#127400 From: "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > In Pa.tisambhidaamagga (The Path of Discrimination) there are six knowledges possessed exclusively by the Buddha and not shared by Disciples. ... S: Thank you for sharing. I'm very impressed by all your hard work. > > Han: A thought arises in me when I read about mahaakaru.naa~naa.na of the Buddha which is not even shared by Disciples. Why it is not shared by Disciples? Arahants also radiate karu.naa, is it not? Then, I realize that there are different levels of understanding of the dhammas, and different levels of wisdom. The karu.naa that I radiate cannot be compared with the karu.naa radiated by an Arahant. So also I cannot know the karu.naa radiated by the Buddha. It may be like a primary school student cannot understand or appreciate the experience of a person with a Doctorate degree. I must know my own level. If I try to understand the finesse of every higher-level dhammas, while I am still a lowly worldling, it will be like conjecturing the unconjecturable, which may result only in madness and vexation, like the Buddha said in AN 4.77. > AN 4.77 Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable, translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html .... S: Good comments. Yes, because of his wisdom and omniscient abilities, his understanding of beings' aasaya anusaya and caritta, the Buddha's compassion is incomparable. Metta Sarah ===== #127401 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Josh, > > ... > > > I have hardly any issues with what you write, in other words, I nearly > > agree with everything that you wrote :-) > > =============== > > J: :-)) I wonder if Josh realises how rare an occasion even such qualified > agreement is :-)) > > I don't think he does :-) > > =============== > > > I think that irreducibility is a thought, it is not directly knowable. > > Therefore, to me the very project of delineating paramattha dhammas is > > rooted in ignorance. > > =============== > > J: The teaching on dhammas is there to help there to be more understanding > of the dhammas of the present momeent. Of course, this understanding does > not come about by looking for irreducibles or for things contained in a > list of paramattha dhammas that has been read about. But it would be a > considerable help, I think, to know that seeing and visible object, for > example, are each said to be dhammas whereas monitor and text (and people > and things) are not. > > To me, the dhammas that are said to be the only real things, are actually an idea, insofar as there is no experience of them, as singularities, arising and ceasing one by one. If there was an experience of that, I promise you, I would agree with you :-) And conversely, those things that are said not to be real are nevertheless reacted to as though they are real. I agree (!!) that the real experiences of people and things etc does not translate into people and things being anything other than mind-made graspings at what is unknown (and unknowable). In that regard, people and things are just like dhammas, a grasping at what must be there, somehow.... > Jon_._,___ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127402 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > >H: What, if any, is the difference between nimitta and thinking? > ... > S: Thinking refers to namas, those realities which experience an idea or > concept. Nimitta can never experience anything. It refers to the sign of > reality or a concept which is experienced. > .... > Thanks for that. What is the difference between (visible) object and nimitta - is nimitta a necessary idea to prop up a theory, or are nimitta and object experientially differentiable in some way? > > > > 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. > ... > S: The point was merely that there can never be an experience without an > object experienced, whether that be a conditioned reality, a concept or > nibbana in the case of supra mundane cittas. > Your unshakeable certainty about this is in stark contrast to my reluctance to assert things of which I have no experience :-) > Even now, it can be proved that it's impossible to see without an object > seen, impossible to hear without an object heard, impossible to think > without an idea thought about. > ... > > Sure, as long as we are talking about daily life stuff. But imagine the following: "Further, Ananda, the monk — not attending to the perception of the dimension of nothingness, not attending to the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — attends to the singleness based on the theme-less concentration of awareness. His mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, settles, & indulges in its theme-less concentration of awareness. (MN121) Why construe an object where there isn't any? > > > > 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." > .... > S: This is referring to the ayatanas. The translation is problematic. > "Intellect" refers to mano or manayatana, i.e. all cittas. "ideas" refers > to dhammayatana which includes all cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana, > i.e. all dhammas not included in the other ayatanas. If you look in U.P. > under "All" or "Sabba Sutta", you'll find plenty of detail on this. > ... > > > > I imagine this means the Buddha is saying that your sources are put to > > grief :-) > ... > S: Ha, ha! Check my sources and you'll see which ones come to grief :-) > ... > I guess as long as we are checking sources, what the world is empty of will remain very unnoticed :-) > > > > 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. > ... > S: Thanks Herman - maybe we'll go for a drive with Pt one time if we don't > see you hear in the New Year... > > Consider it a standing invitation! > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127403 From: "jagkrit2012" JJ: 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. > .... > S: It's the attitude that should be developed no matter what is said or done by others. With more understanding of kamma and vipaka and of dhammas - just dhatus (elements) - it will develop naturally. > .. > > > > 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. > ... > S: I think as Nina said, it shows his humility. Even though Sariputta did no wrong, there were conditions for the bhikkhu to blame him and commit akusala kamma-patha, so Sariputta asked his forgiveness. In the same way, one may have good intentions but someone may get upset with us or what we write (like on DSG!), so good to apologise. JJ: You just pointed out some consideration about the conditions for the bhikkhu to blame Ven. Sariputtra. Besides the conditions which have arised from that bhikkhu's accumulation, it might be some other conditions (arammana pacaaya) arising from Ven.Sariputtra and caused that bhikkhu to falsely accuse Ven.Sariputtra. This can be the reason why Ven.Sariputtra asked for forgiveness from that bhikkhu himself. It is very delicate matter where the one who had high panna like Ven.Sariputtra could see. And with his great humility, he seeked for forgivenss from his fellow bhikkhu as well. This can be very good example for us. Like you said sometimes we do things with good intention but who knows many time that thing can condition others in the opposite expectation (like on DSG, of course !!). We should always apologise. Thank you very much for your explanation. Anumodhana Jagkrit #127404 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Dear Jon > > The concluding remarks of the seven awakening factors ends in the Arahant path as it is the perfection of this seven factors. > =============== J: As I see it, the concluding remarks relate to both the perfection of the energy enlightenment factor and the correct understanding regarding that. The text reads: "... he understands that it is through the Arahat path that there comes to be the perfection through development of that [energy enlightenment factor] which has arisen". This seems to say that it is the development of the path (insight) that brings the perfection of the development of the energy enlightenment factor. Thus, not the other way round (i.e., development of the energy enlightenment factor bringing about the development of the path). It also seems to say that the development of the energy enlightenment factor is the development of that factor which has [already] arisen. Thus, wholesome energy arises, and is the object of insight; and this is the development of the energy enlightenment factor. Wondering if this is how you read it. > =============== > My honest opinion, effort can be directed, dhamma can change dhamma and can be channel to development of one's practise be it one chooses to go on to samantha bhavana or vipassana bhavana. My understanding of control, choice, directed and samatha bhavana is different from you. > =============== J: Yes, understood, not a problem. And let me take the opportunity to clarify something. I have not talked in terms of things being beyond control in the conventional sense, as I do not think that is part of what the Buddha was talking about. In terms of dhammas, however, there is the notion of them being 'not subject to mastery' as an explanation of the characteristic of anatta. In fact, it was you who came up with the commentary text on this, in a post to Rob E, if I recall correctly. Do you still have the reference? Perhaps you could remind us of the passage. Jon #127405 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > I don't think he does :-) > I think a lot of times people agree more than they realize, it is only that terminology or method stands in the way. > To me, the dhammas that are said to be the only real things, are actually > an idea, insofar as there is no experience of them, as singularities, > arising and ceasing one by one. If there was an experience of that, I > promise you, I would agree with you :-) > "Real", to be sure, is an English word. I like that the Dhammasangani asks, "On what occasion" or katamam tasmi? samaye. Samaya is defined in the Pali dict. as time; congregation; season; occasion --- it then uses the word "hoti" for existence, or to be. So the sense of "real" here --- as I take it ---- is a very time oriented approach. This leaves out the ability to define our "real" as being something like a fixed, immutable, permanent law of the universe, independent of conditions. So, then what is real (atthi) or what is existence? SN 35.48 (pathamasamiddhimarapanhasuttam) gives us, "yattha kho, samiddhi, atthi cakkhu, atthi rupa, atthi cakkhuvinnanam, atthi cakkhuvinnanavinnatabba dhamma" Which is "Where, Samiddhi, the eye exists (atthi), forms exist (atthi), eye consciousness exists (atthi), & cognizance (vinnatabba) of the dhammas of eye-consciousness exist (atthi), there exists Mara or Mara as a concept (atthi tattha maro vv marapannatti va)" He then goes on to list the other parts of experience & applies it not only to Mara, but to a being (satta), suffering (dukkha), & the world. > > And conversely, those things that are said not to be real are nevertheless > reacted to as though they are real. I agree (!!) that the > real experiences of people and things etc does not translate into people > and things being anything other than mind-made graspings at what is unknown > (and unknowable). In that regard, people and things are just like dhammas, > a grasping at what must be there, somehow.... > Philip K Dick once defined reality as what doesn't go away when you quit believing in it. But there is a world of difference also between "go away" as a thought experiment & "go away" in reality. A child might react to an innocuous noise in the house at night with all the terror one might find in a person about to be devoured by a tiger. Here is an example of reaction to something that is unreal, changeable, conceptual. This doesn't mean, though, that there isn't an aspect to our experience which can't be wished away, or that there are no unavoidable certainties to sentient life. Another to look at is that is this: To dissolve a concept by breaking it down into its constituent parts means we must also necessarily affirm a greater reality for these "constituent parts". You cannot have your cake & eat it too: if you say that the "constituent parts" are just as reducible as the over-arching concept, then Buddha's teachings as explained in the suttas are done. The self is no less real than visual consciousness, in such case. Now, yes, anything conveyed in a conversation can be reduced down to nothingness in language & has been done time & time again by such sages as Nagarjuna, Zeno, Chandrakirti, etc. but if you try holding your breath for 10 minutes no amount of linguistic deconstructions will intrude upon the certainty of what the body will do. in Dhamma - Josh #127406 From: Nina van Gorkom Although there are four taints (aasavas), the taint of views > (di.t.thaasava) is not expressly mentioned as such in the > discourse, and the other three aasavas, namely, the taint of > sensual desire (kaamaasava), the taint of being (bhavaasava), the > taint of ignorance (avijjaasava), are mentioned as a group in > paragraph §6. ----- N: Just a remark about the translation of bhavaasava: Instead oof being, I have also seen this translated as becoming or existence. It includes clinging to the result of jhaana. ----- Nina. #127407 From: "Yawares Sastri" -------- Nina. #127410 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han, Thank you very much, also very belatedly, for all the extra detail and full detail of the accounts which you gave #127095, beginning with: I always appreciate hearing these accounts of Sariputta and the excellent examples of being like the earth, door-mat, beggar of bull with broken horns - without resentment no matter what rubbish comes... Metta Sarah ==== #127411 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han, S: Thank you for sharing. I'm very impressed by all your hard work. S: Good comments. Yes, because of his wisdom and omniscient abilities, his understanding of beings' aasaya anusaya and caritta, the Buddha's compassion is incomparable. Metta Sarah ===== #127412 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han, Thank you very much for your series. You are working hard. ----- N: Just a remark about the translation of bhavaasava: Instead of being, I have also seen this translated as becoming or existence. It includes clinging to the result of jhaana. ----- Nina. #127413 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --------- > <. . .> > > H: Yes, I think you are right about the fundamentally different > understanding of the Dhamma, but probably wrong about placing these > differences at the foot of Nagarjuna. Before there were any commentarial > traditions, there were the suttas, what was heard to be said. > ---------- > > KH: The ancient commentaries began in the early days of the Buddha's > teaching and coincided with the suttas. > > The Buddha wasn't Theravadan, if that is what you are implying. Neither was he Madhymikan, or any other kind of sectarian. Just thought I'd throw that in, so that you wouldn't assume your correctness by association, without having established it :-) > --------------- > > H: You will not ever "hear" the Buddha holding forth about existence > outside of the context of dependent arising. > --------------- > > KH: Who has ever suggested that conditioned paramattha dhammas existed > outside the context of dependent arising? > > I think the contextless "is there seeing now?" would make me a millionaire if I got a cent for it every time it was praised as a useful reminder. > ------------- > > H: What we are entitled to say about phenomena is that in the > > presence of this there is that, and in the absence of this, that is absent. > ------------- > > KH: That is just a one-line summary of an extensive, elaborate doctrine. > Repeating it, without knowing what it means, won't help anyone in the least. > > True enough. > Ken H > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127414 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Herman > > we are doing the dhamma thing because we want to be out of the grasp, that > is why we still here :-) > > Good to see still around. Only speaking for myself, I can honestly say that I am not interested in a life without grasping, and that is borne out by what I do, day in, day out, again and again :-) I rhetorically assumed that it was the same for everyone here, but perhaps it is not the case. cheers > KC_._,___ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127415 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Over the years, despite my best efforts to the contrary, I've developed a > > certain degree of pragmatism and common sense. I could spend 20 years > > trying to "learn" how to fix a car, but since it's an area I know nothing > > about I would probably wind up with the equivalent of a giant pipe bomb. > > I'd rather go to a car mechanic who can diagnose and fix it in five > > minutes. When I wanted to learn to play clarinet, I went to a clarinet > > teacher. True, I then more or less taught myself to play jazz saxaphone, > > but I had a lot of training in basic technique and music theory to back me > > up. The idea that a teacher would be a "smokescreen" rather than an aid > > defies common sense, unless they are a very bad teacher, and in that case, > > not really a teacher at all. The idea that we "learn what we want to" as if > > such learning will magically arise out of the air doesn't make a whole lot > > of sense to me. We may investigate on our own for many years, and I have > > done so in this area and others, but it is when I bounce my ideas off of > > others that I quickly find out which ideas are ridiculous and which may > > have some merit. The role of interaction and discussion seems to be > > dismissed by you here. I do not understand why you seem so hard-set against > > any communal aspect to learning. > > > > > > You are talking about teaching and learning in daily life. > > I am talking about cessation through lack of clinging. Do you honestly > believe that can be taught? Of course I believe that the Buddha was a teacher, and that he did in fact teach people how to skillfully remove defilements and clinging and to eventually reach enlightenment. Yes, it can be taught. *Cessation* cannot be taught, but cessation is not the path, it is the final result of the path, a distinction that does make a difference. What is developed by the path? The wisdom, for instance, to see that what is clung to is not worth holding onto, and will never satisfy desire, etc. These insights lead to letting go, which lead to equanimity, etc., which leads to the end of clinging, which leads to cessation. One cannot directly court cessation. One has to take the path step by step. But I am still waiting for you to give me a similar statement as the one I just gave above. What do you consider to be the path, and how does one follow it, if willing and able? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #127418 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > I can't resist a good rhetorical question: > > ----- > > H: Are any of us here up for the complete extinction of grasping? > ----- > > KH: If we ever have a moment of right understanding we are, at that > moment, totally in favour of the complete extinction of grasping. > > I think that is a very good answer. > Not at other times, though. > > Yes, and that is me, down to a tee. I'm all in favour of life - that means I much prefer the suffering brought about by attachment, rather than the void, seriously. Wrong understanding, I know. But who cares? ---- > >H: It's a rhetorical question only, because I know that the answer is a > resounding NO :-) > > > > >Given that, I wonder why it is that we are doing this dhamma thing? > ---- > > KH: Each of us will have to answer that for himself. All too often people > do the Dhamma thing (practice) out of grasping, but there is no excuse for > that here. Here at DSG we are continually reminded that practice for the > purpose of gaining something is not Dhamma practice at all. It is > anti-Dhamma practice – going the wrong way! > > Having perhaps caught a glimpse of other worlds, I'd rather be here with you, even while you are wearing your DSG T-shirt, thank you very much :-). > Ken H > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127419 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > > Sorry for the delay. > > > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.121.than.html > > > > That is very impressive and a most valuable sutta. However, all that is > > described by the Buddha here takes place prior to parinibbana. It is a > > state of consciousness for the living who have let go of clinging and are > > capable of dwelling in pure emptiness while still alive. > > > > > Yes, agreed. > > In other words, complete cessation of the life process is not necessary or > > synonymous with dwelling in pure emptiness or complete release of > > consciousness. > > > > > Sure. But I think we can safely exclude daily life from being possible in > these states. What do you reckon? I reckon that: a/ an arahant can experience a state of pure emptiness and equanimity while still alive; b/ he can go in and out of this state and so has access to nibbana and may also take part in worldly activity; c/ this shows that cessation of clinging is not dependent on complete cessation; and d/ an arahant who is capable of such a state is also capable of doing life activities without the arising of clinging. In other words, there is an enlightened state without clinging prior to death, and the complete cessation of experience need not be rushed to complete the process of releasing all psychospiritual clinging and suffering. There may still be some minor clingings to physical form, as there may be physical discomforts, in order to maintain the physical form, but nothing to write home about at that point. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #127420 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > On 17 October 2012 16:02, Robert E wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Hi Herman. > > Pt. 2. > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > > Give up on what? > > > > > > > I have to assume less controversial positions, if only because I get so far > behind in defending them :-) > > Again, sorry, about the delay. > > > > > 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. > > > > > I guess this is one way of portraying ignorance. Would it be fair to say > that in this case, ignorance is the lack of some skills, and that the > insight that one lacks the skills does not translate into knowing anything > about those skills? Well I did not pick that example to match the type of ignorance involved - maybe that would be better. In Buddhism, I think that ignorance is the inability to understand that objects of desire are not satisfying, cannot be controlled or kept intact, and are not really what one wants anyway. This ignorance perpetuates the cycle of suffering. The ignorance in the math problem is a lack of skill, but it is also a lack of understanding the problem, let alone being able to solve it. But it wouldn't be unfair to say that ignorance in Buddhism is also a lack of skill. But then we'd have to talk about what skill means in that context. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #127421 From: han tun I was also reading your "mindfulness of death" addressed to Phil. I > like it very much and I am grateful to you for that. ------ N: I am glad you appreciate it. It supports me and I need it in this difficult time. Nina. AdChoices #127424 From: "sarah" wrote: > >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. ... Or rather, the very developed panna which arises with citta can see/know the arising and passing away of a reality appearing. It is the nimitta, the sign/characteristic of the reality that has just fallen away. For example hearing consciousness arises and falls away. As you say, this hearing citta cannot experience itself. However, in the subsequent mind-door process, hearing citta can be the object of those mind-door cittas and the panna arising with the havana cittas can directly know that hearing citta. The same applies even in the case of arahats. For example, even after the magga and phala cittas experience nibbana, we read about the reviewing consciousness cittas directly knowing those cittas, the object experienced, the defilements eradicated and so on. This is not "at best only as inference". Better to just develop understanding so that realities now can be known directly, such as the visible object which appears now. Otherwise, while thinking over and speculating all the time, there is just more doubt. ... > >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" ... S: You have been referring to suttas in the Sutta Nipata. When it says anything along the lines of "we should not have any views", it is wrong views, di.t.thi which is being referred to. I think I've been through some of the suttas in detail with you, with references to the commentaries on this. ... > > Of course anyone on the street agrees that having wrong views is bad, one should have right views. ... S: Yes, but is there any understanding of what wrong view as taught by the Buddha is now when it arises? If it's not directly known when it arises, it will never be seen for what it is and will never be eradicated. It has nothing to do with what "the man in the street" thinks is right or wrong. .... >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? ... S: There is a difference between saying there should be no views (right or wrong) and there should not be clinging to any views. All the teachings are about the eradication of defilements. This can only occur through the development of sammaa di.t.thi. Metta Sarah ===== #127425 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi KC, Jon and all, > ... > Hope it's ok to make an observation - to me it seems over the years the argument has been centered on whether there is or there isn't control, whereas I think that's not the actual problem. This is because I think texts are clear that there comes a time in development when effort, sati, panna, etc, become powers, and then it seems it is quite natural to direct/control the arising of kusala. > > Rather, I think people just differ on the issue of when powers are actually powers as described in the texts, what then consequently affects the judgement of when control/directing of kusala actually becomes possible. Some I think believe that this happens relatively late in the development, and hence, pretty much any attempt at control is most likely bound to be akusala. Others (knowingly or by assumption) believe that control/directing of kusala is possible relatively early and hence accessible to almost anyone. > =============== J: Many thanks for these observations. Yes, when a kusala quality has been developed to the extent that it becomes a power, it can be 'summoned' easily (I think the simile used is that of the ease with which a healthy man can bend his arm). > =============== > So, to me at least, the issue of interest is what are the indicators of powers being at the level implied by the texts, what would then mean that the attempts to control/direct kusala (effort, sati, etc,) are actually kusala and not akusala. Though I suspect the answer will be - only panna can know... > =============== J: Yes, only panna could know the extent to which a kusala quality has been developed. But as an indication, there are in the suttas lists of the stages of development of kusala qualities, terminating with (from memory) the stages of faculty/indriya, power/bala and enlightenment factors/bojjhanga, and these I take to be progressive stages. If I come across any such references, I'll post them. Jon #127426 From: "sarah" wrote: > 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. .... S: At every instant, citta arises accompanied by various cetasikas, such as feeling and perception. They are 'conjoined' in the sense that by sahajata (conscience) and other conditions, they arise and fall away together, conditioning each other. There are always a minimum of 7 cetasikas arising with a citta. Each has its own characteristic and function. For example, there may be attachment arising with a citta experiencing an object. The attachment is not the citta and not the feeling or perception. The different characteristics of attachment and feeling can be directly known, distinct from the citta, not just by analysis. Each citta with the accompanying cetasikas arise and fall away incredibly fast. This is the point of the quote above. There is so much clinging to feeling, to other kinds of namas and yet they fall away instantly. ... S: You made the following comments on Alex's comments about "One should not have views" etc: >J: 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. ... S: Good points. Friends often quote suttas such as the Paramatthaka Sutta (Sutta-Nipata, IV to support the `view' about having no views (right or wrong) as Alex seems to be suggesting. However, the views referred to in the sutta are wrong views (micha ditthi). The Pali given is `di.t.thi', translated as `dogmatic view' by Saddhatissa. Unless di.t.thi is modified by samma, it nearly always refers to wrong views. For example, we read that "the Perfect One is free from any theory or view (ditthigata)". Of course this refers to wrong views. (see dictionary notes below*). As it says in the dictionary "The rejection of speculative views and theories is a prominent feature in A chapter of the Sutta-Nipáta, the Atthaka-Vagga." This is the chapter of Eights which the Paramatthaka Sutta is from. When there is samma ditthi (right view), there is of course no speculation, conceit or greed involved, but instead the direct knowledge (or panna, understanding) of paramatha dhammas (highest truths). Of course, even when we are talking about right views or wisdom, attachment to these is unwholesome and to be eradicated, just like attachment to the raft that we read about so often. (see:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/24878) In other words, it is not the right views or wisdom that is to be discarded, but the attachment to such. ... > 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. ... S: Good, as you indicated, we need to always read carefully and in context. Metta Sarah *From Nyantiloka's dictionary,the entry for *Di.t.thi*: ditthi (lit. 