... With best wishes, Alex #127178 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Please note the emphasis is in psychology rather than metaphysical ontology such as multiplicity of ultimately existing particles... > Another wonderful sutta on the topic of existence & non-existence: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.017.than.html "Then does stress not exist?" "It's not the case, Kassapa, that stress does not exist. Stress does exist." - In dhamma Josh #127179 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:41 pm Subject: Re: Kaccayana sutta kenhowardau Hi Josh, --- >J: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.017.than.html > > "Then does stress not exist?" > "It's not the case, Kassapa, that stress does not exist. Stress does > exist." --- KH: Thanks for the quote. I don't like Ven Thanissaro's word "stress", but otherwise the message is clear. Here's another one: "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling ...Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness that is is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists." (SN22:94 Flowers) Ken H #127180 From: "philip" > > >So long as there is "I?, the cycle of birth and > > > > I get a Chinese character here. I guess it is "so long as there is > > 'I'" or "so long as there is self"? > ----- > N: So long as there is"I". Perhaps the quotation marks did this. As pt points out, a coding thing. I didn't get the above mess, I got a simple chinese character (kanji), I have got them for years in some DSG messages, and usually it doesn't matter but in this case I wanted to make sure. Not a problem, I can't change the coding for the computer since I need it to read Japanese. Anyways.... > > I have my own file of all transcripts, called: what I heard. 167 > pages. I could send you part as an attachment, but perhaps it is too > much. Wow, what a gold mine. I just did a search and found lots of them, so no need to send me the attachement. I will open a special "What I heard" file.... Thanks Nina Phil > I listen to the perfection of wisdom, I like it very much. > Nina. > > > > > AdChoices #127181 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > > Give up on what? When I asked if we should just give up, I meant on the path, not on the game. I am not saying that one can "give up" on ignorance or clinging. Obviously we have no control over that. What I was asking is if you think we should give up on trying to follow the path. When I talked about progress you said "progress in what?" Well, it's a question of whether there is progress on the path, that one can gradually develop wholesome practices and qualities, that one can gradually reduce defilements, that one can develop mindfulness and the other enlightenment factors as the Buddha described in the anapanasati sutta and other suttas. The Buddha stated in such suttas that we an practice, and that one who practices will achieve the results of the path. So I am just trying to find out what your view is of this. The ignorant person doesn't even know what game they are > > > playing :-) Well, if we have exposure to Buddhism, then at least we can recognize that we are creatures of clinging and aversion, and that our ignorance and defilements are deep - I would agree with you there. It is not easy to get out of such mud. The question is whether it is possible and that one can gradually develop. The game is pretty obvious in that sense for someone who recognizes the basic setup - we suffer to various degrees, grow old and die, all the while craving what we don't have and trying to reduce what we don't like. Not a pretty picture to be sure. There are many people who don't even recognize that picture, and they will not be interested in the solution to that problem, but many of us here can at least recognize that setup. So how do we not know what game we're playing? If someone gives me a difficult math problem and I can't solve it, I know I am ignorant in that area, so ignorance can be recognized even if we don't have the wisdom to understand the solution to the problem. > > Do you? You must, in order to make this assessment, yes? > I have plenty of doubts about some of the doctrines that do the rounds here. :-) On the other hand, I have absolutely no doubt that we are in a game, and that it can be reduced to only three rules - ignorance, craving and aversion. > > > And I will just ask you again, more directly: Are you saying there is no > > path, no practice, and no hope of enlightenment? If so, you are in > > disagreement with the Buddha that no one is capable of reaching > > enlightenment or following the path he laid out, which is fine, let's just > > clarify if that is the case. > > > > Oh, there is a path to cessation alright. It's just that nobody actually > wants to go there........so who are you going to learn from? Could we start by you saying what the path to cessation is? You say there is a path, and that no one wants to go there. Can you please say what it is so we can talk about it more directly? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #127182 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > > Dear group > > Listening to the first few minutes of the chapter on the Perfection of > Renunciation, heard a reference to a commentary saying that renunciation > means giving up sense pleasures and akusala thinking, and thatit is > accomplished by becoming a monk, or through satipatthana. > > I guess I am not a "good Buddhist" but I can't understand why becoming a > monk really means renunciation of sense pleasures. Surely renunciation of > sense pleasures must mean more than the superficial behaviour that is > involved. If defilements that are attached to the pleasures remain I don't > see why it is called renunciation. But I guess the superficial renunciation > is believed to help lead to deeper renunciation. I will keep listening. > > I would take this to mean that becoming a monk necessarily includes becoming a monk at heart - as we all understand the outward signs of monk-hood mean nothing on their own. Some may suggest that a householder can be a monk / nun at heart, all the while keeping on keeping on being a householder. I think that is a misunderstanding. > Phil > _._,___ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127183 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Josh, > > --- > >J: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.017.than.html > > > > > "Then does stress not exist?" > > "It's not the case, Kassapa, that stress does not exist. Stress does > > exist." > --- > > KH: Thanks for the quote. I don't like Ven Thanissaro's word "stress", but > otherwise the message is clear. > > Here's another one: > > "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as > existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, > suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as > existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling ...Perception...Volitional > formations...Consciousness that is is impermanent, suffering, and subject > to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say > that it exists." > (SN22:94 Flowers) > > Ken > I always understand "exist" in these contexts to always mean "exist in dependence on .....", and that it would be far better translated as "occur". -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127184 From: Nina van Gorkom Op 8-okt-2012, om 9:31 heeft philip het volgende geschreven: >> > >> > > Ph: Does "right understanding of the citta (that sees)" mean >> > > intellectual understanding of seeing learned from the texts >> and by >> > > listening to the good Dhamma friend. Or does it refer to previous >> > > moments of satipatthana? Or both? >> > ------- >> > N: What do we learn from the texts? Nothing else but "studying" >> with >> > awareness seeing now, not some idea or concept of seeing we read >> > about. >> >> Ph: I like something I heard A.Sujin say in Poland, she asked a >> Polish woman (and I paraphrase) when we say that seeing falls >> away, seeing does not continue, there are moments of seeing mixed >> with moments of hearing although seeing seems to continue, when we >> say the above - is there satipatthana? No, it's just thinking >> correct intellectual understanding. I would even say it is just >> conceptual, since they are not realities arising now, they are >> concepts about realities. I think being able to think in terms of >> concepts about realities is a necessary starting point. >> >> So "right understanding of the citta that sees" could refer to the >> above, at some level (pariyatti?) and not be sas you said >> "studying with awareness seeing now." >> -------- N: Yes, it is necessary, it is pariyatti. There are many levels of right understanding. Pariyatti pertains to realities of the present moment. ------- >> Ph: Well I join Lodewijk in saying (at least as I heard in a very >> good talk) that I have heard and heard about satipatthana and sati >> but I still don't know what it is. I think satipatthana is very >> advanced, I heard A.S say that too. But I will keep listening and >> not press too hard to try to "get" it. >> ------ N: We want to get it, but, as Acharn reminded us, then there is the idea of self who wants to get it. Yes, I often discussed with Lodewijk about what sati is. When it arises we know. ---------- Nina. #127186 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > This is possibly your experience but not mine. > > > > I neither experience visual portal, nor eye. > > Okay, first you said that I am saying the eye is irrelevant; then when I > try to describe the way that the eye exists [as not an objective eye, but > just the experience of seeing,] you turn back and say that the eye as a > visual portal is my experience, not yours. > > Sorry that I am unclear. Perhaps it might be clearer to paraphrase everything I have said so far as - there is no experience of conditions. There is no denial of conditionality in that - it is just that conditionality is known, or understood, not seen, heard, felt, etc. > I think we're both saying that what is relevant is the experience of > seeing, and I'm not that interested in taking semantics and turning them > this way and that way to score a point. We both agree that there is no > experience of the eye as an eye in seeing, but there is the experience of > seeing. My point is thus that science is irrelevant to the experience of > seeing, whereas you were claiming a delay between the "real" object and the > seen object, because of the delay in seeing. And I am saying the delayed > object is the "real" object, because that is what is experienced. The delay > is meaningless, unless you are interested in coordinating a scientific > object with