'sight'; Ö dis, to see): view, belief, speculative opinion, insight. If not qualified by sammá, 'right', it mostly refers to wrong and evil view or opinion, and only in a few instances to right view, understanding or insight (e.g. ditthi-ppatta, q.v.; ditthi-visuddhi, purification of insight; ditthi-sampanna, possessed of insight). Wrong or evil views (ditthi or micchá-ditthi) are declared as utterly rejectable for being a source of wrong and evil aspirations and conduct, and liable at times to lead man to the deepest abysses of depravity, as it is said in A. I, 22: "No other thing than evil views do I know, o monks, whereby to such an extent the unwholesome things not yet arisen arise, and the unwholesome things already arisen are brought to growth and fullness. No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent the wholesome things not yet arisen are hindered in their arising, and the wholesome things already arisen disappear. No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent human beings at the dissolution of the body, at death, are passing to a way of suffering, into a world of woe, into hell." ======= #127427 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Thank you for all the responses. > > It seems, the more complex and intellectual discussion gets, the less I can use it. > =============== J: Yes, the more one gets into the detail of the texts (commentaries as well as suttas, abhidhamma, etc.), the less there seems to be a specific set of instructions or steps to be followed or practised. In other words, currently held views of what the teachings are about are being challenged. This is not a bad thing! :-)) > =============== > In the end one just wants less suffering, more wisdom and all kusuala cittas ect. > One can study Abidhamma for intellectual understanding. Which is no doubt a smart thing to do. > The question is what happens next? > I think after a while, everybody have a tendency to ask more and more questions, get into smaller details... Is this a way? > > There is (A) world of delusion with concepts, self, ditthi, and this very discussion as well :) and > (B) the ulimate truth, which can not be explained with words and concepts, it can be only hinted at. > > What is the way from A to B? > =============== J: This distinction between an A World and a B World is fine as long as we keep in mind that these 'worlds' are only momentary. So for example, beings with much (miccha) ditthi can still have kusala of all kinds, including samatha (to the level of jhana) and satipatthana/insight (if fortunate enough to have had some aspect of the teachings explained in a manner that they can comprehend). And at moments of satipatthana/insight, the B World is right there. We also need to keep in mind that the enlightened being continues to think in terms of concepts (people and things), but does so without any misconception about dhammas/ultimate truths. As far as the way from A to B is concerned, it of course begins with hearing the Dhamma properly and suitably explained, and reflecting on what has been heard and understood. There is no other way! Jon #127428 From: "philip" today I listened to Lodewijk reading about the perfection of > pa~n~naa, and mindfulness of death and this helped me: > < The Buddha's different methods of teaching Dhamma are in conformity > with each other, there is no contradiction between them. For example, > the Buddha taught mindfulness of death, marana sati. Moreover, he > also taught that there are three kinds of death: momentary death > (khanika marana), conventional death (sammutti marana) and final > death (samuccheda marana). Momentary death is death at each > moment, and this means that our life occurs during only one moment of > citta. One may say that life lasts long, that a person is very old, > but in reality, life is a series of cittas that arise and fall away > in succession. In the past I have often brought this up with you. During one period, I wanted to stress that the conventional life and death of the loved one had in itself some value for conditioning sila, and so on. I stressed the conventional life and death of the loved one, and doubted that this teaching of momentary death could really be a source of conviction for us. And I wonder how it is for you now. I have been so impressed by the way you have continued to post and emphasize the paramattha since losing Lodewijk, and I'm sure at many moments there is confidence and understanding about the ultimate truth. And I'm also sure that at other times, probably most times, there is so much sorrow and loneliness. And of course we wouldn't expect it to be any other way. Understanding and confidence are not ongoing factors that we expect that have with us all the time (though those who haven't listened to the true Dhamma might expect it to be ongoing), they come and go. I posted this and another passage from perfections to my files of transcriptionas, and as I am wont to do, I recorded them on to audio, with my voice recorder. By chance as I was recording this post about momentary death, Naomi came into the next room, and being in a good mood, started singing. When I listen to it, I can hear her in the background, singing. She is my Lodewilk, as you know. I have no expectation that parting from her will not be utterly sorrowful, but I also know that there will be moments of understanding, and that they will be very valuable. But no escape for us through illusions. Understanding develops, or it doesn't, no control, and no pleasant strategies for us. > If we reduce the duration of life that seems to be > very long into just one extremely short moment of citta, we can > understand that life occurs during only one moment of seeing. At this > moment of seeing, there is just one moment of life that arises and > sees; if there would not be seeing there would be no life. Seeing has > arisen and sees, and then it dies, it lasts for an extremely short > moment. Last night I heard an *excellent* talk from Poland, I think the morning session of the last full day. Sarah asked (on behald of another person) what is the value of book learning, and Ajahn made a superb answer, I want to transcribe it, eventually. One thing that really hit me was the way she talked about the value of one moment of understanding seeing, how much more valuable it is than tons of book knowledge. There can be no understanding of the deep teachings until there is an understanding of the moment of seeing. People don't get this, they want to rush off into the deep, ponderous philosophical discussions that we read here at DSG. But we listen, and listen, and there are conditions for a gentle, unforced consideration and deepening of understanding of seeing now, hearing now. So although you have written so many books and have so much knowledge of Dhamma texts, here we are, Nina and Phil, both with a loved one that we grieve to lose, both setting out to understand seeing now, hearing now. All the ability to recite suttas and analyze suttas, gosh, it's so empty of value if there is not understanding of seeing now, hearing now. And there isn't, it develops so gradually. So let's continue to encourage each other and all our friends who have conditions to listen to the superifically unimpressive (thus is it mocked as a topic of worth) truth of seeing now, hearing now. ANd I think that goes for momentary death as well. It is very deep, and when there is understanding of seeing now, hearing now, what is the need to discuss momentary death, the understanding of momentary death (the rising and falling away of cittas, and their anataness) is developed naturally without the need to speak of it explicitly.. Thanks for letting me have a spiel. I will stop there and hope that i haven't written anything insensitive. Phil #127430 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > > However, the views referred to in the sutta are wrong views (micha ditthi). The Pali given is `di.t.thi', translated as `dogmatic view' by Saddhatissa. Unless di.t.thi is modified by samma, it nearly always refers to wrong views. > I appreciate your clarification regarding (intellectual) analysis vs. panna. The more I learn about the Pali terms, the more I find reading straight English translations problematic, as there is so much room for misunderstanding to arise, as few to no English words have the same flavors or connotations a Pali word might. "View" for ditthi is a case in point, & considering how loose some translators are, I can see why this becomes a sticky point for some. My habit now (not always successful, but getting better) is: a. To read the English translation (or multiple, if possible) b. To look up the Pali & break it down word by word with Yuttadhammo's Digital Pali Reader c. To then search any words or phrases to see where else they are used in sutta (best case in point is saccato thetato) It never ceases to amaze me how many times I find either misleading translations (or potentially misleading translations), although I doubt a translation could ever be perfect (it would be nice were translations broken down word-by-word, such as one finds with Sanskrit translators). In Dhamma - Josh #127431 From: "Yawares Sastri" S:However, the views referred to in the sutta are wrong views (micha >ditthi). The Pali given is `di.t.thi', translated as `dogmatic view' >by Saddhatissa. Unless di.t.thi is modified by samma, it nearly always >refers to wrong views. >>>>============================================= Dear Sarah, I do not believe the above. I think that it ridicules the Buddha's profound teaching. Anyone would say that "one should have right view, and no wrong views". It doesn't require a Buddha to say such obvious truism. What is hard to see is clinging and artificiality of all views, "right" or "wrong". Experience doesn't come in nicely labeled boxes. Any and all views are subjective interpretations and being subjective, can be expressions of one's subjective bias. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #127434 From: "truth_aerator" J:My habit now (not always successful, but getting better) is: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have some good suggestions there. I too did the above. Unfortunately there isn't much certainty in anything. We aren't native pali speakers, mistranslations and misunderstandings are possible. Scholars can correctly translate pali -> english, but how idiomatically correct is it? We aren't 5th BCE Indians who know the context and colloquial usage of terms... Also pali may not have been a single language and some pali sutta may already be translations from proto-sanskrit to "pali" so it may not be always the original language or dialect. I wouldn't be surprised if Buddha knew various dialects/languages. Pali words could have been misspelled. I did notice at least once, a mistake in pali text where rather than saying aniccha it said anicca. (girimananda sutta). These two words sound very similar and the difference is one sound... Who knows how many such typos, mis-hearings, etc, is there. With metta, Alex #127435 From: "Yawares Sastri" #127436 From: "philip" > "How can we begin to develop paññå", this was a question that people > often asked. Acharn Sujin invariably answered: "Develop it now!" > There is no other way because right understanding can only begin at > the present moment and all the material to be studied is there > already; thus, we have to develop it now. Ph: "All the material to be studied is there already." Moments of seeing and visible object, moments of hearing and sound, and lobha and other defilements arising in response. There can be studying of them now, in a natual, unforced way. Is this pariyatti? Or is pariyatti the things we cannot study through their arising but only know of through books, such as bhavanga cittas, for example? Anyways, why speak of pariyatti? I think we can be too attracted to terminology and categories. What is appearing now can be studied, "all the material necessary..." ...do we really need to call it pariyatti or patipati, do we need to name it and categorize it? The way Abhidhamma does so is beautiful, but... Phil #127437 From: "philip" > Dear Nibs > > There is no Nibs! Phil #127438 From: Nina van Gorkom I'm interested in the book "The Problem Of Fear In Time Of Grief", > do you have this book online as dhammadhana? If yes, may I copy and > post it at SD/JTN/DW daily? > ------- N:It is a wheel publication and it would be best to ask them directly. For me, of course, anumodana. Gabi sent me a copy with her condoleance letter to me as a reminder. For me, it is a time of grief. I can do with any reminder. Nina. #127439 From: Nina van Gorkom > Ph: "All the material to be studied is there already." > Moments of seeing and visible object, moments of hearing and sound, > and lobha and other defilements arising in response. There can be > studying of them now, in a natual, unforced way. Is this pariyatti? > ------ N: Remember the long discussions with Scott. Pariyatti always concerns the present moment. It is not theory or what we find . Only thus it can gradually lead to pa.tipatti, reaching for a particular reality as Kh Sujin explained. ------ > Ph: Anyways, why speak of pariyatti? I think we can be too > attracted to terminology > and categories. What is appearing now can be studied, "all the > material necessary..." ...do we really need to call it pariyatti or > patipati, do we need to name it and categorize it? The way > Abhidhamma does so is beautiful, but... > ---- N: No need to call it anything. ------ Nina. > #127440 From: Nina van Gorkom I stressed the conventional life and death of the loved one, and > doubted that this teaching of momentary death could really be a > source of conviction for us. And I wonder how it is for you now. > I have been so impressed by the way you have continued to post and > emphasize the paramattha since losing Lodewijk, and I'm sure at > many moments there is confidence and understanding about the > ultimate truth. And I'm also sure that at other times, probably > most times, there is so much sorrow and loneliness. And of course > we wouldn't expect it to be any other way. Understanding and > confidence are not ongoing factors that we expect that have with us > all the time (though those who haven't listened to the true Dhamma > might expect it to be ongoing), they come and go. > ------- N: That is it, they come and go. With me, it is as you just write, moods changing all the time. And in this way we have to see death which is momentary, everything is momentary, but, hard to swallow. Yes, a lot of sorrow, but also this is and that is good to know. I said to Sarah that I have such a difficult time, but that it helps when Lukas and Phil ask questions. That takes me away from my own sorrow. And here you are with your questions. Momentariness is the truth and it is always helpful and valuable to understand the truth. We do not want to deceive ourselves. ------ > > Ph: So let's continue to encourage each other and all our friends > who have conditions to listen to the superifically unimpressive > (thus is it mocked as a topic of worth) truth of seeing now, > hearing now. ANd I think that goes for momentary death as well. It > is very deep, and when there is understanding of seeing now, > hearing now, what is the need to discuss momentary death, the > understanding of momentary death (the rising and falling away of > cittas, and their anataness) is developed naturally without the > need to speak of it explicitly.. > ----- > N: Well said. We cannot really understand momentary death if we do not understand seeing, hearing now and later on their arising and passing away. But still it is good to know about seeing death in this way, it makes death more natural, not something to be frightened about. ------- Nina. #127441 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Herman, > > I have the debate in full detail..very beautiful answer from Thera > Nagasena...if you would like to read the detail I'll post it. A member @ > Sariputtadhamma asked me the same thing and I posted the full debate from > Milidapanha...and he loved it. > yawares > Thanks for your kind offer. I have the full text already, and also love it :-) -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127442 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > Thank you both for your informative replies. > Dear Herman > > H: Yes, and then I would have to ask "how is panna known?" > > KC: Just like tasting cittas knows it is tasting, panna knows it is > panna. If panna does not know, what known? > > I think the case of panna is probably a bit more subtle than the case of taste. There is no room for delusion in the case of taste, but clearly in the case of panna there is room for delusion / ignorance to masquerade as panna. > H: > I think jhanas are a good indicator of powers. > > K: Is it important to have powers from jhanas, it is not necessary to > attain powers in order to attain insight. Some could attain insight using > jhanas as a basis, by not having powers from the jhanas > > cheers > > KC > > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127443 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Herman, all > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > I don't think he does :-) > > > > I think a lot of times people agree more than they realize, it is only > that terminology or method stands in the way. > > Yes, I agree :-) > > To me, the dhammas that are said to be the only real things, are actually > > an idea, insofar as there is no experience of them, as singularities, > > arising and ceasing one by one. If there was an experience of that, I > > promise you, I would agree with you :-) > > > > "Real", to be sure, is an English word. I like that the Dhammasangani > asks, "On what occasion" or katamam tasmi? samaye. Samaya is defined > in the Pali dict. as time; congregation; season; occasion --- it then uses > the word "hoti" for existence, or to be. So the sense of "real" here --- as > I take it ---- is a very time oriented approach. This leaves out the > ability to define our "real" as being something like a fixed, immutable, > permanent law of the universe, independent of conditions. > > So, then what is real (atthi) or what is existence? > > SN 35.48 (pathamasamiddhimarapanhasuttam) gives us, > > "yattha kho, samiddhi, atthi cakkhu, atthi rupa, atthi cakkhuvinnanam, > atthi cakkhuvinnanavinnatabba dhamma" > > Which is > > "Where, Samiddhi, the eye exists (atthi), forms exist (atthi), eye > consciousness exists (atthi), & cognizance (vinnatabba) of the dhammas of > eye-consciousness exist (atthi), there exists Mara or Mara as a concept > (atthi tattha maro vv marapannatti va)" > > He then goes on to list the other parts of experience & applies it not > only to Mara, but to a being (satta), suffering (dukkha), & the world. > Very useful quote. > > > > > And conversely, those things that are said not to be real are > nevertheless > > reacted to as though they are real. I agree (!!) that the > > real experiences of people and things etc does not translate into people > > and things being anything other than mind-made graspings at what is > unknown > > (and unknowable). In that regard, people and things are just like > dhammas, > > a grasping at what must be there, somehow.... > > > > Philip K Dick once defined reality as what doesn't go away when you quit > believing in it. > > Very nice! > But there is a world of difference also between "go away" as a thought > experiment & "go away" in reality. A child might react to an innocuous > noise in the house at night with all the terror one might find in a person > about to be devoured by a tiger. Here is an example of reaction to > something that is unreal, changeable, conceptual. > > This doesn't mean, though, that there isn't an aspect to our experience > which can't be wished away, or that there are no unavoidable certainties to > sentient life. > > Another to look at is that is this: > > To dissolve a concept by breaking it down into its constituent parts means > we must also necessarily affirm a greater reality for these "constituent > parts". You cannot have your cake & eat it too: if you say that the > "constituent parts" are just as reducible as the over-arching concept, then > Buddha's teachings as explained in the suttas are done. The self is no less > real than visual consciousness, in such case. > > Now, yes, anything conveyed in a conversation can be reduced down to > nothingness in language & has been done time & time again by such sages as > Nagarjuna, Zeno, Chandrakirti, etc. but if you try holding your breath for > 10 minutes no amount of linguistic deconstructions will intrude upon the > certainty of what the body will do. > > Well said. Would you say that an irreducible such as the rupa of nutriment, or the irreducible rupa of life-force is illustrative of something real, and/or not capable of being further reduced? > in Dhamma > - Josh > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127444 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Well said. > > Would you say that an irreducible such as the rupa of nutriment, or the > irreducible rupa of life-force is illustrative of something real, and/or > not capable of being further reduced? > I would hesitate to call these irreducible just as I would hesitate to call them reducible, but they certainly serve as limits to experience, & fit Philip K Dick's definition as things we can't send to oblivion based on our unbelief. But reading this led to me question if I understand Abhidhamma's teaching on rupa properly. I must admit that rupa (as well as the 24 patthana) is an area I haven't delved into as deeply as I have cittas & cetasikas, but I have went this far in my studies understanding the upadaya rupas to be reducible, ultimately, to the four mahabhutas, while at the same time occurring in the flow of experience as definite "wholes" &, therefore, serving as paramattha dhammas also. I am fuzzy on this, though: there is certainly a distinction between the way that the body viscerally forces us to start breathing again & the reduction of this experience into components. At any time, the mahabhutas serve as an undercurrent of necessary parts to the architecture of experience of physicality --- that is, we cannot even begin to describe an experience of physicality without recourse to extension (pathavi), heat (tejo), motion (vayu) & cohesion (apo). Also, though, there is the definite presence of the derived or upadaya rupas in experience of physicality also --- that is, we cannot conceive of an upadaya rupa without the mahabhutas, but we can conceive of the mahabhutas without a particular upadaya. If you dislike the word "conceive" here, take it as "limit to mundane experience". Now my questions are: Are upadaya rupas ultimately reducible to mahabhutas? If so, is there a subtle similarity between how upadaya rupas & mahabhutas relate compared with how cittas & cetasikas relate? It is something I am picking up on. Assuming I'm not way out to lunch here, it would seem that there is a subtle distinction in the way that component parts can themselves serve as elements of experience while at the same time forming complexes which occur as new, though derivable elements of the same experience. The pain of embarrassment, for instance, is truly felt & is therefore real but the way the dialogue internally occurs in the mind that gives rise to such embarrassment is based on unreal things. Your thoughts? in Dhamma - Josh #127445 From: han tun wrote: > In Pa.tisambhidaamagga (The Path of Discrimination) there are six knowledges possessed exclusively by the Buddha and not shared by his Disciples. One of them is the Great Compassion (mahaakaru.naa~naa.na). With my limited knowledge, I cannot explain the difference between the karu.naa of the Buddha and the karu.naa of his Disciples. > > Nevertheless, for your information, I give you the full text of the Great Compassion of the Buddha, taken from Pa.tisambhidaamagga, together with the Paa.li text. Paragraph numbers within square brackets are inserted by me. <...> S: Yes excellent (#127347). I hadn't read this post when I made my other comments. I appreciate all your hard work a lot. > > --------------- > > CHAPTER LXXI. THE GREAT COMPASSION <....> > [90] Upon the Enlightened Ones, the Blessed Ones, who see thus "I have crossed over and the world has not crossed over; I am liberated and the world is not liberated; I am controlled and the world is uncontrolled; I am at peace and the world is not at peace; I am comforted and the world is comfortless; I am extinguished and the world is unextinguished; I, having crossed over, can bring across; I, being liberated, can liberate; I, being controlled, can teach control; I, being at peace, can pacify; I, being comforted, can comfort; I, being extinguished, can teach extinguishment", there descends the Great Compassion for beings. > [90] "Aha~ncamhi ti.n.no, loko ca ati.n.no aha.m camhi mutto, loko ca amutto; aha~ncamhi danto, loko ca adanto; aha.m camhi santo, loko ca asanto; aha.m camhi assattho, loko ca anassattho; aha.m camhi parinibbuto, loko ca aparinibbuto; pahomi khvaaha.m ti.n.no taaretu.m, mutto mocetu.m, danto dametu.m, santo sametu.m, assattho assaasetu.m, parinibbuto pare ca parinibbaapetun"ti passantaana.m buddhaana.m bhagavantaana.m sattesu mahaakaru.naa okkamati. > > This is the Perfect One's knowledge of the attainment of the Great Compassion. > Ida.m tathaagatassa mahaakaru.naasamaapattiyaa ~naa.na.m. > > ---------------- > > Han: I think the last paragraph holds the *key* to the greatness of the Great Compassion of the Buddha. The Buddha not only has the great compassion for all the beings, but he also teaches, shows the way, and helps the beings, who are ready (venayya satta), to be liberated from the suffering and the round of rebirth, like he himself has been liberated. > > In paragraphs [15] [16] [19] [42] [43] [44 to 49] [51] [53] [54] [59] [60] I find the phrase: "there is none other than myself to..." which means that only the Buddha and no one else, not even his Disciples, can perform that respective task for the beings. This may also indicate the greatness of the Great Compassion of the Buddha. > > This is just my humble opinion. There may be more to it that I do not know. ... S: Good comments and as you suggest, it is made very clear why the Buddha's compassion is incomparable. ... > > The Paa.li word "lokasannivaaso" is interesting. "loka-sannivaasa" is translated by Ven Bhikkhu Nanamoli as "worldly life". PTS Dictionary gives the meaning as "the society of men", "all the world" (page 679). The reader may take the meaning he/she prefers. ... S: Thank you and anumodana. Metta Sarah ===== #127448 From: "sarah" wrote: > I have the debate in full detail..very beautiful answer from Thera Nagasena...if you would like to read the detail I'll post it. ... S: I'm appreciating all the Milinda debate extracts you're posting. Short extracts are fine. Or a long debate can always be posted in parts. I've always enjoyed these passages and like to read them again as you post them. You asked about our trip to Bangkok, I think? Jon lived there in the 70s for many years and we always go at least a couple of times a year to spend time with Ajahn Sujin and other Dhamma friends. We used to also go to nice beaches, but haven't done so for a while (as we live on a beach in Australia). I've never been much interested in sight-seeing or shopping, so avoid these if I can:-) We'll be in Thailand for most of January as I've mentioned on DSG - 3 mini-trips with A.Sujin and Dhamma friends, including several from DSG. Let us know if you'll be in Thailand at this time - it would be nice to meet you and Tep. Metta Sarah ===== #127449 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > ... > To me, the dhammas that are said to be the only real things, are actually > an idea, insofar as there is no experience of them, as singularities, > arising and ceasing one by one. If there was an experience of that, I > promise you, I would agree with you :-) > =============== J: :-)) Yes, I know what you mean, but a couple of observations. The development of the path is not about chasing (or looking for) the things described in the texts as dhammas. It is about understanding the truth and reality of the present moment. In this regard, it is said that there are at the present moment things that have a specific, unalterable (and unchanging) characteristic that can be directly experienced (by panna). For example, the experiencing of visible object and the experiencing of audible object are universal experiences for all who have those faculties. We can talk about these experiencings and objects from direct, personal experience. Likewise we all know what attachment and aversion are because they have arisen so often. And when these things are arising/present they are not merely 'an idea'. As regards your point of no experience of dhammas as 'singularities', may I suggest that the fact that, for example, seeing and visible object, hearing and audible object always seem to co-arise and from the subjective perspective there is never one without the other, does not negate the possibility of them being separate dhammas, with completely different conditions for their arising. Furthermore, if the dhamma that we know as audible object was not a separate dhamma it would mean that sound could never arise in the world in the absence of hearing consciousness. Yet such a notion would seem to run counter to our general experience. Jon #127450 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han, S: Yes excellent (#127347). I hadn't read this post when I made my other comments. I appreciate all your hard work a lot. ... S: Good comments and as you suggest, it is made very clear why the Buddha's compassion is incomparable. ... > The Paa.li word "lokasannivaaso" is interesting. "loka-sannivaasa" is translated by Ven Bhikkhu Nanamoli as "worldly life". PTS Dictionary gives the meaning as "the society of men", "all the world" (page 679). The reader may take the meaning he/she prefers. ... S: Thank you and anumodana. Metta Sarah ===== #127451 From: "sarah" wrote: > > S: At every instant, citta arises accompanied by various cetasikas, such as feeling and perception. They are 'conjoined' in the sense that by sahajata (conscience)<...> ... S: yes, this was meant to read "sahajata (contiguity)". Actually, I remember typing in 'contiguity', but I've had an auto-correct feature on my i-mac that I've not been able to get rid of, hence the anagamis have become anagrams and a few other wierd ones have appeared. Anyway, Jon's just spent a bit of time trying to help, so hopefully no more consciences or anagrams in the wrong place. Sarah p.s there was also a strange one that appeared in a post to Han that I meant to send a follow-up note on, but forget what it was now. ===== #127452 From: "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Yawares, > S: I'm appreciating all the Milinda debate extracts you're posting. > We'll be in Thailand for most of January as I've mentioned on DSG - 3 mini-trips with A.Sujin and Dhamma friends, including several from DSG. Let us know if you'll be in Thailand at this time - it would be nice to meet you and Tep. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > #127453 From: "Yawares Sastri" Dear Yawares, For me, of course, anumodana. > Nina. > AdChoices #127454 From: "azita" As usual with T.A. , we were given lots of reminders about the > importance of understanding eg: right now and like now! Realities > are arising and falling away in succession and each moment is > different from the last and that is the meaning of anatta, anicca, > dukkha. ----- N: Thank you very much for your report. I appreciate such reports and I hope you will give more of those. I can imagine the surroundings, I know the place. Local colour. ---- Nina. #127458 From: Nina van Gorkom This is the Perfect One's knowledge of the attainment of the Great > Compassion. > Ida.m tathaagatassa mahaakaru.naasamaapattiyaa ~naa.na.m. #127459 From: "jrg493" I like your 'Mindfulness Of Death' very much that I posted it @ > Sariputtadhamma/JTN (in colors) and @ Dhamma Wheel today. > > I'll post your dhamma articles @ SD/JTN/DW often from now on. ------ N: You are welcome, appreciating your efforts, Nina. #127463 From: "jrg493" N: What about the khandha of formations? These cetasikas form up or > > condition this moment. > > ----- > > J: "Formations" is an interesting way to translate it. > > Would you say "conditions" is as good a translation? Or even > "conditioning"? ------ N:Sankharoti: put together. They combine. There are different combinations of cetasikas, depending on the citta at that moment, and these condition the citta. One of the reasons for the immense variety of citta. ------ Nina. #127465 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > N:Sankharoti: put together. They combine. There are different > combinations of cetasikas, depending on the citta at that moment, and > these condition the citta. One of the reasons for the immense variety > of citta. > ------ > Nina. I like the idea of "combine" to Sankhara. So could I safely say that a citta + cetasikas = sankhara, in this definition, whereas sanna & vedana are strictly defined as cetasikas? Here is a little translation-study I did from the khajjaniya sutta (SN 22.79) "What, O monks, is called conditioning (sankhara)? Because it arranges (abhisankharoti) conditions (sankhata), O monks, it is called conditioning (sankhara). And how does it arrange conditions? In form (rupa) it arranges the condition of form-hood (rupattaya). In feeling, it arranges the condition of feeling-hood (vedanattaya). In perception it arranges the condition of perception-hood (sannattaya). In conditioning, it arranges the condition of conditioning-hood (sankharattaya). In consciousness, it arranges the condition of consciousness-hood (vinnanattaya). As it arranges conditions, O monks, it is called conditioning." As you can see I used the word conditioning, but as was pointed out this can be confused with paccaya. I'd like to know how the process of arrangement, here, would be described in Abhidhamma. I have also seen it translated "concoctions" & "confections". If I'm not mistaken, Edward Conze does that. Thank you - Josh #127466 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han, This is one of my favorites of the Pa.tisambidhaamagga. Is it on line, or did you type it all out? I keep it in my file of Pali readings. anumodana, Nina. #127467 From: "truth_aerator" J:The development of the path is not about chasing (or looking for) >the things described in the texts as dhammas. It is about >understanding the truth and reality of the present moment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can understand that phenomenon are anicca, asubha, dukkha, anatta. But it seems that we don't and can't experience certain complex teachings. Can we experience trillions of cittas occurring in a split second? Is it possible? Most likely we only experience a nimitta of them. Is nimitta of them a direct experience? How do we know it is not a concept or simply a "memory" of past event? re: eye sees color, ear hears sound. What about synesthesia? Doesn't it make sense-organ & sense-object teaching more difficult to put into clear cut boxes where one ayatana cannot be an object of another (improper) ayatana? With best wishes, Alex #127468 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Over the years, despite my best efforts to the contrary, I've > developed a > > > certain degree of pragmatism and common sense. I could spend 20 years > > > trying to "learn" how to fix a car, but since it's an area I know > nothing > > > about I would probably wind up with the equivalent of a giant pipe > bomb. > > > I'd rather go to a car mechanic who can diagnose and fix it in five > > > minutes. When I wanted to learn to play clarinet, I went to a clarinet > > > teacher. True, I then more or less taught myself to play jazz > saxaphone, > > > but I had a lot of training in basic technique and music theory to > back me > > > up. The idea that a teacher would be a "smokescreen" rather than an aid > > > defies common sense, unless they are a very bad teacher, and in that > case, > > > not really a teacher at all. The idea that we "learn what we want to" > as if > > > such learning will magically arise out of the air doesn't make a whole > lot > > > of sense to me. We may investigate on our own for many years, and I > have > > > done so in this area and others, but it is when I bounce my ideas off > of > > > others that I quickly find out which ideas are ridiculous and which may > > > have some merit. The role of interaction and discussion seems to be > > > dismissed by you here. I do not understand why you seem so hard-set > against > > > any communal aspect to learning. > > > > > > > > > > You are talking about teaching and learning in daily life. > > > > I am talking about cessation through lack of clinging. Do you honestly > > believe that can be taught? > > Of course I believe that the Buddha was a teacher, and that he did in fact > teach people how to skillfully remove defilements and clinging and to > eventually reach enlightenment. Yes, it can be taught. *Cessation* cannot > be taught, but cessation is not the path, it is the final result of the > path, a distinction that does make a difference. What is developed by the > path? The wisdom, for instance, to see that what is clung to is not worth > holding onto, and will never satisfy desire, etc. These insights lead to > letting go, which lead to equanimity, etc., which leads to the end of > clinging, which leads to cessation. One cannot directly court cessation. > One has to take the path step by step. > > But I am still waiting for you to give me a similar statement as the one I > just gave above. What do you consider to be the path, and how does one > follow it, if willing and able? > > I thought I had given you an answer, namely MN121, the so called lesser discourse on emptiness. Following this becomes possible by changing "cessation" into a verb, namely ceasing. The mark of wisdom is that it cuts off, in opposition to the mark of ignorance, which is proliferation - or just keeping on keeping on, or just plain becoming. Following the ceasing path doesn't happen while there is the active pursuit of becoming, no-one will have cessation thrust upon them. I liked the way you describe wisdom above. It is reminiscent of oh, what's that Pali word for existential anxiety?Do you think such wisdom can be taught, or is such wisdom the teacher? > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127469 From: "Robert E" wrote: Rob E.: Of course I believe that the Buddha was a teacher, and that he did in fact > > teach people how to skillfully remove defilements and clinging and to > > eventually reach enlightenment. Yes, it can be taught. *Cessation* cannot > > be taught, but cessation is not the path, it is the final result of the > > path, a distinction that does make a difference. What is developed by the > > path? The wisdom, for instance, to see that what is clung to is not worth > > holding onto, and will never satisfy desire, etc. These insights lead to > > letting go, which lead to equanimity, etc., which leads to the end of > > clinging, which leads to cessation. One cannot directly court cessation. > > One has to take the path step by step. > > > > But I am still waiting for you to give me a similar statement as the one I > > just gave above. What do you consider to be the path, and how does one > > follow it, if willing and able? > > > > > > I thought I had given you an answer, namely MN121, the so called lesser > discourse on emptiness. That's interesting - sure you are right that was a good answer. I think I may be looking for something that is not within your sense of the path. I perhaps find it comforting to see the path to 'cessation of clinging/defilements' as a gradual path of steps, like learning to play the clarinet. That is comforting because it involves reasonable bites at each step, rather than a 'jumping off a cliff' type of involvement - you know, where St. Paul stands up and says 'from this day on - no more sex!' and that's it, a big chunk of life is over whether one is quite ready for it or not. Your sense of cessation not only being the goal but also the path seems to demand a lot more from someone; and I think you are saying that without such a path of cutting off large chunks of attached involvement at each step, it's basically futile, just a lot of wishful thinking. In my view, it would also be a lot of wishful thinking, not really getting anywhere, if there were not a mechanism for developing greater detachment and understanding. I have always believed that meditation provided that mechanism. It goes beyond merely thinking about something. I also believe that one can potentially be transformed by the right contemplative philosophy, if in fact one is so involved with that philosophy that it trains the person's perception to conform to the philosophy, and that philosophy is in fact correct. That is my way of tipping my hat to the serious Abhidhammikas here, who I think are so immersed in the study of the most minute experience of phenomena, that it in fact becomes a form of contemplative meditation in its own right. But you seem to be saying that one must make enormous lifestyle changes to prove on the one hand, and develop, on the other hand, the true direction of the path towards actual letting go and actual renunciation of worldly attachments. And I would not say I agree or disagree, just that it is a challenging possibility worthy of consideration. > Following this becomes possible by changing "cessation" into a verb, namely > ceasing. Or 'cessating.' :-) The mark of wisdom is that it cuts off, in opposition to the mark > of ignorance, which is proliferation - or just keeping on keeping on, or > just plain becoming. > > Following the ceasing path doesn't happen while there is the active pursuit > of becoming, no-one will have cessation thrust upon them. I liked the way > you describe wisdom above. It is reminiscent of oh, what's that Pali word > for existential anxiety?Do you think such wisdom can be taught, or is such > wisdom the teacher? Well, I don't really know, not being elevated to the point where I have any certainty about such things. I'm involved, but certainly not an expert, just a floundering long-term beginner. Probably similar to what you describe about not really desiring an attachment-free life, because of the great enjoyment of various attachments, I've stayed in Kindergarten for a very long time. But I do have faith that the Buddha taught at least several different approaches to help people of different temperaments 'get out of the trap.' Some of those approaches for the very attached, like myself, and perhaps like yourself, are very gradual, and since they don't give grand results very quickly, at least require a great amount of patience and faith to keep going. Others, for the already-disenchanted, maybe give quicker results. There have been times when I seemed to be content for a short period of time to just hang around and breathe in what seemed to be a very non-clinging state of immediacy. At times I would breathe out and not have any great urge to breathe in again, until the body sort of kicked in and formed a breath. But that sense of equanimity didn't last very long, and I was thrown back into my normal state. I think it takes a lot of repeated avowals of intention to get on track, at the very least. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #127470 From: han tun wrote: > > Dear Lukas > > > L: Here I have a question. Acharn on recordings mentioned once kusala siila, akusala siila and avyakata siila as I remember. What is kusala, akusala and avyakata siila? I would like to hear more on that. Especially what is akusala siila? > > JJ: I've asked this question to A.Paderm and he came up with the detail answer and reference as I'm trying to translate into English as follows: ... S: A.Praderm gave a good, comprehensive answer. As Nina also mentioned, a couple of small details need to be clarified: > .... Body and speech actions of an arahat are conditioned by kiriya citta from not killing up to doing anything in daily life. At that moment, the common deed of the arahat is conditioned by kiriya citta. then it is called avayakata sila. ... S: Yes, any sila of the arahat is conditioned by kiriya cittas and therefore not kusala, but avyakata sila. However, as there is no more inclination to harmful deeds, such as killing or any akusala of any kind, there is therefore no virati, no abstention from such deeds. There is no virati (abstention) of any kind in the case of the arahat. ... > > Example of 3 silas: > > kusala sila: when any human being who is not arahat (from ordinary person to anagami person) does good deed. For example, refrain from killing or giving dana to others, at the moment it is kusala sila which is a common deed of that person according to kusala. > > Akusala sila: when any human being who is not arahat (from ordinary person to anagami person) does bad deed. For example, killing, it is akusala sila. However, even any action through body and speech which is conditioned by akusala citta such as brushing teeth or doing any thing in ordinary life, it is also call akusala sila because the common deed of that person is akusala. > > Avayakata sila: when an arahat refrain from akusal deed such as not killing, his citta is not kusala or akusala but his citta is kiriya citta or avayakata. ... S: Again, in the case of the worldling, there can be kusala cittas which abstain from killing. In the case of sotapannas there can be other kinds of kusala virati (abstention) of unwholesome inclinations to deeds not yet eradicated. In the case of the arahat, no akusala of any kind to be abstained from, so no "refraining". ... >Even in his daily life, the arahat manages to do anything with kiriya citta, not kusala or akusala. His common deed, therefore, is conditioned by kiriya citta and is called avayakata sila. > > The 3 silas is explained in Suttanta Pitaka, Kuddhaka Nikaya, Padhisumphita mak, book 7, session 1, pg.589 .... S: Is he referring to the section in Patisambhiddamagga under Mahaavagge Kammakathaa ("On Action"), beginning with ahosi kamma.m, ahosi kammavipaako? Also, see MN 78, Samanamandika Sutta, Bodhi/Nanamoli transl. on kusala, akusala and avyakatha sila. "When a man possesses ten qualities, carpenter, I describe him as accomplished in what is wholesome, perfected in what is wholesome, attained to the supreme attainment, an ascetic invincible. [But first of all] I say, it must be understood thus: 'These are unwholesome habits (akusalaa siilaa),' and thus: 'Unwholesome habits originate from this,' and thus: 'Unwholesome habits cease without remainder here.' and thus: 'One practising in this way is practising the way to the cessation of unwholesome habits.' " ``Dasahi kho aha.m, thapati, dhammehi samannaagata.m purisapuggala.m pa~n~napemi sampannakusala.m paramakusala.m uttamapattipatta.m sama.na.m ayojjha.m. Ime akusalaa siilaa; tamaha.m [kaha.m (sii.), taha.m (pii.)], thapati, veditabbanti vadaami. Itosamu.t.thaanaa akusalaa siilaa; tamaha.m, thapati, veditabbanti vadaami. Idha akusalaa siilaa aparisesaa nirujjhanti; tamaha.m, thapati, veditabbanti vadaami. Eva.m pa.tipanno akusalaana.m siilaana.m nirodhaaya pa.tipanno hoti; tamaha.m, thapati, veditabbanti vadaami." "And I say, it must be understood thus: 'These are wholesome habits (kusalaa siilaa)', and thus: 'Wholesome habits originate from this,' and thus: 'Wholesome habits cease without remainder here,' and thus: 'One practising in this way is practising the way to the cessation of wholesome habits.' " ``Ime kusalaa siilaa; tamaha.m, thapati, veditabbanti vadaami. Itosamu.t.thaanaa kusalaa siilaa; tamaha.m, thapati, veditabbanti vadaami. Idha kusalaa siilaa aparisesaa nirujjhanti; tamaha.m, thapati, veditabbanti vadaami. Eva.m pa.tipanno kusalaana.m siilaana.m nirodhaaya pa.tipanno hoti; tamaha.m, thapati, veditabbanti vadaami." *** S: Further on in the sutta, we read: "And where do these wholesome habits cease without remainder? Their cessation is stated: here a bhikkhu is virtuous, but he does not identify with his virtue, and he understands as it actually is that deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom where these wholesome habits cease without remainder." ``Ime ca, thapati, kusalaa siilaa kuhi.m aparisesaa nirujjhanti? Nirodhopi nesa.m vutto. Idha, thapati, bhikkhu siilavaa hoti no ca siilamayo, ta~nca cetovimutti.m pa~n~naavimutti.m yathaabhuuta.m pajaanaati; yatthassa te kusalaa siilaa aparisesaa nirujjhanti." S: No more kamma, so no longer described as 'kusala' (wholesome). This shows, the detail (on kusala, akusala and avyakatha sila) is also found in the suttas. Metta Sarah ==== #127472 From: Nina van Gorkom Han: [Note 43] is very important. Only two ("seeing" and > "development") of the seven methods mentioned in the sutta, are > effective for the removal of the taints, leading to the four > supramundane paths. The other five methods cannot directly > accomplish the destruction of the taints, but they can keep them > under control during the preparatory stages of practice and thereby > facilitate their eventual eradication by the supramundane paths. -------- N: Acharn Sujin reminds us all the time to never forget that whatever we read in the texts pertains to the present moment. We can read suttas in a different way, keeping this in mind. When I read about the different ways of abandoning the aasavas, whatever way this may be, not to be forgetful of mindfulness of the present reality. I keep in mind that each of these ways pertains to satipa.t.thaana now, at this moment. we read all the time. This is no mere thinking, it is pa~n~naa. He is aware and understands the reality now, and the purpose is penetrating the anattaness of dhammas, no matter in what situation. I can eat with attachment, or, I can consider food as a medicine of the body to keep it going. Not a self reflects in this way, it is conditioned, conditioned by listening to the dhamma. Take: [2] Taints to be abandoned by restraining [2] Sa.mvaraa pahaatabbaasavaa Here I think of indriya sa.mvara siila: this is satipa.t.thaana. Sati and pa~n~naa, awareness and right understanding of whatever appears through one of the six doorways. Visible object appears: we learn that it is not a person or a thing, but just a conditioned dhamma appearing through the eyes. The translator wrote: I think they should not be seen as something apart from pa.tipatti, they are pa.tipatti. Take adhivasana, patience in the situations of daily life. When there is awareness of naama or ruupa that appears now, there is khanti, patience. All these aspects pertain to satipa.t.thaana now. -------- Nina. #127474 From: "jagkrit2012" S: Yes, any sila of the arahat is conditioned by kiriya cittas and therefore not kusala, but avyakata sila. However, as there is no more inclination to harmful deeds, such as killing or any akusala of any kind, there is therefore no virati, no abstention from such deeds. There is no virati (abstention) of any kind in the case of the arahat. --------- JJ: It is more accurate to say that " no inclination or abstention to harmful deeds or virati in avyakata sila". Thank you very much Sarah. ----------- > > The 3 silas is explained in Suttanta Pitaka, Kuddhaka Nikaya, Padhisumphita mak, book 7, session 1, pg.589 > .... > S: Is he referring to the section in Patisambhiddamagga under Mahaavagge Kammakathaa ("On Action"), beginning with ahosi kamma.m, ahosi kammavipaako? ----------- JJ: I think they are different suttas. Because in Suttanta Pitaka, Kuddhaka Nikaya, Patisambhiddamagga, book 7, session 1, pg.589 (in Thai tipitaka), the commentary states clearly that How many silas are there? There are 3 kind of silas, kusala sila, akusala sila and avyakata sila. This is common to all being in the world. Kusala is sila. Akusala is sila. Avyakata is sila. And the commentary goes on that "All Achant (masters) refers to sila that this is sukka sila, sukka (pleasant is sila). This is dukka sila, dukka (unpleasant) is sila. This is kalaha sila, wrangle is sila. This is mantana sila, decoration is sila." I don't know sutta in Thai and English run the same sequent? Jagkrit #127475 From: Nina van Gorkom I like the idea of "combine" to Sankhara. So could I safely say > that a citta + cetasikas = sankhara, in this definition, whereas > sanna & vedana are strictly defined as cetasikas? > N: Citta is not sankhaarakkhandha, only the cetasikas, apart from vedanaa and sa~n~naa. We have to distinguish between sankhaarakkhandha and sankhaara dhamma: the latter comprises all conditioned dhammas, citta, cetasika and ruupa. So, it depends on the context where Sa.nkhaara is used. --------- > > J: Here is a little translation-study I did from the khajjaniya > sutta (SN 22.79) > > "What, O monks, is called conditioning (sankhara)? Because it > arranges (abhisankharoti) conditions (sankhata), O monks, it is > called conditioning (sankhara). > ------ N: When speaking of abhisankhaara, it pertains to the Dependent Origination: of pu~n~naa, apu~n~na and anen~nca (aruupa-jhaana). Abhi: conditioning strongly. There is a difference between sankhaara and sankhata. I quote from Acharn Sujin's "Survey of Paramattha dhammas" (available on zolag): < People might have misunderstandings about sa.nkhåra dhamma, dhammas which arise because of conditions: they might mistakenly believe that dhammas that arise could continue to exist. Hence, the Buddha taught that sa.nkhåra dhammas are also sa.nkhata dhammas, dhammas that have already been conditioned and then fall away. The Buddha used the term sa.nkhata dhamma in addition to sa.nkhåra dhamma in order to explain that a dhamma that arises has conditions for its arising and that when the conditions fall away, that dhamma, which has arisen because of conditions, also must fall away. Sa.nkhata dhamma is the dhamma that has been conditioned and then falls away. Hence, sa.nkhåra dhamma, the dhamma that is compounded by conditioning factors, is also sa.nkhata dhamma. The paramattha dhammas, which are citta, cetasika and rúpa, are sa.nkhåra dhamma as well as sa.nkhata dhamma.