the experiential object. > We agree that seeing isn't seen - can I advance this one step further and say that seeing is understood, not experienced? In other words, a one-facultied being cannot know seeing, they only know the seen. Understanding cannot possible arise from whatever is seen only. > > > > > If you want to switch deftly back and forth between scientific > information > > > and experience as it is experienced, that doesn't seem very useful to > me, > > > but that is what many people do in order to have ideas about existence > from > > > an external standpoint. > > > > > > > > > Visual portal, indeed. > > Just a description of visual material being apprehended experientially, as > opposed to an external eye that is studied for its attributes. If you want > to parry with the term I came up with, go right ahead. > > All good. But, there is no need to introduce the eye, seeing, or visual portal into the experience of what is seen. IMO, all of these terms are all attempts at explaining the seen, and that is something totally different. The alleged conditionality of the seen and the seen are not identical - what is seen is immanent, but the eye, seeing, visual portal are inferences (thinking) about processes of which we have no direct experience. If we did, we wouldn't have to infer. > > > > That has nothing to do with the fact of experience, which is what > actually > > > takes place in the experiential moment, not in a scientific moment > that has > > > taken place conceptually in someone's mind about that moment. I think > > > things are pretty simple if you don't mix up frames of reference and > > > compare them to each other. > > > > > > > Enjoy the company of your straw man, won't you :-) > > As an alternative to making a general comment, you could try answering > what I said, and tell me what possible relevance the delay you started out > with has for experience? You are taking an ideal object, the "real" object > and then saying we don't experience it because of a delay in perception. I > am still arguing against your original point, not a straw man. It's only a > straw man because you won't acknowledge your own original position. Why > don't we settle the original point instead of talking around it? > > Again, sorry for being unclear. I actually meant that it is seeing, or the eye, or visual portal that is ideal. All that is experienced is the seen. Seeing, the eye, visual portal are inferred, and they have to be inferred because we do not experience them. And we do not experience them, because conditions well precede experience, which amongst other things allows for the illusion of a controlling self. > > > > Mixing apples and oranges is only good for fruit salad, though that is > > > tasty. > > > > > > > > No doubt that all happens through a taste portal :-) > > Indeed. On the other hand you don't seem to want to defend your own view, > so I guess I'm dancing with my own speech portal here, and it's starting to > echo. Care to participate? > > Sure. > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = = = > Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127187 From: "sarah" wrote: > A.Paderm: In tipitaka, Buddha showed the refining of uddhaca-sa.myojana that uddhacca fetters anyone from right practice. For example, vipassanu-kilesa arises when opas or bright light occurs due to wrong deliberating. Craving to bright light, one will be disturbed with uddhacca which fetters from reaching right practice or higher vipassana. Uddhacca, therefore, ties up anyone to leave samsara because he cannot develop vispssana.nana. > > Suttanta tipitaka, kutaga-nikaya, Patisumpitamak book.7 part 2 > > 542: Citta recalls to opas (bright light) is blocked by uddhacca, how? > When bhikku attends to characteristic of impermanence, opas will arise. Bhikku recalls that opas is dhamma. Because of that recalling, bhikku becomes restless with uddhacca. Bhikku who has been blocked by uddhacca will not able to experience the truth of impermanence with dukka and anatta. Because of that, it is called citta which recalls to opas, being blocked by uddhacca. ..... S: Here is the translation given by Nanamoli, PTS which I checked for context: "how is his mind agitated by overestimation of ideas [manifested in contemplation]? (katha.m dhammuddhaccaviggahita.m maanasa.m hoti?) While he is giving attention as impermanent, illumination (obhaaso) arises in him. He adverts to the illumination thus 'illumination is a [Noble One's] idea (obhaaso dhammo). The distraction due to that is agitation (tato vikkhepo uddhacca.m). When his mind is thus agitated by overestimation (tena uddhaccena vigahitamaanaso), he does not correctly understand appearance as impermanent (aniccato ups.t.thaana.m yathaabhuuta.m nappajaanaati), he does not correctly understand appearance as painful, he does not correctly understand appearance as not self. Hence it was said 'His mind is agitated by overestimation of ideas [manifested in contemplation]. There is [later] an occasion when his cognisance is internally composed again, resettled, restored to singleness and reconcentrated (so samayayo, yan ta.m citta.m ajjhattan ~neva santi.t.thati sannisiidati ekodi hoti samaadhiyati).Then the path is produced in him....