> Foonote: Dhammasangaùi, Buddhist Psychological Ethics, Book III, Part I, Ch III, the Short Intermediate Set of Pairs, 1085. Sa.nkhåra dhamma and sa.nkhata dhamma refer to the same realities, but these different terms have been used to explain more clearly the nature of conditioned dhammas. Sa.nkhåra dhamma refers to dhamma which depends on other dhammas which condition its arising, whereas sa.nkhata dhamma refers to dhamma which has been conditioned to arise and then falls away. ---------- N: We have to apply this to the present moment: sound appears, and this means: it has been conditioned already (sa.nkhata) so that it can appear and then it falls away. -------- > J: ...In consciousness, it arranges the condition of consciousness- > hood (vinnanattaya). As it arranges conditions, O monks, it is > called conditioning." > > As you can see I used the word conditioning, but as was pointed out > this can be confused with paccaya. > > I'd like to know how the process of arrangement, here, would be > described in Abhidhamma. > ------ N: See Survey. The Abhidhamma always pertains to the present moment, reality now. Nothing to do with theory. That is why Acharn Sujin reminds us not to be fixed upon names and terms, but to remember that the present reality has to be known as it is. The sole purpose of the abhidhamma is understanding anattaness of realities. We cannot create seeing or hearing, these are mere dhammas arisen because of conditions. We really have to consider this often, otherwise it is all the time: I see, I hear. -------- > > J:I have also seen it translated "concoctions" & "confections". If > I'm not mistaken, Edward Conze does that. > ------ N: I have seen many translations, but never mind about these names. It is the reality that matters. It is anattaa. Nobody can concoct them. ------ Nina. #127476 From: "jagkrit2012" Han: [Note 43] is very important. Only two ("seeing" and "development") of the seven methods mentioned in the sutta, are effective for the removal of the taints, leading to the four supramundane paths. The other five methods cannot directly accomplish the destruction of the taints, but they can keep them under control during the preparatory stages of practice and thereby facilitate their eventual eradication by the supramundane paths. --------------- Nina: Acharn Sujin reminds us all the time to never forget that whatever we read in the texts pertains to the present moment. We can read suttas in a different way, keeping this in mind. When I read about the different ways of abandoning the aasavas, whatever way this may be, not to be forgetful of mindfulness of the present reality. I keep in mind that each of these ways pertains to satipa.t.thaana now, at this moment. we read all the time. This is no mere thinking, it is pa~n~naa. He is aware and understands the reality now, and the purpose is penetrating the anattaness of dhammas, no matter in what situation. I can eat with attachment, or, I can consider food as a medicine of the body to keep it going. Not a self reflects in this way, it is conditioned, conditioned by listening to the dhamma. Take: [2] Taints to be abandoned by restraining [2] Sa.mvaraa pahaatabbaasavaa Here I think of indriya sa.mvara siila: this is satipa.t.thaana. Sati and pa~n~naa, awareness and right understanding of whatever appears through one of the six doorways. Visible object appears: we learn that it is not a person or a thing, but just a conditioned dhamma appearing through the eyes. The translator wrote: I think they should not be seen as something apart from pa.tipatti, they are pa.tipatti. Take adhivasana, patience in the situations of daily life. When there is awareness of naama or ruupa that appears now, there is khanti, patience. All these aspects pertain to satipa.t.thaana now. ---------------- Han: Excellent, Nina. I appreciate very much your very useful comments. The main purpose of my presentation is to get such very valuable advice, as it is a part of my learning process. Now, I am rewarded. Thank you very much. with metta and respect, Han #127478 From: Nina van Gorkom Han: Excellent, Nina. I appreciate very much your very useful > comments. The main purpose of my presentation is to get such very > valuable advice, as it is a part of my learning process. Now, I am > rewarded. ----- N: I really appreciate your sympathetic reaction. We all are in a learning process. When I repeat what I learnt from Acharn Sujin, I feel that I have to remind myself, since I am often forgetful. That is why I like to write about the Dhamma, it helps me too. WE need all the reminders that we can possibly get. life is too short. How I realize this fact these days! Nina. #127479 From: "philip" I said to Sarah that I have such a difficult time, but > that it helps when Lukas and Phil ask questions. That takes me away > from my own sorrow. And here you are with your questions. Ph: Glad to be of help. Tp be honest, these days it is hard for me to find questions, because I have faith in just listening, listening, listening and letting things sink in... > > > N: Well said. We cannot really understand momentary death if we do > not understand seeing, hearing now and later on their arising and > passing away. But still it is good to know about seeing death in this > way, it makes death more natural, not something to be frightened about. > ------- Ph; It is proving to be helpful to you in the most challenging of situations. If there are conditions for you to find it encouraging, it shows that panna has developed to the degree that it is able to find encouragement in that subtle understanding. And that panna developed not from analysis of difficult texts, but from understanding seeing now, hearing now. At least that is my opinion. By the way, why do you think it is that there is such a central importance for understanding seeing and visible object in the Dhamma? (It is not just Ajahn's teaching, of course, in suttas, too, seeing and visible object come first in the dhatus.) Is it because visible object arises more than other objects? Or is more evident? I know already that the answer will be "no rules", but I will ask anyways! Phil #127480 From: han tun wrote: N: I really appreciate your sympathetic reaction. We all are in a learning process. When I repeat what I learnt from Acharn Sujin, I feel that I have to remind myself, since I am often forgetful. That is why I like to write about the Dhamma, it helps me too. WE need all the reminders that we can possibly get. life is too short. How I realize this fact these days! Nina. #127481 From: "Yawares Sastri" J:Places in Sutta where the term "Abhidhamma" is used [...] We need to be careful not to read in later concepts. Just like word abhivinaya does not refer to abhivinaya pitaka, in such a way "abhidhamma" does not need to refer to Abhidhamma pitaka (of which school?) It most likely means more technical or deep discussions of Dhamma as found in the suttas. You probably know that there are suttas that are filled with mythology, stories and there are suttas which are filled with complex and deep teachings. With best wishes, Alex #127484 From: Nina van Gorkom By the way, why do you think it is that there is such a central > importance for understanding seeing and visible object in the > Dhamma? (It is not just Ajahn's teaching, of course, in suttas, > too, seeing and visible object come first in the dhatus.) Is it > because visible object arises more than other objects? Or is more > evident? I know already that the answer will be "no rules", but I > will ask anyways! ------ N: There is seeing all the time and we are so attached to visible object and we take it for a person or a thing instead of knowing it as a conditioned dhamma. Even when looking at photos of Lodewijk, I think lots of stories and I am attached to the picture. There is . But, fortunately, I also think of his kusala citta with appreciation, when I see him in India, paying respect to the Buddha's relics, or in Kuru, the place where the Buddha preached the satipa.t.thaanasutta. Perhaps we are attached most of all through the eye-door. But as you say, no rule. I listened to a Thai recording where Kh Sujin mentioned that Lodewijk arranged the place of Kuru to be cleaned and taken care of. It was in an awful state, but Lodewijk spoke to a colleague who was foreign secretary. TRees were planted and it was surrounded by a fence. Kh Sujin also mentioned his memoires (in Dutch) he had just finished. I had told her that he kept his own person on the background and would rather mention and praise other people. Kh Sujin repeated this in Thai for the public. ------ Nina. AdChoices #127485 From: Nina van Gorkom Is seeing wrong view? > > This gives me a lot of thought. ------ N: After seeing we always think that there is someone or something that stays, we have accumulated this idea. When we firmly believe this it is wrong view, personality belief. But hard to pinpoint when it is just clinging and when clinging with wrong view. We better not try. By the way, do you listen to Kh Sujin's radio programs? When in Thailand I always bring my small transistor so that I can tune in. I love it and I know the kosana (advertisement, like for a cold) that precedes the program, or the monks talking at midday. Nina. #127486 From: "truth_aerator" result requires at least two separate dhammas. How do we know there is connection between them? We can observe certain pattern, pattern of events, and then use inductive reasoning that the same pattern of events will be true in the future. But where is the certainty? We don't know and cannot know absolutely everything. Who knows what factor will play out in the future... With best wishes, Alex #127487 From: "jagkrit2012" Ph: Is it because visible object arises more than other objects? Or is more > > evident? I know already that the answer will be "no rules", but I > > will ask anyways! > ------ > N: There is seeing all the time and we are so attached to visible > object and we take it for a person or a thing instead of knowing it > as a conditioned dhamma. Even when looking at photos of Lodewijk, I > think lots of stories and I am attached to the picture. --------- JJ: I think about all 6 doors. When we're seeing visible objects, then we think. When we're hearing, we think. The same as smelling, tasting and touching, we also think. Or we just think. In our sleep, we also think. It seems to me that thinking in mind door arising more than other doors. But succession of seeing and other sense doors comparing to succession of mind door is different. That, in my opinion, makes us see that seeing arises more than others. ---------- > N: Fortunately, I also think of his kusala citta with > appreciation, when I see him in India, paying respect to the Buddha's > relics, or in Kuru, the place where the Buddha preached the > satipa.t.thaanasutta. Perhaps we are attached most of all through the > eye-door. But as you say, no rule. > I listened to a Thai recording where Kh Sujin mentioned that Lodewijk > arranged the place of Kuru to be cleaned and taken care of. It was in > an awful state, but Lodewijk spoke to a colleague who was foreign > secretary. TRees were planted and it was surrounded by a fence. Kh > Sujin also mentioned his memoires (in Dutch) he had just finished. I > had told her that he kept his own person on the background and would > rather mention and praise other people. Kh Sujin repeated this in > Thai for the public. ------------- JJ: Yes, I've heard T.A. Sujin mentioned about Lodewijk's project of renovating Kuru. Everybody was so happy and anumodhana for this precious work because everyone knows this place very well and recalls that the place used to be dwelling of noble people who developed satipatthana and the Lord Bhudda gave satipatthana sutta here. Kuru shouldn't left abandon like before Lodewijk's arrangement. I visited Kuru last year with friends from foundation and T.A. Sujin. Kuru is well taken care of and is one of several stops for many Bhuddists to worship in India. And we also had one hour dhamma discussion under big trees in the place. It was very suppaya. Again I anumodhana for kusala citta of Lodewijk and colleagues who made Kuru become perfect place for us and many others to develop kusala there. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #127488 From: "jagkrit2012" N: After seeing we always think that there is someone or something > that stays, we have accumulated this idea. When we firmly believe > this it is wrong view, personality belief. But hard to pinpoint when > it is just clinging and when clinging with wrong view. We better not > try. ----------- JJ: Thank you very much for reminding that we better not try to pinpoint wrong view. It is impossible, isn't it? ------------ > By the way, do you listen to Kh Sujin's radio programs? When in > Thailand I always bring my small transistor so that I can tune in. I > love it and I know the kosana (advertisement, like for a cold) that > precedes the program, or the monks talking at midday. ------------- JJ: I rarely listen to radio program because I like to pickup certain discussion I'm interested. It is easy to use CD, MP3 and Dhammahome website. And of course you know radio in Thailand, especial AM frequent, there always be a lot of signal distraction beside radio commercial intervene. But somehow it brings back some old surrounding memory very well. with respect and anumodhana Jagkrit #127489 From: "philip" JJ: I think about all 6 doors. When we're seeing visible objects, then we think. When we're hearing, we think. The same as smelling, tasting and touching, we also think. Or we just think. In our sleep, we also think. It seems to me that thinking in mind door arising more than other doors. But succession of seeing and other sense doors comparing to succession of mind door is different. That, in my opinion, makes us see that seeing arises more than others. "But succession of seeing and other sense doors comparing to succession of mind door is different." Can you explain more what you mean by that, Jagrkrit? Thanks. About Lodewijk, only thinking. I think of the picture of him and Nina holding hands, but I think mostly of his voice because I heard that much more than saw visible objects that thinking made into "lodewijk." I think of his confident voice saying "then that man *will* (do some kusala, I forget which.) Lodewijk is not more or less real to me than he was when he was alive. This might sound insenstive, but I think Nina only knew Lodewijk as a dream when he was alive and only knows Lodewijk as a dream now. When we go through daily life, it is always a dream, we are lost in sea of concepts based on accumulated defilemets rising in response to seeing, hearing etc. When Nina was with Lodewijk in a restaurant, discussing Dhamma, there was no direct experience of Lodewijk, there was no Lodewijk to be directly experienced (I think there was a physiological being that came to be known as Lodewikj but that is irrelevant) across the table, or even when holding hands. Our loved ones can never be directly experienced, only known as impersonal dhammas (vis object, sound, etc..) and concept thought about. So in the famous teaching that one aspect of dukkha is that we will be separated from our loved ones, a subtler aspect is that we are never ever really *with* our loved ones, there is no union, only togetherness through thinking about each other. We are never truly ONE with our loved ones. And that is dukkha. We know them only in a dream, now that we are with them in the same roon, when they are away at work, and when they have passed on, when we look at them in a photo, when we hold their hand and sit silently together, all a dream... But when we are friends in Dhamma, we can share understanding. Moments of understanding help us know that our love for each other is akusala rooted in lobha and moha. But there are moments of understanding that make gaps in all that lobha, and through our shared understanding, moments of metta and karuna and other kusala can shine through. Islands of understanding in the sea of concepts, in the sea of lobha moha. Nina and Lodewijk had so many Dhamma discussions over the years, Nina read to him, and I'm sure he read to her. Understanding deepened, and all the perfections. With Lodewijk I think a lot of the perfection of truthfulness. He didn't accept everything he heard from A.Sujin so easily, questioned it a lot, I'm sure in a very headstrong way sometimes. Truthfulness too about the difficulty of understanding sati, and I share that. And his interest in Dhamma turns out to be a kind of gift to his dear Nina, because she can have confidence that her dear Lodewijk benefited from Dhamma, had the treasure of Dhamma. They shared that greatest dana with each other. And yet, they were never really together, always a dream of each other, can never be anything more than that. Understanding understands that, gradually there is a deepening of understanding and ever so gradually moving towards liberations from sickness, old age, death and separation from the loved one, which doesn't just mean a final parting, but also means in a more subtle way never being together in the first place, knowing each other always in a dream... I envy the reassurance that couples who can share Dhamma have. Nina and Lodewijk, Sarah and Jon, Jagkrit and his wife, Tep and Yawares, and I'm sure so many others. They share the greatest gift with each other, and there can be more moments of understanding amoung all the inevitable moments of sorrow. My dear Naomi cannot share an interest in Dhamma. Maybe someday, who knows. It can't be forced. Phil #127490 From: "sarah" wrote: > In the end one just wants less suffering, more wisdom and all kusuala cittas ect. ... S: This is the problem.... all that wanting will never bring what one wants.... .... > One can study Abidhamma for intellectual understanding. Which is no doubt a smart thing to do. > The question is what happens next? .... S: It's not about 'next' - it's about 'now', seeing now, visible object now.... ... > I think after a while, everybody have a tendency to ask more and more questions, get into smaller details... Is this a way? ... S: Again, not about 'a way', but about the citta now. ... > > There is (A) world of delusion with concepts, self, ditthi, and this very discussion as well :) and > (B) the ulimate truth, which can not be explained with words and concepts, it can be only hinted at. ... S: Ultimate truths - seeing, visible object, thinking..... the Buddha had no difficulty explaining in words and concepts. If we think realities, dhammas, ultimate truths, can only be 'hinted at', perhaps we need to hear and consider more about what is 'ultimate truth' now. ... > > What is the way from A to B? ... S: Understanding reality now is the only way - not by wanting or trying to get anywhere, but just for the sake of understanding the truth now. ... > > The difficulty is not use the language of (B) ultimate truth to describe where to start and language (A) to describe where to finish. ... S: The only difficulty is the ignorance at this moment. Metta Sarah ==== #127491 From: "sarah" wrote: > > S: Sanna remembers and marks at every moment and with every citta. So even at moments of seeing and hearing, sanna is remembering and marking the object experienced. It's never lost. The sanna accumulates remembering what has been marked before. > > >PT: Thanks for further detail. Probably the main thing I remember from discussion is that it's not marks that accumulate nor are they stored somewhere. But it is marking in fact, or sanna, that accumulates. Whereas marks in fact have to do with the object, not with sanna, as I think you say below. .... S: Yes, if the objects did not have their particular signs, sanna could not mark them and the recognition and remembrance of those signs could not be accumulated. ... > > S:The marks are the particular characteristics of the object, the signs which are interpreted by thinking as being this or that. Each visible object is different because it has a different characteristic. If there were no sanna marking the various realities experienced, there'd be no pleasant and unpleasant feelings on account of them, no thoughts or stories about people, places and things. > > > > When sanna marks concepts, they are remembered. > > I was wondering about this - when there's marking of concepts, what are the marks or characteristics of a concept at the time? ... S: There are marks or signs of realities and marks or signs of concepts. For example, in the development of insight, it is the sign, nimitta, of a reality that is known. In the development of samatha, it is the sign, nimitta, of a concept that is usually known. A baby learns that 'm' represents 'Mummy', the sign of that concept is marked, remembered and recalled. What is being marked now? Is it with sanna accompanying kusala or akusala citta? f it's 'trying to work it out' with doubt, there can be awareness and understanding now of the mark of doubt or thinking. Or seeing or visible object now? Marking at every single moment. Metta Sarah ===== #127492 From: "sarah" wrote: > > >H: What, if any, is the difference between nimitta and thinking? > > ... > > S: Thinking refers to namas, those realities which experience an idea or > > concept. Nimitta can never experience anything. It refers to the sign of > > reality or a concept which is experienced. > > .... > > > >H: Thanks for that. > > What is the difference between (visible) object and nimitta - is nimitta a > necessary idea to prop up a theory, or are nimitta and object > experientially differentiable in some way? .... S: Each conditioned dhamma has a nimitta, a 'sign'. Nibbana is the only signless reality. Through the mind-door, it is always the sign of the conditioned reality which is experienced, the sign that is left behind after the reality itself has fallen away. For example, visible object is seen in the eye-door process. In the following mind-door process, it's characteristic of sign can be directly known. For all intents and purposes it is the same visible object that is known, a perfect replica or photocopy. If it's confusing or leads to doubts, just forget it. ... > > Even now, it can be proved that it's impossible to see without an object > > seen, impossible to hear without an object heard, impossible to think > > without an idea thought about. > > ... > Sure, as long as we are talking about daily life stuff. ... S: What can be known now is present "daily life stuff". .... > > But imagine the following: > > "Further, Ananda, the monk — not attending to the perception of the > dimension of nothingness, not attending to the perception of the dimension > of neither perception nor non-perception — attends to the singleness based > on the theme-less concentration of awareness. His mind takes pleasure, > finds satisfaction, settles, & indulges in its theme-less concentration of > awareness. (MN121) > > > Why construe an object where there isn't any? ... S: Which is the objectless citta? First the passage above is referring to objects of arupa jhanas. The "dimension of nothingnss" is a concept and the following one is the citta which experienced this. Following this, "the singleness based on the theme-less concentration of awareness". According to B.Bodhi's note in his translation, this is animitta cetsosamaadhi and the commentary makes it clear this is referrring to "the concentration of the mind in insight; it is called 'signless', because it is devoid of the signs of permanence,etc'. The animitta object is nibbana. I'll be interested to read of any more examples you have in mind. ... > > > I imagine this means the Buddha is saying that your sources are put to > > > grief :-) > > ... > > S: Ha, ha! Check my sources and you'll see which ones come to grief :-) > > ... > I guess as long as we are checking sources, what the world is empty of will > remain very unnoticed :-) ... S: What the six worlds are empty of is self. Metta Sarah ==== #127493 From: "sarah" wrote: > JJ: You just pointed out some consideration about the conditions for the bhikkhu to blame Ven. Sariputtra. Besides the conditions which have arised from that bhikkhu's accumulation, it might be some other conditions (arammana pacaaya) arising from Ven.Sariputtra and caused that bhikkhu to falsely accuse Ven.Sariputtra. This can be the reason why Ven.Sariputtra asked for forgiveness from that bhikkhu himself. It is very delicate matter where the one who had high panna like Ven.Sariputtra could see. And with his great humility, he seeked for forgivenss from his fellow bhikkhu as well. This can be very good example for us. Like you said sometimes we do things with good intention but who knows many time that thing can condition others in the opposite expectation (like on DSG, of course !!). We should always apologise. > ... S: Yes, I agree. You've put it well. It's good to be like the dustrag or beggar child or the earth that accepts anything that comes. Metta Sarah ==== #127494 From: "sarah" wrote: > I have not talked in terms of things being beyond control in the conventional sense, as I do not think that is part of what the Buddha was talking about. > > In terms of dhammas, however, there is the notion of them being 'not subject to mastery' as an explanation of the characteristic of anatta. In fact, it was you who came up with the commentary text on this, in a post to Rob E, if I recall correctly. Do you still have the reference? Perhaps you could remind us of the passage. .... S: This was one of the good passages KC quoted: >KC: Commentary to the Girimananda Sutta (wheel publication) pg 9 >then pg 16 <<(ii) In the description of the Contemplation of no-self, The Eye has as its characteristic the sensitivity of the primary elements of matter that is ready for the impact of visible ob jects; or its characteristic is sensitivity of primary elements originated by kamma sourcing from desire to see (Vis. 444); or the eye is what enjoys and makes manifest a visible object. Is NOT-SELF: it is not- self, nor is it possessed of a self. Why? Because it does not come from anywhere, nor does it go anywhere after its fall. But rather, before its rise it had no individual reality; and after its fall its individual reality is completely broken up. And it occurs without any creator since it occurs bctween the past and the future in dependence on conditions (Vis. 484). The reason for no-self in each case should understood in the same way. VISIBLE OBJECTS have the characteristic of impinging on the eye (Vis. 446). It is the visible-objet base that evidences the state of what is in the heart when that is undergoing a change of colour (Vis. 481). IS NOT-SELF: it is not-self, nor is it possessed of a self, because it is not susceptible of mastery and because of the absence of any core of self in it.