(katha.m maggo sa~njaayati....) .. > Uddhacca is turbulence of citta which brings restlessness to its existence. It activates its function as fetter, not let anyone reaching the stage of kilesa eradication with right practice. When citta is restless, no one can develop both sammata or vipassana which is the crucial dhamma leading to get out of samsara. When citta is peaceful and rest from akusala, that is the appropriate moment of development of panna. In the opposite, restless and disturbed citta can not lead to any development of panna. ... S: Jagkrit, I appreciated all the good points you shared. It's helpful to have the 'interchange' between the English, Thai and Burmese discussions. Uddhacca now - arising with each akusala citta. Even when we enjoy the view, the tranquil surroundings or a sip of water, it's there with each moment of lobha. No calm at all at such moments. Another passing dhamma - not self. Metta Sarah ===== . #127188 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Dear friends, > > I got recently an unexpected message from Wojtek, a polish friend who was attending our meetings with Acharn and did a lot of organisation work. Always assisting with help to our thai group. He expressed his thanks that was possible to organise such a meetings in Poland, that he recalls as very nice. He said if there will be meetings in a future he is always happy to join. etc.. > > I told him I have serious problems recently I cannot manage. > > He answered this: > > Wojtek: "What problems? > > Is seeing a problem? Is hearing a problem? :) > > Unfortunately, I am affraid that your problems are not real." > > > Very helpful answer. Always happy to hear Dhamma from good friends. > =============== J: Thanks for passing this on. It's good to hear from our other Polish friends, even if it's only second-hand (that's a hint to Wojtek to show his face :-)). It was a pleasure having Wojtek with us, both for the Dhamma discussion and for the other bits. Jon #127189 From: "sarah" wrote: > I heard... > > "....then the citta is accompanied by compassion, and he gives." I wondered what does compassion do that panna doesn't do? Doesn't undwrstanding condition giving as surely as compassion? ... S: There can be compassion (or other brahma viharas) with or without panna. When one has compassion for others who are troubled or suffering, one would like to help, just as when there is metta, there is friendliness. The Buddha had the greatest compassion and understanding - it was this great compassion and understanding which prompted him to share the Dhamma with us all. ... > > ....he should carefully consider the citta when giving and see that it is gentle and tender. Leaving aside the "should" (thanks for that post Ken H, back to ypy and Nina latet) II am wondering if "citta" here can refer to a mind state composed of countless fleeting cittas. How can one "carefully consider" one ephemeral, billiin in a blink of an eye citta? Does one carefully consider a nimitta? ... S: What kind of cittas are there at that time? Is one giving out of true generosity and metta or with other (predominant) motives? Trying to carefully consider a single citta or a nimitta would not be any kind of understanding. When we offer some help or food or medicine to someone, we can know if the cittas are gentle and kind. ... > > ... not directly tied to dana but a very nice phrasing ...when one is unaware and does not listen to the Dhamma one is bound to be swept away by akysala...but when one listens often, even to what one has heard before and has been said before about daily life, one is reminded to be aware of realities and thus conditions are created for kusala... .. S: without any expectation of such. Just uploaded a lunch discussion at a Chinese restaurant on Saturday in Poland (15th Sept). KS is talking about understanding dhammas as leading to metta: "....this is why we have metta. Just dhammas, so why be angry to this person, because only dhatus." "No one can do anything to others at all. It depends on the accumulation of each individual." And from the morning discussion on that day: "When there is no self, your behaviour will be better and better, because you don't think about yourself - you think about the others." "Don't associate with the wrong person......Appreciate goodness...it will condition one to do more good deeds. That's sila - no killing, no stealing....etc. Virati sila (abstaining from harmful deeds) is not enough. There must be carita sila (good manners and speech), good behaviour to others, to parents...appreciate goodness.....Not just want to have sila, because it's 'me' who wants it." **** Metta Sarah ===== #127190 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Lukas > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > > > Dear friends, > > > > I got recently an unexpected message from Wojtek, a polish friend who was attending our meetings with Acharn and did a lot of organisation work. Always assisting with help to our thai group. He expressed his thanks that was possible to organise such a meetings in Poland, that he recalls as very nice. He said if there will be meetings in a future he is always happy to join. etc.. > > > > I told him I have serious problems recently I cannot manage. > > > > He answered this: > > > > Wojtek: "What problems? > > > > Is seeing a problem? Is hearing a problem? :) > > > > Unfortunately, I am affraid that your problems are not real." > > > > > > Very helpful answer. Always happy to hear Dhamma