>> ... Metta Sarah ===== #127495 From: "sarah" wrote: > Sarah: The most important thing to remember is that in actuality there is no "one" to make and effort or do anything. When the conditions are in place, sammaa di.t.thi, sammaa sa"nkappo and the other factors arise and experience nibbaana. At this moment of (noble) path consciousness, the various anusaya (latent tendencies) are eradicated according to the level of attainment. > > Han: I still cannot appreciate [The most important thing to remember is that in actuality there is no "one" to make and effort or do anything.] As I said before, from the point of view of paramattha saccaa you are right. But I still cannot appreciate that. I know it is my shortcoming. ... S: At the moment of wise reflection or understanding of the Dhamma or dhammas, there's no idea of anyone making an effort. Right effort is there already. For example, when there's reflecting now on the Buddha's virtues, such as his great compassion (as you quoted), at such times of wise consideration, there's no thought of 'me' and 'my effort' or doing anything at all. Likewise, when there's wise reflection on or understanding of a reality appearing now, such as visible object, sound, like, dislike, again there's no thought at such moments of anyone 'doing anything'. Afterwards, maybe. When there's a desire for certain results, then bound to be. ... > > --------------- > Han: What I wanted to know was how do these factors -- thinking (takko), thought (vitakko), intention (sa"nkappo), mental absorption (appanaa), mental fixity (byappanaa), directing of mind (cetaso abhiniropanaa), verbal formation (vaciisa"nkhaaro) -- help mundane right sa"nkappa to become supramundane right sa"nkappa? > > But it is alright. Maybe, my question itself is invalid. ... S: I think the key is the development of sammaa di.t.thi. which is assisted by sammaa sa"nkappo. As the right understanding continues to develop, understanding the nature of conditioned realities more and more precisely through the stages of insight, it leads to the supramundane path. At this time, sammaa sa"nkappo (vitakka cetasika), directs the magga citta to nibbana with appanaa (absorption). Vitakka always directs the citta to its object, but because of the right understanding and other path factors, at this time it is nibbana which is the object. Your question is valid, but I may not have answered it! Metta Sarah p.s. We are travelling on Thursday and will be travelling very soon after to Vietnam, so bound to be delays in replies. Will continue to read your series and other posts. ======= #127496 From: "sarah" wrote: > Now what you bring up reminds us that there is an actual pre-conceptual level to experience where experience is simply & purely an experience, prior to any & all methodical dividing. > > How is the gap bridged, however? If we say there is at once "only seeing" & yet there is also 1) the eye, 2) the object & 3) visual consciousness, how can these two facts be reconciled? ... S: When there is seeing (visual consciousness), there must be an object of seeing and there must be eye-sense for the seeing to occur. There must also be other mental factors arising. However, at a moment of awareness, only one reality appears. If that reality is seeing, there's no doubt that it is just seeing, a dhamma which experiences visible object. Nothing else at all. ... > > You write, "for seeing to experience visible object there must be the object, eye-sense, various mental factors such as contact arising or having arisen (in the case of the visible object and eye-sense) at that moment. This doesn't mean that they are experienced at this time." & I agree. The notion of a seeing apart from the conditions of seeing is monstrous --- like asking one how long a rabbit's horns are. > > But what would one say to someone who insists on non-conceptuality? > > I find it useful at this stage to refer to experience as it feels in the moment & look at it in terms of this non-conceptuality using the same method. For instance, if someone acknowledges that there is a perception of change, how do they philosophically account for it outside of inference? And if they cannot account for it outside of inference, are they not then admitting that their experience involves an experience-of-inference &, even worse, are they not admitting that experience as it is commonly felt *requires* a degree of inference, without which the experience of change is not possible? ... S: I'd say in response to your first question that this is all thinking about concepts, nothing to do with understanding of realities as taught by the Buddha. ... > > Of course, Buddha's statements to Bahiya make it clear that it is not necessary for Bahiya to see things in a way different to how experience is commonly felt --- which, at the same time, leads to deathlessness. ... S: "How experience is commonly felt" is just indicative of the ignorance which sees the world. The realities which Bahiya understood are the realities that make up life now - seeing, the seen, hearing, the heard, thinking and so on. What was clear to him was that there are just these realities, no self at all. ... > And it would be far easier to allow the two statements --- of the 3 afforementioned factors of seeing & allowing seeing to be what it is on its own --- to go on unopposed, insofar as there is not an inherent opposition in the statements. > > But I might be missing something here --- it's happened before. :) .... S: What is missing for us all is the present understanding of the realities appearing now. We are all experts at thinking about all kinds of ideas and concepts, but what about the understanding now of 'the seeing' and 'the seen'? Metta Sarah p.s As I said to Han, there will be lots of delays in my replies for the next couple of weeks. Also Jon's. ======= #127497 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han, > Sarah: The most important thing to remember is that in actuality there is no "one" to make and effort or do anything. When the conditions are in place, sammaa di.t.thi, sammaa sa"nkappo and the other factors arise and experience nibbaana. At this moment of (noble) path consciousness, the various anusaya (latent tendencies) are eradicated according to the level of attainment. #127498 From: han tun wrote: Han: Again, I have no disagreement to your above comments. But what I was thinking was in mundane right sa"nkappa, the Buddha used only one word [sa"nkappo]. Whereas, in supramundane right sa"nkappa the Buddha used so many words: [takko] [vitakko] [sa"nkappo] [appanaa] [byappanaa] [cetaso abhiniropanaa] [vaciisa"nkhaaro]. So, I thought each word must have significant meaning which is more forceful than just one word [sa"nkappo]. The Buddha will not waste words un-necessarily. Anyway I will accept your above explanation. with metta and respect, Han --- On Tue, 10/30/12, sarah wrote: Dear Han, > Sarah: The most important thing to remember is that in actuality there is no "one" to make and effort or do anything. When the conditions are in place, sammaa di.t.thi, sammaa sa"nkappo and the other factors arise and experience nibbaana. At this moment of (noble) path consciousness, the various anusaya (latent tendencies) are eradicated according to the level of attainment. #127499 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Herman, group > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Well said. > > > > Would you say that an irreducible such as the rupa of nutriment, or the > > irreducible rupa of life-force is illustrative of something real, and/or > > not capable of being further reduced? > > > > I would hesitate to call these irreducible just as I would hesitate to > call them reducible, but they certainly serve as limits to experience, & > fit Philip K Dick's definition as things we can't send to oblivion based on > our unbelief. > > I would agree that breathing and eating are sine-qua-non, essentials that define us. But that is hardly sufficient ground to posit an atom of breath or an atom of nutrition. Without experience or insight of such, we open the door to armchair scholasticism. Just as a thought, I wonder how Phillip K Dick would process our very real sense of self? > But reading this led to me question if I understand Abhidhamma's teaching > on rupa properly. I must admit that rupa (as well as the 24 patthana) is an > area I haven't delved into as deeply as I have cittas & cetasikas, but I > have went this far in my studies understanding the upadaya rupas to be > reducible, ultimately, to the four mahabhutas, while at the same time > occurring in the flow of experience as definite "wholes" &, therefore, > serving as paramattha dhammas also. > > I am fuzzy on this, though: there is certainly a distinction between the > way that the body viscerally forces us to start breathing again & the > reduction of this experience into components. At any time, the mahabhutas > serve as an undercurrent of necessary parts to the architecture of > experience of physicality --- that is, we cannot even begin to describe an > experience of physicality without recourse to extension (pathavi), heat > (tejo), motion (vayu) & cohesion (apo). Also, though, there is the definite > presence of the derived or upadaya rupas in experience of physicality also > --- that is, we cannot conceive of an upadaya rupa without the mahabhutas, > but we can conceive of the mahabhutas without a particular upadaya. > > If you dislike the word "conceive" here, take it as "limit to mundane > experience". > > Now my questions are: > > Are upadaya rupas ultimately reducible to mahabhutas? > This question has its corollary in physics - is the universe reducible to the four forces (strong / weak nuclear, electromagnetic, gravity). I am not in a position to answer either of them, but it's always fun to speculate :-) > > If so, is there a subtle similarity between how upadaya rupas & mahabhutas > relate compared with how cittas & cetasikas relate? It is something I am > picking up on. > > Assuming I'm not way out to lunch here, it would seem that there is a > subtle distinction in the way that component parts can themselves serve as > elements of experience while at the same time forming complexes which occur > as new, though derivable elements of the same experience. The pain of > embarrassment, for instance, is truly felt & is therefore real but the way > the dialogue internally occurs in the mind that gives rise to such > embarrassment is based on unreal things. > > Your thoughts? > I do think this sort of material is very interesting, you will always find me very willing to speculate, and I do not dismiss any of it. But I see this as psychological theory, not as Dhamma. I do not think that pursuing the in's and out's of every conceivable combination of phenomenon and condition will add an iota of impetus to the project of the Buddha - the ending of suffering. Being intent on determining the exact composition of an embedded poisonous dart is hardly useful :-) > > in Dhamma > - Josh > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127500 From: sarah abbott wrote: > > I would agree that breathing and eating are sine-qua-non, essentials that > define us. But that is hardly sufficient ground to posit an atom of breath > or an atom of nutrition. Without experience or insight of such, we open the > door to armchair scholasticism. > Two points: a) I wouldn't say "atom", here. I would say "dynamic force". And the distinction between mahabhuta & upadaya might bridge the gap between a "dynamic force" being reducible to smaller qualities while at the same time possessing an perceptual unity that is an altogether different order than a mere pannatti. I'm trying to be succinct but if I'm too succinct here, let me know. b) I think the division between "insight" & "armchair scholasticism" is a distinction necessary & some circles, but in discussing Abhidhamma & Vipassana it isn't a distinction that applies. The vipassana manuals I have read *do* make a point of being able to perceive some of the teachings of Abhidhamma directly, in which case a prior theoretical foundation in them is not objectionable. And besides, we never know what we know until we suddenly know it. :) > Just as a thought, I wonder how Phillip K Dick would process our very real > sense of self? He'd doubt it, I'm sure. > > I do think this sort of material is very interesting, you will always find > me very willing to speculate, and I do not dismiss any of it. > > But I see this as psychological theory, not as Dhamma. I do not think that > pursuing the in's and out's of every conceivable combination of phenomenon > and condition will add an iota of impetus to the project of the Buddha - > the ending of suffering. Being intent on determining the exact composition > of an embedded poisonous dart is hardly useful :-) > I would say it depends on you look at "Dhamma." I don't know if you do, but as you might know there are some who pit Sutta against Abhidhamma, & "older" Sutta against "newer" Sutta. I'm not in that camp. So for me, dhamma is all three pitakas (though I'm obviously not a bhikkhu, so much of the vinaya is not applicable). And I figure if it exists in there, it *could* be useful. The Theras seem to think so. in Dhamma - Josh #127503 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear All, > > How can we know about conditionality or causality other than through > inference (inductive thinking)? > > We can't. We can know about some of dependent origination, just by association. This being followed by that is all we can say with certainty. It get's a bit trickier already with the converse. It takes more than just association to know that in the absence of this, that is absent. > Can we see, hear, smell, taste, touch such and such cause or condition? No. > > True. > Cause-Effect or condition->result requires at least two separate dhammas. > How do we know there is connection between them? > > Apart from sequence, we know nozzzzing :-) > We can observe certain pattern, pattern of events, and then use inductive > reasoning that the same pattern of events will be true in the future. But > where is the certainty? We don't know and cannot know absolutely > everything. Who knows what factor will play out in the future... > Exactly. Let's be grateful for this wisdom: "There is the case where a monk reminds himself of this: At present I am young, black-haired, endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life. The time will come, though, when this body is beset by old age. When one is overcome with old age and decay, it is not easy to pay attention to the Buddha's teachings. It is not easy to reside in isolated forest or wilderness dwellings. Before this unwelcome, disagreeable, displeasing thing happens, let me first make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized, so that — endowed with that Dhamma — I will live in peace even when old. — I will live in peace even when ill. — I will live in peace even when there is famine. — I will live in peace even when there is danger. — I will live in peace even when the Sangha is split. > > With best wishes, > Alex > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127504 From: "Yawares Sastri" JJ: Yes, I've heard T.A. Sujin mentioned about Lodewijk's project > of renovating Kuru. Everybody was so happy and anumodhana for this > precious work because everyone knows this place very well and > recalls that the place used to be dwelling of noble people who > developed satipatthana and the Lord Bhudda gave satipatthana sutta > here. Kuru shouldn't left abandon like before Lodewijk's > arrangement. I visited Kuru last year with friends from foundation > and T.A. Sujin. Kuru is well taken care of and is one of several > stops for many Bhuddists to worship in India. And we also had one > hour dhamma discussion under big trees in the place. It was very > suppaya. > > Again I anumodhana for kusala citta of Lodewijk and colleagues who > made Kuru become perfect place for us and many others to develop > kusala there. #127507 From: "philip" . We know them only in a dream, now that we are with them in the > same room, when they are away at work, and when they have passed > on, when we look at them in a photo, when we hold their hand and > sit silently together, all a dream... ------ N: Yes, like a dream. But the only way to understand is being aware more often of seeing, hearing, thinking. ----- > > Ph: But when we are friends in Dhamma, we can share understanding. > Moments of understanding help us know that our love for each other > is akusala rooted in lobha and moha. ------ N: Not all the time. But you agree, when I read on: > Ph: But there are moments of understanding that make gaps in all > that lobha, and through our shared understanding, moments of metta > and karuna and other kusala can shine through. Islands of > understanding in the sea of concepts, in the sea of lobha moha. ------- Thanks for your nice words, Nina. #127509 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:30 am Subject: Re: Is conditionality (24 paccayas) conceptual or ultimate? How can we know? kenhowardau Hi Alex and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear All, > > How can we know about conditionality or causality other than through inference (inductive thinking)? ------ KH: It all depends on what you mean by "we." When the Buddha used that kind of conventional language he was actually referring to the five khandhas (five classifications of conditioned dhammas) coming together for just one fleeting moment of consciousness. So are you referring to the five khandhas, or are you referring to permanent beings? If (like the Buddha) you are referring to a single moment of consciousness then, yes, conditionality can be directly known. If (unlike the Buddha) you are referring to illusionary permanent beings then, no, illusions cannot know anything, either directly or through inference. ----------- > A: Can we see, hear, smell, taste, touch such and such cause or condition? No. Cause-Effect or condition->result requires at least two separate dhammas. How do we know there is connection between them? We can observe certain pattern, pattern of events, and then use inductive reasoning that the same pattern of events will be true in the future. But where is the certainty? We don't know and cannot know absolutely everything. Who knows what factor will play out in the future... ----------- KH: I agree, for as long as we are lost in a sea of illusions the situation is hopeless. Ken H #127510 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Dear Howard, Rob E, and any others on the US East coast, > > Do hope you, your family and friends are all safe and well. Thank you Sarah! DC was not hit quite as hard - our lights flickered, the wind was high, but no new trees against the condo building, and we kept our electricity! We are in the middle of packing and moving everything to sell this place and move into a new house - had to cancel the movers til Friday because of the storm, so samsara looks a lot like over 300 boxes at the moment. Strangely I don't mind being in the middle of all the boxes with most things packed up. Life seems weirdly normal with storm, boxes and all. It's funny that we are still extremely tight on cash flow and paying our bills, but as it turns out once the smoke clears, our monthly payments will be the same in this nice house as it is in the little condo because of certain tax deductions and other things, so it is a good move, even in the middle of a storm! I hope we hear from Howard - downtown Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn were just literally swamped with water. I saw pics of NYC with large currents flooding through it. I'm very glad my parents are here in DC and not at their NY apartment. Howard may be without internet, but hopefully we'll hear from him soon. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #127511 From: "truth_aerator" KH: It all depends on what you mean by "we." When the Buddha used that kind of conventional language he was actually referring to the five khandhas (five classifications of conditioned dhammas) coming together for just one fleeting moment of consciousness. > > So are you referring to the five khandhas, or are you referring to permanent beings? > > If (like the Buddha) you are referring to a single moment of >consciousness then, yes, conditionality can be directly known. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How can a single momentary citta directly experience multiple cittas (in order to directly experience conditionality)? With best wishes, Alex #127512 From: han tun > . We know them only in a dream, now that we are with them in the > > same room, when they are away at work, and when they have passed > > on, when we look at them in a photo, when we hold their hand and > > sit silently together, all a dream... > ------ > N: Yes, like a dream. But the only way to understand is being aware > more often of seeing, hearing, thinking. I heard A.S tell someone that the cause of seeing is tanha. Tanha causes the kamma that causes the vipaka that is seeing. I guess that is nothing new for everyone here (including me, come to think of it) but still interesting. I also heard her say seeing is dangerous, so many defilements arise from seeing. Of course that doesn't mean we avoid seeing, but we understand that sooo (Azita impersonation) many kilesas arise from seeing. And in one form that is attachment to people, including the loved one. But yes, moments of understanding, islands of kusala in all that akusala attachment. And probably more for people who listen to the Dhamma than for those who don't, that's safe to say on the whole... Phil #127514 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:23 pm Subject: Re: Is conditionality (24 paccayas) conceptual or ultimate? How can we know? kenhowardau Hi Alex, ---- > A: How can a single momentary citta directly experience multiple cittas (in order to directly experience conditionality)? ---- KH: I'll try to answer that question, but hopefully someone else will also answer it. I certainly don't think multiple cittas are required. I think conditionality is experienced every time panna experiences a conditioned dhamma. In other words, I think "dukkha" is synonymous with "conditioned." When a monk sees a reality as dukkha he sees it as conditioned. That doesn't explain how individual conditions are experienced (if they are at all) but, as I said, I hope someone else will answer your question. My guess is no one, except a Buddha, can ever know the exact conditions that have caused a given dhamma-arammana to arise. It's just like the workings of kamma [condition] and vipakka, which are described as acintana (unknowable). Ken H AdChoices #127515 From: "jrg493" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > ---- > > A: How can a single momentary citta directly experience multiple cittas (in order to directly experience conditionality)? > ---- > > KH: I'll try to answer that question, but hopefully someone else will also answer it. > > I certainly don't think multiple cittas are required. I think conditionality is experienced every time panna experiences a conditioned dhamma. > > In other words, I think "dukkha" is synonymous with "conditioned." > When a monk sees a reality as dukkha he sees it as conditioned. > > That doesn't explain how individual conditions are experienced (if they are at all) but, as I said, I hope someone else will answer your question. > > My guess is no one, except a Buddha, can ever know the exact conditions that have caused a given dhamma-arammana to arise. It's just like the workings of kamma [condition] and vipakka, which are described as acintana (unknowable). > > Ken H > Nyanaponika Thera touches on this in "Studies in Abhidhamma" on his chapter on "Time & Consciousness". It is also dealt with the Atthasalini on pages 530-533 (Vol. II, Maung Tin's translation). But to take another look at the question: I am not aware of an Abhidhamma teacher or text claiming that a single citta experiences multiple cittas? Would those be sub-cittas? Certain cittas do, however, function as pannindriya, which is synonymous with right view, which I mentioned in a prev. post with the terms used in the Dhammasangani. However, for the rest of us change is indeed observed rather than merely "inferred" as one might infer that the dead mouse on the bed was put there by one's faithful, if tactless, tabby cat --- yet without resorting to a flow of momentary acts of perception how is it possible to account for it aside from inference? It is experienced --- that is certain. Yet, look at Zeno's paradox & apply it to the perception of time & see what you come up with. The alternative approach is to root the sensation of time within the act of observation itself (i.e. the citta/cetasika model) & allow for each citta to possess a quality of "connecting" (sandahana) from the prior moment to the next &, to give it relevance to Vipassana, allow also that cittas on a certain level to have insight into their own nature as they occur, while they're occurring. Again, Nyanaponika & the Atthasalini. - In Dhamma Josh #127516 From: "jrg493" wrote: > JJ: It is more accurate to say that " no inclination or abstention to harmful deeds or virati in avyakata sila". ... S: Well put. ... > JJ: I think they are different suttas. Because in Suttanta Pitaka, Kuddhaka Nikaya, Patisambhiddamagga, book 7, session 1, pg.589 (in Thai tipitaka), the commentary states clearly that > > How many silas are there? There are 3 kind of silas, kusala sila, akusala sila and avyakata sila. This is common to all being in the world. Kusala is sila. Akusala is sila. Avyakata is sila. > > And the commentary goes on that > > "All Achant (masters) refers to sila that this is sukka sila, sukka (pleasant is sila). This is dukka sila, dukka (unpleasant) is sila. This is kalaha sila, wrangle is sila. This is mantana sila, decoration is sila." > > > I don't know sutta in Thai and English run the same sequent? .... S: In the Thai translation, you have the Patisambhiddamagga and commentary together. In English, we don't have the commentary translated, so that was why I couldn't find it, because I hadn't realised it was from the comy. I'm wondering if Alberto or anyone else can help us find the Pali and the reference for the above. Metta Sarah ===== #127518 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:51 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma & sects kenhowardau Hi Josh and Alex, I think the three of us might be talking about three different things. ------ <. . . > > J: I am not aware of an Abhidhamma teacher or text claiming that a single citta experiences multiple cittas? Would those be sub-cittas? Certain cittas do, however, function as pannindriya, which is synonymous with right view, which I mentioned in a prev. post with the terms used in the Dhammasangani. ------ KH: Sorry, I don't remember that previous post. ---------- > J: However, for the rest of us change is indeed observed rather than merely "inferred" ---------- KH: I do remember that discussion now. I was tempted at the time to butt in and suggest that anicca could be seen (by panna) to be a characteristic of a conditioned dhamma. This wouldn't entail watching a dhamma over a period of time and seeing how it changed. The anicca characteristic is simply there, in the dhamma. However, I don't think Alex was talking about anicca. I think he was talking about paccaya and how one dhamma conditioned another. He seemed to be assuming that paccaya could be observed by watching a series of cittas. --------------------- > J: as one might infer that the dead mouse on the bed was put there by one's faithful, if tactless, tabby cat --- yet without resorting to a flow of momentary acts of perception how is it possible to account for it aside from inference? It is experienced --- that is certain. Yet, look at Zeno's paradox & apply it to the perception of time & see what you come up with. ---------------------- KH: I don't want to digress too far, but wasn't Zeno's paradox solved by Quantum Mechanics? -------------------------------- > J: The alternative approach is to root the sensation of time within the act of observation itself (i.e. the citta/cetasika model) & allow for each citta to possess a quality of "connecting" (sandahana) from the prior moment to the next &, to give it relevance to Vipassana, allow also that cittas on a certain level to have insight into their own nature as they occur, while they're occurring. Again, Nyanaponika & the Atthasalini. --------------------------------- KH: Sorry, I can't see what you and are getting at. I would simply suggest that panna can see (understand) that a conditioned dhamma possesses the anicca characteristic. But maybe we are still talking about two (or more) different things. Ken H #127519 From: "Christine" wrote: > > Dear Howard, Rob E, and any others on the US East coast, > > Do hope you, your family and friends are all safe and well. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > May I second these good wishes, and hope that all the communities are back to normal in a short time. Some of us have lived through devastating floods in Queensland in the recent past. with metta Chris #127520 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro #127521 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro From: Tam Bach >To: sarahprocterabbott@... >Sent: Wednesday, 31 October 2012, 19:03 >Subject: Question on kamma and vipaka citta > > >Dear Sarah, > >I wanted to put this on the DSG's groups but couldn't. I still can receive all the e-mails of DSG members, but can not access the site, neither to use the function buttons such as "start a new topic". Probably, it is the same problem with FB here, some have access, others don't... > >So here is our question that we discussed yesterday: > >Vipaka citta is the result of kusala and akusala kamma, and it can be in the form of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching. > >When some one, let's say, steals something, he is performing an akusala. But in order to do so, he has to touch, look, listen etc... > >How to distinguish kamma from vipaka in this case? I understand that it is foremost the intention leading to the action which makes up kamma. But in order for a mental kamma to becomes a bodily kamma, it seems that vipaka of past deeds are also involved? So it is a bit confusing. > > >And when, for example, there is a thirst, and then the intention to reach a cup of water and drink it, if the intention is not accompanied by lobha or dosa, is it kiriya citta? And again, the touching and the tasting etc...is again vipaka of other past deeds? > >We would appreciate some clarification on this, > >Thanks a lot, > >Tam > > > >Life is Meditation is Life >http://www.thienvacuocsong.info/ >http://www.trungtamhotong.org/ >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ >http://www.buddhanet.net/ >http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ >http://sayadawutejaniya.org/teachings/ > > > > #127523 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > > Dear Jon, all, > > >J:The development of the path is not about chasing (or looking for) >the things described in the texts as dhammas. It is about >understanding the truth and reality of the present moment. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > A: I can understand that phenomenon are anicca, asubha, dukkha, anatta. > > But it seems that we don't and can't experience certain complex teachings. Can we experience trillions of cittas occurring in a split second? Is it possible? Most likely we only experience a nimitta of them. > =============== J: Yes, it's important to know what is to be understood by direcct experience and what is simply to be taken as (possible) explanation. In general terms, it is the characteristics of conditioned dhammas as anicca, dukkha and anatta that is to be understood. This would not include, I believe, the arising of individual moments of citta or rupa. > =============== > A: Is nimitta of them a direct experience? How do we know it is not a concept or simply a "memory" of past event? > =============== J: That's why it's important to come to know those moments when there is awareness/panna. It's not really important to know whether the object is the dhamma itself or the nimitta of a dhamma. > =============== > A: re: eye sees color, ear hears sound. > > What about synesthesia? Doesn't it make sense-organ & sense-object teaching more difficult to put into clear cut boxes where one ayatana cannot be an object of another (improper) ayatana? > =============== J: I'm afraid I don't know much about synaesthesia, other than that it's a reported experience. Would it be similar to the case of bright light (visible object, object of seeing consciousness) seeming to cause bodily pain (object of body door consciousness)? As we know, the perceived experience can be deceptive. Jon #127526 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon & KC, > ... > > [J:] I have not talked in terms of things being beyond control in the conventional sense, as I do not think that is part of what the Buddha was talking about. > > > > In terms of dhammas, however, there is the notion of them being 'not subject to mastery' as an explanation of the characteristic of anatta. In fact, it was you who came up with the commentary text on this, in a post to Rob E, if I recall correctly. Do you still have the reference? Perhaps you could remind us of the passage. > .... > S: This was one of the good passages KC quoted: > > >KC: Commentary to the Girimananda Sutta (wheel publication) > pg 9 > > >then pg 16 > > <<(ii) In the description of the Contemplation of no-self, The Eye has as its > characteristic the sensitivity of the primary elements of matter that is ready > for the impact of visible ob jects; or its characteristic is sensitivity of > primary elements originated by kamma sourcing from desire to see (Vis. 444); or > the eye is what enjoys and makes manifest a visible object. Is NOT-SELF: it is > not- > self, nor is it possessed of a self. Why? Because it does not come from > anywhere, nor does it go anywhere after its fall. But rather, before its rise > it had no individual reality; and after its fall its individual reality is > completely broken up. And it occurs without any creator since it occurs bctween > the past and the future in dependence on conditions (Vis. 484). The reason for > no-self in each case should understood in the same way. > > VISIBLE OBJECTS have the characteristic of impinging on the eye (Vis. 446). It > is the visible-objet base that evidences the state of what is in the heart when > that is undergoing a change of colour (Vis. 481). IS NOT-SELF: it is not-self, > nor is it possessed of a self, because it is not susceptible of mastery and > because of the absence of any core of self in it.>> > =============== J: Thanks for this passage. Not the one I had in mind, but certainly to the point in question. See below a couple of other references from the Vism (Bodhi/Nanamoli translation). Jon From Ch XV, THE BASES AND ELEMENTS (Aayatana-dhaatu-niddesa): ****************** 15. 6. As to how to be seen: here all formed bases [aayatana] should be regarded as having no provenance and no destination. For they do not come from anywhere prior to their rise, nor do they go anywhere after their fall. On the contrary, before their rise they had no individual essence, and after their fall their individual essences are completely dissolved. And they occur without mastery [being exercisable over them] since they exist in dependence on conditions and in between the past and the future. Hence they should be regarded as having no provenance and no destination. ****************** From Ch XX `PURIFICATION BY KNOWLEDGE AND VISION OF WHAT IS THE PATH AND WHAT IS NOT THE PATH': ****************** 47. 1. Herein, taking up is rebirth-linking. Putting down is death. So the meditator allots one hundred years for this "taking up" and "putting down" and he attributes the three characteristics to formations. How? [Anicca] All formations between these limits are impermanent. Why? Because of the occurrence of rise and fall, because of change, because of temporariness, and because of preclusion of permanence. [Dukkha] But since arisen formations have arrived at presence, and when present are afflicted by ageing, and on arriving at ageing are bound to dissolve, they are therefore painful because of continual oppression, because of being hard to bear, because of being the basis of suffering, and because of precluding pleasure. [Anatta] And since no one has any power over arisen formations in the three instances, "Let them not reach presence", "Let those that have reached presence not age," and "Let those that have reached ageing not dissolve," and they are void of the possibility of any power being exercised over them, they are therefore not-self because void, because ownerless, because unsusceptible to the wielding of power, and because of precluding a self.{20} {Note 20}. "No one, not even the Blessed One, has such mastery; for it is impossible for anyone to alter the three characteristics. The province of supernormal power is simply the alteration of a state" (Vism-mhþ 797). ****************** #127527 From: "Yawares Sastri" wrote: > KH: Sorry, I don't remember that previous post. > I.28 On what occasion (samaye) is right view (sammaditthi)? It is on the occasion of insight (panna) understanding (pajanana) inquiry (vicaya) investigation (pavicayo) inquiry into the dhamma (dhammavicayo) discernment/testing (sallakkhana) discrimination (upalakkhana) differentiation (paccupalakkhana) erudition (pandicca) proficiency (kosallam) skill (nepunna) analysis (vebhabya) thinking (cinta) examination (upaparikkha) breadth/extent (bhuri) wisdom (medha) leading (parinayika) insight (vipassana) comprehension (sampajanna) without delusion (amoha) & insight (panna) as a power (indriya) a strength (bala) a sword (sattha) a palace (pasada) a light (aloka) a lustre (obhasa) a lamp (pajjota) a gem (ratana) > KH: I do remember that discussion now. I was tempted at the time to butt in and suggest that anicca could be seen (by panna) to be a characteristic of a conditioned dhamma. This wouldn't entail watching a dhamma over a period of time and seeing how it changed. The anicca characteristic is simply there, in the dhamma. > > However, I don't think Alex was talking about anicca. I think he was talking about paccaya and how one dhamma conditioned another. He seemed to be assuming that paccaya could be observed by watching a series of cittas. > Right. I'm under the impression that we're talking about a) observation & b) an observation that entails change over time (i.e. observation of paccaya operating as a condition over time). "Multiple" cittas is either multiple-cittas-at-once or multiple-cittas-at-a-time. But at this point I doubt I can explain it without some sort of misunderstanding arising unless I qualify every statement with either a large "I am not claiming this, this is just as an example" or a "This is a example of something to illustrate something, not a suggestion on my part that we should discuss it." > KH: I don't want to digress too far, but wasn't Zeno's paradox solved by Quantum Mechanics? > This is a example of something to illustrate observation vs inference in regard to change, not a suggestion on my part that we should discuss it. In Dhamma - Josh #127530 From: Nina van Gorkom Vipaka citta is the result of kusala and akusala kamma, and it can > be in the form of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching. > > > >When some one, let's say, steals something, he is performing an > akusala. But in order to do so, he has to touch, look, listen etc... > > > >How to distinguish kamma from vipaka in this case? I understand > that it is foremost the intention leading to the action which makes > up kamma. But in order for a mental kamma to becomes a bodily > kamma, it seems that vipaka of > past deeds are also involved? So it is a bit confusing. ------ N: These are all different moments conditioned by different factors. When we think of a conventional situation, a situation of a , such as he has to listen, to look before doing a deed, there will be confusion as to cause and result. When there is hearing, it is result of past kamma, but we cannot know which kamma and it is of no use to try to find out. Stealing is motivated by akusala citta, and this has nothing to do with other vipaakacittas that arise in between. We learn to distinguish different realities, and this does not mean that we have to think of a connection between them. They each arise because of their own condition. -------- > > T: >And when, for example, there is a thirst, and then the > intention to reach a cup of water and drink it, if the intention is > not accompanied by lobha or dosa, is it kiriya citta? And again, > the touching and the tasting etc...is again vipaka of other past > deeds? ----- N: Again, different dhammas arising at different moments, each conditioned by different factors. Intention to take a glass of water: mostly motivated by lobha, but this may be accompanied by indifferent feeling and then we may not notice it. The cetanaa does not have the strength of kamma patha, it accompanies merely akusala citta. It cannot be kiriyacitta, because only the arahat acts with kiriyacitta. Tasting: vipaakacitta, produced by past kamma. A different moment. All realities are very momentary, they fall away immediately. ----- Nina. #127531 From: "truth_aerator" =============== >A: re: eye sees color, ear hears sound. > >What about synesthesia? Doesn't it make sense-organ & sense-object teaching more difficult to put into clear cut boxes where one ayatana cannot be an object of another (improper) ayatana? > > =============== > > J: I'm afraid I don't know much about synaesthesia, other than that it's a reported experience. Would it be similar to the case of bright light (visible object, object of seeing consciousness) seeming to cause bodily pain (object of body door consciousness)? As we know, the perceived experience can be deceptive. > > Jon >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When beings "see" by means of sound, (ex:bats using echolocation) how does that fits in with one sense organ receives only one type of sense object? Related example: Sound may evoke perception of color. With best wishes, Alex #127532 From: "truth_aerator" A: How can a single momentary citta directly experience multiple >cittas (in order to directly experience conditionality)? >============================================= >KH: I'll try to answer that question, but hopefully someone else >will also answer it. > >I certainly don't think multiple cittas are required. I think >conditionality is experienced every time panna experiences a >conditioned dhamma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So panna experiences only one instant (as citta lasts an instant) and in that instant there is image of multiple instances? Then that is not totally direct experience. It is an experience of a singular image containing multiple cittas. With best wishes, Alex #127533 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hello Jon, all, > ... > > J: I'm afraid I don't know much about synaesthesia, other than that it's a reported experience. Would it be similar to the case of bright light (visible object, object of seeing consciousness) seeming to cause bodily pain (object of body door consciousness)? As we know, the perceived experience can be deceptive. > > > > Jon > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > When beings "see" by means of sound, (ex:bats using echolocation) how does that fits in with one sense organ receives only one type of sense object? > =============== J: It would have to be by way of experiencing(s) through one or more of the 5 sense-doors. I'm guessing the body door (vibrations of 'sound' waves, perhaps). > =============== > Related example: Sound may evoke perception of color. > =============== J: The sound is heard and then memory plays a role. The 'perception of colour' is presumably a mind-door, not an eye-door, experience. Jon #127534 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 1, 2012 7:12 am Subject: Re: Is conditionality (24 paccayas) conceptual or ultimate? How can we know? kenhowardau Hi Alex, ---- <. . .> >> KH: I'll try to answer that question, <. . .> I certainly don't think multiple cittas are required. I think >conditionality is experienced every time panna experiences a conditioned dhamma. <. . .> >> > A: So panna experiences only one instant (as citta lasts an instant) and in that instant there is image of multiple instances? Then that is not totally direct experience. It is an experience of a singular image > containing multiple cittas. ---- KH: Maybe I misunderstood the question. I don't know where the idea of seeing multiple cittas has come from. Is it something you have read about in the texts? Ken H #127536 From: "truth_aerator" KH:I'll try to answer that question, <. . .> I certainly don't >think multiple cittas are required. I think >conditionality >is experienced every time panna experiences a conditioned dhamma. <. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >A:So panna experiences only one instant (as citta lasts an instant) >and in that instant there is image of multiple instances? Then that >is not totally direct experience. It is an experience of a singular >image containing multiple cittas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >KH:Maybe I misunderstood the question. I don't know where the idea >of seeing multiple cittas has come from. Is it something you have >read about in the texts? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello KenH, Conditionality requires at least two dhammas. One dhamma is "cause" another dhamma is "effect". If direct experience can only be of ONE citta or dhamma, then how can we directly see conditionality? Momentary citta can't, unless it takes an image or a concept which it can experience directly. With best wishes, Alex #127537 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > >KH:I'll try to answer that question, <. . .> I certainly don't >think multiple cittas are required. I think >conditionality > >is experienced every time panna experiences a conditioned dhamma. <. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >A:So panna experiences only one instant (as citta lasts an instant) >and in that instant there is image of multiple instances? Then that >is not totally direct experience. It is an experience of a singular >image containing multiple cittas. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >KH:Maybe I misunderstood the question. I don't know where the idea >of seeing multiple cittas has come from. Is it something you have >read about in the texts? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Hello KenH, > > Conditionality requires at least two dhammas. One dhamma is "cause" another dhamma is "effect". If direct experience can only be of ONE citta or dhamma, then how can we directly see conditionality? Momentary citta can't, unless it takes an image or a concept which it can experience directly. > =============== J: The way I see it, panna accumulates knowledge and experience, so that it eventually becomes unnecessary to make the kind of 'two dhammas' comparison that you are referring to here. It's like with conventional knowledge: once something has been 'learned' the information is instantly accessible and there is no need to re-learn the same thing each time. Jon #127538 From: "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hi Alex (and KenH) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > >KH:I'll try to answer that question, <. . .> I certainly don't >think multiple cittas are required. I think >conditionality > > >is experienced every time panna experiences a conditioned dhamma. <. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >A:So panna experiences only one instant (as citta lasts an instant) >and in that instant there is image of multiple instances? Then that >is not totally direct experience. It is an experience of a singular >image containing multiple cittas. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >KH:Maybe I misunderstood the question. I don't know where the idea >of seeing multiple cittas has come from. Is it something you have >read about in the texts? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > Hello KenH, > > > > Conditionality requires at least two dhammas. One dhamma is "cause" another dhamma is "effect". If direct experience can only be of ONE citta or dhamma, then how can we directly see conditionality? Momentary citta can't, unless it takes an image or a concept which it can experience directly. > > =============== > > J: The way I see it, panna accumulates knowledge and experience, so that it eventually becomes unnecessary to make the kind of 'two dhammas' comparison that you are referring to here. > > It's like with conventional knowledge: once something has been 'learned' the information is instantly accessible and there is no need to re-learn the same thing each time. > > Jon > So citta uses memory of previous experiences, right? With best wishes, Alex #127539 From: "philip" As for me, even though I have I practised austerely for fifty-five > years, living only on air and standing only on one leg, none of the > devas, nor Sakka, nor Mahabrahma has ever came to me ------- N: I think that it is not macchariya alone. He is comparing: why not to me? This shows conceit. Also a lot of ignorance. Ignorance is very dangerous. And wrong view: he took his practice for self: see, I am practising in this way. Then the Buddha preached to him and he knew the right words so that Jambuka could be aware of naama and ruupa even while listening. Only in that way he could become an arahat. The details about the vipassanaa ~naa.nas he had to attain are not mentioned in the sutta, but it is good we also have the Abhidhamma and the commentaries. Otherwise we would not understand how he could attain arahatship by just listening once. It shows that he must have had accumulated understanding during countless lives. This is referred to in the commentary to the Theratheriigatha, for example in Theriigatha, LXXIII, Sumedhaa: Thus, age-enduring, for kappas or aeons. Thoroughly preparing: being aware over and over again, developing understanding of the present object. It has to be the present one. Not thinking of stories or speculating. ------ Nina. #127541 From: Nina van Gorkom "... When defilements arise there are conditions for them. It is of no use being disappointed or surprised about them. There is only one way to cope with them: have more understanding of whatever has arisen. There should not be forgetfulness of lobha. It is with us nearly all the time in some form or other. It is like an enemy with the appearance of a friend, very hard to detect. It is like a friend who speaks nicely, waits upon us, smiles at the right time. Who would know that that very pleasant, confortable and secure feeling we have is really an enemy, the cause of all suffering, the cause of the arising of realities from moment to moment, one after the other. We may even cling to kusala. Although it brings pleasant results, it is still impermanent, it is still dukkha. It is anatta, nothing abiding, nothing lasting, nothing substantial. Ph: Tonight I heard Ajahn say "dhamma(s) belong to nobody, nobody is their owner." I was walking and there was a moment of understanding that there often *is* thinking of "my kusala" etc. That is the "idea of self" that I always hear about in talks. In one of the transcripts I found A.S say "when there is understanding, there is awareness" so no need to think about when there is awareness, how much awareness, something like that. Does that mean that understanding lobha and all the other very very prevalent akusala dhammas is all that is necessary? We don't have to think about awarness at all? Can I just forget about "sati?" Why is sati important to understand when panna seems to be enough? Is there always sati when there is panna, but not always panna when there is sati? Thanks Nina Phil Phil #127543 From: "jagkrit2012" > JJ: I think about all 6 doors. When we're seeing visible objects, then we think. When we're hearing, we think. The same as smelling, tasting and touching, we also think. Or we just think. In our sleep, we also think. It seems to me that thinking in mind door arising more than other doors. But succession of seeing and other sense doors comparing to succession of mind door is different. That, in my opinion, makes us see that seeing arises more than others. > > "But succession of seeing and other sense doors comparing to succession of mind door is different." > Ph: Can you explain more what you mean by that, Jagrkrit? Thanks. ------------ JJ: I will try to explain in my point of view. I think visible object, sound, smell, taste and touchable object arise all the time. But we will experience those objects when each of our citta arises to experience each object through different door way. In daily life, uncountable different cittas arise in different moment. Therefore, it is impossible to know which citta arises more than one another. However, in daily life, we seem to notice that we see all the time. We then speculate that visible object and seeing arise the most. But if we consider the succession of arising and falling away of each object and each sense door citta, we will notice the different. For example, in eye door, visible objects arises and falls away in succession for certain period of time and seeings see those visible objects. The succession of visible object must be long enough for seeing cittas to arise and experience those visible objects until thinking cittas know what are those visible objects. When we look at a watch to know what time is it, visible object from the clock shall arise for seeing to see in succession for some certain period of time until our thinking citta understands what time is it. Glance for example. But staring should consume more time for other type of seeing when detail is needed. But in hearing door, sound arises and falls away in succession for different certain period of time from visible object for hearing cittas to hear and thinking cittas know. Mostly for thinking cittas to know what is, succession of sound and hearing is shorter than succession of visible object and seeing. This makes us familiar with seeing and visible object in daily life and assume that they shall arise the most among other door way. It is however only assumption. Because it doesn't prove that visible object arises more that sound because succession may be short but succession can arises more often than another such as listen to dhamma discussion. And the fact is which object and sense door citta arise the most is up to the condition of which citta to arise. However, when considering five sense door cittas arise to experience five sense different objects compare to thinking citta of mind door, we can see more different of number of arising and falling away. Unlike five sense door cittas, thinking citta can experience five sense objects and mind object (citta itself for example) as well. Five sense door cittas arise only once each to experience each object through eyes, ears, noses, tongue and body but thinking citta of javana arise 7 times through mind door. Therefore, in daily life, thinking citta in mind door supposedly arises the most among other sense door. But we, most of the time, are not aware of this. This is just my opinion to share for further understanding. Please forgive and correct me if there is something not right. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #127544 From: Tam Bach , such as he has to listen, to look before doing a deed, there will be confusion as to cause and result. When there is hearing, it is result of past kamma, but we cannot know which kamma and it is of no use to try to find out. Stealing is motivated by akusala citta, and this has nothing to do with other vipaakacittas that arise in between. We learn to distinguish different realities, and this does not mean that we have to think of a connection between them. They each arise because of their own condition T: For us the confusion here came rather from the error of considering cetana as the sole cause of a bodily action. Yet it seems with your answer now that actually, the vipaka of past deeds also come into play in the making of kamma at present. Though the thief has to look around and reach something, what he actually sees and whether he can reach what he wants to reach also depends on vipaka of past deeds. It demonstrates again anattaness... Another question came to mind: there are mental, verbal and bodily kammas.What can we say about the vipaka of mental kamma? When there is karuna which gives rise to the thought of helping someone and then for some reason, it's not done, what is the vipaka of that kusala citta then? N: Intention to take a glass of water: mostly motivated by lobha, but this may be accompanied by indifferent feeling and then we may not notice it. The cetana does not have the strength of kamma patha, it accompanies merely akusala citta. It cannot be kiriyacitta, because only the arahat acts with kiriyacitta. T: by ways of jati, there are four kinds of citta: kusala, akusala, vipaka, and kiriya citta. If only the arahant acts with kiriya citta, does that mean the intention to drink water for any other being must be accompanied by akusala or kusala? What about for an anagami who has no more lobha for sense objects? Thanks and metta, Tam AdChoices #127545 From: "Yawares Sastri" wrote: Dear Han, Thank you for this series. I could add something. Op 31-okt-2012, om 20:51 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > As for me, even though I have I practised austerely for fifty-five > years, living only on air and standing only on one leg, none of the > devas, nor Sakka, nor Mahabrahma has ever came to me ------- N: I think that it is not macchariya alone. He is comparing: why not to me? This shows conceit. Also a lot of ignorance. Ignorance is very dangerous. And wrong view: he took his practice for self: see, I am practising in this way. Then the Buddha preached to him and he knew the right words so that Jambuka could be aware of naama and ruupa even while listening. Only in that way he could become an arahat. The details about the vipassanaa ~naa.nas he had to attain are not mentioned in the sutta, but it is good we also have the Abhidhamma and the commentaries. Otherwise we would not understand how he could attain arahatship by just listening once. It shows that he must have had accumulated understanding during countless lives. This is referred to in the commentary to the Theratheriigatha, for example in Theriigatha, LXXIII, Sumedhaa: Thus, age-enduring, for kappas or aeons. Thoroughly preparing: being aware over and over again, developing understanding of the present object. It has to be the present one. Not thinking of stories or speculating. ------ Nina. #127548 From: Nina van Gorkom and seeing that it is a conditioned reality. We do not mind whether it is sadness or whatever else. We can learn to understand a characteristic of dhamma, although we do not know yet precisely at what moment there is sadness, or what is this or that. Just now there are different realities. Sound, for example is real, it is a reality. What is seen now is real, it is a reality. Thinking is a reality. This is the beginning to see that they are not self. No one can condition the arising of anything at all. We understand just little by little. If we want to know many things we do not understand anything about this moment. If we are wondering what is this, what is sadness, what is its root and things like that, we do not know anything now. At the moment of listening there can be some understanding of realities and this can be accumulated so that we really understand what is appearing now, what is seen and what is that which sees. Then we can understand sadness when time comes. If we want to know a great deal without understanding ignorance about realities right now, there is no way to eliminate ignorance. ******* Nina. #127549 From: Nina van Gorkom In one of the transcripts I found A.S say "when there is > understanding, there is awareness" so no need to think about when > there is awareness, how much awareness, something like that. Does > that mean that understanding lobha and all the other very very > prevalent akusala dhammas is all that is necessary? We don't have > to think about awarness at all? Can I just forget about "sati?" ----- N: No, because just intellectual understanding of lobha etc. is not enough. Lobha has to be known as just a dhamma. Not by thinking about it. By awareness and direct understanding of its characteristic when it appears now. Always now. But first there has to be the first stage of insight: clear distinction between naama and ruupa, by direct understanding when they appear one at a time, now. We may be inclined to name lobha: there is lobha. But, as Acharn said, then there is still my lobha. ------ > Ph: Why is sati important to understand when panna seems to be > enough? Is there always sati when there is panna, but not always > panna when there is sati? ----- N: Right. Sati is important, it is awareness of the present moment. It assists pa~n~naa to understand the characteristic of the present moment. No need to think of that reality. Its characteristic is just realized. I am glad you liked Bhante Dhammadharo's sermon. We were very impressed at that time. I still hear his voice: serious and straight from his heart. The first part was on no 3, but perhaps you read it. He explained so well cause and effect. Akusala kamma may be a cause that we will not in the future be in a position to hear the Dhamma. And now we are so fortunate to be alive in this plane and listen more to the Dhamma. But the kusala Lodewijk accumulated is never lost, it is accumulated from citta to citta, from life to life. I like to remember his kusala citta. ------ Nina. #127551 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > Sorry for the delay. > > > > > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.121.than.html > > > > > > That is very impressive and a most valuable sutta. However, all that is > > > described by the Buddha here takes place prior to parinibbana. It is a > > > state of consciousness for the living who have let go of clinging and > are > > > capable of dwelling in pure emptiness while still alive. > > > > > > > > Yes, agreed. > > > > In other words, complete cessation of the life process is not > necessary or > > > synonymous with dwelling in pure emptiness or complete release of > > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > Sure. But I think we can safely exclude daily life from being possible in > > these states. What do you reckon? > > I reckon that: > a/ an arahant can experience a state of pure emptiness and equanimity > while still alive; > So do I. > b/ he can go in and out of this state and so has access to nibbana and > may also take part in worldly activity; > Yep, and when partaking of worldly activity again, the label arahant does not apply, IMO. Worldly activity cannot hapopen without clinging. > c/ this shows that cessation of clinging is not dependent on complete > cessation; > OK. But in the absence of clinging there is nibbana, and in the absence of nibbana there is samsara/clinging. Arahant-status is not like a job title that still applies even when you are on holidays :-) > and > > d/ an arahant who is capable of such a state is also capable of doing life > activities without the arising of clinging. > Nah, sorry, not possible :-) From Yawares' recent posts from Milindapanha: "Time means past, present, and future. There are some for whom time exists and some for whom it doesn't. Where there are beings who will be reborn, for them time exists; where there are beings who will not be reborn, for them time does not exist." Daily life is temporal, that IS what rebirth is. Only nibbana is timeless. > > In other words, there is an enlightened state without clinging prior to > death, and the complete cessation of experience need not be rushed to > complete the process of releasing all psychospiritual clinging and > suffering. There may still be some minor clingings to physical form, as > there may be physical discomforts, in order to maintain the physical form, > but nothing to write home about at that point. > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127552 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > ... > > > To me, the dhammas that are said to be the only real things, are actually > > an idea, insofar as there is no experience of them, as singularities, > > arising and ceasing one by one. If there was an experience of that, I > > promise you, I would agree with you :-) > > =============== > > J: :-)) > > Yes, I know what you mean, but a couple of observations. > > The development of the path is not about chasing (or looking for) the > things described in the texts as dhammas. It is about understanding the > truth and reality of the present moment. > > Sounds good to me. Take my comments below to be my understanding. > In this regard, it is said that there are at the present moment things > that have a specific, unalterable (and unchanging) characteristic that can > be directly experienced (by panna). > > For example, the experiencing of visible object and the experiencing of > audible object are universal experiences for all who have those faculties. > We can talk about these experiencings and objects from direct, personal > experience. Likewise we all know what attachment and aversion are because > they have arisen so often. > > And when these things are arising/present they are not merely 'an idea'. > > As regards your point of no experience of dhammas as 'singularities', may > I suggest that the fact that, for example, seeing and visible object, > hearing and audible object always seem to co-arise and from the subjective > perspective there is never one without the other, does not negate the > possibility of them being separate dhammas, with completely different > conditions for their arising. > > Furthermore, if the dhamma that we know as audible object was not a > separate dhamma it would mean that sound could never arise in the world in > the absence of hearing consciousness. Yet such a notion would seem to run > counter to our general experience. > > The following is one example of the present temporal moment, which is already well passed/past, in truth and reality : "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. (MN22) Another such present temporal moment could be: "Explaining all phenomena in terms of a certain theory, he discerns that he is explaining all phenomena in terms of a certain theory". and in truth and reality that would also be well passed/past. The stories of samsara pivot around deeds, performed in a past/future framework. If there is no awareness of what is being done, there is no awareness. Only with the ceasing of doing is there the ceasing of time. That is the present moment in truth and reality - without past or future. > Jon > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127553 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Herman, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > I would agree that breathing and eating are sine-qua-non, essentials that > > define us. But that is hardly sufficient ground to posit an atom of > breath > > or an atom of nutrition. Without experience or insight of such, we open > the > > door to armchair scholasticism. > > > > But I see this as psychological theory, not as Dhamma. I do not think > that > > pursuing the in's and out's of every conceivable combination of > phenomenon > > and condition will add an iota of impetus to the project of the Buddha - > > the ending of suffering. Being intent on determining the exact > composition > > of an embedded poisonous dart is hardly useful :-) > > > > I would say it depends on you look at "Dhamma." I don't know if you do, > but as you might know there are some who pit Sutta against Abhidhamma, & > "older" Sutta against "newer" Sutta. I'm not in that camp. > It is obvious to me that a thread of historical development runs through the Tipitaka. The Buddha, also, takes himself outside of the scope of the present to warn: "And again, there will be in the course of the future monks undeveloped in body... virtue... mind... discernment. They — being undeveloped in body... virtue... mind... discernment — will become elders living in luxury, lethargic, foremost in falling back, shirking the duties of solitude. They will not make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. They will become an example for later generations, who will become luxurious in their living, lethargic, foremost in falling back, shirking the duties of solitude, and who will not make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. Thus from corrupt Dhamma comes corrupt discipline; from corrupt discipline, corrupt Dhamma. or "Furthermore, in the course of the future there will be monks desirous of fine lodgings. They, desirous of fine lodgings, will neglect the practice of living in the wilds; will neglect isolated forest and wilderness dwellings; will move to towns, cities, and royal capitals, taking up residence there. For the sake of lodgings they will do many kinds of unseemly, inappropriate things. or really anything from the series AN5:77-80 (The discourse on future dangers) > So for me, dhamma is all three pitakas (though I'm obviously not a > bhikkhu, so much of the vinaya is not applicable). And I figure if it > exists in there, it *could* be useful. The Theras seem to think so. > According to my understanding of how the world works, to become a dominant force in the world, one has to become firmly entrenched in it. > > in Dhamma > - Josh > > __._,_._ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127554 From: "sarah" wrote: > But reading this led to me question if I understand Abhidhamma's teaching on rupa properly. I must admit that rupa (as well as the 24 patthana) is an area I haven't delved into as deeply as I have cittas & cetasikas, but I have went this far in my studies understanding the upadaya rupas to be reducible, ultimately, to the four mahabhutas, while at the same time occurring in the flow of experience as definite "wholes" &, therefore, serving as paramattha dhammas also. .... S: The upadaya rupas depend on the 4 mahabhuta rupas, but they are paramattha dhammas with their particular distinct characteristics. They cannot be reduced to other rupas. For example, sound is an upadaya (derived) rupa. It cannot arise without the 4 mahabuta rupas, but it cannot be 'reduced' to earth, air, fire or water. Not sure what you mean as "definite 'wholes'" so will leave that. .. > Now my questions are: > > Are upadaya rupas ultimately reducible to mahabhutas? .... S: No. They are dependent on the mahabhutas for arising. An example I've seen is of how trees depend on the earth to describe how upadaya rupas depend on mahabhuta rupas There are 8 rupas which arise in every group (kalapa) or rupas and these include the mahabhuta rupas. ... > > If so, is there a subtle similarity between how upadaya rupas & mahabhutas relate compared with how cittas & cetasikas relate? It is something I am picking up on. .... S: Rather similar - the upadaya rupas arise by sahajata (conascence)* condition, nissaya (dependence) condition and other conditions, just as cetasikas arise with citta by sahajata, nissaya, a~n~nama~n~na (mutual support) and other conditions too. Citta is the chief in experiencing. Nina wrote the following before: N: Gaining a footing: is supported by: nissaya-paccaya. One of the many conditions. Cetasikas support the citta they accompany. See my book on conditions, p. 47: < The dependence-condition, nissaya-paccaya, refers to realities which condition other realities by being their support or foundation. We read in the "Visuddhimagga" (XVII, 79) about dependence-condition, which is here translated as support-condition: "A state (dhamma) that assists in the mode of foundation and in the mode of support is a support-condition, as the earth is for trees, as canvas is for paintings, and so on." This type of condition refers to phenomena which are conascent (arising together) with the phenomena they condition as well as to phenomena which have arisen previously to the phenomena they condition. We read in the "Pa.t.thåna" (Analytical Exposition, 8) as to the dependence-condition for conascent phenomena: "1. The four immaterial khandhas are mutually related to one another by dependence-condition.... As to the first class, the four nåmakkhandhas are mutually related to one another by conascent dependence-condition: citta and cetasikas always arise together and they are depending on one another. Citta cannot arise without cetasikas and cetasikas cannot arise without citta. As we have seen, they are also related to one another by way of conascence, sahajåta, and by way of mutuality, aññamañña. The teaching of dependence-condition, nissaya paccaya, reminds us that citta and cetasikas need one another to perform their functions. Citta is the "chief" in cognizing an object, and cetasikas share the same object while they perform each their own function. Feeling, vedanå, and remembrance, saññå, are cetasikas which arise with each citta. Citta is different from cetasika, it does not feel or remember; citta cognizes or knows the object. ...> ... > > Assuming I'm not way out to lunch here, it would seem that there is a subtle distinction in the way that component parts can themselves serve as elements of experience while at the same time forming complexes which occur as new, though derivable elements of the same experience. The pain of embarrassment, for instance, is truly felt & is therefore real but the way the dialogue internally occurs in the mind that gives rise to such embarrassment is based on unreal things. > > Your thoughts? ..... S: When we refer to the "pain of embarrassment", it's a story about a situation reflecting all sorts of different realities. Moments of vipaka cittas followed by long stories with aversion and so on. Metta Sarah * Phil, caught my auto-corrector trying to put "conscience" back in again, but was on the look out for 'him' (as Pt would say), this time.... ==== #127555 From: "sarah" wrote: > [4] TAINTS TO BE ABANDONED BY ENDURING > [4] Adhivaasanaa pahaatabbaasavaa > > 18. "What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by enduring? Here a bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, bears cold and heat, hunger and thirst, and contact with gadflies, mosquitoes, wind, the sun, and creeping things; he endures ill-spoken, unwelcome words and arisen bodily feelings that are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, distressing, and menacing to life. While taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who does not endure such things, there are no taints, vexation, or fever in one who endures them. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by enduring. > > --------------- ... S: As Nina mentioned, I read all of these to be read in the light of the development of satipatthana. It is through the understanding of realities only that the endurance with wisdom will grow, leading to the eradication of "vexation, and fever" all all the asavas oozing out. Usually we're so attached to and distressed by rupas experienced through the sense-doors, forgetting entirely that they are only elements experienced so very briefly. ... > > [5] TAINTS TO BE ABANDONED BY AVOIDING > [5] Parivajjanaa pahaatabbaasavaa > > 19. "What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by avoiding? Here a bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, avoids a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspit, a sewer. Reflecting wisely, he avoids sitting on unsuitable seats, wandering to unsuitable resorts [Note 46] and associating with bad friends, since if he were to do so wise companions in the holy life might suspect him of evil conduct. While taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who does not avoid these things, there are no taints, vexation, and fever in one who avoids them. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by avoiding. > > [Note 46] Unsuitable seats are the two kinds mentioned in the Paatimokkha -- sitting with a woman on a screened seat convenient for sexual intercourse, and sitting alone with a woman in a private place. Various kinds of unsuitable resort are mentioned at Vsm I, 45. .... S: As I quoted recently from the Cariya Pitaka: "Virtue should be reflected upon as the basis for rapture and joy; as granting immunity from fear of self-reproach, the reproach of others, temporal punishment, and an evil destination after death; as praised by the wise; as the root-cause for freedom from remorse; as the basis for security; and as surpassing the achievements of high birth, wealth, sovereignty, long life, beauty, status, kinsmen, and friends." Adhi virtue (siila), only developed through the understanding of present realities. It is this understanding that will really see the danger of akusala and the value of kusala, no person involved. Metta Sarah ====== #127556 From: "sarah" wrote: > The term vipassana is used interchangeably by many for satipatthana, so if you see the term "vipassana" along with "samatha", it is likely that what is being referred to is vipassana as a specific form of meditation (or a specific fruit of meditation). ... S: We need to be careful with the word 'meditation'. Vipassana means insight and specifically refers to the vipassana ~nanas or stages of insight. Satipatthana has to be developed in order for vipassana ~nanas to arise, with highly developed right understanding of realities. Samatha means calm. At moments of satipatthana, the citta is calm. Samatha (passaddhi cetasika) arises at such moments (and with any moments of kusala). At moments of vipassana ~naana, the texts refer to samatha and vipassana being 'yoked' together. .... > > But if one has vipassana, one has insight, so it is also a term that can be synonymous with sammaditthi, as the Dhammasangani points out. > > Context, context, context. ... S: Quite right. Context! Vipassana is samma ditthi, pa~n~naa, but not all pa~n~na or samma ditthi is of the level and kind of vipassana. ... > > > > > Samma-ditthi and nana? ... S: Same. Context. Pa~n~naa cetasika. > One's sometimes just a sprout & sometimes a tree, whereas the other is always a tree. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel377.html > > "Right view, as explained in the commentary to the Sammaditthi Sutta, has a variety of aspects, but it might best be considered as twofold: conceptual right view, which is the intellectual grasp of the principles enunciated in the Buddha's teaching, and experiential right view, which is the wisdom that arises by direct penetration of the teaching. Conceptual right view, also called the right view in conformity with the truths (saccanulomika-sammaditthi), is a correct conceptual understanding of the Dhamma arrived at by study of the Buddha's teachings and deep examination of their meaning. Such understanding, though conceptual rather than experiential, is not dry and sterile. When rooted in faith in the Triple Gem and driven by a keen aspiration to realize the truth embedded in the formulated principles of the Dhamma, it serves as a critical phase in the development of wisdom (pannaa), for it provides the germ out of which experiential right view gradually evolves. > > "Experiential right view is the penetration of the truth of the teaching in one's own immediate experience. Thus it is also called right view that penetrates the truths (saccapativedha-sammaditthi)." .... S: Pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha - samma ditthi of different levels. Also, in the development of samatha bhavana, leading up to jhanas, the ditthi is samma, panna cetasika, but not the understanding of realities as anatta. I appreciate the way you consider so carefully. Metta Sarah ===== #127557 From: "sarah" wrote: > N: Back to the reality now, and we know that seeing cannot stay, even > though this is only intellectually known, not directly. I am thinking > of stories a lot and it makes me sad.... .... S: I was listening to a recording from Egypt on my flight. K.Sujin was talking to you and Alan W about how sanna and citta vipallasa (perversions of sanna and citta) always arise together with all akusala cittas, but sometimes the perversion of sanna is very apparent, such as when you wake up and think you're in a different place, and sometimes citta vipallasa is more apparent, such as when there is a long story about someone or a place without any awareness. ... KS: You think a lot of someone and where is that being? Only a story in your mind. You make it up by thinking. The previous experiences condition the thought of someone, some being. That's why one learns to understand what is meant by being alone with visual object at the moment of seeing - nobody there at that very moment. Being alone at the moment of experiencing sound, because there is no idea or concept of someone at that very moment. But later on you are not alone again. So fast it can be vipallasa rapidly from moment to moment. A: Even though you are surrounded by many people, you are alone when there is awareness and thats the real meaning of being alone. KS: Now, there are people on the street, see? You are not alone. But when it's only visual object..... .... Metta Sarah ===== #127558 From: han tun wrote: From: sarah Subject: [dsg] Re: MN 2 Sabbaasava Sutta: All the Taints (5) To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, November 2, 2012, 4:09 PM Dear Han & Phil, The following reminded me of Phil and his mosquitos: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > [4] TAINTS TO BE ABANDONED BY ENDURING > [4] Adhivaasanaa pahaatabbaasavaa > > 18. "What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by enduring? Here a bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, bears cold and heat, hunger and thirst, and contact with gadflies, mosquitoes, wind, the sun, and creeping things; he endures ill-spoken, unwelcome words and arisen bodily feelings that are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, distressing, and menacing to life. While taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who does not endure such things, there are no taints, vexation, or fever in one who endures them. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by enduring. > > --------------- ... S: As Nina mentioned, I read all of these to be read in the light of the development of satipatthana. It is through the understanding of realities only that the endurance with wisdom will grow, leading to the eradication of "vexation, and fever" all all the asavas oozing out. Usually we're so attached to and distressed by rupas experienced through the sense-doors, forgetting entirely that they are only elements experienced so very briefly. ... > > [5] TAINTS TO BE ABANDONED BY AVOIDING > [5] Parivajjanaa pahaatabbaasavaa > > 19. "What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by avoiding? Here a bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, avoids a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspit, a sewer. Reflecting wisely, he avoids sitting on unsuitable seats, wandering to unsuitable resorts [Note 46] and associating with bad friends, since if he were to do so wise companions in the holy life might suspect him of evil conduct. While taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who does not avoid these things, there are no taints, vexation, and fever in one who avoids them. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by avoiding. > > [Note 46] Unsuitable seats are the two kinds mentioned in the Paatimokkha -- sitting with a woman on a screened seat convenient for sexual intercourse, and sitting alone with a woman in a private place. Various kinds of unsuitable resort are mentioned at Vsm I, 45. .... S: As I quoted recently from the Cariya Pitaka: "Virtue should be reflected upon as the basis for rapture and joy; as granting immunity from fear of self-reproach, the reproach of others, temporal punishment, and an evil destination after death; as praised by the wise; as the root-cause for freedom from remorse; as the basis for security; and as surpassing the achievements of high birth, wealth, sovereignty, long life, beauty, status, kinsmen, and friends." Adhi virtue (siila), only developed through the understanding of present realities. It is this understanding that will really see the danger of akusala and the value of kusala, no person involved. Metta Sarah ====== #127559 From: "philip" ------ > > Ph: Why is sati important to understand when panna seems to be > > enough? Is there always sati when there is panna, but not always > > panna when there is sati? > ----- > N: Right. Sati is important, it is awareness of the present moment. > It assists pa~n~naa to understand the characteristic of the present > moment. "It assists panna to understand the characteristic of the present moment." I don't think I've heard it put that way again, though I must have. What other dhammas "assist panna to understand the characteristic of the present moment." Of course the seven universal cetasikas and then all the other cetasikas that must be present for any moment of kusala. There are many. Is this why kusala is relatively rare? Because so many cetasikas are necessary for assisting in the arising of a kusala citta? Or is kusala rare simply because so much akusala has been accumulated? > No need to think of that reality. Its characteristic is just > realized. I am glad you liked Bhante Dhammadharo's sermon. We were > very impressed at that time. I still hear his voice: serious and > straight from his heart. Yes, I can heart it too. Very serious, sincere, but warm. I like the photo of him, looking so intently. > Akusala kamma may be > a cause that we will not in the future be in a position to hear the > Dhamma. And now we are so fortunate to be alive in this plane and > listen more to the Dhamma. It would be good if this message sunk deeper into my heart, so that there was more of a sense of urgency to avoid akusala. But it is not here now. It will probably return at some point, no telling when. I feel hints of it when I listen. I listened to Chapter 10 (?) of ADL, about the patisandhi citta, and birth in various realms, as I washed the dishes. I did feel a stirring of resolve to avoid bad deeds as I listened. I think that resolve is always lurking, there are accumulations for it to arise, I think it will. But absolutely no way to make it arise when there are not conditoins for it to arise. > But the kusala Lodewijk accumulated is > never lost, it is accumulated from citta to citta, from life to life. > I like to remember his kusala citta. I'm sure there is much for you to remember, although if we are strict we have to say we never know the others' citta, right? Even when Lodewijk performed some deed of dana for the monks or whatever, there could be lobha at times, mana, whatever. But there are safe assumptions based on the deed that there is kusala involved... I like what I wrote the other day, about your and Lodewijk's dana for each other, sharing the Dhamma, very true. Safe to assume that one is discussing Dhamma there is at least some or a lot of kusala involved. And that kusala accumulates, from citta to citta, from life to life. Like right now. Very encouraging! Phil #127560 From: "Yawares Sastri" Hi All, > > just to let you know about the trouble our friend Howard is facing > after the encounter with Sandy.. > > #127564 From: Nina van Gorkom Sarah to Han: You said [Adhi virtue (siila), only developed through > the understanding of present realities.] > For me, it is difficult to understand the "present realities". > > Nevertheless, I know it is a good advice when I see one. > If I cannot follow that good advice, it is my own fault, my own loss! ------ N: The present reality. Perhaps we should not make it too complicated, it is not far away. There is hearing of sounds time and again. Or seeing of what is visible. Or touching what is hard or soft. Very slowly we can learn that all these are dhammas, that they do not belong to a self. We cannot create them. They just arise because of their own conditions. Very slowly this can sink in. It is the same for all of us: very slowly. ----- Nina. #127565 From: Nina van Gorkom That's why one learns to understand what is meant by being alone > with visual object at the moment of seeing - nobody there at that > very moment. Being alone at the moment of experiencing sound, > because there is no idea or concept of someone at that very moment. > But later on you are not alone again. #127566 From: "Dieter Moeller" Dear Dieter, Thanks for frwd. I corresponded with Howard just before Sandhy hit and he told me they were preparing for it. I am also glad to see you here. Nina............... rest deleted by Chuck ..................... #127569 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han, N: The present reality. Perhaps we should not make it too complicated, it is not far away. There is hearing of sounds time and again. Or seeing of what is visible. Or touching what is hard or soft. Very slowly we can learn that all these are dhammas, that they do not belong to a self. We cannot create them. They just arise because of their own conditions. Very slowly this can sink in. It is the same for all of us: very slowly. ----- Nina. #127570 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Nina, > > Thank you very much for your patience and kind efforts to make me > understand. > > "The present reality". > > It is not difficult to understand the "reality". > But for me, it is difficult to get to the "present". > All the books say that one must stay at or observe the "present". > But it will need a very strong samaadhi to get to the "present" at the > time of the "present". > The "present" comes and passes away immediately. > When I think I am at the "present" the "present" has already passed away. > > Yes, yes, yes, exactly so. > with metta and respect, > Han ._,___ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127571 From: "philip" > > > It is not difficult to understand the "reality". > > But for me, it is difficult to get to the "present". > > All the books say that one must stay at or observe the "present". > > But it will need a very strong samaadhi to get to the "present" at the > > time of the "present". > > The "present" comes and passes away immediately. > > When I think I am at the "present" the "present" has already passed away. > > The present reailty has fallen away but the nimitta is the object of awareness and we say "present" though technically saying no longer prsent. I have heard the great Burmese teacher U Silananda say this too, exactly. Not a problem in my opinion. But I respect what you say about your standard, aware of lust or anger, but no bad deed in body speech or thought? It is is a good thing. Phil #127572 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi RobE, > > > > On 17 October 2012 16:02, Robert E wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > Hi Herman. > > > Pt. 2. > > > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > > > > Give up on what? > > > > > > > > > > > > I have to assume less controversial positions, if only because I get so > far > > behind in defending them :-) > > > > Again, sorry, about the delay. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > I guess this is one way of portraying ignorance. Would it be fair to say > > that in this case, ignorance is the lack of some skills, and that the > > insight that one lacks the skills does not translate into knowing > anything > > about those skills? > > Well I did not pick that example to match the type of ignorance involved - > maybe that would be better. In Buddhism, I think that ignorance is the > inability to understand that objects of desire are not satisfying, cannot > be controlled or kept intact, and are not really what one wants anyway. > This ignorance perpetuates the cycle of suffering. The ignorance in the > math problem is a lack of skill, but it is also a lack of understanding the > problem, let alone being able to solve it. > > But it wouldn't be unfair to say that ignorance in Buddhism is also a lack > of skill. But then we'd have to talk about what skill means in that context. > > I would say, in the broadest possible terms. that skill in the Buddhist context is knowing how to not suffer. > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127573 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi All, > > just to let you know about the trouble our friend Howard is facing after > the encounter with Sandy.. > > Thanks for forwarding this, and good to see you here! > with Metta Dieter > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127574 From: "philip" wrote: Dear Han The present reailty has fallen away but the nimitta is the object of awareness and we say "present" though technically saying no longer prsent. I have heard the great Burmese teacher U Silananda say this too, exactly. Not a problem in my opinion. But I respect what you say about your standard, aware of lust or anger, but no bad deed in body speech or thought? It is is a good thing. Phil AdChoices #127576 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han Tun, > Yes, yes, yes, exactly so. -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127577 From: "philip" > > Han: It is not difficult to understand the "reality". > > > But for me, it is difficult to get to the "present". > > > All the books say that one must stay at or observe the "present". > > > But it will need a very strong samaadhi to get to the "present" at the > > > time of the "present". > > > The "present" comes and passes away immediately. > > > When I think I am at the "present" the "present" has already passed away. > > > > > > Phill: The present reailty has fallen away but the nimitta is the object of awareness and we say "present" though technically saying no longer prsent. I have heard the great Burmese teacher U Silananda say this too, exactly. Not a problem in my opinion. > > But I respect what you say about your standard, aware of lust or anger, but no bad deed in body speech or thought? It is is a good thing. ----------------- JJ: As Phil mentioned nimitta concerning present. I went and looked in Thai discussion and found Q and A about present answered by one of speaker in the foundation. It is interesting. I, therefore, took this for sharing. Asking: At the moment of seeing, visible object which is dhamma characteristic of aarammana (object for citta to experience) has passed. But I heard that be aware of nama or rupa. Namma or ruppa should be at the present aarammana. But in fact it has fallen away and being the past already. Can we call that the past nama or rupa which just felt away present aramaama? Answering: There are 3 meaning of present (Pachuban). 1. Present moment (Pachuban kana) means the moment that dhamma characteristic still presents: arising, staying and falling away. 2. Present of succession (Pachuban santati) means present by short succession from present moment. 3. Pachuban attaya means present by broad meaning such as this life is present life. Satipatthana experiences dhamma charateristic which is being present. It means aarammana of sati at that moment must be paramattha dhamma which appeals for sati to experience. That is present of succession which is the succession of dhamma characteristic which can appear for sati. Even that dhamma characteristic has fallen away but it just shortly felt away and still appears it succession to show its characteristic. In the commentary of Abidhamma Pitaka, Vipang, Book 2, session 2 There is a footnote to explain the word "long present" that present has 4; present moment, present of succession, present day and Pachuban attaya. And past and future has the same 4 meanings. (from Sammohavinothani Commentary page 9) JJ: I think it is impossible to experience present moment in the first meaning because citta arises one at a time. But for the second meaning of present by its short succession, we can. And this should support nimitta that Phill has mentioned. With respect and anumodhana Jagkrit #127579 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han I'm afraid I can't give you a textual reference. I listened to many U Silananda talks and heard him say it once, that of course the present reality has fallen away but for the purpose of satipatthana we say it is still prsesent. I remember being impressed by that because it told me this nimitta (I can't remember if he used that word, actually) is not an original teaching of A.Sujin. And it settled doubts for me about how, logically speaking, there could possibly be awareness of a present reality which must have fallen away already. Having said that I think there is almost always thinking/speculation about recently past dhammas rather than a more direct awareness of them. I think awareness is a very rare event, mostly we are just thinking, often with attachment to wanting more awareness. I think. Phil #127580 From: han tun wrote: Dear Han, Phill, all JJ: As Phil mentioned nimitta concerning present. I went and looked in Thai discussion and found Q and A about present answered by one of speaker in the foundation. It is interesting. I, therefore, took this for sharing. Asking: At the moment of seeing, visible object which is dhamma characteristic of aarammana (object for citta to experience) has passed. But I heard that be aware of nama or rupa. Namma or ruppa should be at the present aarammana. But in fact it has fallen away and being the past already. Can we call that the past nama or rupa which just felt away present aramaama? Answering: There are 3 meaning of present (Pachuban). 1. Present moment (Pachuban kana) means the moment that dhamma characteristic still presents: arising, staying and falling away. 2. Present of succession (Pachuban santati) means present by short succession from present moment. 3. Pachuban attaya means present by broad meaning such as this life is present life. Satipatthana experiences dhamma charateristic which is being present. It means aarammana of sati at that moment must be paramattha dhamma which appeals for sati to experience. That is present of succession which is the succession of dhamma characteristic which can appear for sati. Even that dhamma characteristic has fallen away but it just shortly felt away and still appears it succession to show its characteristic. In the commentary of Abidhamma Pitaka, Vipang, Book 2, session 2 There is a footnote to explain the word "long present" that present has 4; present moment, present of succession, present day and Pachuban attaya. And past and future has the same 4 meanings. (from Sammohavinothani Commentary page 9) JJ: I think it is impossible to experience present moment in the first meaning because citta arises one at a time. But for the second meaning of present by its short succession, we can. And this should support nimitta that Phill has mentioned. With respect and anumodhana Jagkrit #127581 From: "chandimag1984" wrote: Hi Would anyone of you be pleased to let me know how did Ven.Rahula (Son of Buddha) attain enlightenment? I remember that he got enlightened while his hair is shaved at the age of 6.Is it correct? Thank you Chandima #127584 From: Nina van Gorkom Yet it seems with your answer now that actually, the vipaka of past > deeds also come into play in the making of kamma at present. Though > the > thief has to look around and reach something, what he actually sees > and > whether he can reach what he wants to reach also depends on vipaka of > past deeds. It demonstrates again anattaness... ------ N: I may not have explained it clearly that there is the world of conventional situations and stories and there is the world in the ultimate sense: the realities of citta, cetasika and ruupa. When we think of a thief who has to look around and reach for things, this is the world of situations and stories we can think of. When we consider citta, cetasika and ruupa it is the truth in the ultimate sense. Citta, cetasika and ruupa arise and then fall away immediately, and there is no time to think about any situation. They each arise because of their own condition and when we think about any connection between them we are again lost in stories about conventional phenomena. Citta, cetasika and ruupa are already gone when we think about them. This is a good topic to discuss when Acharn Sujin visits you. I hope you can give is some report. ------- > > T: Another question came to mind: there are mental, verbal and > bodily kammas.What can we say about the vipaka of mental kamma? > When there is karuna which gives rise to the thought of helping > someone and then for some reason, it's not done, what is the vipaka > of that kusala citta then? ------- N: There is kamma through body, through speech and through the mind. But as to vipaaka, we cannot know. We should not try to find out since this is a domain of Buddhas. It belongs to the . Your example of helping someone , this is similar to wanting to give but when time comes one does not give. This kamma is very weak. BUt we cannot know about the vipaaka and why should we try to know? ------- > > T: by ways of jati, there are four kinds of citta: kusala, akusala, > vipaka, and kiriya citta. If only the arahant acts with kiriya > citta, does that mean the intention to drink water for any other > being must be accompanied by akusala or kusala? ------- N: right. ----- > T: What about for an anagami who has no more lobha for sense objects? ------- N: He still has moha, he may have forgetfulness of realities. Or conceit. Or kusala cittas with mindfulness of naama and ruupa. -------- Nina. #127585 From: Nina van Gorkom What other dhammas "assist panna to understand the characteristic > of the present moment." Of course the seven universal cetasikas and > then all the other cetasikas that must be present for any moment of > kusala. There are many. > > Is this why kusala is relatively rare? Because so many cetasikas > are necessary for assisting in the arising of a kusala citta? Or is > kusala rare simply because so much akusala has been accumulated? ------ N: Because so much akusala has been accumulated, kusala has not yet become our nature. -------- > Ph: It would be good if this message sunk deeper into my heart, so > that there was more of a sense of urgency to avoid akusala. .... > But absolutely no way to make it arise when there are not > conditoins for it to arise. ------ N: It means: just listen more. ------ Nina. #127586 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Sun Nov 4, 2012 7:47 am Subject: Re: Fw: The Storm kenhowardau Hi Dieter, Welcome back, even if only as a lurker. :-) ----- <. . .> > D: Actually I have still a bit of bad conscience ,not answering to last postings ( in particular Sarah may forgive me ) because I wanted to avoid the repetition of arguments in a discussion from a " 2 camps " perspective , going on since quite some time, . ------ KH: I am sure I have been one of the main offenders there. But doesn't the same sort of thing happen in other forums too? At a boat builders' forum, for example, what would happen if one member thought there should be a giant hole in the hull? Would other members agree to disagree, and continue to discuss finer points with that member (deck design and sail preferences)? Or would they refrain from all other topics until the matter of the hull had been cleared up? That's the way I feel about Dhamma discussions. Until the basic right-understanding has been agreed upon I don't want to hear a word about finer points. I am not suggesting the basic understanding is easy. Most people will never understand in their present lifetime that the Dhamma is a way of understanding the present reality, not a list of things-to-do. It's not easy, but that's what we're here for. :-) Ken H #127589 From: Herman wrote: > > c/ this shows that cessation of clinging is not dependent on complete > > cessation; > > > > OK. But in the absence of clinging there is nibbana, and in the absence of > nibbana there is samsara/clinging. Arahant-status is not like a job title > that still applies even when you are on holidays :-) Well this may get into nomenclatural hair-splitting, but I think someone capable of experiencing nibbana at any time is still an arahant even while on Holiday. Whether you consider an arahant someone who is currently in nibbana, or someone who has the capacity as a 'power,' he will not lose his wisdom or general detachment by taking on the basic 'clinging' necessary to do this or that activity. Just my view, and perhaps wrong, but when the Buddha was giving his talks, I wouldn't say that doing so somehow brought him down to the level of an ordinary person, or anything like one. So, sure, there's a distinction, but I think one of the arahant's great capabilities is to be able to experience something close to equanimity and detachment even in course of daily life. > > d/ an arahant who is capable of such a state is also capable of doing life > > activities without the arising of clinging. > > > > Nah, sorry, not possible :-) Well let's put it this way - there's 'clinging', and then there's clinging. The amount of clinging necessary to do activities for an arahant, in my incredibly ignorant opinion, does not disturb his psychospiritual equilibrium. > > From Yawares' recent posts from Milindapanha: > "Time means past, present, and future. There are some for whom time exists > and some for whom it doesn't. Where there are beings who will be reborn, > for them time exists; where there are beings who will not be reborn, for > them time does not exist." > > Daily life is temporal, that IS what rebirth is. Only nibbana is timeless. I don't take an absolutist view towards anything. Pragmatically speaking, the arahant is on his way, won't be deterred, and a detour to do necessary things or help other beings, does not interfere with his knowing who and what he is, and where he is going. It's not an impediment in my view, though it's not as still as parinibbana. The Buddha was not in a disturbed state during his years on the road. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #127591 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > But it wouldn't be unfair to say that ignorance in Buddhism is also a lack > > of skill. But then we'd have to talk about what skill means in that context. > > > > > > I would say, in the broadest possible terms. that skill in the Buddhist > context is knowing how to not suffer. I think that's skipping to the conclusion. I would say echoing those terms that skill is knowing how to follow the path to end suffering. It's gradual. No one knows how to not suffer until they get to the end, and you can't skip steps. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #127592 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi All, > > just to let you know about the trouble our friend Howard is facing after the encounter with Sandy.. Wow - that is really rough. If you are in contact with Howard, please tell him he is in my thoughts. Maybe I will try to email him, even if he is not able to reply. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #127593 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Dieter, > > Welcome back, even if only as a lurker. :-) > > ----- > <. . .> > > D: Actually I have still a bit of bad conscience ,not answering to last > postings > > ( in particular Sarah may forgive me ) because I wanted to avoid the > repetition > of arguments in a discussion from a " 2 camps " perspective , going on > since quite some time, . > ------ > > KH: I am sure I have been one of the main offenders there. But doesn't the > same sort of thing happen in other forums too? > > At a boat builders' forum, for example, what would happen if one member > thought there should be a giant hole in the hull? Would other members agree > to disagree, and continue to discuss finer points with that member (deck > design and sail preferences)? Or would they refrain from all other topics > until the matter of the hull had been cleared up? > > That's the way I feel about Dhamma discussions. Until the basic > right-understanding has been agreed upon I don't want to hear a word about > finer points. > > I am not suggesting the basic understanding is easy. Most people will > never understand in their present lifetime that the Dhamma is a way of > understanding the present reality, not a list of things-to-do. > Would it be fair to say that therefore an understanding of what "present" is pivotal? > Ken H > > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127594 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > thanks for the wellcome (back) .. though I was sometimes lurking , I > haven't noted that you shared your experience with DMT meanwhile. > (in which case pls refer to the posts) > > I wonder whether you had the opportunity to watch the video I recommended > in this respect : > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6spmdLRbnY (Dr.Chr.Raetsch) , assuming no > difficulties with the German > > I am Dutch, but understand German quite well :-) I will reply further later, I am away from home for the next 4 days. > with Metta Dieter > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #127595 From: "Christine" wrote: > > Hi Dieter and All. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > just to let you know about the trouble our friend Howard is facing after the encounter with Sandy.. > > Wow - that is really rough. If you are in contact with Howard, please tell him he is in my thoughts. Maybe I will try to email him, even if he is not able to reply. > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dear Dieter, The same goes from me also. Holding Howard and his family in my heart with metta. with metta Chris #127596 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Han, Phill, all > > > > > > Han: It is not difficult to understand the "reality". > > > > But for me, it is difficult to get to the "present". > > > > All the books say that one must stay at or observe the "present". > > > > But it will need a very strong samaadhi to get to the "present" at the > > > > time of the "present". > > > > The "present" comes and passes away immediately. > > > > When I think I am at the "present" the "present" has already passed away. > > > > > > > > > > Phill: The present reailty has fallen away but the nimitta is the object of awareness and we say "present" though technically saying no longer prsent. I have heard the great Burmese teacher U Silananda say this too, exactly. Not a problem in my opinion. > > > > But I respect what you say about your standard, aware of lust or anger, but no bad deed in body speech or thought? It is is a good thing. > ----------------- > > JJ: As Phil mentioned nimitta concerning present. I went and looked in Thai discussion and found Q and A about present answered by one of speaker in the foundation. It is interesting. I, therefore, took this for sharing. > > Asking: At the moment of seeing, visible object which is dhamma characteristic of aarammana (object for citta to experience) has passed. But I heard that be aware of nama or rupa. Namma or ruppa should be at the present aarammana. But in fact it has fallen away and being the past already. Can we call that the past nama or rupa which just felt away present aramaama? > > Answering: There are 3 meaning of present (Pachuban). > > 1. Present moment (Pachuban kana) means the moment that dhamma characteristic still presents: arising, staying and falling away. > 2. Present of succession (Pachuban santati) means present by short succession from present moment. > 3. Pachuban attaya means present by broad meaning such as this life is present life. > > Satipatthana experiences dhamma charateristic which is being present. It means aarammana of sati at that moment must be paramattha dhamma which appeals for sati to experience. That is present of succession which is the succession of dhamma characteristic which can appear for sati. Even that dhamma characteristic has fallen away but it just shortly felt away and still appears it succession to show its characteristic. > > > In the commentary of Abidhamma Pitaka, Vipang, Book 2, session 2 > > There is a footnote to explain the word "long present" that present has 4; present moment, present of succession, present day and Pachuban attaya. And past and future has the same 4 meanings. (from Sammohavinothani Commentary page 9) > > JJ: I think it is impossible to experience present moment in the first meaning because citta arises one at a time. But for the second meaning of present by its short succession, we can. And this should support nimitta that Phill has mentioned. > > With respect and anumodhana > > Jagkrit > #127598 From: han tun wrote: Hi was this post by Scott cited already in this thread? Visuddhimagga, XIII, 111-114: QUOTE 111. "...'Present' (paccapanna) is of three kinds, that is to say, present by moment, present by continuity, and present by extent. Herein, what has reached arising (uppaada), presence (.thitti), and dissolution (bhanga) is present by moment. What is included in one or two rounds of continuity is present by continuity. 112. "Herein, when someone goes to a well-lit place after sitting in the dark, an object is not clear at first; until it becomes clear, one or two rounds of continuity should be understood [to pass] meanwhile. And when he goes into an inner closet after going about in a well-lit place, a visible object is not immediately evident at first; until it becomes clear, one or two rounds of continuity should be understood [to pass] meanwhile. When he stands at a distance, although he sees the alterations (movements) of the hands of the washermen and the alterations (movements) of the striking of the gongs, drums, etc., yet he does not hear the sound at first...; until he hears it, one or two rounds of continuity should be understood [to pass] meanwhile. This, firstly, is according to the Majjhima reciters. 113. "The Sa"myutta reciters, however, say that there are two kinds of continuity, that is to say, material continuity and immaterial continuity: that a material continuity lasts as long as the [muddy] line of water touching the bank when one treads in the water takes to clear, as long as the heat of the body in one who has walked a certain extent takes to die down, as long as the blindness in one who has come from the sunshine into a does not depart, as long as when, after someone has been giving attention to his meditation subject in a room and then opens the shutters by day and looks out, the dazzling in his eyes does not die down; and that immaterial continuity consists in two or three rounds of impulsion. Both of these are [according to them] called 'present by continuity'. 114. "What is delimited by a single becoming (existence) is called present by extent, with reference to which it is said in the Bhaddekaratta Sutta: 'Friends, the mind and mental objects are both what is present. Consciousness is bound by desire and greed for what is present. Because consciousness is bound by desire and greed he delights in that. When he delights in that, then he is vanquished with respect to present states' (M.iii, 197). And here 'present by continuity' is used in the Commentaries while 'present by extent' is used in the Suttas." Visuddhimagga XIV, 187-191: QUOTE 187. Herein, ...firstly, according to extent: in the case of single becoming of one [living being], previous rebirth linking is past, subsequent to death is future, between these two is present. 188. ...According to continuity: that [materiality] which has like or single origination by temperature and single origination by nutriment, though it occurs successively, is present. That which, previous to that, was of unlike origination by temperature and nutriment is past. That which is subsequent is future. That which is born of consciousness and has its origination in one cognitive series, in one impulsion, in one attainment, is present. Previous to that is past. Subsequent to that is future. There is no special classification into past continuity, etc., of that which has its origination in kamma, but its pastness, etc., should be understood according as it supports those which have their origination through temperature, nutriment, and consciousness. 189. ...According to period: any period among those such as one minute, morning, evening, day-and-night, etc., that occurs as a continuity, is called present. Previous to that is past. Subsequent is future. 190. ...According to moment: what is included in the trio of moments, [that is to say, arising, presence, and dissolution] beginning with arising is called present. At a time previous to that it is called future. At a time subsequent to that it is called past. 191: Furthermore, that whose functions of cause and condition have elapsed is past. That whose function of cause is finished and whose function of condition is unfinished is present. That which has not attained to either function is future. Or alternatively, the moment of the function is present. At a time previous to that it is future. At a time subsequent to that it is past. And here only the explanations beginning with the moment are absolutely literal. The rest are in a figurative [or relative] sense." #127599 From: "Yawares Sastri"