from good friends. > > =============== > > J: Thanks for passing this on. It's good to hear from our other Polish friends, even if it's only second-hand (that's a hint to Wojtek to show his face :-)). > > It was a pleasure having Wojtek with us, both for the Dhamma discussion and for the other bits. > > Jon > #127193 From: "philip" > The Buddha had the greatest compassion and understanding - it was this great compassion and understanding which prompted him to share the Dhamma with us all. Ph: Oops, snipped too much. I wrote above about wondering what karuna can do that panna doesn't, implying that understanding is enough. You pointed out that there can be metta and karuna without panna. That's true. But panna with understanding is more valuable. Of course whatever arises, arises. No rules. Metta without understanding arises often, and accumulates. I think karuna is a much rarer arising, we must see the suffering of another and not experience any dosa. Of course there can be dosa, and a moment later, the arising of karuna, and then back to the dosa. God forbid that anyone should aspire to separate them by "satipatthana!" > > ....he should carefully consider the citta when giving and see that it is gentle and tender. Leaving aside the "should" (thanks for that post Ken H, back to ypy and Nina latet) II am wondering if "citta" here can refer to a mind state composed of countless fleeting cittas. How can one "carefully consider" one ephemeral, billiin in a blink of an eye citta? Does one carefully consider a nimitta? > ... > S: What kind of cittas are there at that time? Ph: Ok, this might just be another semantics concern, as soon as you write "cittas" rather than the "citta" that is used in the Perfections passage referenced above, my question was answered. "Carefully consider the cittas" makes more sense to me than "carefully consider the citta." >>>>Is one giving out of true generosity and metta or with other (predominant) motives? Trying to carefully consider a single citta or a nimitta would not be any kind of understanding. Right. So "carefully consider the citta" was problematic for me. >>When we offer some help or food or medicine to someone, we can know if the cittas are gentle and kind. Ph: The cittas. Right. Well, that settles that as far as I'm concerned, thanks. Phil #127194 From: "philip" But panna with understanding is more valuable. Of course whatever arises, arises. Ooops Metta with understanding is more valuable. Well, duh. Of course it is. Whatever arises is valuable, "the perfectly instructive moment", to quote Rob K. I read a book on Zen by Charlotte Joko Beck or something like that, I don't know how I got it, did James give it to me when he was here a few years ago? Did I pick it up from the staff room at work? In any case, it was on my bookshelf for years and for some reason I read it last week. It was great! Much closer to the true Dhamma than the kind of reading of a sutta that someone of my understanding is capable of. (i.e, reading it as a prescription/training manual.) which is also the kind of sutta reading purveyed everywhere on the internet except here. Whatever arises, arises. And a happy feeling is no more valuable than a sad feeling. Making a big practice out of developing goodness, just a game of the ego. Wake up. Watch with a sense of wonder whatever is conditioned to arise. Ajahn Sujin talked about "miraculous" about how seeing arises, conditioned in such a complex way. This book kind of helped me to sense an awakening of a kind of wonder at the complexity of conditioning and how chaotic things are, arising in a complex way, and also how precise things are. A sense of wonder, wow! Seeing is amazing, lust is amazing, hatred is amazing, all arising beyond control. What a show! But the subject-object dynamic of "what a show" has got to go, of course, gradually, I suppose. Anyways, a random addition to my typo correction. phil #127195 From: "Yawares Sastri" (1) desanaa-vilaasa, which means the beauty of instruction (page > 635 of PTS Dictionary). Instead of wasting my time looking for it, > I should have the complete faith in the beauty of the instructions > by the Buddha. > > (2) veneyya-ajjhaasaya, which means the Buddha instructs the > persons who are ready to receive the Teachings (veneyya), in > accordance with their wish (ajjhaasaya) based on their caaritta. > So, depending on the situation, the Buddha may say one set of > fetters at one place, and another set of fetters at another place. > It is not for me to reason why? In fact, that is the beauty of > Sammaa-sambodhi ~naa.na! ----- N: This is how I feel it. Well said. ---- Nina. #127197 From: "Yawares Sastri" wrote: Dear Han, > (1) desanaa-vilaasa, which means the beauty of instruction (page > 635 of PTS Dictionary). Instead of wasting my time looking for it, > I should have the complete faith in the beauty of the instructions > by the Buddha. > > (2) veneyya-ajjhaasaya, which means the Buddha instructs the > persons who are ready to receive the Teachings (veneyya), in > accordance with their wish (ajjhaasaya) based on their caaritta. > So, depending on the situation, the Buddha may say one set of > fetters at one place, and another set of fetters at another place. > It is not for me to reason why? In fact, that is the beauty of > Sammaa-sambodhi ~naa.na! ----- N: This is how I feel it. Well said. ---- Nina.